Bob's swap project: Level II meets 5.0L - Page 5 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource

Project Logs For detailed builds specific to the Ford Ranger, one thread per vehicle please.

Bob's swap project: Level II meets 5.0L

  #101  
Old 07-08-2007
therangerofdanger's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina
Posts: 618
I am in utter amazement. This is looking beautiful!
 
  #102  
Old 07-11-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,910
Driveshafts

Shortened Ranger rear shaft and stock 2003 F150 front shaft:




The internal factory Ranger slip yoke was cut off and a new fixed yoke welded in by a driveshaft specialist. Then a 2006 Expedition slip yoke was added before the assembly was balanced. The genuine Ford yoke is the right size for the F150 BW4406 transfer case and it was only $19 brand new on eBay.




This is the conversion U-joint to match the F150 front driveshaft to the stock pinion flange on the Ranger's D35 diff. Otherwise, it is a straight bolt on when using the BW4406 transfer case.

 
  #103  
Old 07-11-2007
EdGe_wannabe's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Richmond Hill, Georgia
Posts: 4,306
I'm in awe.

Brenton
 
  #104  
Old 07-11-2007
RF Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 5,782
How much did you need to shorten the ranger shaft by?
 
  #105  
Old 07-11-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by Gearhead61
How much did you need to shorten the ranger shaft by?
Somewhere between 9~12". It depends on where you decide to measure it because the original yoke was inside the driveshaft and the new one is outside. So, the original shaft had a variable length but the shortened one is fixed

My goal was to end up with 1.5" of available inward slip yoke travel on the final shaft because that's what was available on the original - both measurements taken with at static ride height with an unloaded bed. The finished driveshaft measures 48" center-to-center on the U-joints. The original was 57~60".
 
  #106  
Old 07-11-2007
ScottG's Avatar
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lewiston, Maine
Posts: 4,926
how much did it run you to get the shaft made?
 
  #107  
Old 07-11-2007
Rockledge's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 479
This is probably a dumb question, but why aren't there any splines visible on the end of the revised rear shaft?
 
  #108  
Old 07-11-2007
ScottG's Avatar
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lewiston, Maine
Posts: 4,926
Originally Posted by Rockledge
This is probably a dumb question, but why aren't there any splines visible on the end of the revised rear shaft?

i think its cause the 4x4's have a transfer case that it bolts onto instead of a 2wd tranny that it slips into
 
  #109  
Old 07-11-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by Rockledge
This is probably a dumb question, but why aren't there any splines visible on the end of the revised rear shaft?
The splines are on the inside of the slip yoke ahead of the front u-joint. The transfer case I'm using has an extension housing similar to a 2WD Ranger transmission.
 
  #110  
Old 07-11-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by Gay-briel
how much did it run you to get the shaft made?
The breakdown was something like $45 to shorten and weld, $50 to balance, $30 for the new fixed yoke to replace the 4x4 slip yoke. I bought the Expedition slip yoke off eBay for $19+$7 shipping. So figure around $150 total.
 
  #111  
Old 07-11-2007
dangelj316's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Yuma, AZ
Posts: 813
Nice!!
 
  #112  
Old 07-11-2007
Rockledge's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by rwenzing
The splines are on the inside of the slip yoke ahead of the front u-joint. The transfer case I'm using has an extension housing similar to a 2WD Ranger transmission.
Got it.

Just curious, have you thought about the kind of grease are you going to use on the slip yoke?
 
  #113  
Old 07-11-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by Rockledge
Got it.

Just curious, have you thought about the kind of grease are you going to use on the slip yoke?
I bought a can of the special Ford PTFE stuff ($25!!) a few years ago. So I'm all set there.
 
  #114  
Old 07-11-2007
INT3RC3PTOR's Avatar
Veteran Status Achieved
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesooooota
Posts: 8,205
looking good Bob, new d-shafts look perdy. cant wait to get mine done soon too cause then i can drive mine hah, except i need a new front shaft too, cause i didnt go the f-150 way like you
 
  #115  
Old 07-11-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,910
Ford made stainless exhaust manifolds for early 5.0 Explorers and an iron version for later ones. Both types of factory manifolds are super restrictive because they are necked down for assembly line bolt/socket clearance and the tubes are siamesed together in a very flow-unfriendly fashion. This all has to do with the very limited amount of clearance for the 5.0L in the Explorer engine bay. It is unfortunate because, other than the exhaust compromise, the 5.0L Explorer engine is assembled from of a bunch of decent performance parts.

The picture below shows the aftermarket "Torque Monster" 5.0L Explorer headers. These are the only commercially available individual tube headers made for this application and you can see how hard the designer had to work to stuff all that tubing into the impossibly tight Explorer engine bay - virtually identical to the bay in a 98+ torsion bar Ranger.

The headers retain the stock EGR and are CARB/EPA certified for 50-state legal use (on Explorers). They are supposed to unlock +20 HP and +35 lb-ft torque and yield a small fuel economy improvement.

The nice UPS lady delivered my set today.

 
  #116  
Old 07-11-2007
mudranger96's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lehigh Acres, FL
Posts: 2,549
wow it just keeps getting better and better
 
  #117  
Old 07-11-2007
RF Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 5,782
Yow! Those headers look crazy! I can't believe you don't lose a lot of your exhaust flow rate to all those wild bends. I guess it's still gotta be better than stock though!
 
  #118  
Old 07-12-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by Gearhead61
Yow! Those headers look crazy! I can't believe you don't lose a lot of your exhaust flow rate to all those wild bends. I guess it's still gotta be better than stock though!
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.





 
  #119  
Old 07-12-2007
pastfinder's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,253
Bob, dear I ask what the running cost is for all of this thus far?
 
  #120  
Old 07-12-2007
klc317's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 953
Wow, the stock mainfolds look like trying to shoot air through wet concrete. Those headers should make a significant difference.
 
  #121  
Old 07-12-2007
klc317's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 953
Are there any major differences between a 4wd 4R70W trans and a 2wd version besides the obvious lack of a transfer case attached to it? Also, are there any issues with using the stock Ranger automatic shift linkage with it? Seems like it would go right together. One more...why is it necessary to swap the 4-wheel ABS module to a 5.0 4wd Explorer unit? I have noticed that they are marked differently while rooting around in the JY but never was sure what the mechanical differences were from say a 2wd or 4wd Ranger unit.
 

Last edited by klc317; 07-12-2007 at 11:09 AM.
  #122  
Old 07-12-2007
winks's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jackson, New Jersey
Posts: 4,872
Wow, those stock headers look disgusting.
 
  #123  
Old 07-12-2007
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
holy crap! those stock manifolds are terrible!
 
  #124  
Old 07-12-2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
Originally Posted by winks
Wow, those stock headers look disgusting.
Yes they do....
 
  #125  
Old 07-12-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by klc317
Are there any major differences between a 4wd 4R70W trans and a 2wd version besides the obvious lack of a transfer case attached to it? Also, are there any issues with using the stock Ranger automatic shift linkage with it? Seems like it would go right together. One more...why is it necessary to swap the 4-wheel ABS module to a 5.0 4wd Explorer unit? I have noticed that they are marked differently while rooting around in the JY but never was sure what the mechanical differences were from say a 2wd or 4wd Ranger unit.
As I understand it, the only difference between 4R70W in the 2WD and AWD Explorers is the extension housing and the output shaft. Not sure about the Ranger cable - I didn't have one so I just bought a new 5.0L Ex cable.

If you have a 2001+ Ranger, the vehicle speed is sourced at the transmission and corrected in the PCM. By contrast, the Explorer's is sourced at the rear axle and corrected in the 4WABS module.

You need an Explorer (or possibly a 98~2000 Ranger) 4WABS Module to make that correction since the PCM in the Explorer is not capable of doing it and the 4WABS module in the 2001+ Ranger is not capable either. The module does not necessarily need to be from a 4x4 but I think it does need to be from a 98~00 4WABS Ranger or ???~2001 Explorer, not a RABS Ranger. The 98~2000 RABS Ranger does its speedometer correction in the GEM and using a GEM from those years in a 2001+ Ranger would surely cause compatibility issues.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Bob's swap project: Level II meets 5.0L


Contact Us Sitemap Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

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.