302 Carb'd or 5.0EFI? - 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 01-09-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
302 Carb'd or 5.0EFI?

Well, I have been tossing around the idea with my step dad about putting a v-8 in the ranger ever since i got it. Now with the lift and 35's, not sure if the 4.0 is gunna be able to push out enough power. Besides, Its just cool to have a V8:) lol. At first i wasnt sure it was possible, but after going through some of the threads on here, i have found it is, but its ALOT of work.

So, heres my question. My dad said if we do it it should be a Carb'd 302. But, from what i have heard, the newer EFI 5.0(yes i know, same thing as a 302) is better. I have NO IDEA what would make it better.

So, give me some ideas, advice, whatnot. How much work is it really? roughly, how much money am i looking at?

btw, truck is a 2000 xlt 4X4
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-09-2008
5speedin2.3's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Livonia, Mi
Posts: 12
i would find a donor 5.0 explorer and just use everything from it.

do some searching, you will find all of the information you need on the swap.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-09-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5speedin2.3
i would find a donor 5.0 explorer and just use everything from it.

do some searching, you will find all of the information you need on the swap.
Yeah thats what i was thinkin. Which one is better, the Carb'd or EFI engine?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-09-2008
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Always always go EFI if it is an option
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-09-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Yeah. If i can find an explorer donor than ill just swap everything over, but its finding one thats the prob.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-09-2008
5speedin2.3's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Livonia, Mi
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by God,Country,FORD
Yeah thats what i was thinkin. Which one is better, the Carb'd or EFI engine?
im not sure, i would rather have fuel injection and obd2.
less stuff you have to worry about, and you still get to use your stock instrument cluster (check engine light, etc).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-09-2008
5speedin2.3's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Livonia, Mi
Posts: 12
look on www.craigslist.org and if that doesn't turn up anything, check on www.car-part.com for explorers with a 5.0 engine, then pull everything you will need.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-09-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
didnt even think about that. Lol.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-09-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
http://omaha.craigslist.org/pts/510951853.html

what do you tihnk bout that/ just a bit bigger than a 302 lol
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-09-2008
DerangedPony's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Berlin, WI
Posts: 351
351W is the same block as the 302 so that would also fit. If I was doing a V8 swap, I would do a carb and a bored out 351w or carb on a roller rocker 5.0. I ran an efi 347 in a mustang and I rather have the ease of a carb any day. Let’s compare pros and cons of card vs. efi:

Pro efi:
- will not flood while on angle
- easy start up in winter
- lots of tuning options with correct equipment
- better mpg on avg.
Cons efi:
- harder to install
- set-up more expensive
- need expensive equipment to tune
- more parts to brake
- harder to diagnosis problem
- limited performance options on explorer 5.0
- limited engine options

Pros carb:
- much cheaper
- many performance bolt-ons
- more engine choices (302, 351w, roller 302)
- very easy to tune
- cleaner engine bay with less wires
con carb:
- may flood
- harder to start in cold
- mpg may be lower


If you really had money, you could buy one of those efi kits that replace the carb and has its own computer and then have the best of both worlds…lol. Idk, for our Rangers, I would take a carb set-up over a explorer 5.0 any day.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-09-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerangedPony
351W is the same block as the 302 so that would also fit. If I was doing a V8 swap, I would do a carb and a bored out 351w or carb on a roller rocker 5.0. I ran an efi 347 in a mustang and I rather have the ease of a carb any day. Let’s compare pros and cons of card vs. efi:

Pro efi:
- will not flood while on angle
- easy start up in winter
- lots of tuning options with correct equipment
- better mpg on avg.
Cons efi:
- harder to install
- set-up more expensive
- need expensive equipment to tune
- more parts to brake
- harder to diagnosis problem
- limited performance options on explorer 5.0
- limited engine options

Pros carb:
- much cheaper
- many performance bolt-ons
- more engine choices (302, 351w, roller 302)
- very easy to tune
- cleaner engine bay with less wires
con carb:
- may flood
- harder to start in cold
- mpg may be lower


If you really had money, you could buy one of those efi kits that replace the carb and has its own computer and then have the best of both worlds…lol. Idk, for our Rangers, I would take a carb set-up over a explorer 5.0 any day.

Yeah, I know i love the sound of the carb'd 302! ITs AWSOME. and i love the clean look of the engine bay.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-09-2008
5speedin2.3's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Livonia, Mi
Posts: 12
but then he would have to figure out how to make his instrument cluster work.

im talking, speedo, tach.. everything..

i would rather have my truck be a reliable daily driver then save money and go with a carb.

dropping a 351 with a carb would be great if he had a 94 and earlier (pre obd2) ranger, but being that he has a 2000, it would be a lot more work.

stick with the oem explorer setup.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-09-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
tooo many choices lol. Whats the power output of the explorer?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-09-2008
5speedin2.3's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Livonia, Mi
Posts: 12
4,950 cc 5 liters 8 V engine with 101.6 mm bore, 76.2 mm stroke, 9.1 compression ratio, overhead valve and two valves per cylinder.
-
Fuel economy EPA highway (l/100km): 12.4
-
Power: 160 kW , 215 HP @ 4,200 rpm; 288 ft lb , 390 Nm @ 3,300 rpm


if you go with the headers like bob used, it will free up a crap load of power.
you can't use long tube headers because of the limited space, but the stock manifolds on the explorer 5.0 are garbage.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-09-2008
5speedin2.3's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Livonia, Mi
Posts: 12
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-09-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5speedin2.3
4,950 cc 5 liters 8 V engine with 101.6 mm bore, 76.2 mm stroke, 9.1 compression ratio, overhead valve and two valves per cylinder.
-
Fuel economy EPA highway (l/100km): 12.4
-
Power: 160 kW , 215 HP @ 4,200 rpm; 288 ft lb , 390 Nm @ 3,300 rpm


if you go with the headers like bob used, it will free up a crap load of power.
you can't use long tube headers because of the limited space, but the stock manifolds on the explorer 5.0 are garbage.
thats a **** load more than the 4.0 lol.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-09-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
thats the main one that made me really want to do the swap
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-09-2008
casfz1's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: southgate, mi
Posts: 1,989
If you use you truck fore more then a pavement pounder then I would go with EFI.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-09-2008
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,835
302 vs. 351W

First, the 351W block has a 1.3" taller deck height than the 302, making it both taller and wider. You will have clearance issues especially on the passenger side.

Second, the 302 Explorer FEAD is much more compact than the stock 351W FEAD because it is designed to fit a Ranger sized engine bay. Using the 351W FEAD would make the engine longer right at the front where there is no room.

Like anything else, a 351 swap could be done but would it be more work.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-09-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canon City, CO
Posts: 27
If you plan on wheeling the truck in any kind of off-camber situations go for the EFI(trust me on this). The 351 will fit, but it is taller and wider(the deck). Headers/exhaust becomes a problem. Mounts are the same and you need the same oil filter relocator kit with the 90 degree adapter(to clear the steerin box, at least on the 84's you need one). I have a VooDoo cam in the 302 thats in my 84 right now and its a 351 profile cam(the truck growls). Study up on the swap, as they are time consuming. Keep us posted.....
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-09-2008
5speedin2.3's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Livonia, Mi
Posts: 12
they changed the ranger in 98, its almost impossible to squeeze a 302 in it as is, i would hate to see how tight it is with a 351.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-10-2008
chriswells78's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Powell, OH
Posts: 45
All of the advise given here is good. I didn't do a swap per say so much as a 1 for 1 with a 98 motor and tranny in my 96

A carbed swap may seem easier and cheaper but like any project, take what you estimate as what it is going to cost you and tripple it. If you go carb, you have to completely do away with all functions of OBD, switch your tranny to a non OBD auto or a manual. Preferably one with a speedo gear in it so you can drive an aftermarket speedo. You can completely replace your insturment cluster with aftermarket gauges but it just adds to the complexity. You will also need to run a non EFI fuel pump and get a gas gauge sender that works with an aftermarket gauge.

My suggestion would be to find a rolled 98+ sploder doner or a non-runner on craigslist. Also try calling insurance companies and asking them if they have any in "inventory." I bought my rolled Mountaineer back from my insurance company for $850 so that I could use it as a doner for my 96.

The wiring for the OBD2 on an explorer isn't that bad. There are 5 main sensors that make things work. Cranshaft and Camshaft position sensors, MAF, TPS and Upstream O2 sensors. If you do a 1 for 1 swap of all the nescessary components, you won't have to do any tweaking of the PCM. It is when you start swappong things like fuel injectors and MAF's that you will need tuning.

One thing that you will have to be mindful of is the PATS system. You MUST swap all PATS components or delete/bypass them through tuning. This would not be nescessary if you were to find a 96-97 doner.

I'm not sure where the speed sensor is on your ranger, but on a 96-97 explorer, it is in the back of the transfer case. On a 98+ explorer it is in the rear housing. Therefore, if you use a 96-97 you can get away with just switching the tranny wiring harness. A 98 + would require you to to run speed sensor wires to the rear or possibly even require you to swap out the rear.

One more difference is the fuel canister crap. You will need to either use that from your ranger, swap it from your doner or delete it through tuning if you use a 98+.

I did a lot of this research myself about this before I bought my the Mountaineer I had and decided it would just be easier to go with one that came OEM with a V8. :)

Good luck.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-10-2008
God,Country,FORD's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Red Oak, IA
Posts: 2,468
Thanks for all the help and info guys. It seems like alot of work, but it also seems everyone that has done it says its worth it.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-10-2008
DerangedPony's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Berlin, WI
Posts: 351
ok, A 351W for be hard to make it work, but it could fit. They even made a Lighting's 5.4 fit in a Ranger which is much bigger (wider) but you'll be doing a lot of fab work.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-10-2008
chriswells78's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Powell, OH
Posts: 45
Yup, I've even seen 460's wedged into Rangers. It all takes time, money and innovation. The bigger you go, the more of each you will need.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
P300-302-302 mmisk 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 29 05-04-2015 10:47 AM
5.0efi to carb swap rangerwheelinmike 8-Cylinder Tech 8 03-05-2012 09:11 PM
Want to Trade: Holley 500 CFM Carb for Holley 350 CFM Carb Snow Wolf Engine & Drivetrain 3 03-01-2010 03:35 AM
302 V8 No Carb or Tranny OH Hitch Engine & Drivetrain 10 04-02-2009 06:20 AM
carb ? Snow Wolf 2.3L & 2.5L I4 Tech 1 09-24-2008 10:36 AM


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 03:10 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.