If you had a 1978 f150

[85_Ranger4x4]

I like that idea. My first choice would be an early 90's 7.3l powerstroke. Also find a manual transmission with PTO to run a real winch. Convert the t-case to twin stick and you'd end up with enough shift levers to keep a dozen monkeys busy.

This message composed solely of recycled electrons. Go green!

Truck should have an NP205 tcase which already has a PTO port.

 

[bobbywalter]

yeah, a turbo 300 would be ok with a overdrive. and better with efi, though a blow thru 4bbl would be easy.. would look right done cleanly as well.

but a 24 valve with a p pump and nv 4500 would be ideal if you like six hole sounds....


if you want it to be bad ass and sound bad ass and get good economy, a duramax would be best.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Dont ruin it with a diesel. Enough of them done that way already.

 

[bobbywalter]

no way.

 

[Shran]

I'd keep it as is with the inline 6 and put a ZF 5 speed and fuel injection on it. You could do it with a lot of factory parts.

I do not like the drivetrain options for most '77-82ish trucks - I guess more specifically I do not like the 351M/400 - low powered turds with head cracking/warping issues like the 2.9 has. The 302 is a little underpowered for what it was, the FE engines in earlier trucks are really cool but so heavy, and the 460 is alright but also incredibly heavy and not common in 4x4 trucks. I guess I have just always had a fond spot for the inline 6.

If I absolutely had to put some modern drivetrain in a '78, it would either be an LS or a 3v V10.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I'd keep it as is with the inline 6 and put a ZF 5 speed and fuel injection on it. You could do it with a lot of factory parts.

I do not like the drivetrain options for most '77-82ish trucks - I guess more specifically I do not like the 351M/400 - low powered turds with head cracking/warping issues like the 2.9 has. The 302 is a little underpowered for what it was, the FE engines in earlier trucks are really cool but so heavy, and the 460 is alright but also incredibly heavy and not common in 4x4 trucks. I guess I have just always had a fond spot for the inline 6.

If I absolutely had to put some modern drivetrain in a '78, it would either be an LS or a 3v V10.

The 351M/400 were great engines. A bit underpowered stock, but the 400 espicially made good low end snort with its 4 inch stroke.

First ive heard of head issues on the M blocks, the block cracking was a huge overblown issue that came from a small run of early 77 castings. All those were dumpin coolant in the oil by 1982 and all thats left are the good ones.

A early timing set, a cam, 4bbl, and a set of headers id put a 400 up against anything from a 302 to a 460. 305 to 454. 318 to 440.

They were also very well adapted to 1st generation smog controls, and were discountinued because it would have cost ford more to adapt them to EFI and other 2nd gen emission equipment, then it was to bolt the shit on a windsor or 460.

There were no factory installed 460s in any 4wd untill 83.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The 351M/400 were great engines. A bit underpowered stock, but the 400 espicially made good low end snort with its 4 inch stroke.

First ive heard of head issues on the M blocks, the block cracking was a huge overblown issue that came from a small run of early 77 castings. All those were dumpin coolant in the oil by 1982 and all thats left are the good ones.

A early timing set, a cam, 4bbl, and a set of headers id put a 400 up against anything from a 302 to a 460. 305 to 454. 318 to 440.

They were also very well adapted to 1st generation smog controls, and were discountinued because it would have cost ford more to adapt them to EFI and other 2nd gen emission equipment, then it was to bolt the shit on a windsor or 460.

There were no factory installed 460s in any 4wd untill 83.

Didn’t they basically have 2bbl Cleveland heads?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Didn’t they basically have 2bbl Cleveland heads?

Yup.

 

[Shran]

Controversial opinion, I guess

Head issues I mentioned are my own anecdotal evidence. My '77 had a cracked head. I sold it, my buddy who got it had a hard time finding a good one. He has built a bunch of them and said it's a common issue, common enough that it has happened with much greater frequency than other engines from the era. The shop that did the machine work on it and other old school Ford buddies confirmed it.

Lack of aftermarket support is another big reason I don't like them. And, a stock 400 in those years was rated for what, like 160hp? That's easy to make with a 302 that's a full 98 cubes smaller and quite a bit lighter. And you can bolt on any aftermarket piece under the sun and make more power.

I am just a small block guy at heart I guess.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Controversial opinion, I guess

Head issues I mentioned are my own anecdotal evidence. My '77 had a cracked head. I sold it, my buddy who got it had a hard time finding a good one. He has built a bunch of them and said it's a common issue, common enough that it has happened with much greater frequency than other engines from the era. The shop that did the machine work on it and other old school Ford buddies confirmed it.

Lack of aftermarket support is another big reason I don't like them. And, a stock 400 in those years was rated for what, like 160hp? That's easy to make with a 302 that's a full 98 cubes smaller and quite a bit lighter. And you can bolt on any aftermarket piece under the sun and make more power.

I am just a small block guy at heart I guess.

More to it than just HP. Dad's old '80 sang with a gooseneck, pretty sure he would have brutally ripped my 200hp 4bbl 5.0HO apart for towing about as bad as I would beat him in a drag race.

The guy that had dad's before him had two friends they used to race to the stockyards in Omaha hauling hogs. One had a built 454 and one had a early Cummins. By the time the 454 was modded enough to run with the 400 (which was warmed over a little) he coudn't keep it together. Cummins guy had the smoke screw set for "moderate haze" and had a slight edge on the 400.

Like comparing an ox to a horse, it just doesn't line up.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Lets see a 302 pull a 7200lb 32ft travel trailer in a 5000lb 77F250 with a C6 and a 3.07 rear....

My 400 did.

The M blocks (lets just talk the 400 here) make very good, stout, truck motivators.

Hot rod squeezed 500hp from a 400. Granted, not with home garagable modifications, but they did it. Plus its torque was still good and useable.

As far as reliabilty goes, id say i got decent experence with all of fords fullsize (common) engines, 300/302/351W/351M/400/460. Cant speak for FEs, Y blocks or MELs...


But that being said, the only two of those engines that IMO are truely worthy of being caller "good, solid, all around" are the 351W and the 351M/400.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Hot rod squeezed 500hp from a 400. Granted, not with home garagable modifications, but they did it. Plus its torque was still good and useable.

You can do it but they are not the most cost effective to build.

Like it or not they kinda got you there.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

You can do it but they are not the most cost effective to build.

Like it or not they kinda got you there.

No, there not. The windsor stuff is about on par with the SBC anymore...

But, something about a hot runnin 400 that makes me all warm and fuzzy.

Honestly, i wish ford would have stuck with the 400 thru 97 instead of the 460.

 

[Shran]

Reading up on 351w engines lately for a build I want to do, I've discovered that it's relatively easy and not super costly to build a 408 stroker that will make at least 450hp on 87 octane and will also be durable long term (as compared to say, a 347 stroker.)

Windsor blocks have their own share of issues too but yes they are a lot more cost effective to build and can be very potent.

Re: towing/race use of a 302 - Yeah, I agree, stock for stock in the same model year, a 400 will blow a 302 away towing. The 302 will win by a mile for overall gas mileage, and truly, given the right combo of fuel delivery, transmission and gears, they are not a bad engine for a tow rig either.

I hauled a lot of the same loads behind both my '86 F150 with 3.50 gears and an EFI 302, and my old '85 F250 with the 460 and 4.10 gears. Either got the job done, the 460 had the obvious advantage right off idle at low RPM but the 302 had more snort higher up - and I was not afraid to let it wrap up a lot more than the 460, either. A set of airbags, trailer brakes and slightly deeper gears would make the F150 a pretty potent tow rig. But like I said, if you vary model years much, it becomes very unfair - take an older F150 with the same 302 and a carburetor combo that's rated at least 50hp less and it's just a turd.

I like the FE engines for the same reason you like the 351M/400 - they have a ton of low end power. Plus a lot better aftermarket support as they were used for a longer period of time. They are definitely very heavy and not very economical, though - best I ever got out of my dad's old '76 F250 was about 9mpg.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I cant knock the 400 in my 77 for fuel mileage, before the carb got all whacked out it would return 13-14 if i took it easy.

Its all to each their own. I just like the smooth low end power of a big block. Which is why im hesistant to let loose of my 460. As much of a headache as it is. It tows very similar to a powerstroke, heavy load, shut the O/D off, and you hit a hill and the throttle just goes down a bit and you keep your speed.

But either way, i wont knock the windsors, but atleast if you compare a 351M to a 351W of the same year range (as fair as it gets), stock for stock, the M will stomp the W.

Yes, the 400 made 169hp and somewhere around 335ftlbs IIRC. But its all down in the 1500-2000rpm range, its out of steam by 3500. By comparison the similar year 460 was 198hp and 365ftlbs. In that perspective the 400 dont look so bad does it?

But, that being said, if we are talking smaller then 351CID, give me the Inline 6.