302, c4 and 9" from 72 f100 going into late 80s ranger

[swamp_rat]

ive been having a rusted out 72 f100 ranger with a good running 302, working c4 and a clean 9" rear. since i sold my colorado to get rid of a bill i need to build a usable "work truck". my dads friend right down the road happends to have a late 80s single cab ranger that im getting. ive been doing alot of research reading up on thats needed and between both of the trucks i have a majority of stuff to modify to make it happen. im not a ford man but i do love the 80s model rangers. considering i have a 70s block, c4 and 9" rear, can anyone tell me the differences of these components from newer units? i know the old block has flat tappets, but if a full rebuild happens, would more up to date parts fit just fine?

 

[5.0]

.


302 - I would either run it how it is, or if a rebuild is needed, I would find a newer roller block. The roller blocks can be bought cheap.

C4 - The AOD would be my transmission of choice and can be bought for around $100 in my area, otherwise the C4 should would fine.

9" - Is way to wide, so it would need to be narrowed. The cost of narrowing isn't worth it when you can buy an 8.8" from an Explorer and swap in.


.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

.9" - Is way to wide, so it would need to be narrowed. The cost of narrowing isn't worth it when you can buy an 8.8" from an Explorer and swap in.

Unless a lot of power is in the picture, then the 9" aftermarket support blows the 8.8 out of the water.

The 302 should have hydraulic lifters, my '67 289 did. I would go ahead and change the oil pan gasket, crankshaft seals and timing cover/water pump gaskets. Check the timing set while you are there too.

If you find a newer serpentine belt setup it will give you a lot more room up front, Mustang or later F-150 and Explorer's are nice.

 

[Mac]

Guess just a freshened motor would do good, depending on just what shape it is in. C-4 would work good for a work truck. If that's a '72' motor, only rated at 140HP (cars are, truck might even be less). '73-76" had even less power, not enough to bother that 7.5 rear end in the Ranger, again depending on it's condition. A later 8.8 out of a Ranger would be a good choice if current rear is "ify".
Dave

 

[skx762]

Maybe define "Work Truck" a little better?

You may already have an 8.8 in your Ranger and it may fit your needs well enough.

If I run across an 8.8 from a later model of v6 Ranger I am going with it (I have a 7.5) and I plan on doing some urban style work and towing with it. My 302 will be slightly warmed over and it will be running a c4 as well.

You may have to look at your exhaust manifolds to make sure they fit.

Mac sort of beat me to it a little.

 

[v-8power]

Unless you put BIG tires on it and do holeshots your not going to hurt that 7.5 rear end.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Guess just a freshened motor would do good, depending on just what shape it is in. C-4 would work good for a work truck. If that's a '72' motor, only rated at 140HP (cars are, truck might even be less). '73-76" had even less power, not enough to bother that 7.5 rear end in the Ranger, again depending on it's condition. A later 8.8 out of a Ranger would be a good choice if current rear is "ify".
Dave

130 @ 3800 and 222 @ 2000 according to my book. Must have been quite a surprise from '71, they were over 200 hp in trucks. Lost half a point in comression among the other probable smog crap that was piled on.

And another thing to consider, it very well might not be the original engine for the truck or if it is it may not be to stock specs. It should have a couple overhauls under its belt by now if it hasn't been hiding in the back of someones barn for the last 35 years.

 

[baddad457]

The 72's lost a full point and a half from the 71 motors. Just me, but his choice of donor is a huge waste of time. About the only part worth using is the transmission but even that'll have the big 164 tooth bell, which while it will fit, it's going to needlessly complicate matters. The 9" rear is nowhere close to being needed with that motor.

 

[skx762]

It will get him started. I'm not happy with either one of my engines but I am sort of "in between" things right now and will make do with my anemic 302's until I can get a better shop area and my tools back.

He will be able to get his engine compartment set up and find out what he does and doesn't like about things. Nothing is a total loss.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The 72's lost a full point and a half from the 71 motors. Just me, but his choice of donor is a huge waste of time. About the only part worth using is the transmission but even that'll have the big 164 tooth bell, which while it will fit, it's going to needlessly complicate matters. The 9" rear is nowhere close to being needed with that motor.

My book shows 9:1 in '71, 8.5:1 in '72 and 8:1 by '75 for trucks.

And my theory as to why they only put the little TC in the little cars would for sure apply to a work truck. If it was ideal for the durability of the trans they would have went across the board with them rather than only in cars where the big one wouldn't fit. A bodylift (kinda stupid on a 2wd otherwise though) eliminates any fitment issues.

It will get him started. I'm not happy with either one of my engines but I am sort of "in between" things right now and will make do with my anemic 302's until I can get a better shop area and my tools back.

He will be able to get his engine compartment set up and find out what he does and doesn't like about things. Nothing is a total loss.

+1, a work truck is different than a race truck. That "pathetic" engine will still probably out tow/haul the Rangers springs and brakes. Same torque as a 4.0 only at a lower RPM. Being a late 80's and assuming the 302 is up to snuff it will still outdo any factory Ranger of the same year.

 

[baddad457]

I'm thinking of the ratings for the 302 in 69-70, then they had 9.5 to 1 and a 210 hp rating. In 71 they got a slight dish in the pistons, then from 72 to 76, they received those huge Grand Canyon dishes in em.Along with the 7.8-8.0 to 1 ratio. I think you're book is wrong on the comp ratios in that regard. I know from personal hands on experience about the pistons they had those years. Still all in all, he'll still have to swap oilpans and resolve the FEAD issues that come with using pre 80's accessories and V-Belts. I went thru all that before I did my swap, that's when I learned it was better to go with the late model motor to begin with. It would really be easier to replace the cab on the 72 than do a swap.

 

[Mac]

I'm seeing the '68-72" as having a slight dish while the '73-76' had the deeper dish. This is the Tom Monroe book on "How to Rebuild SBF". Another reason for the big drop in CR was the .020 taller deck height. One thing people have forgotten also about the hp is that in '72' they changed from gross to net hp ratings. Same motor could now be rated 30%+ less. No matter what, them motors in those days are not a good first choice. Sometimes it's the buget that dictates "run what ya got".
Dave