Attempting a swap on 92' Super Cab

[fastford03]

I've got a 92' Ranger Super Cab with a 2.9L V6 & an A4LD automatic trans. What I have to go in it is an AOD auto. trans. and an early 90's 5.0L HO, told it came out of a Lincoln. It has GT40 heads, already has a duel sump pan, I think the manifolds should clear, it already has a serpentine setup, but it's fuel injected and I want carbureted. I already have an Edelbrock Performer intake for it to accept a carb, but I have a few questions.

1. Will it be hard to go from fuel injected to carbureted? What parts will I need?

2. What are the perks/cons of GT40 heads?

3. What carb will be best for my engine? I was thinking of a Holley 650cfm, but I'd like some expert input.

Thanks for all your help.

 

[baddad457]

You would get better results with a Performer RPM intake (or Weiand Stealth or Ford A321) the Performer runs short of breath at about 4500-5000 rpms. Not a good match for those heads. All you need to do is replace the intake with the carbed intake and replace the distributor with one for a carbed application. Yours is a TFI unit and won't function correctly without the computer to advance and retard the timing. There are many distributors to choose from, but you'll need one with a steel cam gear to match the roller cam. I used a points distributor fitted with the steel gear and a Pertronix unit for my swap (at first, then went to a Pertronix II, then a Crane XR-1 unit). In my 77 Comet I stuck with the stock Duraspark setup. As for a carb, a 650 Vacuum secondary carb is fine, but not a Mech secondary(which will be a tad big for that combo), a better choice would be a Hollley 570 Street Avenger. Vacuum carbs are more forgiving when it comes to flow than a mech sec carb. When you nail the pedal in the lower rpms, you're only feeding it from the primaries until the vacuum demand opens the secondaries. With a mech carb, when you nail the pedal, all 4 bbls open instantly, which tends to over carb the motor, slowing the accelleration unitll the engine catches up to the flow provided (if it can, based on how big the carb is) Carbs need vacuum to draw the fuel from the bowls, it's not injected into the airstream like fuel injection, so smaller is oftentimes better than a bigger carb, depending on the build and what you're using it for.

 

[fastford03]

Wow. That's some good useeful info to know. Thanks alot man. I will definately take your advice.

 

[Iron Ranger]

Got that right. baddad has been around the block and knows his stuff.


I have a 92 supercab of my own (308 V8). If you want to browse the whole kit kaboodle of what My brother and I did, just click my "never ending build thread" below.

FYI, hope you have some time to spare......

 

[baddad457]

You will also have to adapt the EFI fuel system in your 92, to reduce the fuel pressure down to the 4-7 psi range needed for a carb. There are many different ways to go abou this. In the beginning I killed the power to the EFI pump and fed the low pressure electric pump I used to replace the EFI system from the return line to the tank. But to do that I had to drop the tank and pull the EFI pump out fo remove the check valve at the end of the return line to allow fuel to enter the line. Then afterwards I fought water leaking into the tank from the bed (front of the bed drains directly onto the top of the EFI pump assembly) I later replaced the stock tank with an in-bed tank to eliminate that issue and transfer weight to the rear of the bed. I also had to run a new hot wire to feed the pump as the original feeds thru the computer apparently. As I said, hter are many ways to do a fuel system for a carbed setup, I'm sure there are others here who can tell their stories too. In retrospect, I should have done mine different to start with, but you live and learn.

 

[Mac]

Cam gears, just found something else I didn't know. They come in different ID's based on what type of distributor you are using (per FRPP catalog). EFI's have a .531 dia while the points/Duraspark have a .467 dia and all 351's have the larger .531 dia regardless of which distributor.
Dave

 

[originalnitro]

When i first did mine i used a bypass fuel pressure regulator and the stock efi pump worked great. Swapped to a 15 gal fuel cell (placed between the rear axle and rear bumper, under the bed) because the stock tank made it a pain to run the exhaust and still be able to remove and replace the trans. Goodluck. Stephen

 

[fastford03]

Well, I started on the Ranger yesterday. I removed the old 2.9L V6 and the A4LD trans. The trans was recently rebuild by me about 2 months ago, but I've got my hearts set on a 302 so its gotta go. Here are a few pics of what I've done. I aquired a 302 from an early 90's model Lincoln which I will be converting from efi to carb and as soon as I get it home, I'll post some pics of that. Here are a few pics from yesterday.


A4LD & Torque Converter (It's just sitting on the crossmember.)

Stock Mounts (Gotta Go!)

A/C Condenser (Not Gonna Run A/C)

I busted the distributor cap pulling the engine. (First time I've pulled one so not too bad.)

The old 2.9L...she still runs good.

Stock radiator and fan shroud.

View of driver side (Notice my greasy hand prints all over the bottom.)

Greasy, but empty engine bay. (Needs plenty of degreaser.)

Front view of truck.

 

[baddad457]

While the engine is out, you'll also need to remove the driver's side of the A/C box and notch it to clear the 302's valve cover. Do this before putting the 302 in. You will also need a Lokar flexible transmission filler/dipstick tube, if going back with an automatic trans. And if you retain the smog pump and plumbing for same, replace the Lincoln's rear thermactor tube with one from a 87-97 5.0 van. The van tube has the hose connection in the center, behind the intake, instead of wrapping around the passenger side head. And of course, you'll need to relocate the oil filter and need the parts for that. Many of us started with a relocation kit, but found the hoses leave something to be desired and replaced the hoses with local made hydraulic hose and AN fittings. The block adapter and hoses will need to be on the motor before you put it in the truck.

 

[fastford03]

I'm not gonna keep the smog pump of any of that. I'm going with a simple carbureted setup with a points distributor holley street avenger 570cfm carb, edelbrock performer rpm intake, msd coil and ill probably get my hoses for my oil filter relocation kit from a hydraulic shop and brushed aluminum radiator hoses from summit. I'm not 100% sure this came out of a Lincoln, that's what I was told, but I just got the engine unloaded and here are a few pics of it and maybe you guys can tell me more about the engine by looking at it or maybe tell me where to find casting numbers and how to translate them.



Passenger side view of engine

Rear view of engine

Passenger side view of engine

Front of engine

Driver side view of engine

Top of engine/fuel rail/intake

 

[Teddyzee]

So far, so good.

BTW, those are not GT40 heads. (GT40 have three bars on each end, and no thermactor tube thing on most)

Looks like a truck engine, can anyone ID it? Fuel rails aim backward of a Mustang, coil on passenger side, looks like non-HO firing order.

 

[fastford03]

Well it sucks to know that but thanks for your knowledge. Can anyone help me figure out what the hell I bought. lol



BTW, Do you guys think my stock manifolds will work?

 

[baddad457]

There looks to be an "S" cast into the heads (passenger side front/dirvers side rear) at the corner next to the valve cover rail. Am I correct ? And the accessories look to be from a full size Ford/Lincoln/Merc with the P/S and Alternator mounted and driven together off the drivers side. Those tubular manifolds look like they'll fit a Ranger, although they will be a bit more restrictive than headers. Ditto on the non HO firing order, so that alone will tell you it's not an HO motor. It will be a roller cammed engine though, just with the smallest factory roller cam. If you want more out of it, swap in an HO roller and you'll have basically an 86 HO motor. The "S" on the heads tells you it's got E6SE heads, which make 25 less HP on top than an E7 headed motor. It will also have pistons without valve reliefs with those heads. The heads are the reason there's no reliefs, the valves are sunken a full 1/8" deeper into the heads than all other SBF heads, so theres no chance of valve contact with the stock cam or an HO roller. A B303 cam may work though, but not sure, never having tried it. As it sits, it's rated at 150 HP, add the HO roller and headers and that'll go up to 200. Add a set of full roller pedestal rockers and you'll gain another 15 horses, that'll get you close to the rated output of the 87-94 HO motor.

 

[jmcleek]

That looks about the same as the 5.0 I used from an 87 Crown Vic. Same fuel rail belt drive set up just afew dif.

 

[fastford03]

Good info. I'm working on a budget right now so my main concern is to get it installed and operational, but upgrades are definately in the future. Do you think this engine was worth $200?