302 or 4.0 swap?

[mkpecor]

if i went with the 302 i would dich the carb and make it fuel injected, ill never own a nother caburated motor ever agian, for wheeling.

 

[Dishtowel]

the whole point in a v8 swap is power. the 4.0 is a low end grunty sumbitch. a reg low compression shitty head 302 wont touch a 4.0 off road, especially if it has a carb on it...if this is the case the 302 will require money and time to get going. the 4.0 will make it look like a turd. they can light the tires easy with 456 and 35's where the wheezer 302 conversions i have seen/done will stall out on the converter trying to climb a dirt hill

Soooo are you saying my stock, (freshly rebuilt) 90' 5.0L out of a towncar with EFI is going to be painfully underwhelming? I know the horsepower numbers for this engine are not very exciting. But the available torque is exciting.

 

[bobbywalter]

the 90 is should be a roller motor...and possibly with e7 heads too.

what pistons are in it? if the cr is over 9 to 1 then it will definatly work well, especially injected in a sub 3500 pound 4x4.

but if it is not, then a solid 4.0 will still make it look bad off road.

places i eat up 4.0's require lots of rpm...otherwise they are right there.

and thats with a standard gt40 setup.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

if i went with the 302 i would dich the carb and make it fuel injected, ill never own a nother caburated motor ever agian, for wheeling.

I am going to go carburated to get mine going and work all the non engine related bugs worked out, then I would like to go to a GM throttle body injection. Wiring envolves like 3 or 4 sensors and you are done, still looks clean like a carb and has very little to go wrong. I am still researching it, but it looks like a really neat idea.

 

[Dishtowel]

the 90 is should be a roller motor...and possibly with e7 heads too.

Ya, I have a roller cam. idk about E7 heads.... The heads looked pretty tidy when I cleaned them up. Does this identify anything for you?

what pistons are in it? if the cr is over 9 to 1 then it will definatly work well, especially injected in a sub 3500 pound 4x4.

I stayed with stock 9:1 because I am staying with SpeedDensity, as opposed to MAF. One day if I put a stroker kit in it I will have to run MAF, but I have alot lot learn first. My Bronco weights 3600 lbs empty, without me in it. 4400 lbs full of fuel + gear + winch + me + sparetire.

places i eat up 4.0's require lots of rpm...otherwise they are right there.

Um, I'm confused.
Some places you go require high RPMS? But generally the power is right there on the low end where you want it? Is that what your saying?

 

[baddad457]

No mistaking those for anything other than E6SE heads. They're one of a kind.

 

[Dishtowel]

No mistaking those for anything other than E6SE heads. They're one of a kind.

Oh you guys and all your intricate engine knowledge, lol. Just teasing. Soooo, they're one of a kind you say? Are they any good? or are they capitol U for Underwhelming?
These are the exhaust manifolds that go on it.

Thanks for your input guys,

Sorry for 'ing mkpecor

 

[88mudder]

8 cylinders is better than 6, i have a 302 in my ranger and its WAY faster than a 4.0, but if u want a DD the 4.0 is better since it gets better mpg but all the wiring is bullshit

 

[mhughes165]

it all depends on what the specs on the 302 you have is, relaibility while wheeling(with proper maintence) the 4.0 will win out(vs carbed which alot of people do)

 

[mkpecor]

my cuzin built the motor for a mild drag boat, they are all big in wheeling, crawling, and stuff like that, he said the motor was made for lots of low to mid range power, he gave it to me ,shit 8 years ago i was gunne put it in my 79 f-100 shorty but i found a 428 so i have just held on to the 302, i turn it once a month. i just dont have the brain or harnees, can i get on from painless?

 

[bobbywalter]

in a 4x4 application it is very subjective, and very sensitive to the actual engines as to whats gonna do better.

i would hope to tell ya my truck is faster then a 4.0 too, but only when equally equipped. with the 35 in muds on i cant rip a 17 with 456 gears. with 30's i am low 15...if all is right 14's can happen when it was under 7 inches of lift. you take a reg cab 5 speed 4.0 with stock to 31 in tires and it should easily run mid to low 16. if i am on 35's i will get spanked. ext cab to ext cab with 456 and 35 in tires, when in situations where slow steady torque is not getting it, i have what a 4.0 does not....the power to break everything faster attempting the givin obstacle. and a shit ton more heat to burn my feet off with and i wouldnt have it any other way

a real small 4 bbl or 2bbl on a good 302 would be nice wheelin in mi, or any flat mud crap stuff...well flattish.


but following me in my favorite places in states elsewhere will only render it on fire or helplessly trapped using the starter and 50% available power to get things done. a 4.0 will just make it look stupid. i see it all the time. then again technical wheelin stuff is the exception as well in general.



as for carb being easier then efi on a ford smallblock swap, i would have to say that is subjective as well.

there isnt anything v8 easier to swap into a efi ranger then a 5.0 efi engine


only a few wires to that as well. no way i would want to wheel with a carb. unless it was a web on a spinnin four popper or a 1bbl inline six....in a jeep.
carbs are for turning 10's on the cheap



i would like to see a heads up race between dishtowels rig and a 4.0 rig set up the same.

 

[baddad457]

The E6 heads are excellant bottom end torque producers, but run out of steam at about 3 grand. Overall HP output is 25 horses shy of the same engine with E7TE heads.

 

[Dishtowel]

The E6 heads are excellant bottom end torque producers, but run out of steam at about 3 grand. Overall HP output is 25 horses shy of the same engine with E7TE heads.

Thanks for the insight! 25hp shy sucks, but Torque is more important than HP to me, I do mostly slow speed stuff, crawling and technical trails. Of course mud is fun and I do find some every trip, but I'm not pushing 44's through mudbogs.. So, i feel appropriately equipped.

bobbywalter, I appreciate your experience and knowledge, and input. But I have a hard time understanding you.

 

[xgenralxleex01x]

302!!! i have the 4.0 now and im not a fan gettin about 10-13 mpg. alright torque deff. 302, im fixin to swamp to the 302.

 

[orfordguy@yahoo.com]

4.0 vs 302

I just finished the swap in my 86 longbox Ranger. That is the 4.0 swap with a couple upgrades. The motor is out of 92 Exploder that I bought the hole truck without wheels for 400.00 running and driving. I then sold the 2.9/harness and 5spd for 300.00 leaving me with a 100.00 swap. Free running 302 or not thats tuff to beat and all the info for the swap is on this site.. Good luck whatever you decide...