where do I start?

[jaymegriffiths]

350-400hp from a 5.0 and put it in a truck?

Let me explain basic physics.

There are very few engine mods that increase torque materially...
An increase in torque of greater than 20% over stock is ASTOUNDING
without forced induction, so MOST engine mods that make more power
(400hp is nearly DOUBLE that of a 5.0HO) be defination make the same
(or less) torque than stock but produce it at a greatly increased rpm....
meaning you must spin the crap out of the engine to get it.

a 5.0HO already has to be spun to 3400rpm to make peak torque and
5200 to make peak power, IOW it's already "too revvy" to be real useful...

sure they are "fun" but an absolutely stock 5.0 isn't enough better than
a 4.0 offroad to justify the effort.
AD

I dont want a 4 liter.
Here's proof a 5.0 can easily make 400 horses.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0307_ford_302_v8_engine_buildup/index.html
roller cam, headers and AFR 165cc aluminum heads= enough gusto to make my ranger silly fast
and my trucks a 2wd I've pretty much givin up on offroad performance

I understand your opinion about 4.0 liters, and how you think a 5.8 would be better, but please do not try to change me. even if I'm wrong im gonna argue this thread to death. If you do not like my choice dont post here, I'm welcome to positive advice to answer my question and help me understand proper procedures on how to put the engine I want together.
Thanks AD I know your a very helpful resource, please agree to disagree

Edit* these heads have been tested for over 80 horse gains on multiple occasions! cool! http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2003/06/afrinstall/index.php

 

[Mac]

Those head are really nice to look at also besides working great! The CNC machining on the ports is impressive. By the time you slap on a set of roller rockers, you got more $ in the heads than some have in their whole swap (or truck). The test that MM & FF did a couple of years ago with those heads and the Comp Cam XE264 cam got about 200 hp and 335 lb-ft torque at only 3000 rpm. Hp max was 396 at 5800, torque 342 at 4800. I was sold, waiting for good weather to throw them in/on the new short block. I think it's going to be a good combonation, don't think you'd go wrong. Just be sure the rest of the drivetrain is up to what ever you do build. I guess I'm kind of a V-8 guy rather than the 4.0L for what I want.
Dave

 

[COPPERHEAD85]

I agree with Allen D on the 351..............i have both.351 is in a 81 F-100,302 in a 85 Ranger 4X4.The 302 is built ,289 heads,flat tops roller this and that blah blah blah.It revs like a chain saw on crack .The basically stock 351.mild RV cam,aluminum intake Holley/ford carb with headers has way more nuts off the line than the 302 does.
I would love to have a stroked 351 in a (small ranger) for street.Off road i would rather have a stock 351 with a 2 barrel than what i have now just for the torque difference.

 

[AllanD]

I dont want a 4 liter.
Here's proof a 5.0 can easily make 400 horses.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0307_ford_302_v8_engine_buildup/index.html
roller cam, headers and AFR 165cc aluminum heads= enough gusto to make my ranger silly fast
and my trucks a 2wd I've pretty much givin up on offroad performance

I understand your opinion about 4.0 liters, and how you think a 5.8 would be better, but please do not try to change me. even if I'm wrong im gonna argue this thread to death. If you do not like my choice dont post here, I'm welcome to positive advice to answer my question and help me understand proper procedures on how to put the engine I want together.
Thanks AD I know your a very helpful resource, please agree to disagree

Edit* these heads have been tested for over 80 horse gains on multiple occasions! cool! http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2003/06/afrinstall/index.php

Some people just don't get it....

Ascribing "passion" to what I say about the 4.0?
I believe in logic, reason and fact.

I didn't say a 5.0 cannot make 400hp, it's been done.

I did say that a 400hp 5.0 is going to be nearly useless in a 4x4.
The power will happen "Way up high" and compared to even a
stock.

I will repeatedly tell you you are wrong because like you seem to have done believing someone else's internet hyperbole, you saying what you believe (utterly unsupported by fact, reason or reality) will cause others to believe the same false things.

If I GAVE you a 400hp 5.0 for your 4x4 Ranger you'd HATE it.
Though I sincerely doubt you have enough intellectual honesty
to admit that after you had it. You "probably" (and the sun will
"probably" rise tomorrow) would hate it.
I just don't trust most of the "True believers" to admit they are
wrong even after they prove it to themselves.

For a desert racer or drag truck it might be ok, but for an "offroad"
truck?

I've seen dozens of people saying the same things you are saying.
Some eventually became convinced of the error of their thinking.
Others migrated off to some den of other glue sniffers

Frankly I don't care what you believe or what you do.
Don't think for a microsecond that I actually CARE about you.

Do believe that what I know to be disinformation, fallacy
or dilusional thinking will be killed root & vine.

Look at the people who think a SHO taurus 3.0 engine would
be a wonderful Ranger engine.

The SHO produces the same power as a 5.0HO engine, but instead of giving up it's peak torque at 3400rpm like an HO, the SHO needs to go to 4800rpm.

People simply don't understand that it just ain't no fun
to drive.... in a Ranger.
Driving one is like being cathaterized every time you need to pee,
then being forced to drink beer.

The 5.8 is a philosophical twin of the 4.0 and produces useable
torque practically right off idle....

The same reasons why a 4.0 is better than a 2.9 are
why a 5.8 would be better than a 5.0.... except in this
comparison the 5.0 isn't as good compared to a 5.8 as
a 2.9 is compared to a 4.0

as for a 5.0 with a carb?

In a 4x4 Ranger?

the 4.0 is a better engine. it makes more torque down
low where it's actually needed... and compared to any
2bbl 5.0 it simply makes more power and more torque
and does both of those things at lower rpm.

AD

 

[COPPERHEAD85]

Allen D,
Not to hijack but what your opinion on theses 2 set ups............
Serious trail rig.......stock 4.0 with doubler and 60 axles say with at least 38-13.50s tires or stock 351 with the same set up.
This would be for dependability and being able to hit the upper end trails as far as difficulty goes.....

 

[Mac]

I really think two people need to go back to see what Jaymeg---- wants to work with. He's not working with a 4x4, wants steet preformance, never any mention of off road at all. You two have been around long enought that you ought to know to start at the first posting, answer his questions, pose questions or warnings - don't tell him what he wants to drive!
Dave

 

[red85]

A 302 is an absolute ball to drive on the street in Ranger. I'd suggest that you start on the mild side of things. Maybe a little porting of the heads to start with... If you grind out the Thermactor "bumps" and open up the exhaust ports to match your gaskets, you'll be pleasantly surprised. Performance for Ford Windsor based engines is all in the heads. Just don't go hog wild with the die grrinder and you'll have a fun, streetable powerplant.

Phil

 

[COPPERHEAD85]

I really think two people need to go back to see what Jaymeg---- wants to work with. He's not working with a 4x4, wants steet preformance, never any mention of off road at all. You two have been around long enought that you ought to know to start at the first posting, answer his questions, pose questions or warnings - don't tell him what he wants to drive!
Dave

I said i was sorry to hijack.................!I admit my the point i was trying to make was kinda lost in my own greedy little quest for information.

I still think.......EVEN for street......the 351 would be better and my $.02 would be to find a roller 351 out of a 1980 and up F250 or van for the better block.More torque at less RPM.
dave-

 

[Mac]

Thanks for at least understanding, didn't want to come across "grumpy-pissed off". Yup the 351 would sure have more torque. They just required a little more work. Any good headers that drop in? Not sure about the OP but some of the guys have never driven a 200-300 HP truck in the first place. Kind of a feeling of just what they want or need, not what we all would like to build for them with our money.
Dave
Wisconsin, way of life!

 

[COPPERHEAD85]

They ask the questions but don't like the answers because of what they read in a magizine.......
Dave.................................if iam ever in Wisconsin....................can I at least hump the fender of your Roush 427?.......Ill buy the beer! (just dont tell my wife i cheated)

 

[baddad457]

People who go to the effort of putting a 5.0 into a ranger missed the boat... they should have gone looking for a 5.8.



As for the "Stong" 5.0 blocks vs the weaker 5.0 blocks?

the 5.0 block was lightened repeatedly because weight was critical in the passenger cas into which it was being installed.



Anyone wishing to disagree with what I've just written here should stop sniffing glue or "drinking the KoolAid" for atleast a week before posting a reply.

In my carefully considered opinion the best use for a 5.0 in a ranger is in a "go fast" 2wd street truck.



AD

Here's where you've missed the boat. First off he's got a 2wd. And wants tire roasting power. Not 4x4 off road. Read his signature. Second off, you seem to be the one drinkin koolaid with this rant.
Yea, the 5.0 block was lightened beginning with the 1980 blocks. That lasted till the 1985 roller block. After that, Ford added 6 more louds of iron in the bore bottoms to siamese the bores, thereby stiffening the bores. They at the same time added more iron to the decks to improve them as well. All this started with the E6SE blocks and continued to the end of production in 2001. Going to a 351 in a Ranger is adding more work in the swap, mainly in dealing with headers and the extra torque to the rearend. That's why it makes more sense to stroke a 302 in a Ranger, vs going with a 351.

 

[baddad457]

Frankly I don't care what you believe or what you do.
Don't think for a microsecond that I actually CARE about you.



AD

Is that the reason why you went off on the two longest rants in this thread ? Which by the way were full of disinformation. I'll put my carbed 2wd 89 against your 4.0 anyday, bumper to bumper on dry pavement and you'll see why you're wrong about the 4.0's torque.

 

[Mac]

Damn, a pulling contest. Wish I still had my 20 HP AC model B!
You all just try and enjoy what's left of the week-end!
Dave

 

[jaymegriffiths]

I really think two people need to go back to see what Jaymeg---- wants to work with. He's not working with a 4x4, wants steet preformance, never any mention of off road at all. You two have been around long enought that you ought to know to start at the first posting, answer his questions, pose questions or warnings - don't tell him what he wants to drive!
Dave

My god! I don't know where that whole offroad performance thing came from. thanks for speakin up, most people seem to get the idea if you dont build what they want you too your in some way hindering them.

A 302 is an absolute ball to drive on the street in Ranger. I'd suggest that you start on the mild side of things. Maybe a little porting of the heads to start with... If you grind out the Thermactor "bumps" and open up the exhaust ports to match your gaskets, you'll be pleasantly surprised. Performance for Ford Windsor based engines is all in the heads. Just don't go hog wild with the die grrinder and you'll have a fun, streetable powerplant.

Phil

I'm savin my pennys for a set of AFR aluminum heads. I've read a lot about them and in numerous occasions they have yielded over 70 horsepower gains, and as much as 100. well worth the 1299 dollar pricetag.

Thanks for at least understanding, didn't want to come across "grumpy-pissed off". Yup the 351 would sure have more torque. They just required a little more work. Any good headers that drop in? Not sure about the OP but some of the guys have never driven a 200-300 HP truck in the first place. Kind of a feeling of just what they want or need, not what we all would like to build for them with our money.
Dave
Wisconsin, way of life!

The real reason I'm stickin with the 302 is because the aftermarket for ford 302's is HUGE, they are obviously a good plant to make power out of, hence the reason so many people build them! and also i have a few good friends who have built more than one high horse 302. This means if i run into trouble when building it i have somone who can tell me exactly what to do!

They ask the questions but don't like the answers because of what they read in a magizine.......
Dave.................................if iam ever in Wisconsin....................can I at least hump the fender of your Roush 427?.......Ill buy the beer! (just dont tell my wife i cheated)

theres a lot more resources than just magazines. Im aware magazine does not = bible. dave has a roush 427?

Here's where you've missed the boat. First off he's got a 2wd. And wants tire roasting power. Not 4x4 off road. Read his signature. Second off, you seem to be the one drinkin koolaid with this rant.
Yea, the 5.0 block was lightened beginning with the 1980 blocks. That lasted till the 1985 roller block. After that, Ford added 6 more louds of iron in the bore bottoms to siamese the bores, thereby stiffening the bores. They at the same time added more iron to the decks to improve them as well. All this started with the E6SE blocks and continued to the end of production in 2001. Going to a 351 in a Ranger is adding more work in the swap, mainly in dealing with headers and the extra torque to the rearend. That's why it makes more sense to stroke a 302 in a Ranger, vs going with a 351.

I like the reputation and aftermarket availability. what really bugs me is when someone thinks their opinion is the only opinion(not you) any positive advice about MY 302 BUILD is greatly appreciated, anybody who would rather see me swap in a 5.8, 4.0, etc. can F*** off. seriously 90% of my threads are full of people trying to get you to do things their way. its really friggin annoying

Is that the reason why you went off on the two longest rants in this thread ? Which by the way were full of disinformation. I'll put my carbed 2wd 89 against your 4.0 anyday, bumper to bumper on dry pavement and you'll see why you're wrong about the 4.0's torque.

He's got a point. note that AD compares 2.9 (smaller) with 4.0 and concludes that 4.0 is better. what a genius. bigger motor makes more power? im shocked. If anyone wants to see a 351 ranger go build one (or just google it, look at th pretty pictures, and deal with my lack of interest) and we can race. me and my aluminum heads will show you why 302's kick serious ass

Damn, a pulling contest. Wish I still had my 20 HP AC model B!
You all just try and enjoy what's left of the week-end!
Dave

I wanna see that pull of. AD please refrain from posting on this thread, as all i can see is negative input so far. if you have an answer to my question feel free to answer it. NO MORE. as for any flaming retorts to retain dignity or w/e keep them to yourself. PLEASE!

 

[Mac]

Dave has a Roush 427R?

It's a secret, don't let the beast out!

One hell of a car to drive in good weather! Worked all my life to get one like this, do the same.
Dave