Undrstm8ed
Seasoned...
Joined: Sat Oct 21st, 2017
Posts: 1299
Name: Occupation: Interests: Life, Experiences, and adventures. ...
Reputation Points: 1299
|
Ok, I thought I was gonna stir the pot of with one of my other posts and I bet a handful were expecting i'd chime in on this from my warped perspective and in ways I think we can all agree or disagree on certain facets of the subject. So I picked out some things that stand out to me in this subject as all have some good input here.
JAMMAN wrote:
You will find A LOT of support over here for doing a V8 swap. Sure you can trick a V6 in to thinking it is an 8 but it will never sound as good that is for sure.
As far as the street legal thing, someone else will have to chime in on that FORTUNATELY I live in a state that you can get away with "motor murder". Others here have had to deal with the legalities and can give advice.
Agreed, this sites popularity in vocal odd ducks in the Ranger community are on the rise and many good things get asked and debated here.
throughout my years of living in the murder mitten and also having Cali as my home state I've often for decades wondered why the State with the most performance shops in it yet none of the parts are usable in the State with its restrictive "policies" although I know a ton of people in the performance world who will go through the trouble to put a completely worked over vehicle back to stock every 2 years or close to it just to pass smog.
-----
Just to add to Jammans comment of being able to get away with things. Just as a NOTE: When I lived in the Detroit Metro area back in the day. When I was younger in the 80's, residents of Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties (I hear this now consists of 3 more in total Livingston, Lapeer, and... St clair I believe now) they had AET testing.. AKA Smog and when it got around that out of the entire State we were the only 3 counties "required" to do this, the PEOPLE stood up and made themselves heard that we would NO LONGER comply.. Within 4 months legislation was changed and to this day. There is NO SMOG propaganda that exists.
Just as a side NOTE: California Emissions from the manufacturing level EXCEED Current CA emissions standards by almost 3 generations of the Bill's language just to be able to sell cars in California and then some with all of the Carbon Tax credits BS. What I find contradictory of California is a 25 yr old vehicle with the WORST of emissions is excluded from SMOG but your 2 year old zero emissions Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic are "REQUIRED" to be SMOGGED in order to stay compliant with Statutory Codes and policies.
So while the rest of the world slips away from such things America has offered to flog its citizenry with further taxation known as "excise or use" taxes. MMmmmmmm Freedom!
Tsquare wrote:
Emissions would no longer be an issue. Here in GA if you install an engine that was not factory available an exemption is granted for emissions.
Seems to "defeat" having an emissions Statute or clause doesnt it. Just stick something like a simple LS in everything it doesnt belong in and circumvent the whole process? Circular logic working overtime here my friend.
410customs wrote:
I have never ever ever re installed a 3.0
I despise them
2.8, 2.9. 3.0 = boat anchors LOL
We convert 3.0 rangers to:
4.0L OHV with 5 speed
or
5.0L with 4r70w and RWD or 4x4 t case
make the BEST rangers IMO
Sohc 4.0L engines can make some serious power also I am just not a huge fan of their plastic components and timing chain assemblies. Of you go SOHC 4.0 and longevity you get good at pulling and installing your engine often..........after 2002-2004 they were much better. Maintenance is everything with the 4.0l overhead cam
Must run full synthetic
must change oil often
4.0 SOHC...You should change your cam tensioners at 90K miles with Ford parts only!!! Nobody does this and we see 150-250K from these engines. I have seen 400K from the OHV and 5.0L engines without PROBLEM
The output for the 99 V8 Windsor and my 07 SOHC V6 are pretty close. I need to pass vehicle emissions test and be street legal.
You cannot put a 5.0 in your ranger and pass emissions in lower 48
last year of 302 was 2001
2007 ranger you would have to use a triton small block and that complicates things
With that said
the 302 and the 4.0L Sohc make similar power from the factory...but the 302 can make BIG power more easily
start adding bolt ons and it will smoke the 4.0
there is no replacement for displacment
For you I would consider a supercharger and tuning for your 4.0L SOHC engine
You can start with some simple breathing mods CAI and good flowing exhaust, 2.5" single exhaust is good for sohc
Keep your auto trans COOL
4.0L OHV is a stroked 2.9L.. but I certainly agree with all of the plastics BS in the new SOHC. All of it was in the name of making components lighter but then failures seem to be higher. I have to admit in some ways the SOHC actually scares me on survivability and durability based off just what I read on the forums. The OHV engine does run hot but then all Fords I have owned do and why I am huge on keeping any and all under hood temps down from coolant to trans when or if possible.
Eddie Money wrote:
I live in Washington state near seattle and my truck was from California. I use valvoline full syn and change every 5k. It has 130k and really purrs. First thing I did when I got it was add an additional trans cooler.
My biggest problem is finding a good shop to do the work. I'm mechanically inclined but I'm short on time and dont have much experience working on engine internals. I've found a kit from modd box for supercharging. But as far as the V8 swap I've yet to read enough stuff to give me confidence to attempt not have I found anyone I have confidence doing it.
Im finishing siding and windows on my house but once that's done all my fun tickets go to the truck. If anyone has a shop and the expertise I'd be up for arranging the project around this time next year....I'll travel
If you use synthetic and still change your oil at 5000 miles you're wasting money and time. The thought processes for the 3500-5k oil change intervals were based upon OLD engine building materials and designs to replace the zinc coatings on walls and other cylinder components that wore down with use. Which is why THOSE who didnt perform such religious act like oil changes saw MUCH more catastrophic failures in engines, bearings, rods.. etc
The old mentality (generalization) also has stuck in the minds of the newer generations of Service Advisors and of course for the reasons of seeing your smiling shiny face in the service dept more often. i.g. Mercedes Benz, Nissan, BMW, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, and many domestics now ALL come with synthetic oils from the factory. All recommend changing oil at 7500k+ miles with Mercedes Benz using Mobil 1 and there recommended oil change intervals outside of the first 5k is 15,000 miles.
Now, I will say if you use your vehicle to tow or haul things more often than the average guy, You're an aggressive driver, you live in a dusty rural area's, or live some place like Fargo where temps reach - 67* 3 months out of the year. Then yes, 5000-7500 miles makes sense because the oil gets dirtier and with that and more heat breaks down faster, or so its claimed. 2004 the materials and processes in which engines are built no longer requires that constant zinc replacing, even the break in process is different and I've built my share of engines over the years never a failure in any of them. Transmissions and I have had our problems but never an engine. My current original 93' engines is literally 12 miles from 350k in a 4.0L OHV I got it with 180k five years or so ago? maybe pushing six.
the S/C idea is keen but again usage comes to mind as with S/C'ing increased heat indexes are going to and should be expected. Not trying to talk you out of it but boosted situations always bring on more heat, more problems and therefore will require a tad-bit of further planning or thinking long term.
410customs wrote:
You are telling me!!
SBF for the win!!!
All that work and $$$ that went into your 4 banger or 3.0 could have gone towards a nice v8 that will outlast 3 of those other engines
302 GT40 from ATK engines, 370 crank HP
302 was fitted with explorer timing cover, waterpump, damper, and ready to go into a TTB truck
Yes those are torque Monster headers designed for a GT40p into TTB Ranger fitting on Edelbrock aluminum heads......
Despite how beautiful that is, truth of the matter is all in the builder and components. And although I will agree with you again by admitting that there is "NO replacement for displacement" there are a myriad of again Inline 4 and 6 cylinders around the world that not only can smoke V8's all day like a Bad Surgeon general warning. They can do so on the same tank of gas for a week too without weight and feeding penalties. If you were to say it in the realm of "Ford - doesnt offer anything in these engine size platforms really" you'd be at least partially correct.
If it hasnt been done already which admittingly I have not seen it or heard anything yet. If you could squeeze in the 3.5L ECO boost or even the newer Mustang 4cyl Turbo engine in these trucks NOW i'd be pressed hard for arguments and would make a pretty sick project vehicle let alone profitable swapping pkg. I think I could sell those all day.
Chris wrote:
I have been building engines and converting to different engines for many years - not Rangers, but the same basic questions apply.
The first is how do you drive it - no point putting in an engine that needs revs to produce power if you change early and rarely rev above 3000 rpm. Engines with milder specs often produce more power at low rpm than the highly tuned engine.
The second is how much power do you NEED - this may be different from what you would LIKE - and almost certainly different from what the engine tuner will want to sell you!
There is never any substitute for capacity !
And despite unknowns, I luv the way this man thinks at times.
The 302 would ideally bring in power 225 (at flywheel) @ 3200 RPMS earlier on vs 207 (at flywheel) @ 5250 RPMS in the 4.0L SOHC and net him an additional 60ft lbs of tq at the same 3000 RPMS.
The MODD Box at 9.5 PSI will gain the 4.0L Ranger 254hp and 286 ft Lbs TQ with a M90.. Seems a bit Wek` Sos...
If it were me I'd be more interested in slapping the M112 from the 03/04 Cobra on it, up size the fuel rail, and look at some roller rockers with the lift already added into them and get yourself a Piggyback system for tuning and be closer to 300hp. There's availability or always the ability to fab your own if you feel the work you can do is more cost effective than production parts.. Application of the M112 Intake fits 4.0L V6 Ford OHC 97-2010 Explorers and Rangers..
Worse case you could always stick a 2 JZ under there... Sorry had too!
My ONLY argument that I have on the 302 is unless you build it (right), everything but the block is , including down to the freeze plugs. Anyone whose been building 302's since or around the 80's and North of that would easily admit that. So where I would slightly disagree with this is that if you willing to tear down to a bare block and rebuild a 302 as it "should have been" type standards; and when I say that I mean simple like not balls to the wall build. Now you would have my attention but then as always use comes to mind as Chris also points out. Is a V8 really purposeful or is it a toy/noisemaker testicular thing? lol
Bigger is badder doesn't carry enough weight with me, considering there are inline 4's that have touched 7's and 8's and 9's in the quarter mile, Nissan has done well with their 3.5L GTR taking down super cars for years and way before making 2200HP+ but now you're entering into a new arena altogether on multiple levels. Granted we aren't talking about drag trucks or cars but I cant help but think of every ones testicular moments from stop light to stop light as being a item under wasteful more so than performance based or efficient. I would say there is a lot to think about either way you go.
____________________
"Be never first, never last and never noticed." - Unknown
"The slave is held most securely when he is held by the chains of his own will and of his own fears, and when he is locked down by his own slavish desires for a comfortable life." - Michael Bunker
"Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" - ~ attributed to Petronius (Gaius Petronius Arbiter (ca. 27–66 AD))
Roman courtier during the reign of Nero.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine
~ Undrstm8ed Truckumentry Write Up Pg.
~ Undrstm8ed Trailermentry Write Up Pg.
.
|
1 2 
MG power
