Okay...

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  Okay...

....I am thinking of putting a 302 (a 5.0 for you slow people) into my Ranger and I am contemplating the results. For one, will there be any modifications to the engine bay to hold this lil beast? Also would I have to change the gearing or anything like that or buy a transmission that can hold this power? And last but not least will this still screw me over gas mileage wise if I put in a lower set of gears in it?

posted by  99integra

I dont know anything about shoehorning it in a Ranger....but I would just like to note that the Ford 302 was in fact only 4.9L (4.949...L) and not 5.0L like it was badged by everyone (including Ford)...kind of funny, false advertising for decades... The GM 305 was in fact 5.0L though :thumbs:

posted by  thunderbird1100

It can be done and I don't think it's that difficult. My buddy had a 351 Lightning motor in a '91 Ranger. He used to have a website that had some pics of it, but I can't find the link.

Fitting the 351 required a very tricky set of headers and the engine didn't quite sit straight in the engine compartment, but it fit... and it was fast.

Good luck.

posted by  Bino

God you are a perfectionist :doh: :laughing:

posted by  99integra

Should I note that it has the 2.3 liter I4 in it right now and not the 3.0 so would that make the engine bay a little smaller?

posted by  99integra

Just like to point that out a lot whenever I see "Ford 5.0" in the same sentence.

posted by  thunderbird1100

You're bitching over .051 liters? Most people round when you get to that small of numbers anyway. Can you imagine a car badged 4.949?

posted by  Oomba

Wow, that went WAY over your fat head.

I was just pointing out something, for a fun fact. When you round in cars displacement you round to the nearest tenth liter which means 4.94 rounds to 4.9L. :thumbs:

posted by  thunderbird1100

Wouldn't it round to 5.0????

posted by  99integra

nah, b/c then you'd round a 5.7 chevy up to 6.0l....

the engine bay is going to be the same size, regardless of what engine it has in it now... as far as the tranny holding up, don't sweat it, b/c you're going to need a different tranny anyway. best bet would be to get an OD trans from a 5.0 (oops, i mean 4.9) mustang, unless there's a more stout ford OD trans for it--- any ford folks wanna help w/ that? chrisv? the rear end, you'll probably want to change the gear ratio in. w/ an OD trans, about a 3.50 gear is pretty reasonable, as is a 3.73 gear. i think that is probably a bridge you will cross when you get there. check the local auto/parts trader publications, there are usually parts for sale from aborted swaps (ran out of money, divorce, wrecked the truck, etc.) and you may either find a ranger rear w/ the ratio you want or maybe a ford 9" or mustang 8.8 that someone set up for a ranger and then gave up on the truck... a weak rear end would usually be a really bad thing, but in a small p/u, you're going to be hard pressed to get enough traction to actually break it...

posted by  dodger65

A 3:73 seems kinda high, I want to get atleast 18 MPG in the city, my grandpa had a 93 mustang GT with stock gears and got that. Would a Mustangs tranny fit in it?

posted by  99integra

4.949 rounds to 4.95, which could be rounded to 5.0.

posted by  Oomba

yup.... 3.42 and 3.73 sound high until you consider the od trans...

posted by  dodger65

So you funna tell me the gas mileage in the city I could expect :wink2:

posted by  99integra

offhand--- couldn't tell ya.... but it's got a lot to do w/ how heavy your right foot is.... :laughing: :laughing: :wink2:

posted by  dodger65

So, they rounded it. Who cares :laughing:

This is a good idea Steven. There wouldnt be any modifications that would have to be done to the engine bay, just new engine mounts. As for the transmission, you would have to change it. Just take one out of a Mustang 5.0L. Simple. As for gears, go 3.73. And of course gas mileage is going to be bad :laughing:

posted by  SlipKnoT

18 in the city is pretty dammed good but I don't know the stock gears the 93 GT came with so.....If someone could tell me... :laughing:

posted by  99integra

I think they came with 3.73s...or maybe that was a 3.43...Im not sure.

posted by  SlipKnoT

Then why you say they got bad gas mileage?

posted by  99integra

Well, just my dads. :laughing:

posted by  SlipKnoT

Ah, what kind of gas mileage does he get

posted by  99integra

Ok, well the 1993 Mustangs are said to get 17/24 mpg (city/highway), or 15.3 city for standard transmission. As far as i've seen, most 5.0L Mustangs of that time were stock with 3.73 rear gears.

posted by  car_crazy89

Wow, you need to go back to 2nd grade math. My girlfriends little brother did math like that years ago, and he is 10 now (although he rounded CORRECTLY).

You dont round TWICE. You ALWAYS round once (to the SPECIFIED PLACE). I hope you have never had a math class in your life, because with that comment you sure are ignorant to the most basic crap in math. You'd never survive any Chemistry or Physics class for that matter too. According to you the Earth's gravitational pull isnt 9.81 m/s^2 but it would round to 9.8 m/s^2... Which there is reason why you should almost always go only to the hundredths place (maybe one day when you grow up and get in a Physics class you'll know). Car displacement (in the metric standard) was always rounded to ONLY the tenths place, that means you ONLY look at the hundredths place to determine what the tenths place should be.

EX.

4.949 = 4.9L (the thousandths place 9 doesnt even matter when rounding to the tenths place)
4.942 = 4.9L (again the thousandth place doesnt matter as when rounding to the tenths place you only look at the HUNDREDTHS place).

Please - GO TO A BASIC MATH CLASS -> THINK -> REASON -> TYPE -> THEN SUBMIT.

mmkkkk? :thumbs:

posted by  thunderbird1100

You two take this over somewhere else because I don't want this thread taken over by a damn flame war :banghead:

posted by  99integra

This is not a flame war, I was just correcting one thing he is ignorant on. nothing new with Oomba.

posted by  thunderbird1100

But you know him, he will have one of those ignorant retorts that will throw you over the edge :wink2:

posted by  99integra

I rarely if ever have been thrown over the edge here. I'm pretty content and laid back. But I like correcting ignorant asses :thumbs: What else can I say.

posted by  thunderbird1100

...........Back to the topic are you gonna do it? I would :hi:

posted by  Pythias

See I will soon, I just have to think of the prices of gas by the time I do it (maybe a year)

posted by  99integra

Your Message