will these parts fit?

[jcd302]

If your gonna go Mopar, I would opt for the 4.0L myself.

 

[CHKNFKR]

I'm pretty sure he's made up his mind about the slant...

I don't really have anything to offer as i've never done it. Just judging by looks i'd say be prepared to to cut up your firewall, maybe even your core support. I'd also ditch the engine driven fan for a thinner electric fan. Depending on the length you may have to modify the trans tunnel. The easy solution would be to cut the tunnel from the floor and slide it back so the shifter hole is over the shifter. Then weld it back in place and call it a day.

Odds are you'll have to relocate/fab custom motor mounts, tranny mounts, and the crossmembers supporting them.

I'd take a look at oil pan options to find what best suits your needs. I'd also look at the oil filter location and size, you may have to run a relocation kit (if you do i'd run a bypass filter.) Steering could pose problems too but i'd imagine less so than stuffing a 5.0 in there. Since people do that all the time you should be able to manage it.

 

[matt167]

the slant 6 isn't very long compared to others. They were built for Mopars smallest cars but they put them in trucks too. If you look at a truck with a slant, you'll see just how small they are

 

[rockin86ranger]

The beauty of the slant six is it shorter than most people think, should have no problem fitting it a ranger engine bay. The accesories also are built in a little closer to block to keep length down, most of them sit in the blank area where the engine would be if it wasn't leaning.

Probably didn't explain that the best.

 

[cody93]

yea, i think the slant is the shortest of the I6s, it was used in little valiants and darts. to reword what rockin just said, he means some accesories are mount on the side the block, instead the front, like the water pump, making it shorter. theres a fellow on here with a falcon 200 in a ranger, he did no firewall/core mods. the only thing id worry about is the trans tunnel/cross member and heater box. now, im not dead set on a slant, if someone can convince me of one the other motors i picked out.

 

[rockin86ranger]

I'd still look for an old diesel out of a mercedes 240d, they are cheaper than you think and would be a decent fit for a Ranger sized truck.

How about a Volkswagen flat 4 under the bed, then you can use the engine compartment for storage, plus they are super cheap. lol

 

[AllanD]

I'm experienced with the 225 slant six and though a good engine for years ago...

Given a choice between a slant six and a 4.0 I'll take the 4.0 every time.

This comming from someone who has had a 4bbl carb on a modified slant six, I've even created a Bosch CIS injection system for one and I was working on turbocharging one.

I even once had one of the rare 1962 ALUMINUM block Daytona slant six engines

I'd rather have a 4.0.

The slant six is the revviest of the domestic inline six engines, and with a carb it really doesn't make as much low end torque or nearly as much power as a 4.0.

And while the A-833 4speed manual trans that you'd likely want to bolt to it is as bulletproof as manual transmissions get finding one in it's 4s4 variant will require divine intervention.

Lastly, the slant six engines made after 1976 have cast iron crankshafts while all
1973 or earlier engines had steel cranks, I would not want a cylinderhead made
before 1976, the earlier heads use hemi like "tubes" for which the O-rings are discontinued. the later heads use taper seat spark plugs (eliminating the spark plug tubes, but also have induction hardened valve seats that stand up to unleaded gas.

AD

 

[cody93]

yea, i know about the cranks being cast in post 75 models, but didn't know about the head. guess i should get both a 68-75 for the rotating assembly and a 76-85 for the head. as much as id like to have a v6, theres just something about the wow factor of having a \6 in a ranger.