How would you build a Square body Syclone/Typhoon killer?

[rusty ol ranger]

I noticed years ago that the LS had 4 head bolts per cylinder for even clamping like Ford has done since 1954 and that the exhaust ports were spread out evenly, also like a Ford, to avoid the uneven heat from the SBC siamesed center exhaust ports.
In the 70's Wayne Gapp and Jack Roush(yes, that Jack Roush) drag raced a Maverick with a 300 block using 2 Cleveland heads that they cut down and mated in the center. A long stroke inline would work great in a truck or low RPM application beu it wouldn't be my choice for a race engine.

Theres a maverick running 11's on youtube with a 300 I6.

The 300 is a real darkhorse. Obviously not good for OP's application..,but they have potential

 

[JoshT]

@alsalp, you asked, WWYD? That's what I would do. You do you.

Also FWIW my process is very oversimplified, it's going to take more than just bolting on the body.

For sure the bed bolt hole spacing is the same on all of them, relative to the bed length. A 1983 short bed will bolt directly in place of a 2011 short bed, same for long beds. I seem to recall that the later beds may have a few extra mounting bolts, but you don't have to use them.

The regular cabs from 1983-1997 will directly bolt on to any regular cab frame from the same year range. 1998-2011 is the same way. The regular cabs gained 3" in length between the middle and rear cab mounts during the 1998 redesign, the frames were stretched out to match.

Extended cabs were the same length from inception to end of production. You should be able to bolt a 1983 extended cab directly onto the 1998-2011 extended cab frames. Some one actually did that build (in 2wd IIRC) on the Ranger Power Sports forum maybe 15 years ago. I don't recall the outcome other than a very nice build and they did a lot of extra custom work. Unfortunately that forum went under a long time ago and the content was lost with it.

Wernt the truck block LS's iron and the car versions alloy? Tkats what i heard anyways.

Either way an LS has alot of aluminum parts (heads, etc) and im sure a dressed 390 would be heavier. Bare block vs bare block, both being iron...i could buy the 390 being a bit lighter.

EDIT...

Quick google search tells me a bare 390 is 185lbs. A bare TRUCK LS is 210. A bare car LS is 150lbs

Couldn't tell you much about the LS except for what I said above and it seems like everyone uses them for everything. Not much different than the SBC in that regard.

Ok, so iron for iron, the LS is heavier. I would not have guessed it. That's just looking at the block though. The factory intake on the FEs weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 lbs by itself, the intake on the LS is aluminum or plastic and 10 to 20 lbs. The FE heads are cast iron again while the LS got aluminum. So I suppose that the block could be heavier while getting an overall lighter engine.

Again if we're talking about a hypothetical cyclone/typhoon killer, so we're talking about a performance application where weight matters. Iron block may be preferible for putting down power numbers on a dyno or drag strip where it might be worth sacrificing the weight for strength, but I don't see that being the use case for this build or a cyclone/typhoon. As such I don't see an iron block LS being applicable to the conversation when aluminum is readily available.

Just my 2 cent. You might still be able to use a coin press somewhere for that.

 

[alsalp]

Thanks for the well thought out post. I was hoping someone would give some insight on mixing years etc. As far as engines go, get the keeping it Ford perspective. Like I said, I'm open to GM. What's interesting about the LS is that it allegedly designed after a 351W. The bolt pattern of the heads and bore spacing is so close that an engine builder on Youtube was able to adapt and run LS heads on a 351W block (with a little massaging). He had to get a custom cam and get a little creative with intake. The short block was a junk yard unit. It lived on the dyno at boosted to 600hp and threw and melted a piston at around 1000hp. Others have welded LS heads together and have run them on a Ford 300 6cyl block. Blasphemy, I get it. I'm a whatever works best for the build but that's me.
Speaking of V6's, GM LV3/LV1's are gaining traction in the aftermarket. They an all aluminum LS based 4.3. Too bad Ford doesn't make a pushrod aluminum v8. Compact vs OHC.

LS heads on a 351W:

I would mix 3-4 different trucks to make one. For starters I'm an all Ford kind of guy so that would set one limitation immediately.

--TL/DR--
my basic recipe:

83-88 Ranger body
2004+ Ranger 4x4 frame
Built 4R70W mated to Explorer 5.0L AWD transfer case
Built engine of choice (I'd go for turbo 4/6) with SBF or Modular bellhousing adapter
Megasquirt ECU with Microsquirt TCU
Explorer disc brake 8.8 axle
Lots of small suspension and frame mods to improve traction and handling
-----------

The first challenge is that I think AWD is a must to be a typhoon/cyclone killer. To my knowledge the only suitable AWD transfer cases that Ford used in a longitudinal mounted powertrain were the unit found in early Aerostars and the two (I think) units found in the Explorer. This limits me to three transmissions, what ever was in the Aerostar (A4LD?), the 4R70W from the 2nd gen Explorer, and the 5R55E from the third gen Explorer. I'm wanting a cyclone killer so need to pick the best of the three then build it, which puts me in a built 4R70W with AWD transfer case from the 2nd gen explorer.

For engine, a stroker built on the matching Explorer 5.0L V8 would be the easy answer. I don't think I'd use the easy answer though.I think this build would actually be better served by a lighter weight 4 or 6 cylinder turbo engine. More power from a lighter package resulting in better handling and performance. I think a built ecoboost, duratec, or what ever with the appropriate transmission adapter would fit the bill nicely. I would forgo factory engine management in favor of probably using megasquirt for both enginea nd transmission control.If you want more control over the shifting this combo can also support paddle shifters IIRC.

Now that we know what we're using to power it, and what's being used to transfer that power what will these pieces be in?

You've specified a square body extended cab in the first post so that's set, and we need to put power to the ground in front which means needing a 4wd. TTB would suck for this though. Fortunately all extended cabs built from 1983-2011 had the same wheel base. 1998+ Rangers got the SLA suspension which would work much better for the AWD. In 2000/2001 got the upgrade to full time (live)front axle which is needed as well. I would specifically target a 2004+ 4x4 to donate the frame because it also got larger front brakes that the previous models, and if I'm buying a frame I'd rather buy the one with all the goodies.

<<Actually if I were doing it I'd go for a '83-'88 regular cab short bed. I'd get a matching '04+ frame and section 3" out of the frame. I'd remove the spare tire carrier in favor of mounting a fuel cell or BII tank in that space. Mount body to frame and perform necessary modifications to get it tastefully low. Swap frame horns to later frame for mounting correct bumpers. Install Explorer V8 disc brake axle. >>

As said above, once the frame swap is complete there will be a whole host of modifications and custom work to get the stance, handling, and traction right. If you are capable of the frame swap you can probably handle the necessary custom work.

Yes, I've thought about this just a little bit before and if it weren't 2am I could probably remember a bunch more details I've lost over time. To an extent I'm heading towards this build now. As much as I like the first gens, I'm doing it to my '99 and keeping the 99 body. The SBF is an even better fit in this style so that's what I'll be using. I don't actually expect to be competitive to a similarly built cyclone/typhoon, but I do think it will be fun.

Will hopefully be building a first gen as well, but it'll be staying 2wd on stock frame and just be a cruiser.

To minimize the doners, I'm picturing getting a 5.0 explorer doner vehicle. Either swap the front SLA and 8.8, lengthen the frame of the Explorer, or hybrid the frames ( rear of 83-92 bed section to front clip of explorer). Build in stages, engine build/swap, trans upgrade, brake upgrade etc over time

 

[alsalp]

Theres a maverick running 11's on youtube with a 300 I6.

The 300 is a real darkhorse. Obviously not good for OP's application..,but they have potential

I could fit a turbo 300 in a ranger I'd consider it

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I could fit a turbo 300 in a ranger I'd consider it

300's have been put in rangers before.

Check out www.fordsix.com and see what some of those guys have done with 300's.

As bad ass as it would be, atleast in my opinion, i think there are better options for your situation though