Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and tjm73
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2017
- Messages
- 8
- Transmission
- Automatic
I haven't posted much since joining back in 2017 but I have a reason to post more now. I just bought an ‘89 Ranger to V8 swap. The truck is a base model regular cab short box and it's almost too clean to believe. It is a base trim with a 2.3, 5 speed, manual everything but power brakes. It has no options, but someone added a couple things to it, like a carpet and chrome mirrors and front bumper. Anyway, on to my motor mount questions.
I’ve been looking at any posts I can find about swap mounts and I’ve determined there are three “common” bolt in options.
I’m going to call option A the hybrid Explorer/4.0 option. This one uses the 4.0 motor mounts and flat plates to locates the engine. This is, or at least mimics, what Ford did with the 5.0 Explorers
Option B is the Advanced Adapter/Trans-dapt type adapters. Near as I can tell these are effectively the same part. I would not be surprised to find out they are made by the same supplier for the two vendors. These then use common engine mounts like Ford used on F series trucks and other cars in the 80’s.
Option C is the convertible/SN95 Mustang engine mount swapped side to side. This option bolts into slotted existing holes in the cross member.
I question if option A will survive service in a reasonably powerful 5.0, and by powerful I mean one that makes 350-375hp and about the same for torque. Because that’s my engine goal. Option B seems to locate the engine back farther. Maybe 1-2” judging by the photos I’ve seen. Option C sounds simplest to me, and is currently the front runner for my plan.
The use of on of the options hinges on questions that remain however. There are four areas of serviceability that concern me to varying degrees. Some have known solutions, so I am much less concerned with them. They are the remote oil filter options, the front engine accessory drive (FEAD), the exhaust header clearances and the accessibility to the bell housing bolts for service/repair.
For the remote oil filter options, there are a couple solutions. All of which are acceptable to me bar one condition. I absolutely abhor oil leaks. A leaky oil line will not be tolerated. I have seen guys swap Rangers over the years and in all but one or two trucks they had leaky oil lines. I see that many of the relocation kits are now using the push lock hoses and dedicated design ends for the hoses. I’ve also read you cannot use clamps on these push lock lines as that causes them to leak. The claim is they don’t leak at pressures and temps well beyond what would be seen on a 302 Ranger. Has anyone used these and can share first hand knowledge about if they leak, or leak over time?
Next is the FEAD. I have an engine for the swap. It’s from a ‘91 Mustang LX. So I have the Foxbody FEAD on it currently. I also happen to have in my stash of parts two thirds of the SN95 FEAD. I only need the timing cover. Either option will require a water pump so I’m not worried about that. Ford Racing sold this as a kit for a time and claimed it shortened the engine by roughly 1-3/4”. The kit is discontinued, but it was nothing more than the SN95 timing cover and water pump.
I plan to run an electric fan so the clearance between the engine and the radiator matters very much to me. I would like to retain the LX FEAD because service parts are cheaper and I have all of them already. But I have the SN95 FEAD more or less available for added clearance. Does any one of the motor mount options rule out use of the LX FEAD? I plan to use a desert cooler type aluminum radiator. I will make or modify a shroud as needed.
My third concern is the header clearance. Tied to the clearance are the header options I am will to consider. Headman swap or tri-Y’s are the typical standard go to. Neither of these made my list. Maybe they are easy but they both have primary tubes that don’t pass my performance test requirements. I won’t be running headers with a primary smaller than 1-5/8”. Trying to exhale exhaust from a 1.60” exhaust valve and port into a 1.50” header is a hard pass. I have a couple of options I’ve identified, but until I set the engine in the truck and test fit the options, I don’t know which way I’ll go or what will have to be modified to make them fit. But at this point I expect to make at least a small clearance trim to the frame rail. Some guys might not feel ok with that option. I’m not one of those guys. If need be I’ll make a frame kick out to weld in. But my goal is as small of a modification as possible.
I’ve read that some people claim to have used Foxbody headers. Some use 65-66 manifolds, perhaps 65-66 shorty headers will fit. Some have used block huggers. Patriot has a block hugger header that feeds into a flat collector. That one looks promising. My preference is the Foxbody header as it will also allow me to fit a Foxbody mid-pipe saving some exhaust fabrication. But if it isn’t an option I am also considering a pair of 351W foxbody swap headers. They tuck tighter to the block but drop a little lower than the 302 headers. They are designed to hook up to Fox mid-pipe in the Fox cars. I’d have to fully fabricate the exhaust with this option, but exhaust fab work is inevitable. It’s just a question of how much.
The last area of concern is accessing the bell housing bolts once everything is installed. Oh yeah, I have a complete T5 assembly, bell to output yoke, sitting in my barn and it’s 75-80% likely to be going in this truck. If the cost to set up/rebuild the T5 is too close to the cost of a TKX, I have a bell housing for that too. If the money makes sense I’ll put the TKX in it instead. Either way, if I need to service the clutch or rear main seal, it would be nice to be able to remove the bell housing without having to pull the engine.
Which of the engine mount options effects these concerns in which ways? Engine mount B looks to keep things moved back helping the FEAD clearance, but possibly hindering bell housing serviceability. Engine mount C is simple but may keep the engine forward a bit more which helps transmission serviceability, but hinders FEAD clearance. Option A looks to be the most simple and most adjustable if using the plates from Ricks Rangerz. But I look at the 4.0 engine mounts and question if the engine I plan to build will tear them apart eventually causing early motor mount replacement.
So for the people that have used these various options, what insight can you share as I plan my path forward?
I’ve been looking at any posts I can find about swap mounts and I’ve determined there are three “common” bolt in options.
I’m going to call option A the hybrid Explorer/4.0 option. This one uses the 4.0 motor mounts and flat plates to locates the engine. This is, or at least mimics, what Ford did with the 5.0 Explorers
Option B is the Advanced Adapter/Trans-dapt type adapters. Near as I can tell these are effectively the same part. I would not be surprised to find out they are made by the same supplier for the two vendors. These then use common engine mounts like Ford used on F series trucks and other cars in the 80’s.
Option C is the convertible/SN95 Mustang engine mount swapped side to side. This option bolts into slotted existing holes in the cross member.
I question if option A will survive service in a reasonably powerful 5.0, and by powerful I mean one that makes 350-375hp and about the same for torque. Because that’s my engine goal. Option B seems to locate the engine back farther. Maybe 1-2” judging by the photos I’ve seen. Option C sounds simplest to me, and is currently the front runner for my plan.
The use of on of the options hinges on questions that remain however. There are four areas of serviceability that concern me to varying degrees. Some have known solutions, so I am much less concerned with them. They are the remote oil filter options, the front engine accessory drive (FEAD), the exhaust header clearances and the accessibility to the bell housing bolts for service/repair.
For the remote oil filter options, there are a couple solutions. All of which are acceptable to me bar one condition. I absolutely abhor oil leaks. A leaky oil line will not be tolerated. I have seen guys swap Rangers over the years and in all but one or two trucks they had leaky oil lines. I see that many of the relocation kits are now using the push lock hoses and dedicated design ends for the hoses. I’ve also read you cannot use clamps on these push lock lines as that causes them to leak. The claim is they don’t leak at pressures and temps well beyond what would be seen on a 302 Ranger. Has anyone used these and can share first hand knowledge about if they leak, or leak over time?
Next is the FEAD. I have an engine for the swap. It’s from a ‘91 Mustang LX. So I have the Foxbody FEAD on it currently. I also happen to have in my stash of parts two thirds of the SN95 FEAD. I only need the timing cover. Either option will require a water pump so I’m not worried about that. Ford Racing sold this as a kit for a time and claimed it shortened the engine by roughly 1-3/4”. The kit is discontinued, but it was nothing more than the SN95 timing cover and water pump.
I plan to run an electric fan so the clearance between the engine and the radiator matters very much to me. I would like to retain the LX FEAD because service parts are cheaper and I have all of them already. But I have the SN95 FEAD more or less available for added clearance. Does any one of the motor mount options rule out use of the LX FEAD? I plan to use a desert cooler type aluminum radiator. I will make or modify a shroud as needed.
My third concern is the header clearance. Tied to the clearance are the header options I am will to consider. Headman swap or tri-Y’s are the typical standard go to. Neither of these made my list. Maybe they are easy but they both have primary tubes that don’t pass my performance test requirements. I won’t be running headers with a primary smaller than 1-5/8”. Trying to exhale exhaust from a 1.60” exhaust valve and port into a 1.50” header is a hard pass. I have a couple of options I’ve identified, but until I set the engine in the truck and test fit the options, I don’t know which way I’ll go or what will have to be modified to make them fit. But at this point I expect to make at least a small clearance trim to the frame rail. Some guys might not feel ok with that option. I’m not one of those guys. If need be I’ll make a frame kick out to weld in. But my goal is as small of a modification as possible.
I’ve read that some people claim to have used Foxbody headers. Some use 65-66 manifolds, perhaps 65-66 shorty headers will fit. Some have used block huggers. Patriot has a block hugger header that feeds into a flat collector. That one looks promising. My preference is the Foxbody header as it will also allow me to fit a Foxbody mid-pipe saving some exhaust fabrication. But if it isn’t an option I am also considering a pair of 351W foxbody swap headers. They tuck tighter to the block but drop a little lower than the 302 headers. They are designed to hook up to Fox mid-pipe in the Fox cars. I’d have to fully fabricate the exhaust with this option, but exhaust fab work is inevitable. It’s just a question of how much.
The last area of concern is accessing the bell housing bolts once everything is installed. Oh yeah, I have a complete T5 assembly, bell to output yoke, sitting in my barn and it’s 75-80% likely to be going in this truck. If the cost to set up/rebuild the T5 is too close to the cost of a TKX, I have a bell housing for that too. If the money makes sense I’ll put the TKX in it instead. Either way, if I need to service the clutch or rear main seal, it would be nice to be able to remove the bell housing without having to pull the engine.
Which of the engine mount options effects these concerns in which ways? Engine mount B looks to keep things moved back helping the FEAD clearance, but possibly hindering bell housing serviceability. Engine mount C is simple but may keep the engine forward a bit more which helps transmission serviceability, but hinders FEAD clearance. Option A looks to be the most simple and most adjustable if using the plates from Ricks Rangerz. But I look at the 4.0 engine mounts and question if the engine I plan to build will tear them apart eventually causing early motor mount replacement.
So for the people that have used these various options, what insight can you share as I plan my path forward?
