3.0 to 4.0 or to 5.0?

[rusty ol ranger]

the problem with 5.o swap is availability. A couple of T-birds with the 5.o are around. How hard would that be. Could I get that engine to work with the wiring harness of an expo, or would I have to use something like "Painless Wiring.Com" or Rock Auto to get an expo wiring harness. I would think the t-bird V8 has a little more hp. but I'm no expert, that's why I'm here.

I dont know what you have for emissions there, but a carbed 302 with a few goodies would be a dirt simple swap and be a pretty hot little diddy as well.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I dont know what you have for emissions there, but a carbed 302 with a few goodies would be a dirt simple swap and be a pretty hot little diddy as well.

Carb isn’t very dirt simple into an ‘01...

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Carb isn’t very dirt simple into an ‘01...

Oh hes got that stupid anti theft shit...

Still wouldnt be bad, just wire past that. Fuel line, hooked to a mechanical pump, pumping fuel thats ignitied by duraspark...

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Oh hes got that stupid anti theft shit...

Still wouldnt be bad, just wire past that. Fuel line, hooked to a mechanical pump, pumping fuel thats ignitied by duraspark...

It would be easier to just get a fuel pressure regulator and run with the in tank pump. You are going to have to fight to find a way to get said mechanical pump (which I wouldn't want anyway) to get fuel out of the tank otherwise.

That aside (and having dealt with a nightmare of a truck that was hardwired to run) I don't know what all is entailed with computers on an '01. You might end up with not a gauge working out of the deal. I don't think they have a speedo cable by then so that goes thru a computer to run the speedometer... is it going to not see the right kind of signals from the engine and flip out?

Yeah, just make a filler panel and go with aftermarket gauges... saving money and time now aren't we?

An Explorer 5.0 is very nearly plug and play, I would not mess with a carb at all on that new of a truck. There is so much crap you are going to have to hack the truck up to work around... just do it right the first time.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

What is wrong with a mechanical pump? Ive had less of those fail then electric.

Either way, hes right, a carbed swap would be a bit out of place in an 01, but, its always an option.

If 5.0 exploders are rare to find, a 90s Fseries wouldnt be a bad option, espicially if you could adapt the exploder cpu and keep your pats

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

What is wrong with a mechanical pump? Ive had less of those fail then electric.

My truck has been sitting for a month while I sort out electrical gremlins with lighting (more PO wiring disabilities) yet I know as soon as I turn the key on I have instant fuel pressure to the carb. I think that is one reason it always starts so easy, I never have to worry about it loosing its prime.

If I need to work on the engine I turn the fuel pump off and run the carb dry. No mess when I pull the carb off.

And if so desired you can build security measures around not having the pump running. Yeah, she will start and run awhile but you won't get too far with it.

My electric pump is mounted on the frame rail in the open. Two bolts, two hoses and unplug it and it is out, go to any parts store ask for a 12S pump slap $50 on the counter and you are back in business. Knocking on wood I haven't had to touch mine since I installed it with the engine swap in 2011. Easier to change and and not much more expensive the mechanical one for my 2.8.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Ive never had one lose prime unless it sat for 6 weeks or more. But yeah i see your point. I prefer simplcity though, and 2 bolts and 2 hoses is as easy as it gets, not to mention 12 bucks and youre on the road. That being said ive had 2 mechanicals fail, and i dont even remember how many (factory) electric pumps. The 2 mechcanicals didnt really fail even, just started dripping, so atleast you wernt dead in the water

Rusty #1 had wireing issues to it. It was hot wired into the ignition to run any time the key was on. Rusty #2 functions properly.

 

[Ranger850]

I'm going fuel injection, no carb.
I just saw some pics of a 4.6 swap, out of a Stang into a ranger. Pics looked good but I couldn't find a thread on it. It was a white stang and white ranger. if anybody knows where I can find this info or thread , that would be great.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm going fuel injection, no carb.
I just saw some pics of a 4.6 swap, out of a Stang into a ranger. Pics looked good but I couldn't find a thread on it. It was a white stang and white ranger. if anybody knows where I can find this info or thread , that would be great.

I know both 2v and 3v have been done but they have been awhile ago...

 

[rusty ol ranger]

You might as well go with a 460, itd be the same amount of work...

 

[Ranger850]

AVAILABILITY is the key word. If any body wants to donate a v8Expo or 460 or whatever I'm cool with that. I got 4.6 v8's coming out my ass. I don't mind being different. in fact I like it. So if everybody has a 5.0 ranger, the 4.6 would be less common.

side note... I heard the 302 and 289 were the same block just different heads and intake. is this true?
if the 302 is 5.0 is the 289 a 4.6?

 

[adsm08]

AVAILABILITY is the key word. If any body wants to donate a v8Expo or 460 or whatever I'm cool with that. I got 4.6 v8's coming out my ass. I don't mind being different. in fact I like it. So if everybody has a 5.0 ranger, the 4.6 would be less common.

side note... I heard the 302 and 289 were the same block just different heads and intake. is this true?
if the 302 is 5.0 is the 289 a 4.6?

A 302 is not actually 5.0L, it is 4.95 (Yes, I know, rounding. I like to be pedantic on this one point because of the 4.9 I-6).

A 289 is 4.7L. The 4.6 Triton is (I think) 283 CID.

The 289 and the 302 used the same block for a year or two. The heads, intakes, oil pans are 100% interchangeable.

The only difference in the two engines that makes one of them that one and not the other is the stroke. In fact the pistons and crank are the same as well, just the rods changed.

Some time around 1970 (68 was the first year of the 302) the block was changed. The cylinder skirts were extended down farther into the crank case to help keep the pistons more stable at the bottom of their travel. This was purely an NVH thing and has no other functional effect on the engine.

The reason for going from a 289 to a 302 displacement was to make up for the power lost to newly required AIR pumps and other emissions devices.

So an emissions controlled 302 with intact AIR pump and detuning would have, on paper, the same power to the wheels as a non-emissions controlled 289.



Stock for stock a 4.6 has better power to weight ratio than a 5.0, but a worse aftermarket following for power. It is wide though. In a 2001 you should be able to fit a 4.6 with a minor body lift though.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

A 302 is not actually 5.0L, it is 4.95 (Yes, I know, rounding. I like to be pedantic on this one point because of the 4.9 I-6).

A 289 is 4.7L. The 4.6 Triton is (I think) 283 CID.

281, none of that GM crap...

All the 4.6 swaps I have seen are on stock height 2wd trucks. They had a factory "full to the brim" appearing engine bay and really didn't look too bad.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Stock for stock a 4.6 is the same physical size as a 460, requires more wireing, and makes less HP and waaaay less torque, and pry weighs close to the same.

The 289 was actually enlarged to 302 cubic inches for SCCA(?) Racing. They had a 302 (or 305, dont remember which)limit on engine displacement, same reason chevy made the 302, and chrysler had one in that range to. IIRC vehicles were unchoked completly untill model year 72.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Also, just so ya know i aint blowin smoke...