Possible to fit SUBARU AWD boxer "package" into 4WD Ranger?

[85_Ranger4x4]

Most Jap cars have no low end torque

I actually have to agree with that... but then most American cars don't either. Doing what a FWD car is designed to do with an automatic transmission they don't need it.

 

[AllanD]

I doubt you really understand the whole process of design...

a lighter engine allows a lighter vehicle structure and thus a lighter vehicle

putting a lighter powertrain into a Ranger would not have the same effects.

And though a scooby is quite "Capable" even their "crossover" vehicles (outback?)
aren't capable of real truck type stuff.

Granted they can go on SOME trails like a truck but there is very little
they can do that even a relatively stock TTB truck can't

And if you try it with a scooby loaded to it's maximum capacity
you'll break something

a Scooby drivetrain in a Ranger is doomed to a short life with an abrubt end.

my 4.0 Ranger can do anything a scooby is intended to do while carrying a scooby
(Or it's equivelent in coal or gravel) in the bed of my truck.

If you want a scooby get a scooby.


AD

 

[97ranger4x4]

I doubt you really understand the whole process of design...

a lighter engine allows a lighter vehicle structure and thus a lighter vehicle

putting a lighter powertrain into a Ranger would not have the same effects.

And though a scooby is quite "Capable" even their "crossover" vehicles (outback?)
aren't capable of real truck type stuff.

Granted they can go on SOME trails like a truck but there is very little
they can do that even a relatively stock TTB truck can't

And if you try it with a scooby loaded to it's maximum capacity
you'll break something

a Scooby drivetrain in a Ranger is doomed to a short life with an abrubt end.

my 4.0 Ranger can do anything a scooby is intended to do while carrying a scooby
(Or it's equivelent in coal or gravel) in the bed of my truck.

If you want a scooby get a scooby.


AD

AGREED!!! My gf has a 01 outback which has a N/A 4cyl with a 5spd. That thing is pretty slow to get started. Where she lives there are some dirt roads that you could get to with 2wd and some patients. I usually use 4wd just because of the loose rock and done wanna deal with spinning my tires. She has taken her subaru down there once, but because of the uneven ground, we always take my truck. The suspension just cannot flex. However it would be cool to see a lowered awd ranger screaming around town. but then again, I would just take the running gear out of a awd explorer first. At least it would be much closer to a "stock" setup.

 

[AllanD]

That all being said if you have the inclination and the D-E-E-P pockets that would be required and you want a "lightweight" powertrain build yourself an ALL-ALUMINUM 5.8 engine and swap that into a Ranger 4x4.

Be warned the bare block alone is gonna run you $3500-ish
another $1200 for aluminum heads and probably another grand for
aa billet steel crank (Don't dream in coach)

But as I failed to do in my first post by attacking the practicality of what you originally suggested I will not fail to do now...

Is it possible? Sure.

but then again I've seen detailed pictures of a '57 Chevy that some asshole swapped a Rolls-Royce Merlin Aircraft engine into...

So it's be strict definition "possible".

Practical? Nope.

Desireable? not in the least.

Nor is my suggestion of spending $7000-$9000 on an
all aluminum 5.8 engine "practical", but in my own defence in this largely philosophical discussion it would be cool as hell.

If you built a ranger with Scooby powertrain you'd likely
get wrapped in a straight jacket for your own good.



AD

 

[CopyKat]

Find yourself a Cyclone or a Typhoon and just use that drivetrain a turbo 4.3L is more than enough for a street driven truck.

I just don't know how you would get around using the front trans-axle. It's not going to fit between the frame rails.

 

[jcmtbfreak]

Yeeeeeah.....from what little research I've done on subys....they have a unique driveline system. It'd be EXTREMELY hard to modify it to fit the specifications of a ranger. It's a much more complex system than what other 4X4's are. The current system may be old and "outdated" but its still being used cause it's tough as nails, straightforward, and cost effective. The suby drive system would be a pain in the butt. Don't forget that you'd have to custom build the rear end. Again, i don't know too much about it, but it's a different system than simple driveline here and there. I'm not sure it would be possible to put it in and make the rear end work without and complete custom suspension setup in back. The front end would be a pain as well. And no, it' wouldn't be anywhere near tough enough to hold up to offroading. But I agree....if someone did it, it has the possibility of being way cool.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Those Subaru engines can take WAY more abuse than the Ranger 4 cylinder can. As far as lack of low end, you need to drive a turbo Subaru.

Obviously this guys never had a 2.3 ranger. What about the million mile 2.3 rangers I see every once in a while, or the 2.3's that get run out oil, filled up, run out, and repeat for 100,000 miles and still work fine? Or how about the turbo 2.3's that run 20 psi for 300,000 miles without blinking?

I don't know how any motor could be much stronger, abusable, or dependable than a Ford 2.3. I agree the subaru engines might be as good as a ford 2.3, but they certaintly aren't better. You should do some research before making wild claims.

You said you've had a turbo suby and that it was fast. Have you ever been in a ford 2.3 turbo car at 20 psi? Let's just say they're not the 2.3 ranger you might have had experience with.

 

[fixizin]

They make an AWD Explorer? I'm not keeping up with FoMoCo I guess... how do they do the CENTER differential???

SevenSecs, I want to know MORE about your 2.3T swap... but I'll search the threads first... I'm very intrigued by the 2.3T engine... too bad it won't bolt up to my 3.0 version M5OD bell housing...

 

[Dddaviso7]

I owned a subaru impreza and it was a nice CAR. I couldn't imagine the powertrain in a truck. I have the intentions of buying an 04 STI when I can. I was really impressed when I drove an 02 sti.

 

[voodoochylde]

IMO, the typical Subaru engine most will run into, being either the phase 1 or phase 2 EJ22, just doesn't make power in a useful range for a truck. The phase 1 EJ22 (I think between 1990 and 1998-99) made ~135 lb-ft at a SCREAMING 4800 rpm. The phase 2 EJ22 in my 99 Impreza makes 149 lb-ft at 3800 rpm. I know I'd hate it in my BII with the M5OD.

As far as the other options go, how 'bout the EJ257 from the STi? In the stock turbocharged form it does somewhere around 290 lb-ft but I can't find the engine speed at which it develops this torque. I imagine being a turbo'd boxer 4 it is in excess of 3500 rpm.

Personally, I'd like more low-end grunt than that.

As far as the rest of the drivetrain goes - I can speak from personal experience that the CV axles, and the wheel bearings will not like the extra weight. The 4EAT auto trannies behind EJ22's probably would love to chew up the AWD clutch packs. I don't know how the viscous coupling for the 5-speed AWD system would fare.

The driveline from an STi would, in all likelihood, survive the experience. I VERY seriously doubt there's any reasonable way to get her to flex thanks to the CV axles. They're made to handle, not do any serious offroading.

If you do it though, PLEASE post lots of pics! I love anything Subaru!

 

[BRUTUS_T_HOG]

dead thread

 

[voodoochylde]

Yeah, sorry. Hadn't noticed until I'd already written a novel and hit "POST REPLY"...dummy me.

 

[strvger]

actually, i'm kinda surprised that on one mentioned the width of those motors. too wide for putting samies and sidekicks for sure. lots wider than you would think looking at one. all the width is at the bottom, not at the top like a v8. that is the biggest problem in swapping them into anything other than another subie.