oil pressure switch

[keithm]

on this 83 302 just behind the mechanical fuel pump is an extension that the oil pressure switch is attached to , does this create any clearance issues, if so whats the recommended setup.

Thanks
Keith

 

[Teddyzee]

Should be no problem.

I'm using the stock extender piece from my 4.0, and it has a "T" on the end, for my dash sender and the Autometer sender. Lot's of room.

You can see the large Autometer sender here buried under there. The stock sender is below it.

This is the best shot I have of the extension, it's painted blue you can see orange tape at the block

If it bothers you, my block originally came with no extension at all

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The engines with the idiot light switch didn't have an extension. It is just another potential leak, I wouldn't mess with it if I didn't have to.

You are going to need one if you are going to run a sender to a gauge, it plain and simple won't fit otherwise.

I used the one from my 2.8, as I recall it mounted the sender at about a 45 degree angle.

 

[keithm]

Teddyzee,

What is the radiator off of , It appears to be stock except its recessed into the core support. I'm going vbelt with mine and may have to change a pulley. The crank pulley is extremely thick, I havent done any mock ups yet but I'm concerned about clearance with the super duty radiator. Your clearance seems good but I cant tell if your radiator has been moved forward or not.

Thanks

Keith

Btw once I've got this thing working well, would there be much of a performance difference with putting a 4 bbl intake and carb on. I'm not going crazy with it , just thought that engine was rated about 150hp

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Btw once I've got this thing working well, would there be much of a performance difference with putting a 4 bbl intake and carb on. I'm not going crazy with it , just thought that engine was rated about 150hp

As long as you stay realistic with size it shouldn't hurt anything.

Mine was also rated 150hp, don't have a clue what it is running now but it is very snappy. I am running a Weiand Stealth intake and a 1403 500CFM Edelbrock 4bbl.

 

[Will]

This is the classic upgrade from when I was a kid--comb the junkyard for a 4bbl intake for your 2bbl engine. That 150hp 5.0 wasn't built to make advertisable horsepower--it was made to throw a boxy Crown Vic up the on-ramp and into traffic. Contrary to what people think, the over-the-road trucks care much more about horsepower than auto manufacturers. The truckers use all of their horsepower--torque just falls wherever it falls and the 13 speed tranny deals with that. The people that care about torque are the people that put that 5.0 engine in a station wagon. It's tuned to focus the torque at 2,000rpm to lug the shitbox into motion and feel snappy. The torque converter in a heavy car with a snappy engine acts like a gear splitter and that 150hp does a damn good job of getting the wagon going. A 4bbl and intake certainly can help, especially if you are making the load lighter, but follow 85's example and use a dual plane and a small carb so you don't expose the cylinder to too much air mass and make the low speed soggy. I have no power estimates--its a 150 hp engine because the heads and cam are 150hp parts. A 4bbl doesn't address the airflow through the main bits of the pump. The thing I'm saying is, Ford knows most people aren't going to use the engine to the max and there is probably 10-20% of it their 2bbl carb won't support. Just don't kill the sewing machine torque they intended by slapping on an Edlebrock Torquer and 750 double pumper.

 

[Teddyzee]

Keith, it's the stock rad from my 4.0 1997 ranger. It is sitting where the AC condenser once lived.