any predictions? - 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 03-02-2007
rdy4mud's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Howell, NJ
Posts: 252
any predictions?

i have a 91' ranger short bed standard cab im doing a 351w swap on. the motor is a 86' h.o according to carfax. I have a FRPP F303 cam, im planning on roller rockers, and new valvetrain on the stock heads. Along with headers and exhaust, intake and carb. Supposly the motor stock has around 300hp so with a nice rebuild and the slight mods backed by a heavy duty T-5. im wondering what kind of numbers she'll put down in the 1/4 mile. (if i get traction lol).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-06-2007
D.
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
My prediction.. 15 flat.

Bone stock, the highest rated 351W was from the lightning. 235hp. It was later revamped for ( I believe ) 285hp.

I just read your profile.. Your a 4x4.. You MIGHT hit a 15.5 .
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-06-2007
texasbullseye89's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Huntsville, Tx
Posts: 827
He's droppin it in a different truck D. I'd say somewhere around 15 as well. Good luck shoehorning the thing in.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-06-2007
0RangerEdge2's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,593
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-06-2007
l2en's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 4,521
Quote:
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.
http://www.rangerpowersports.com/for...d.php?t=187435
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-06-2007
0RangerEdge2's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,593
Gotcha. Ok well 15 sounds reasonable.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-06-2007
D.
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
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 :)

Last edited by D.; 03-06-2007 at 08:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-08-2007
rdy4mud's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Howell, NJ
Posts: 252
maybe its not a good idea? i have the motor and tranny but both i planned on rebuilding. what would be a more efficent way of getting power out of it? a 4cyl turbo? like an svo? or maybe a 6cyl supercharged?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-09-2007
D.
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
If your going for anything more then say.. 275hp and the same with torque.. Your not going to plant that power without some work on your rear suspension. Having the power is great, getting it to hook up is even better.

If you look on that rps link.. the biggest complaint is everyones 60foot time. Not too many people hitting below 2.0 flat. Some of those folks even ran on slicks.

You can add ladder bars or stiffer leafs.. a panhard rod will help, but a 4 link with adjustable coils would be where I would invest first, then the power levels to use it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any word on whipple or Any other Brands? j18willis Forced Induction & N20 Tech 2 10-08-2006 09:38 PM
Error message on any page TremorJon Ranger-Forums Office 16 06-11-2004 01:21 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 02:35 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.