Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > Vehicle Specific > Domestic Cars
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-18-2005, 04:31 AM   #1
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
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?
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 05:59 AM   #2
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99integra
....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?

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
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 06:29 AM   #3
Bino
Written Off
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, Oregon, USA
Posts: 844
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.
__________________
Build 'em Light and Wind 'em Tight.
Bino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 01:58 PM   #4
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
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
God you are a perfectionist
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 01:59 PM   #5
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bino
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.
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?
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 05:58 PM   #6
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99integra
God you are a perfectionist

Just like to point that out a lot whenever I see "Ford 5.0" in the same sentence.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 07:11 PM   #7
Oomba
Banned
 
Oomba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
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

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?
Oomba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 07:35 PM   #8
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oomba
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?

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.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 07:36 PM   #9
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
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.
Wouldn't it round to 5.0????
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 08:16 PM   #10
dodger65
I know more than Wally...
 
dodger65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.S. - Midwest
Posts: 2,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99integra
Wouldn't it round to 5.0????

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...
__________________
"Everyone is someone else's weirdo"

dodger65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 08:38 PM   #11
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
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?
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 08:38 PM   #12
Oomba
Banned
 
Oomba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
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.

4.949 rounds to 4.95, which could be rounded to 5.0.
Oomba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2005, 08:54 PM   #13
dodger65
I know more than Wally...
 
dodger65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.S. - Midwest
Posts: 2,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99integra
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?

yup.... 3.42 and 3.73 sound high until you consider the od trans...
__________________
"Everyone is someone else's weirdo"

dodger65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2005, 12:14 AM   #14
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodger65
yup.... 3.42 and 3.73 sound high until you consider the od trans...
So you funna tell me the gas mileage in the city I could expect
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2005, 01:16 AM   #15
dodger65
I know more than Wally...
 
dodger65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.S. - Midwest
Posts: 2,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99integra
So you funna tell me the gas mileage in the city I could expect

offhand--- couldn't tell ya.... but it's got a lot to do w/ how heavy your right foot is....
__________________
"Everyone is someone else's weirdo"

dodger65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.