Originally Posted by 0RangerEdge2
Why only 15? Just limited to traction or you don't think it'll make the power he is imagining? I don't know but I want to guess low 14's.
I had an 84 reg cab ranger. 4speed stick, 2.0L 4 banger. It sat for over a decade, unstarted in a garage. The engine was.. It didnt start when I put the keys in it and a a fresh battery.
Out with the 4 banger, in with a 302 ( all engines were carbed ) .
302 with an Edelbrock performer rpm manifold and a 1406 600cfm carb, Pirelli tires on the factory 7.5inch rear wound up with a wasted axle and miserable 10second 8th mile times, traction issues all over.
New axle ( 9inch ), a set of welds and BFG 10.5 DOT's brought high 9s. A cam brought it down to 9.55 . A shot of juick landed a 8.99 and a broken bottom end and a wasted PA C4 and a black flag ( no cage )
In with a 408 stroked windsor and Edelbrock heads. 9.20's traction limited. Twisted rear leafs constantly ( mind everyone this was a ' while on leave ' project in the mid 90's ) and just wouldn't hook. Too much torque for leafs with no weight in the vehical.
Sold the windsor as the truck was in Buffalo and I was in the U.K. . Came home one weekend and there was a 289 Leaded motor from a 2+2 Hipo in the garage with a Liberty 5 Speed ( already bolted up to the engine! ) sitting on a crate. It ran a 9.10 ( ita a very high rpm motor and its torque curve didnt kick in till it wound up! No more launching problems ). On the bottle with re-done heads ( hardened seats as there was no leaded fuel available anymore ) it ran solid 8.80's.
Rangers need to have teh rear suspension done properly in order to handle the excessive torque levels. Its not like a unibody car where the weight transfer from front to back can shift good with a set of struts up front ( 90/10 drag shocks and such ). Even a 4 link will have issues as theres no weight over the tires themselves. You can ' rake ' the vehical so the front sits higher then the back, but it looks like spanked **** ( Mine was setup like this for a while.. it looks stupid ).
The SB Ford engine has good grunt down low. 300 Pound feel at 2500rpm's is a mild build. An SOHC 4.0 has 237 from the factory and can spin the tires all day long.. toss on another 75-100lb/ft.. and your traction is hurting, even on drag radials or a biased- ply tire.
The weight difference in the engines also hurts, not to mention going to a solid transmission that will be strong enough to last through a few good beatings. When one starts building weight, it adversly effects all your power gains.
On average, 100lbs = one tenth of a second in a quarter mile time ( er.. thats the ' theorhetical ' equasion ) . One could EASILY gain 500lbs swapping from a sohc to a v8. Thats a half second difference in weight additive.
I believe with the 289 ( making me remember back 10 years here.. ) and that HEAVY transmission, my 84 weighed 3700lbs? It was 2wd and a reg-cab. I presently weigh 3300ish with an extended cab and 2wd with a SOHC v6.
I think my current truck is faster then the 302 and 351w ever were. Not as fast as that 289 hitting 9grand on the Tac tho :)