289 V8 in 96 Ranger - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


8-Cylinder Tech If you are one of the few with a V8 engine in your Ranger, or if you dream of a Ranger with a V8 engine, this is the sub-forum for you.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 09-29-2007
USMCWHITENER's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Posts: 241
289 V8 in 96 Ranger

well I was talking with my brother today...i think we may try and make my 1996 Ranger a V8 project....we are thinking about putting a 289 V8 in it and put a 5 spd in to back it.......anyone got pics of this in a 93 or newer? i'd like to keep my AC and stuff....will this be possbile?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-29-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
Terry, I don't think I have ever seen a 289 swap done, 99 percent of the time its a 302. This should be interesting...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-29-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,831
A carbureted 289 will go in just as easily as a carbureted 302. A/C can be retained but will probably require parts and/or fabrication to match up the old with the new.

Here are some links for V8 conversions on 97-back Rangers:

http://www.jamesduff.com/broncoII/v8conversion.html
http://www.harwoodperformance.bizland.com/
http://72.20.96.178/commerce/ccc1010...-bronco-ii.htm
http://www.rangerpowersports.com/for...play.php?f=159
http://www.v8-ranger.com/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-29-2007
USMCWHITENER's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Posts: 241
well we are leaning more into a EFI 289 V8...if i have the facts right....the efi 289 will have more throttle and a carb. 289 will have alot more power....so if i go with a efi then i dont have to worry about that extra power as if i go with an carb. 289. Also if i go with EFI 289...dont have to worry about them cold days with an carb.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-29-2007
mazda98's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: dalton,ga.
Posts: 550
definetly different,sounds like it is going to be a good project.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-10-2009
blueranger06's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lake Worth, FL
Posts: 246
Just wanted to say good luck Terry. I'm going to do the same project. Found a 289 carbureted 300+ hp for 1500 bucks. I'm gonna post some pics on my profile of it. I hope it doesn't disappear before I get down there. I'll add you so we can share info.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-10-2009
05prerunner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Apison, TN
Posts: 483
If you do a EFI 289, that will be cool most definitely! However, depending on which FI set-up you use, you may want to swap over to a 351W cam. Most, if not all, of the Sequential Port systems use the 351 firing order. The engine will run if you use SPFI and a 289/302 style cam, but it won't be as efficient because fuel will puddle on top of the valve before entering the combustion chamber. However, I do believe that all of the non-HO engines used the 289/302 firing order, so if you use that system you will be fine, but power will be less.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-01-2010
cheese_man's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: arthur
Posts: 2,100
yes
basically a 302 engine is a bored and stroked 289 block
use the 289 block / heads / camshaft / timing chain / intake/
but use the 302 crankshaft and connecting rods
you will build yourself a torque monster

if you want a stick shift ,, use the NEW VENTURE 5600 heavy duty 5 speed
( no other 5 speed stick shift tranny can handle that amount of torque that engine will put out )
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-01-2010
cheese_man's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: arthur
Posts: 2,100
oh i forgot to mention that /// that is the stick tranny chrysler uses behind their 6.5 litre cummins diesel
pick-up trucks
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-01-2010
Ranger_Envy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Newton, Ks
Posts: 845
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheese_man View Post
yes
basically a 302 engine is a bored and stroked 289 block
use the 289 block / heads / camshaft / timing chain / intake/
but use the 302 crankshaft and connecting rods
you will build yourself a torque monster

if you want a stick shift ,, use the NEW VENTURE 5600 heavy duty 5 speed
( no other 5 speed stick shift tranny can handle that amount of torque that engine will put out )
Why would you take a 289 and slap in a 302 rotating assembly? You're not going to gain anything over a standard 302.
Is the 289 free? Why not just go with a 5.0. You get a few extra cubes, a roller block, and the correct firing order cam. I could see doing something like this if you were going to do something really off the wall like a 351C or Boss 302 then it would be neat but no one will really know that its a 289 unless you tell them. A 289 isn't anything special, they still have the same crappy SBF heads so it won't be making anymore power than any other base 302. If you do decide to go with a 289 make sure you get a later version with a 6 bolt bellhousing setup not a 5 bolt.

Last edited by Ranger_Envy; 01-01-2010 at 12:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-01-2010
cheese_man's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: arthur
Posts: 2,100
using a 289 block with the 302 crank and connecting rods
will yield more torque output than a stock 302 would

basically you build a stump puller of an engine
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-01-2010
07Sport4x4's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Vernon, WA
Posts: 83
A 289 is a 4" bore / 2.87" stroke. A 302 / 5.0L is a 4" bore / 3.00" stroke.
Putting a 302 crank in a 289 block still only yields a 302. Exactly the same power output as regular 302 / 5.0L given the same compression/heads/cam/fuel system/etc.
Just know that you're not increasing the displacement at all with a 302 crank in a 289 block when compared to a regular 302 / 5.0L and therefore also, no increase in power output.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-08-2010
Scrambler82's Avatar
Old Guy User… ltr
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCWHITENER View Post
well I was talking with my brother today...i think we may try and make my 1996 Ranger a V8 project....we are thinking about putting a 289 V8 in it and put a 5 spd in to back it.......anyone got pics of this in a 93 or newer? i'd like to keep my AC and stuff....will this be possbile?
I was thinking of the same thing, take the 5.0L and add an aftermarket 289 CI/2.87 Stroke Crank and then add a longer connecting Rod; after mkt rods something a little longer than the 289 HP Engine.
What will this give you ? Well an engine with a little longer Piston Dwell at the top and bottom of the stroke creating more torque on the low end and a little more HP on the top end.
If you run the 5.0L EFI Cam you will have the correct firing order and a higher RPM/Torque Spec Cam, might be good, sort of like having a 289 with a higher end cam.
Also the EFI on the 289 will help with a more even flat torque curve, comes in earlier and stays the same.
The actual transplant shouldn’t be any different than the 302 setup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCWHITENER View Post
well we are leaning more into a EFI 289 V8...if i have the facts right....the efi 289 will have more throttle and a carb. 289 will have alot more power....so if i go with a efi then i dont have to worry about that extra power as if i go with an carb. 289. Also if i go with EFI 289...dont have to worry about them cold days with an carb.
I don’t believe if both engines are left stock that the 289 will make more power, just do the numbers and the 302 should be more capable.
The EFI will increase the power for both motors equally.
The Headers/Exhaust, if using a 1.5” or larger header/exhaust tube then the 302 will gain more from the larger ID BUT that will depend on heads/cam/Intake used.
Oh ya, DON’T port and polish the heads if you intend to use this as a daily driver/off roader, the gains will be minimum and believe it or not you could lose.

A lot to think about but it should be a good setup and I am still looking for the right engine to start with.
Remember this is IMHO, only !
ltr/Luck,
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-08-2010
cheese_man's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: arthur
Posts: 2,100
the 289`s combustion chamber should be slightly smaller

with a carb ,, it will yield more ooomph

( same air/fuel amount -smaller chamber - more ooomph
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-08-2010
Ranger_Envy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Newton, Ks
Posts: 845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrambler82 View Post
Oh ya, DON’T port and polish the heads if you intend to use this as a daily driver/off roader, the gains will be minimum and believe it or not you could lose.
I don't believe correctly porting stock SBF heads will ever hurt street performance/off road use. The stock castings are so terrible that you really can't do any more damage to them than already done. If you look the GT40 head is just a revised (with big ports) SBF head it does fine in explorers and 5.0 Cobra mustangs. You can run into problems if you get the overall port volume too large for its intended use, for example, If you're running like 220CC+ runners on a more or less stock 5.0 engine that probably won't be benefitial for the street.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-08-2010
Scrambler82's Avatar
Old Guy User… ltr
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger_Envy View Post
I don't believe correctly porting stock SBF heads will ever hurt street performance/off road use. The stock castings are so terrible that you really can't do any more damage to them than already done. If you look the GT40 head is just a revised (with big ports) SBF head it does fine in explorers and 5.0 Cobra mustangs. You can run into problems if you get the overall port volume too large for its intended use, for example, If you're running like 220CC+ runners on a more or less stock 5.0 engine that probably won't be benefitial for the street.
Agreed, that the older Ford Heads were bad and that almost anything would help some, porting maybe a little, polishing none.
Polishing smooths out the posts, reducing turbulent flow, allowing the air/fuel mixture to separate some and in turn reducing the combustion efficiency while unpolished ports will have turbulent flow and keep the air/fuel mixture mixed resulting in a better BOOM in the chamber.

Also, cheese_man, the quenched chamber of some of the 289 head were better than other but not all.

USMCWHITENER,
If you want a little more efficiency consider a set of the newer Explorer Heads or if you can find them a set of 351W Heads.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
289 V8 Swap 1988-Ranger 8-Cylinder Tech 2 09-21-2014 05:28 PM
289 in a Ranger spect8r New Ideas 4 09-11-2010 10:05 AM
289, 302 or 351 ? countryboy fx4 8-Cylinder Tech 38 04-25-2008 02:28 PM
Rancho RS9000X 4 shocks, remote, free shipping - $289.99 TBarCYa Suspension Tech 35 02-05-2005 04:56 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:49 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.