If you had the choice which engine would you choose? - Page 3 - 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.

View Poll Results: Which engine for a swap?
5.0L 43 50.59%
LS1 42 49.41%
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #51  
Old 09-13-2007
lifted97ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN
If you look at bobs thread the 5.0 had to be crammed into a ranger engine bay so tight that the exhaust system is choked down like trying to fart through a straw. ~HJ
the reason his exhaust is like that is because of the larger tranny and t-case...

Bob's engine doesn't look anymore cramped than a 4.0 SOHC...
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
if you want to compare a 350 Chevy to a Ford engine, you need to compare it to a 351 Ford.....and you can choose between a big or small block 350/351 to compare....

Ok Lets!

1997 351 (last year that I am aware they made the 351)

Will it fit in a ranger engine bay? = No

HP = 210

Torque = 325

Weight = Boat anchor

Wiring = Custom wiring harness (probably from street and performance)

Fuel economy = be paced by a fuel truck. The best 351 I ever seen was in a bronco to the tune of 12 MPG


2004 LS1 (last year I believe they were in a factory car?)

Will it fit in a ranger engine bay? = yes

HP = 350 hp

Torque = 365 ft-lbs

Weight = Light as a feather (exaggeration to make the point it weighs little)

Wiring = Custom wiring harness (probably from street and performance)

Fuel economy = in a similar size 4x4 S10 has been known to get between 18-24 MPG

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
the reason his exhaust is like that is because of the larger tranny and t-case...

Bob's engine doesn't look anymore cramped than a 4.0 SOHC...
That's not what Bob Said read:


Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing
No, they are not at all what you would consider optimal, either in shape or in length. However they are far better than stock and a fabrication marvel if you look at the space available.





Look at that stock exhaust manifold that had to be twisted so bad because of the lack of space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing
I have heard many people say that they have tried other shorties such as Mustang or even the V8 conversion headers sold for 97-back Rangers. Apparently, nothing comes close to fitting a 98+ Ranger engine bay that has the stock a-arm suspension and all of the original under hood stuff.

AFAIK, there are just 4 bolt-on possibilities for a 98+ 5.0L Ranger:

Early 5.0 Ex production stainless manifolds (poor flow);
Late 5.0 Ex production cast iron manifolds (poor flow);
FRPP stainless tube headers (similar layout to production but with improved flow);
Torque Monster headers (best available but still compromised).

^ Didn't mention anything about his transfer case Just poor flow and no space.

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-13-2007
lifted97ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 1
there ya go....NOW you are comparing 2 engines in the same size class.....

always when you compare a smaller engine to one another, the larger engine will be better....common sense...
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
there ya go....NOW you are comparing 2 engines in the same size class.....

always when you compare a smaller engine to one another, the larger engine will be better....common sense...

No in actuality the 302 is physically bigger than a LS1 that is the problem, and look the 351 is not better at anything over the LS1 except maybe a boat anchor.

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-13-2007
lifted97ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN
That's not what Bob Said read:




Look at that stock exhaust manifold that had to be twisted so bad because of the lack of space.




^ Didn't mention anything about his transfer case Just poor flow and no space.

~HJ
keep on reading HJ.....he said that the reason he had to use a custom exhaust was because of the larger tranny and t-case.....he didn't have to get aftermarket headers, the stock Explorer ones would have worked....that was an option...

also, do you really expect the LS1 to have smooth flowing headers in a Ranger come on now use your head a bit......the way the steering shaft is, it doesn't matter what engine you put in there (larger than a 4.0) it will require some funky/messed up headers...
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-13-2007
lifted97ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN
No in actuality the 302 is physically bigger than a LS1 that is the problem, and look the 351 is not better at anything over the LS1 except maybe a boat anchor.

~HJ
alright let me clarify something.....when i say bigger engines, i mean LARGER DISPLACEMENT........

when you say bigger engines and are using normal common sence when talking about engines, it means larger displacement...
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
keep on reading HJ.....he said that the reason he had to use a custom exhaust was because of the larger tranny and t-case.....he didn't have to get aftermarket headers, the stock Explorer ones would have worked....that was an option...

also, do you really expect the LS1 to have smooth flowing headers in a Ranger come on now use your head a bit......the way the steering shaft is, it doesn't matter what engine you put in there (larger than a 4.0) it will require some funky/messed up headers...
A that is exactly what bob said the and the design of the factory manifolds wer constricted because the a-arm suspension. Why would the transfer case inter fere with anything in the engine bay. I have no idea how you could read that and come up with that response.

Second, since the physical dimensions of an LS1 are smaller than a 302 that would only be logical that you would have more room to play with. That is why streetrodders always use the SBC. because it fits in between the frame rails of smaller cars.

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
alright let me clarify something.....when i say bigger engines, i mean LARGER DISPLACEMENT........

when you say bigger engines and are using normal common sence when talking about engines, it means larger displacement...
Yeah 351 is a Greater displacement than a 350 yet it is a poorer choice for this application. Less power, not able to fit, crappy gas mileag etc. Now explain to me how the 351 is a better engine? And I knwo what you meant, but is still doesn't solve the fact the debate was over which would be the better engine to put in a ranger. The 351 requires serious modifications to fit in the ranger, and if you are going to go through all that why stop there? why not a ram jet 502 or a powerstroke as long as we are talking about the unlikely

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-13-2007
lifted97ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN
Yeah 351 is a Greater displacement than a 350 yet it is a poorer choice for this application. Less power, not able to fit etc. Now explain to me how the 351 is a better engine?

~HJ
not once did i say a 351 was a better engine....please go back and read.....

i don't think it is fair to compare a 5.0 to a LS1 engine because of displacement size difference.....saying a LS1 has 100 more HP is a no brainer if you knew the displacements were larger.....
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
not once did i say a 351 was a better engine....please go back and read.....

i don't think it is fair to compare a 5.0 to a LS1 engine because of displacement size difference.....saying a LS1 has 100 more HP is a no brainer if you knew the displacements were larger.....

"always when you compare a smaller engine to one another, the larger engine will be better....common sense"

You said the larger displacement 351 would be better than the 350. it is not

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-13-2007
ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Imperial Beach, CA
Posts: 4,502
Maurice every time he proves you wrong you try say something else to make an arguement irrealavant(sp?) to the previons argument. just pack up your losses and move on.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-13-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
The fact of the matter is that putting either motor in a ranger is not an easy task. If you are looking at things strictly from a performance stand point, the LS1 is better. It will fit in the space provided with no more modification than a 5.0. The LS1 will cost more money initially, but what would it cost to make the 5.0 comparable. I think that closes the gap on price right there. To each his own I guess, but IMO if you have the time/money/skillz, the LS1 is a better choice....
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-13-2007
lifted97ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN
"always when you compare a smaller engine to one another, the larger engine will be better....common sense"

You said the larger displacement 351 would be better than the 350. it is not

~HJ
ummm duh......but i said comparing larger displacement engines is better.....never did i say the 351 was better than the 350.......
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-13-2007
lifted97ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger
Maurice every time he proves you wrong you try say something else to make an arguement irrealavant(sp?) to the previons argument. just pack up your losses and move on.
he hasn't proved me wrong yet......you just like to start crap..........get lost.....

here let me make this easy for stupid people like you:
you can not compare apples to oranges........you have to compare apples to apples to get an accurate assumption...
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-13-2007
ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Imperial Beach, CA
Posts: 4,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
he hasn't proved me wrong yet......you just like to start crap..........get lost.....

here let me make this easy for stupid people like you:
you can not compare apples to oranges........you have to compare apples to apples to get an accurate assumption...
KISS MY ***.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Fine this is pointless, but I am having fun

Lets see the 4.8 liter V8 LS series engine from Cheverolet Vs ford 5.0


4.8

270 hp

285 Ft/lbs TQ

in a full size chevy it gets 16-21 MPG

Not as light as a LS1 as it is cast iron. but it has the same over all dimensions and is smaller outside than a 5.0

5.0 Ford.

215 HP

285 Ft/lbs TQ

14/19 in an explorer.

It would be silly going this route as it would be just as much work as an LS1 but to make Maurice happy, I'd still go with more HP and better gasmileage as the torque is a draw. This is the bargain basement of the LS engines VS the elite of the Ford Small blocks but apparantly facts don't matter.

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-13-2007
lifted97ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 1
considering that HP isn't were you get your movement from, i would chose the 5.0 over the 4.8 since it is a Ford and would be going into a Ford......TQ is the same so that makes no difference....
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-13-2007
lifted97ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN
This is the bargain basement of the LS engines VS the elite of the Ford Small blocks but apparantly facts don't matter.

~HJ
never said Chevy didn't make good engines, i just don't like seeing cross bread vehicles....end of story....
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-13-2007
rngprerunner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Beach CA
Posts: 3,453
Yea, so I don't want to get into this argument but...

If have thought very hard about doing an LS swap and have come to this conclusion.

If I want to rip out all the wiring in the truck, run custom gauges, fabricate custom motor mounts, core support, ect... I'll put in an LS

But

If I wanted to keep the interior looking 'stock', keep the engine bay looking 'stock', reuse the trucks wiring and sensors, then a 5.0 is the way to go.

That said, with having a new DD now, I don't know which way I may end up going...
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-13-2007
ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Imperial Beach, CA
Posts: 4,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by rngprerunner
Yea, so I don't want to get into this argument but...

If have thought very hard about doing an LS swap and have come to this conclusion.

If I want to rip out all the wiring in the truck, run custom gauges, fabricate custom motor mounts, core support, ect... I'll put in an LS

But

If I wanted to keep the interior looking 'stock', keep the engine bay looking 'stock', reuse the trucks wiring and sensors, then a 5.0 is the way to go.

That said, with having a new DD now, I don't know which way I may end up going...
that would be the only stock thing on your ranger the interior. i say LS
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-13-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
considering that HP isn't were you get your movement from, i would chose the 5.0 over the 4.8 since it is a Ford and would be going into a Ford......TQ is the same so that makes no difference....
So would I, You'd be a fool going through this swap and using a cast iron motor when there is a Sweet aluminum engine in the LS1, that is the exact same dimensions as the 4.8. But even still to answer your silly arguement the 4.8 is a better engine than the 5.0.

So once again to answer his question, LS1>5.0

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-13-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
you don't have a Mazada (which is owned by Ford) badged Ranger.....the only thing that is simular from Mazada to a Ranger is the interior....
Yeah, I have a 2007 B2300 that is made in the same ford factory where the rangers are made and is basically the exact same truck as a ranger except for a few stock/dealer option configurations/packages and body skin. It has a sticker under the hood that says "built by ford for Mazda". If you buy the 4 banger ranger you get the same mazda designed engine and trans I have in mine. I think you are talking about the old Mazda pre 93 or so when Mazda dropped their own truck from the north american market and instead became a rebadged, slightly altered ranger. But Mazda still makes their own truck overseas (and can come with a diesel).
Also Ford doesn't own Mazda, but they own quite a large a percentage of shares--I forget how much but something like 40% or so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifted97ranger
Further more, Ford doesn't make a diesel engine theirselves.....so they contract with International to make their diesel engines; kinda like how Dodge contracts with Cummins .
Yeah, this is exactly my point. Ford sometimes uses mazda engines and international engines. So there is no real argument with "stick to Ford" because Ford doesn't seem so set on it themselves!

Last edited by 07B2300; 09-13-2007 at 02:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-13-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
They will be building there own diesel here in the next year or two....LOL. I had to.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-13-2007
KARPE's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Valrico, Fl 33594
Posts: 4,748
LS1...Higher displacement and still gets better mileage. On a desert truck, I'd rather be able to go 20-25mpg than 12-16mpg, just for safeties sake ( not cost).

Out of Curiosity Maurice, how bad did you feel about replacing your Ford wheels with another brand? (I'm just messin' with ya)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pick and Choose! What would you like to see? WowMike2001 General Ford Ranger Discussion 12 06-30-2008 08:35 PM
If you had to choose, 2wd or 4wd which is it? FMD General Ford Ranger Discussion 62 07-23-2007 07:34 AM
What would you choose?????? lifted97ranger Audio & Video Tech 12 01-16-2007 08:23 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 04:22 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.