Crate 302 or Junkyard 5.0 Swap into 1988 2WD 2.9L Ranger?

[Lefty]

What about handling, weight distribution, traction? Wouldn't the smaller engine weigh less?

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

What about handling, weight distribution, traction? Wouldn't the smaller engine weigh less?

Yes and no. It does change that stuff, but it’s not an end of the world problem. Naturally, the heavier the motor, the more pronounced the changes become, but with with enough power and traction, a RWD Ranger can still lift the front off the ground with a v-8 under the hood on a drag strip, which as the front comes up, weight gets transferred to the rear, which can increase traction to a degree. So it’s all a balancing act when you get to modifying. Anything substantial that you do changes from the factory configuration is going to affect all of the above, including going to a larger or smaller engine. But for the most part, changing from say a 6 cylinder to a 4 cyl or 8 cyl isn’t going to automatically change all of that stuff substantially in normal conditions. Someone racing it or off roading may notice, but the changes to how a normal street driven vehicle handles and reacts are minimal with something as simple as an engine change.

 

[Eddo Rogue]

LS>ford v8s.

LS=Coyote

 

[Lefty]

Yes and no. It does change that stuff, but it’s not an end of the world problem. Naturally, the heavier the motor, the more pronounced the changes become, but with with enough power and traction, a RWD Ranger can still lift the front off the ground with a v-8 under the hood on a drag strip, which as the front comes up, weight gets transferred to the rear, which can increase traction to a degree. So it’s all a balancing act when you get to modifying. Anything substantial that you do changes from the factory configuration is going to affect all of the above, including going to a larger or smaller engine. But for the most part, changing from say a 6 cylinder to a 4 cyl or 8 cyl isn’t going to automatically change all of that stuff substantially in normal conditions. Someone racing it or off roading may notice, but the changes to how a normal street driven vehicle handles and reacts are minimal with something as simple as an engine change.

Of course the larger engine is better for the strip. But in the real world, the 302 probably weighs less that the 351? If so, it handles better. And mileage may be a valid concern

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

Of course the larger engine is better for the strip. But in the real world, the 302 probably weighs less that the 351? If so, it handles better. And mileage may be a valid concern

Yeah, a 302 should weigh less than a 351 and using the short snout stuff and whatnot from the Explorer variety, it will fit better in the engine bay. Mileage can be a little interesting. The 302/auto/AWD that I did with dad in his Ranger got 17/18 mpg if you could keep your foot from smashing the loud pedal all the time, and got about 15 if you were really on it. My green Ranger in stock form was essentially the same truck with 4.0/auto/4x4 and I got 13/14 mpg all the time. Same with my 92, 4.0/auto/4x4, but I was hitting closer to a solid 15 after doing some transmission tweaks in that. Dad’s 99 4.0/auto/4x4 gets 17 mpg. I’m really curious to see where my green Ranger ends up with my 302 swap, since I’ve done a few things different over the swap I did with dad including headers, minor gasket matching, changed gear ratios in the axles, etc. 302s still have a decent amount of aftermarket and options so you can really build them if you want

 

[Lefty]

Yeah, a 302 should weigh less than a 351 and using the short snout stuff and whatnot from the Explorer variety, it will fit better in the engine bay. Mileage can be a little interesting. The 302/auto/AWD that I did with dad in his Ranger got 17/18 mpg if you could keep your foot from smashing the loud pedal all the time, and got about 15 if you were really on it. My green Ranger in stock form was essentially the same truck with 4.0/auto/4x4 and I got 13/14 mpg all the time. Same with my 92, 4.0/auto/4x4, but I was hitting closer to a solid 15 after doing some transmission tweaks in that. Dad’s 99 4.0/auto/4x4 gets 17 mpg. I’m really curious to see where my green Ranger ends up with my 302 swap, since I’ve done a few things different over the swap I did with dad including headers, minor gasket matching, changed gear ratios in the axles, etc. 302s still have a decent amount of aftermarket and options so you can really build them if you want

Very interesting! And while the differences are measurable, you get about the same mileage as you would with a six. My 3.0 is still going strong, but maybe some day i could swap it with a little 8.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

Very interesting! And while the differences are measurable, you get about the same mileage as you would with a six. My 3.0 is still going strong, but maybe some day i could swap it with a little 8.

I suspect it’s one of those things where while a 4 or 6 cylinder will move these trucks, a v-8 doesn’t have to work as hard as they do to move it. More available torque and horsepower allows it to be more efficient, but the flip side of that is that at some point you’re just at the point where it’s a much bigger and thirstier motor. Thus, while a 460 really wouldn’t have to work hard to move a Ranger at all, it’s still such a large motor that you couldn’t expect 25 mpg because it requires a LOT more gas than something 158 cubic inches smaller. It’s also a lot bigger and heavier motor.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that the 302 and a small diesel (beyond only offered as an underpowered option for a few years early on and only on outside the US markets for newer Rangers) should have been motor options in Rangers. After having put together and driven a 302 powered Ranger, it’s a really nice match. With the exception of the Coyote 5.0 in the newer F-150s, I’ve heard from a number of people that had older F-150s with the 302/5.0 that said they weren’t the greatest in those, that the 300/4.9 straight 6 was a better workhorse for the full-size. But a Ranger with the 302? Awesome. A decent small diesel would be killer in one of these rigs, you would get some nice fuel economy numbers then.

 

[Lefty]

I suspect it’s one of those things where while a 4 or 6 cylinder will move these trucks, a v-8 doesn’t have to work as hard as they do to move it. More available torque and horsepower allows it to be more efficient, but the flip side of that is that at some point you’re just at the point where it’s a much bigger and thirstier motor. Thus, while a 460 really wouldn’t have to work hard to move a Ranger at all, it’s still such a large motor that you couldn’t expect 25 mpg because it requires a LOT more gas than something 158 cubic inches smaller. It’s also a lot bigger and heavier motor.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that the 302 and a small diesel (beyond only offered as an underpowered option for a few years early on and only on outside the US markets for newer Rangers) should have been motor options in Rangers. After having put together and driven a 302 powered Ranger, it’s a really nice match. With the exception of the Coyote 5.0 in the newer F-150s, I’ve heard from a number of people that had older F-150s with the 302/5.0 that said they weren’t the greatest in those, that the 300/4.9 straight 6 was a better workhorse for the full-size. But a Ranger with the 302? Awesome. A decent small diesel would be killer in one of these rigs, you would get some nice fuel economy numbers then.

A good clean answer, and something well worth considering. Thanks again!

 

[Lefty]

Of course the larger engine is better for the strip. But in the real world, the 302 probably weighs less that the 351? If so, it handles better. And mileage may be a valid concern

Cubic inch displacement and engine weight are not always related. Take for example the Chevy 283. the same block was bored out to a 327, then later a 350. That block got lighter and lighter as the displacement increased. Same with the old 348. It became the legendary 409