- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,526
- Points
- 1,601
- Age
- 65
- City
- Des Moines
- Vehicle Year
- 1992
- Transmission
- Automatic
Yeah, I figured that the length would be an issue.
According to what I've found online, the stock HP in an '89 5.0 was 225, with torque at 300 lb-ft.
On a side note.....has anyone ever thought of or even considered swapping a Jeep 4.0 straight-six into a Ranger? I know.....hoots of derision await, I'm sure.....but was just curious.
It has been talked about, but the length is what makes them ugly. The length of a 5.0 is borderline comfortable in there.
You gotta watch the years on them Jeep 4.0s too. Stay away from the later ones, they knock like crazy.
I work with a guy who used to work for Chrysler and he said he went to a training class where they had a late build 4.0 block on the stand. The instructor took a drop light, put it down in one of the cylinders, and you could see light through the wall to the next cylinder. That is normal.
How late? I know my buddy was telling me they had a problem cracking intake manifolds in his particular year (92).
By drop light, are you meaning one of those lights that has a camera attached to it?
Like, the last 3 years of production or so. When they were really trying to get mileage up.
And by drop light, I mean a drop light.
![]()
I hate Chrysler products, but I would seriously consider making the swap if I had his particular motor.

According to what I've found online, the stock HP in an '89 5.0 was 225, with torque at 300 lb-ft.
On a side note.....has anyone ever thought of or even considered swapping a Jeep 4.0 straight-six into a Ranger? I know.....hoots of derision await, I'm sure.....but was just curious.
It's an AMC product, not a Chrysler product![]()
Pretty much.
Same way that the wheel bearings of a 2003 Volvo S-70 have FoMoCo stamped on them.
On a side note.....has anyone ever thought of or even considered swapping a Jeep 4.0 straight-six into a Ranger?
If I wanted this, I would have gotten a jeep...
SVT