5.0 vs LS1 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Ford Ranger Discussion General discussion of the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 01-30-2008
94greenmachine's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 553
5.0 vs LS1

So, I am leaning more towards an LS1, NV4500, and BW1350. But as we all know, the 5.0 is a direct swap in from a donor explorer. HOWEVER!!!!! An LS1 has more power, lighter, and gets MUCH better gas mileage, and the torque would be killer!

Not to mention I want my truck to be unique, and mine.

What do you guys (and gals) say?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-30-2008
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
Your gonna get some guys that are gonna think your crazy for wanting to put a Chevy engine in a Ford truck but I say go for it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-30-2008
redranger4.0's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94greenmachine View Post
So, I am leaning more towards an LS1, NV4500, and BW1350. But as we all know, the 5.0 is a direct swap in from a donor explorer. HOWEVER!!!!! An LS1 has more power, lighter, and gets MUCH better gas mileage, and the torque would be killer!

Not to mention I want my truck to be unique, and mine.

What do you guys (and gals) say?
1350 tcase is a b2/early ranger case, not going to stand up to a ls1 and it would be a ***** to mate to the nv4500.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-30-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 886
LS1 would be a PITA to do, alot of down time too. LS1 would be faster overall, but I HIGHLY doubt all the work it would take would be worth it. If you did a 5.0 youd have a fast truck quicker, and they are very easy to make power with.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-30-2008
94greenmachine's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 553
a stock 5.0 in a GT mustang, or a Explorer only had around 215 HP.... so, I would say that all the V8 swap work for 60-70 HP..... I might as well do Heads, Cam, and Intake work on my 4.0L.... found a place that guarantees their setup for an extra 120 HP and 130 ft. lbs.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-30-2008
02rangermayhem's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: C.Springs
Posts: 573
what place is this and how much did they quote u for?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-30-2008
94greenmachine's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 553
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-30-2008
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Go LS engine. I seriously want to do this for my next project. I think even D. has toyed with the idea. I am going LS6 in my impala. I've done a lot of research on this swap and I think it would probably fit better in a ranger than a lot of GM cars. If you want to run AC it might be a problem as the tightest accessory drive even has the AC down on the lower passenger side. Right now most the guys doing this swap clearance the frame rails, but I am cooking up a solution using a space saving AC pump made for a hot rod. The LS based engine IMO is the pinnacle of automotive achievement. 6 bolt mains, 90MM TB's pushrod engine Etc. Hell you can by a LQ4 (LS based motor, just cast iron block instead of aluminum) out of a junkyard for a few hundred dollars. With a cam and intake swap and few other tweaks be pushing 400 HP for thousands less than any ford engine will do. Great motors. I would love to have my old 88 ranger 4x2 with a built LSx and a t-56. that would be the perfect truck for me.

Name:  LS2005.jpg
Views: 1189
Size:  100.0 KB

Name:  LS2016.jpg
Views: 1324
Size:  126.5 KB

Here is the clearance problem with the AC

BTW this is what it looked like when it was done:
Name:  S7000103.jpg
Views: 1319
Size:  107.2 KB


^ = Hotness!
~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-30-2008
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721
LS1, hands down, takes the cake.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-30-2008
Austin1's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Athens, Ohio
Posts: 359
LS1 would be awesome!!
Do an LT1 swap instead tho lol. Makes more torque.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-30-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gettysburg
Posts: 16
LT1 is a ******* nightmare, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-30-2008
redranger4.0's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Firey depths
Posts: 15
yea an LS1 is a much better engine then the LT1.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-31-2008
karrbass4life's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 3,072
Ls7? Ls3?

Any LS will own the 5.0, but it's a chevy and im not a fan of swapping in the enemies products.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-31-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
If you want to be different...

Build a race prepped 4.0L and go turbo. Have some custom girdles made for the bottom end and the heads. It may take a special valve cover to clear it all.. but you'd be different and make more power than either a stock 5.0L ford or the LS1 chevy.


Rich
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-31-2008
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
LS1, no comparison... Stock to stock, the power output is leaps and bounds above the 5.0.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-31-2008
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Neither, go with a EJ257 engine. Just as much torque, and horsepower with a lower center of gravity and much better fuel mileage. This engine is a Boxer Arranged 4-Cylinder with a lower center of gravity and much lighter than a V8. Subaru Boxer engines are mounted north-south just as the motors in our trucks. These new turbo's have extremely low lag and this means when you do not need power the engine does not use very much feul (because your not using your turbo to boost) At 14 lbs boost (stock boost on this motor) the stock rods, pistons and crank are forged so the turbo can be boosted to 20psi without problems. (400+whp and ftlbs torque)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-31-2008
timpat92855's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Lousiville, MS
Posts: 1,067
best power over all...ls...better fun factor...a 3 rotor rotary engine...pp port it and 3 mm apex seals, let the beast rev to 10000 rpm all day long...No pistons baby!!!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-31-2008
Rooks's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,867
Haha... this thread is full of new ideas.

The only issues I see with the rotary engine and Jp7's EJ257 engine are how available they are, and how available and cheap aftermarket are for those engines.

5.0 and LS engines are easy to come by with plenty of aftermarket. Personally I'd love to see an LS Ranger. I'm not brand loyal to the point where I would say an LS engine is bad. Quite the opposite.

All depends on how much work you want to do I guess. I mean like you said. Either way it's going to be work.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-31-2008
01xltranger4x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 3,200
Why not do a bore/stroked out 5.0 to a 347 with a set of high flowing after market heads? N/A you can easily put down 400 horses to the ground and much more torque. Imagine a supercharger on top of that too?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-31-2008
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01xltranger4x4 View Post
Why not do a bore/stroked out 5.0 to a 347 with a set of high flowing after market heads? N/A you can easily put down 400 horses to the ground and much more torque. Imagine a supercharger on top of that too?
because gas is already 3$+ - big displacement = always pulling in alot of fuel. Low displacement with big turbo = low fuel use when in vacuum, and big fuel use when the turbo spools up. Not to mention less moving parts in a smaller motor without pushrods, and less weight.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-31-2008
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
^^No offense, but no one is going to downgrade the size of the motor in their truck, even if it is more powerful...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-31-2008
01xltranger4x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 3,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
because gas is already 3$+ - big displacement = always pulling in alot of fuel. Low displacement with big turbo = low fuel use when in vacuum, and big fuel use when the turbo spools up. Not to mention less moving parts in a smaller motor without pushrods, and less weight.
If your concerned with mileage, they why are you even considering a v8 swap? Big displacement doesn't mean bad mileage either.

Stroking an engine = higher piston speed = better fuel economy, given all else is the same. You can also think of it as using the same amount of force on a longer wrench, you get more leverage with a longer stroke.

EDIT: the other guy was looking for the v8 swap, not you...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-31-2008
01xltranger4x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 3,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by greygooseranger View Post
^^No offense, but no one is going to downgrade the size of the motor in their truck, even if it is more powerful...
A 4-banger isint going to have to low end torque as a v8 either. Its a TRUCK not a car, we need torque for off road, towing, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-31-2008
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by greygooseranger View Post
^^No offense, but no one is going to downgrade the size of the motor in their truck, even if it is more powerful...
And it is not the power number that is meaningless, Ricer motors are built to move motorized Rickshaws, not real cars. They have no power down low, where it is usable for a 4000# car. They may have HP in the higher R's but if you can't get the sled moving, whats the point? The LSx in stock form will be in the 300+ HP range with a Gas mileage in the low to mid 20's. Plus who wants a motor that sounds like an angry bumble bee?


~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-31-2008
D.
Unregistered User
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
Go LS engine. I seriously want to do this for my next project. I think even D. has toyed with the idea.
That I have! If I didn't get a STEAL on the engine I am using, I would have looked for an LS1 or LS2.

The sizes of the SBF and SBC were one of the main factors as well as Power to cost ratios. SBC's have a whole world of their own when it comes to making power. The aftermarket dictates it to be the broadest platform to work with.

My issue was with the firewall and distributer. Everything else would swap over ( its still an OBDII engine ) and need to be ' re-coded ' for instraumentation.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone ever seen a Ranger with an LS1? Zjvdwerf12 General Ford Ranger Discussion 4 06-11-2014 03:29 PM
i just got a ls1 for the truck xlt87 8-Cylinder Tech 47 07-01-2011 04:18 PM
LS1 powered Ranger? Stryker 8-Cylinder Tech 83 12-04-2009 02:39 AM
LS1 Engine+Gorgous Ranger TT Biz General Ford Ranger Discussion 14 06-09-2007 09:18 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 12:15 PM.


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.