Need some opinions on a few V8's plus a few other ?s

[RangerRock]

Ok I'm working on a V8 swap project (92 Ranger 3.0L) , only into the teardown phase right now, but need some input on a few V8's im considering I have two of thwm just laying around. I ned to known what you guys think about and there use in a swap.; 1. 1984 5.8L HO from a 2wd F-250 138k. & 2. 1988 GMC 350, from a Vandura 2500 89k (have the complete wiring harness for it)

I'd like to go with EFI if possible, just wondering what would all be invloved in converting the 5.8L HO to EFI, would i be able to swapp the intake and injectors from a stock 89 Mustang GT's 5.0L HO, I have the oportunity to get the upper an lower intake manifolds adn fule rails and injectors from the 5.0L for free , just curious to if could adapt them to work with the 5.8L? I'd really like to stick with Ford if possible.

If these are not plausible will just try and save and get a donor 88-93 mustang donor car for the swap. What will be the biggest bang for the buck, looking to build a vehicle that will eventual serve the role of a reliable daily driver.

 

[Teddyzee]

Best bang for the buck is the one with the correct trans.. auto or manual.
The 5.0 HO stuff swaps directly to the 5.8, including the cam/heads, etc.
Headers can be tricky with the 351.

My truck has a 5.0 HO, from a '92 Mustang, and drives like stock.

 

[Mac]

The lower intake will not swap from the 5.0 to the 5.8, not familiar enough about which port type on the upper but think the same as the Mustang standard 5.0
Dave

 

[RangerRock]

So if I undertand right the 5.8L will work if i get a 5.8L EFI lower intake for it the rest of the 5.0L intake and injection parts will swap to it? The way the 5.8L sits right now it still has the 4V cast iron intake on it for the 4 barrel carb.

Looking to get it running cheap useing EFI , then add to it once its running, ie intake upgrades, perhaps heads etc..

 

[baddad457]

The lower intake will not swap from the 5.0 to the 5.8, not familiar enough about which port type on the upper but think the same as the Mustang standard 5.0
Dave

Upper is not compatible with the 351W lower. Different ports altogether. Just use the upper/lower from an EFI 351W from any 88-97 E or F series van or truck

 

[RangerRock]

Ah ok would have been nice if the 5.0 stuff would have worked Since i could have gotten it for free.

 

[rangerpepe]

nothing some jb weld cant fix...j/k

 

[fordmike1]

If you can find a lightning 5.8 lower then you can use a 96-98 Explorer, gt40 or a 93-95 Cobra upper. The SBC will fit easier then the 5.8 SBF but then all you will have is just another chevy powered junk. Put the 5.8 in it and it will draw more praise and attension as there is not very many (if any in your town/city) at all.
Fuel Injected SBF for the win here.

 

[RangerRock]

OK that sounds like a plan then,

So would it be worthwhile to find a set of gt40 heads from an Explorer to swap on as well? To run a full Gt40 top end?

And that brings up a second question now too, whats the difference between gt40 heads and gt40p heads?

There's one other 351 powered ranger around here, though its running a carbed setup with c6 tranny, it was for sale a while back and went and looked at it. Also a 305 SBC powered mutt too, saw it at the local car show last year. So either engine i choose mine will be beter lol, though as i stated before I really want to use the 351, as long as i dont break the bank doing it.

 

[baddad457]

The P heads have a different spark plug location and angle, which creates header fitment issues, plus a different chamber and slightly smaller exhaust valves. Ford claims the smaller valve with a better port flows more.

 

[fordmike1]

Most of the GT40 heads have the 1/2" head bolt holes in them already and all the GT40P's have the small 7/16" head bolt holes. As baddad said the GT40P's are suppose to have better port flow but, I bet that wont be the case if you put them on a 351w.

 

[RangerRock]

Well the plan for now is find myself a lightning lower , cobra or gt40 upper, and gt40 heads. That will take care of the top end.

For the short block I'm not sure what direction I want to go with that. Definitely needs new seals, and gaskets. Freshining it up with new rings and mains probably wouldnt hurt it either haveing 138k+ on the clock. SO it'll probabaly have to take a vsit to a machine shop. As for the cam not sure as of yet what I want to do there, want something tame enough for street and dailly driver duty.

Shooting for a goal of 300HP.

 

[fordmike1]

Well the plan for now is find myself a lightning lower , cobra or gt40 upper, and gt40 heads. That will take care of the top end.

Just look for a Explorer upper as you should be able to pick one up from the wrecking yard for cheap. I can get them here for under 20 bucks.

Shooting for a goal of 300HP.

This is a very easy thing to do and if you block is machined for a factory Roller cam then just run the Ford E or F cam and you will be there and then some.

 

[RangerRock]

Just look for a Explorer upper as you should be able to pick one up from the wrecking yard for cheap. I can get them here for under 20 bucks.



This is a very easy thing to do and if you block is machined for a factory Roller cam then just run the Ford E or F cam and you will be there and then some.

Will do, just every Lightning lower I found so far was $300 or more. Makeing me seriously think about useing something along the lines of useing a Power+Plus Typhoon lower and upper would have around $350-$400 in both, and I'd imagine beter flow as well. If I can find a lightning lower cheaper that's what'll I'll proabably do though, but spending 50-100 dollars more for beter flow might be worth it.

I'm pretty sure the 84 5.8L HO is a flat tappet cam, when i had an 86 5.8L HO police interceptor engine apart, there was nothing holding the lifters straight didnt have them out, just had the engine apart for new gaskets and seals, leaveing me to assume its flat tappet.

 

[baddad457]

84 351 is a flat tapppet block. It was another 10 years before the roller 351W block came out in 94.