Did Ford make a factory v8 ranger for the public

[Ranger850]

It also had a trunk where the Probe had a rear hatch.

 

[Dirtman]

Also, who came up with the name "probe" and were they in the middle of a prostate exam at the time?

 

[Ranger850]

Also, who came up with the name "probe" and were they in the middle of a prostate exam at the time?

It was the name of a concept vehicle, from'79

 

[Dirtman]

It was the name of a concept vehicle, from'79
View attachment 61545

Homer's brother lost a fortune on that car...

 

[don4331]

I never said Ford couldn’t put a V-8 in a Ranger

I said I doubted they couldn’t sell enough to make a profit. And Ford only stays in business making a profit (GMC and others, of course, get gov't bail outs).​

To put a V-8 in a Ranger, you would be adding just over 200lbs (160 front/40 rear) to the truck, adding 65hp/120ftlb of power/torque.

Over a dozen teams would need to get involved if you were doing it internal to Ford​

Vehicle dynamics:

• Perform analyses and determine what needs upgrading

Frame group:

• Review if material thickness increase required by torsional/bending analysis
• Modification to the engine mounting location for V-8 mounts
• Modification for remote oil filter

Suspension group-rear:

• Upgraded axle to handle additional torque (I’m not sure if the 31 spline axles/large bearing of the Explorer axle were available in Chassis Cab, though they just had “Ranger” 8.8s)
• Revised spring rates for higher weight
• Revised shock damping rates (do you need “quad shocks” ala Mustang to control axle wrap)
• Revised spring rate on anti-sway bar (e.g. 1” bar from Bronco II)
• Revised spring bushings
• Revised anti-sway bar bushings
• Revised axle ratios (if changed axle)
• Revised tire rating selection for higher RAWR/GVWR/GCWR

Brake group-rear:

• Revised ABS calibration
• Revised brake size

Fuel System group:

• Revised fuel feed line-diameter
• Revised fuel return line-diameter
• Revised fuel pump suction and pressure values for addition flow of V8
• Recertification of emissions due to pump change (FMVSS/EPA regulations)

Suspension group-Front:

• Revised spring rates for extra weight of V-8
• Revised shock damping rates
• Upgraded axle- if needed by vehicle dynamic analysis (both TIB and TTB need analysis)
• Revised spring rate on anti-sway bar
• Revised spring bushings
• Revised anti-sway bar bushings
• Revised axle ratios for 4wd (if changed rear axle ratio)
• Revised tire rating selection for higher FAWR/GVWR
• new knuckles due to brake size change and increased tire wear

Brake group-front:

• Revised ABS calibration
• Revised brake size due to increased front axle weight
• Revised caliper hose length for revised caliper

Exhaust system group:

• New exhaust manifold to fit with Ranger engine compartment
• Revised intermediate pipes (true dual exhaust?)
• Revised catalytic convertor and
• Recertify MVSS requirements

Driveline group:

• Strengthen prop shaft as needed and check critical speed and NVH characteristics
• Add 90° adapter to fit remote oil filter
• Add remote oil filter
• New radiator with inlet/outlet/capacity for V-8
• New air filter for V-8

Electrical group:

• Update engine harness to accommodate engine change
• Update body harness to accommodate engine change

Body Group:

• Revise ventilation air duct to include “cutout” for the V-8 valve cover
• Revise A/C hoses for V-8 compressor/Ranger air box
• Unique body moldings
• Unique wheels

Documentation:

• Update owner’s manual to include V-8 information
• Update Ranger brochures to include V-8 information

Vehicle testing:

• Recertify frontal crash compliance
• Recertification of rear crash compliance due to pump change- (FMVSS/EPA regulations)
• Recertify fuel system integrity compliance
• Recertify emissions compliance
• Recertify misc certifications for Canada

The cost of the above runs into $100M range. Every optional configuration - Manual, 4WD, SCab, Long bed increases cost - bean counters are going to want to see sales to justify the development cost.

Is Ford going to match Syclone sales with 5k V-8 Rangers? Which would mean an additional $20k/Ranger for your 5.0/auto.
A Ranger in ’90 cost between $8k (RCSB, 2WD, I-4/manual) and $15k (SCSB, 4WD, V-6/auto)

S-10 was a little cheaper than Ranger, so Syclone cost at $32k pretty much matches.

How many of you would have actually bought a $30k V-8 Ranger in ’90?

I actually might have – dual income, no kids, no mortgage at the time (Couldn’t buy a Syclone – they weren’t imported to Canada, wound up with an S-15 Jimmy Tahoe which was as close to Typhoon as I could buy). By ’91, though the ship has sailed – mortgage, single income, kid.​

I would like to thank Bob Sheaves for his write up at Allpar for much of above.

Doesn't GT40 count as Fast Ford? And some cars like SHO Taurus might not be "sports" cars but they should qualify.

 

[Ranger850]

I never said Ford couldn’t put a V-8 in a Ranger

I said I doubted they couldn’t sell enough to make a profit. And Ford only stays in business making a profit (GMC and others, of course, get gov't bail outs).​

To put a V-8 in a Ranger, you would be adding just over 200lbs (160 front/40 rear) to the truck, adding 65hp/120ftlb of power/torque.

Over a dozen teams would need to get involved if you were doing it internal to Ford​

Vehicle dynamics:

• Perform analyses and determine what needs upgrading

Frame group:

• Review if material thickness increase required by torsional/bending analysis
• Modification to the engine mounting location for V-8 mounts
• Modification for remote oil filter

Suspension group-rear:

• Upgraded axle to handle additional torque (I’m not sure if the 31 spline axles/large bearing of the Explorer axle were available in Chassis Cab, though they just had “Ranger” 8.8s)
• Revised spring rates for higher weight
• Revised shock damping rates (do you need “quad shocks” ala Mustang to control axle wrap)
• Revised spring rate on anti-sway bar (e.g. 1” bar from Bronco II)
• Revised spring bushings
• Revised anti-sway bar bushings
• Revised axle ratios (if changed axle)
• Revised tire rating selection for higher RAWR/GVWR/GCWR

Brake group-rear:

• Revised ABS calibration
• Revised brake size

Fuel System group:

• Revised fuel feed line-diameter
• Revised fuel return line-diameter
• Revised fuel pump suction and pressure values for addition flow of V8
• Recertification of emissions due to pump change (FMVSS/EPA regulations)

Suspension group-Front:

• Revised spring rates for extra weight of V-8
• Revised shock damping rates
• Upgraded axle- if needed by vehicle dynamic analysis (both TIB and TTB need analysis)
• Revised spring rate on anti-sway bar
• Revised spring bushings
• Revised anti-sway bar bushings
• Revised axle ratios for 4wd (if changed rear axle ratio)
• Revised tire rating selection for higher FAWR/GVWR
• new knuckles due to brake size change and increased tire wear

Brake group-front:

• Revised ABS calibration
• Revised brake size due to increased front axle weight
• Revised caliper hose length for revised caliper

Exhaust system group:

• New exhaust manifold to fit with Ranger engine compartment
• Revised intermediate pipes (true dual exhaust?)
• Revised catalytic convertor and
• Recertify MVSS requirements

Driveline group:

• Strengthen prop shaft as needed and check critical speed and NVH characteristics
• Add 90° adapter to fit remote oil filter
• Add remote oil filter
• New radiator with inlet/outlet/capacity for V-8
• New air filter for V-8

Electrical group:

• Update engine harness to accommodate engine change
• Update body harness to accommodate engine change

Body Group:

• Revise ventilation air duct to include “cutout” for the V-8 valve cover
• Revise A/C hoses for V-8 compressor/Ranger air box
• Unique body moldings
• Unique wheels

Documentation:

• Update owner’s manual to include V-8 information
• Update Ranger brochures to include V-8 information

Vehicle testing:

• Recertify frontal crash compliance
• Recertification of rear crash compliance due to pump change- (FMVSS/EPA regulations)
• Recertify fuel system integrity compliance
• Recertify emissions compliance
• Recertify misc certifications for Canada

The cost of the above runs into $100M range. Every optional configuration - Manual, 4WD, SCab, Long bed increases cost - bean counters are going to want to see sales to justify the development cost.

Is Ford going to match Syclone sales with 5k V-8 Rangers? Which would mean an additional $20k/Ranger for your 5.0/auto.
A Ranger in ’90 cost between $8k (RCSB, 2WD, I-4/manual) and $15k (SCSB, 4WD, V-6/auto)

S-10 was a little cheaper than Ranger, so Syclone cost at $32k pretty much matches.

How many of you would have actually bought a $30k V-8 Ranger in ’90?

I actually might have – dual income, no kids, no mortgage at the time (Couldn’t buy a Syclone – they weren’t imported to Canada, wound up with an S-15 Jimmy Tahoe which was as close to Typhoon as I could buy). By ’91, though the ship has sailed – mortgage, single income, kid.​

I would like to thank Bob Sheaves for his write up at Allpar for much of above.

Doesn't GT40 count as Fast Ford? And some cars like SHO Taurus might not be "sports" cars but they should qualify.

They would sale the sh!t out of a V8 Ranger if they make it 4x4 with colored tow hooks and skid plates, and a sticker on the rear quarter panel, apperantly. but only about 6 of the lowered 2wd/awd street trucks to compete with the Cyclone/Typhoon. Toyota crammed a 4.0 V6 into a street Tacoma but they are pretty rare.

Tacoma X Runner

 

[RonD]

Yes, you can engineer a vehicle out of existence, and then why build it

Good thing Nash didn't think that way
Or the Nash Metropolitan wouldn't be the power house FAST car it is today: https://www.thedrive.com/content/2019/12/236023_Front_3-4_Web.jpg?quality=85&width=1440&quality=70

 

[fastpakr]

On what planet does a 5.0 weigh 200 pounds more than the existing V6 offerings?

 

[don4331]

On what planet does a 5.0 weigh 200 pounds more than the existing V6 offerings?

United States, North America, Earth, Solar System...

The difference in weights between otherwise identical 4.0 versus 5.0 Explorers is 205 lbs per Ford documents.

Includes V6 vs V8, 5R55 vs 4R70W and any other bits and pieces (i.e. NVH damper and anti wrap bars).​

 

[bobbywalter]

They made a prototype v8 ranger, not sure which ford team did it "svt?". But it was a one of a kind no where close to production.

They made dozens over the life of them

 

[fastpakr]

United States, North America, Earth, Solar System...

The difference in weights between otherwise identical 4.0 versus 5.0 Explorers is 205 lbs per Ford documents.

Includes V6 vs V8, 5R55 vs 4R70W and any other bits and pieces (i.e. NVH damper and anti wrap bars).​

Okay, I didn't catch that you were including the differences to the rest of the driveline originally. The 4R70 and 4406 definitely add a fair bit. Probably just as much as the difference in engine weight itself.

 

[Bird76Mojo]

The 302 added less than 75lbs to the front of my 87 V8 swap truck when compared to the 2.9 V6.

The factory fuel pump hanger was used which retained the standard sized tubing, so no, the fuel system didn't need upgraded in line size. The Explorer is a perfect example of that.

 

[rubydist]

I also know from experience that a 5.0 does not add 200 lbs to the front of a Ranger. 75 is pretty close.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

To put a V-8 in a Ranger, you would be adding just over 200lbs (160 front/40 rear) to the truck, adding 65hp/120ftlb of power/torque.

Hey, for some of us that is almost double the power... my "Best Power in Class" 2.8 only had 110hp and 150lb ft at like 4 grand.

'85 Mustang GT was 210/270...

My HO eats thru the same fuel line the 2.8 did. Low pressure in tank pump for a '86 with a 2.9 shovels the coal in.

It would be freaking stupid to buy a V8 Ranger for $30k+ if you could instead get a Mustang with the same exact powertrain for $12k. (or about $4k more than a base 4cyl with a lighter trans and 7.5" rear axle, less sporty suspension and exterior dress up)

I don't think the company that has to design a different bellhousing for each engine family and transmission would blink at making a oil filter relocation thing. They did a angled one for the Explorer later anyway. They actually designed one with hoses for the F-150 in '97 and decided that it really wasn't actually needed and deleted it later on.

It must have been pretty cheap to certify engines back in the day. First gens had a diesel, two (rather pathetic) 4cyl options and a V6. Second gens had a four cylinder and at least 2 V6's.

Standard exhaust manifolds fit. The DS header for a 94-95 Mustang also fits, the left would need reworked (it is the same as a foxbody IIRC) if you wanted to go that route in the 90's.

Exhaust is exhaust, I doubt they would bother with duals especially if offered with a 4wd.

The Ranger frame is quite strong, I have been on here over 20 years and have yet to hear of anybody having a issue with a healthy frame. Generally when guys go nuts with big power (that 1980's/1990's Ford would NEVER condone) they do beef up the frame on their own. Stock HO which is the most I see Ford putting in is no issue.

80's stuff used the same A/C compressors. Both F-150 and Ranger used the FS6 compressor (just checked, even same part # in '87), in my quest to find hoses to connect my '85 to a '99 Explorer compressor I have noticed a couple Rangers over the years used some of the same hoses as F-150 too. Most things in the 80's had the compressor mounted in the same location, up high on the drivers side.

The biggest thing I would want to do is redesign the belt drive because for a Ranger swap the 80's options kinda suck for part replacement (the big pivot bolt for the alternator is a killer) and radiator clearance... but they did that in '95 for the Explorer anyway so it is kind of a net loss if they did that sooner.

Not sure how extensively they were crash tested back in the day, IIHS.org only goes back to '98 for the Ranger, '94 for the Taurus.

My '85 has the front bumper bolted directly on the solid frame like something outta the 60's, it does have a rubber steering wheel and padded dash though...

 

[bobbywalter]

The only reason ford never made a v8 ranger was due to one dikbag lawyer/manager. Also a family member....married in ....

I believe Rigotti was also a contributor on the powertrain side of what don posted.