Look what I get to ride in tomorrow!

[94cobra69ss396]

YouTube- 1493 Test Vid

[Chuck]

That looks like fun!!!

[Leedom]

I am sure you are gonna have a blast. I have always wanted to get a ride in something with that much suspension. :thumbs_up:

[jedhead]

Sure looks like fun to me too.

Bob

[Vettezuki]

Get some video please!

[enkeivette]

You son of a bitch. :p

[BRUTAL64]

Will (my friend ) next shop over, builds custom trucks like that on the side. Yep, that will be a lot of fun.:bigthumbsup:

[Ultraperio]

Someday I want to take my ranger, throw some equal length I beams on it, 4 link the rear and do an LS swap.

Someday.:drool2:

[Leedom]

How was it Ron? as if you have to tell us it was totally badass!!!

[enkeivette]

Someday I want to take my ranger, throw some equal length I beams on it, 4 link the rear and do an LS swap.

Someday.:drool2:

Why not just build an Explorer 5.0 and stroke it to a 347? Should be a lot easier getting that motor to live between your fenders.

[BRUTAL64]

Why not just build an Explorer 5.0 and stroke it to a 347? Should be a lot easier getting that motor to live between your fenders.

You could go all the way to the 390+ ci range.

[Ultraperio]

Why not just build an Explorer 5.0 and stroke it to a 347? Should be a lot easier getting that motor to live between your fenders.

Couple points.

Its easier to get travel out of the back end of a Ranger. More room for shock mounting without interfering with the interior, can chop the frame behind the cab to get as much up travel as you want, and more room for larger tires through its travel once you 'modify' or get rid of the bed.

Easier and much cheaper to get more travel out of the TIB ranger suspension than it is out of the explorer A-arm's. Of course you could go equal length TIB on the explorer too. You can see setups capable of 20+ inches of travel with a TIB (limited to around 19") compared to maybe 16" limited to 14-15" with a much more expensive A-arm kit.

Ranger's are lighter.

As far as motor's go, You could swap a 5.0 relatively easily into a ranger as well. I see several problems. I doubt anyone will question the gen4/5 SBC's are several steps ahead of the SBF's in terms of technology (*shiver* did i just say that?).

An LSx will get better gas mileage than a built SBF. When talking about an offroad truck, fuel economy seems like a funny thing to nit pick about but when your running 33-35" tires, 4.11-4.88+ ring and pinion, your alignment is half ass backwards because of the TIB geometry + constant offroad hits, and the cab is jacked into the air it'll add up. A SBF built sufficiently to compete with a stock to mild LSx (call it ~400-450hp) will get maybe 6-10mpg in a CAR.

LS's have more potential and afaik weigh less (~450lbs for a fully dressed LS1 vs. ~500+ for a 302?).

Typically you'll get your LSx attached to a T-56 (unless you got the sissy 4L60 route :P). A double overdrive transmission will really help out of the aforementioned gas mileage issue.

As far as getting it to fit, its a matter of cropping a piece of your front crossmember (or fabbing a new one) to clear the oil pan and welding up motor/tranny mounts. Which shouldn't be a problem if you've got the tools/know-how to back half a truck, setup 4-link geometry, fab the roll cage, engine cage, and box the frame.

Biggest problem is getting ford and GM electronics to jive. Most guys just run a Chevy cluster or wire it up and correct with a Dakota Digital box.

Best part of all, it really pisses the ford guys off when they find out your ranger is bow tie powered. :jester:

[94cobra69ss396]

For the little bit I got to ride in it it was bad ass! It took us 4 hours before we figured out the issue which ended up being the fuel filter element installed backwards. Anyways it was dark by the time we fixed it and they didn't have any lights. Their next race is April 24th and they want me to come back out again if I can and he said he would give me a better ride then. I got a little video from the race but not very good video. I think there is one up on Youtube from the day we were testing. I'll see if I can find it.

As for the Explorer vs Ranger, I completely agree with Ultraperio. My 33's hit the body in compression as it is now. Also, I have a 11.5 inch travel shock which is the longest I could fit under the body and it is limiting my down travel by about 3 inches.

[Ultraperio]

It took us 4 hours before we figured out the issue which ended up being the fuel filter element installed backwards.

Its always the little things.:rant:

[jedhead]

Here is a picture on my friend's SHO powered Ranger in a jump contest. The SHO Ranger jumped 112 feet.

http://highrevphoto.com/gallery/rorjumpchamps2004/photos/IMG_6290.jpg

Bob

[Ultraperio]

Here is a picture on my friend's SHO powered Ranger in a jump contest. The SHO Ranger jumped 112 feet.

Bob

Interesting powertrain choice. Was it the V6 or the V8?

Those are pretty high revving, low torque motors to put in an offroad truck.

[94cobra69ss396]

Interesting powertrain choice. Was it the V6 or the V8?

Those are pretty high revving, low torque motors to put in an offroad truck.

The SHO was a Yamaha 3.0 V6.

[Ultraperio]

The SHO was a Yamaha 3.0 V6.

It was also a Ford/Yamaha 3.4 liter V8 :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/V8_32_valve.JPG/800px-V8_32_valve.JPG

[jedhead]

The Ranger has a 3.2L V6 Yamaha engine. Right now it is normally aspirated and outputs about 240 at the wheels. Twin turbos are planned in the future. The V6 Yamaha SHO engine were 3.0 for the manual transaxle and 3.2 for the auto transaxle. The 3.0 can be bored out .120" over to get the 3.2 displacement. These engines are very strong and can take some abuse.

Bob

[enkeivette]

Couple points.

Its easier to get travel out of the back end of a Ranger. More room for shock mounting without interfering with the interior, can chop the frame behind the cab to get as much up travel as you want, and more room for larger tires through its travel once you 'modify' or get rid of the bed.

Easier and much cheaper to get more travel out of the TIB ranger suspension than it is out of the explorer A-arm's. Of course you could go equal length TIB on the explorer too. You can see setups capable of 20+ inches of travel with a TIB (limited to around 19") compared to maybe 16" limited to 14-15" with a much more expensive A-arm kit.

Ranger's are lighter.

As far as motor's go, You could swap a 5.0 relatively easily into a ranger as well. I see several problems. I doubt anyone will question the gen4/5 SBC's are several steps ahead of the SBF's in terms of technology (*shiver* did i just say that?).

An LSx will get better gas mileage than a built SBF. When talking about an offroad truck, fuel economy seems like a funny thing to nit pick about but when your running 33-35" tires, 4.11-4.88+ ring and pinion, your alignment is half ass backwards because of the TIB geometry + constant offroad hits, and the cab is jacked into the air it'll add up. A SBF built sufficiently to compete with a stock to mild LSx (call it ~400-450hp) will get maybe 6-10mpg in a CAR.

LS's have more potential and afaik weigh less (~450lbs for a fully dressed LS1 vs. ~500+ for a 302?).

Typically you'll get your LSx attached to a T-56 (unless you got the sissy 4L60 route :P). A double overdrive transmission will really help out of the aforementioned gas mileage issue.

As far as getting it to fit, its a matter of cropping a piece of your front crossmember (or fabbing a new one) to clear the oil pan and welding up motor/tranny mounts. Which shouldn't be a problem if you've got the tools/know-how to back half a truck, setup 4-link geometry, fab the roll cage, engine cage, and box the frame.

Biggest problem is getting ford and GM electronics to jive. Most guys just run a Chevy cluster or wire it up and correct with a Dakota Digital box.

Best part of all, it really pisses the ford guys off when they find out your ranger is bow tie powered. :jester:

You wrote a lot based on a misunderstanding. I was saying that you should put an Explorer MOTOR in your RANGER.

Now I'm going to read what you wrote because I'm curious. P.S. Lifted Explorers are cooler. :p

[enkeivette]

I was thinking of the guages and accessories mainly. I would think you could run a lot of the stock stuff with the 5.0.

I know the LS is a better engine. No argument. Although, I doubt it's over 500lbs. My motor fully dressed is like 450, and a SBF is the same thing basically.

[enkeivette]

Its always the little things.:rant:

Nope. :p

http://i43.tinypic.com/10sbts7.jpg

[BRUTAL64]

.

P.S. Lifted Explorers are cooler. :p

Yep, that 96 we have has a lot power. Just love those 5.0 engines. It is a pretty good driver.

[Ultraperio]

P.S. Lifted Explorers are cooler. :p

Granted, that may be. Any time you even throw a set of A/T's on a ranger you're automatically and irreversibly associated with douche bags wearing their hat sideways talking about how rad that new bolt in cosmetic bed cage looks with their obnoxiously large "F" sticker on their rear window ("F" is for Flamer?)

But lifted explorer, a well performing offroad desert truck does not make. Ranger's are popular for their cheapness, attainability, TIB suspension, and aforementioned wheel and travel clearance.

If you want to talk about building trail rigs and rock crawling, no question the explorer is the better truck.

[94cobra69ss396]

Granted, that may be. Any time you even throw a set of A/T's on a ranger you're automatically and irreversibly associated with douche bags wearing their hat sideways talking about how rad that new bolt in cosmetic bed cage looks with their obnoxiously large "F" sticker on their rear window ("F" is for Flamer?)

But lifted explorer, a well performing offroad desert truck does not make. Ranger's are popular for their cheapness, attainability, TIB suspension, and aforementioned wheel and travel clearance.

If you want to talk about building trail rigs and rock crawling, no question the explorer is the better truck.

I beg to differ. You can make an Explorer into a well performing offroad truck you just have to move the rear axle back some to keep it from bucking. I will eventually do this with mine after I install a full width Dana 44 and coilovers in the front then I'm going to run 64 inch leaf packs in the back and move the rear axle back a little.

[Ultraperio]

I beg to differ. You can make an Explorer into a well performing offroad truck you just have to move the rear axle back some to keep it from bucking. I will eventually do this with mine after I install a full width Dana 44 and coilovers in the front then I'm going to run 64 inch leaf packs in the back and move the rear axle back a little.

A D44 in the front means your going more for a trail rig which, as i said, the explorer is the better truck for.

[94cobra69ss396]

A D44 in the front means your going more for a trail rig which, as i said, the explorer is the better truck for.

No, I'm going for an all around performer. My Explorer right now has a D30 with leaf springs and it wheels great. It just doesn't handle whoops like I want it to. It only has 10 inches of travel in the front and 11.5 in the rear. I want to get 14-16 in front and 16-18 in out of the rear and still be able to take it wheeling.

[Ultraperio]

No, I'm going for an all around performer. My Explorer right now has a D30 with leaf springs and it wheels great. It just doesn't handle whoops like I want it to. It only has 10 inches of travel in the front and 11.5 in the rear. I want to get 14-16 in front and 16-18 in out of the rear and still be able to take it wheeling.

Looked into TTB's?

[enkeivette]

Ron, are you going to cut the wheels wells out and move them back too? Eek.

[94cobra69ss396]

Looked into TTB's?

I don't want the TTB. I like a solid axle better. Yes I know it has more unsprung weight and won't handle as well as TTB but there were plenty of old school racers that used them successfully. Beside my brother already has the Dana 44.

Ron, are you going to cut the wheels wells out and move them back too? Eek.

I don't think I'll have to as there is plenty of room behind the tire. I only run a 33 and right now it hit's the front of the wheel opening at full bump straight up and down. When I'm twisted up it clears everything.

[Ultraperio]

I've been considering the 64" leafs and inverted shackles for a while, really easy way to get travel out of the back of a ranger on the cheap, just need money to do something with the front at the same time.

[Diminicator]

love the truck

[94cobra69ss396]

I've been talking with Tex (owner of the truck) lately. He had the dowel on the cam come out along with cam bolts and it wasted the engine at the last race. He was running a stock 302 out of a fox body. He cleaned up the exhaust ports on the E7TE heads and ran it with a 650 Holley DP, Performer RPM type dual plane intake that was a Summit brand and a B303 cam. I think he said it made 199hp at the wheels. I've been helping him match up parts for a new engine that he's trying to get ready for the Battle At Primm race in February. He already dropped the engine block off to be machined and has a couple different heads that he's deciding between. The new combo should make around 400-430 at the crank depending on which head he goes with and what cam. He's going to call me after Christmas and I'll probably meet up with him to help him get it assembled some time in January.

[94cobra69ss396]

I met up with Tex today and helped him tune the engine. His first pull was 253/308 which is 54rwhp and about 50rwtq more than he made with his old combo. After tuning it put down 261/353.

[Leedom]

I met up with Tex today and helped him tune the engine. His first pull was 253/308 which is 54rwhp and about 50rwtq more than he made with his old combo. After tuning it put down 261/353.

That is a nice bump in power over the old combo. Should be fun.

[94cobra69ss396]

He took it out last weekend to break in the engine before we tuned it. The area he used to have the biggest issue with was the deep sand washes. Before it would take him a while to pick up enough speed in second to shift to third. Once in third he would start to slow back down and have to go back to second. He didn't go into as deep of sand as he usually runs in but he said in the sand he was in he was only giving it half throttle in third and the truck had no problems.

Here's a video of one of the pulls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAqaJoTzZ88&feature=player_embedded

[enkeivette]

That thing is a beast, but from the sound of the cam in the first video I'm surprised it doesn't make more hp in relation to the torque. Stock heads?

[94cobra69ss396]

The first video was the old engine. It was a 302 with 10:1 compression, a B303 cam and E7TE heads that he cleaned up himself. The new combo has 9.7 compression, a much larger Crower cam that is a custom grind for his combo and the heads are box stock TFS Twisted Wedge.

[Shaolin Crane]

Is that the one you were telling me about?

[enkeivette]

Should be making at least 300 whp shouldn't he? Decent exhaust?

[Shaolin Crane]

Sounds about right :huh:

[94cobra69ss396]

Is that the one you were telling me about?

Yes.

Should be making at least 300 whp shouldn't he? Decent exhaust?

No because of the drivetrain. He looses a lot through the drivetrain. To give you as example using the Chevelle. The first time I dyno'd the car it put down 461rwhp running my old 26 inch tires and a converter that stalled to 3000. The second time I dyno'd it, it only put done 360rwhp. The difference was I had a higher 3600 stall and was running a taller 28 inch slick.

[enkeivette]

Damn, ya I was wondering about that but I didn't realize it would make such a difference. But I guess it would expecially if he's running one of those massive super duty rear ends those guys love to run.

[94cobra69ss396]

Yep, he's running a 9inch with 40 spline axles and 5. something gears. At 6000 rpms in 3rd gear (C4) he topped out at 110 mph.

[enkeivette]

Damn... That thing needs more like 7 or 800 hp

[Shaolin Crane]

Turbo time :)

[94cobra69ss396]

I think he's good with what he has now. Most people in his class (1450) are runnning stock engines.

[enkeivette]

Ya I'm sure. how often do you need to hit woops faster than 110mph? haha

[Shaolin Crane]

When ever you need an excuse to change your underwear :huh:

[94cobra69ss396]

Super Chevy magazine has an article where they dyno'd a 383 on both an engine dyno and then on a chassis dyno. On the engine dyno it made 425.8hp and 473tq with open headers an no accessories. On the chassis dyno it put down 283hp and 341tq through a M-22 trans. That's a loss of 34% do to things like the accessories, fan clutch, exhaust, etc.

[94cobra69ss396]

So I went out and watched the Battle At Primm last weekend to root for Tex and help him out with tuning. He had issues with the needle and seat but didn't have a spare. He still ran good and took 5th overall for the weekend which is great since there were I believe 68 entries or something like that. The only trucks that beat him are $80,000 - $100,000 dollar race trucks running $20,000 engines. Here's a video of Sunday's run. You can hear the truck spudder some from the needle and seat but there wasn't much we could do about it. I did have him try set the primary fuel pump at 6 psi and the secondary pump at 4.5 just incase. He ended up switching to the secondary pump shortly after the start which he said helped a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unNcS8pimAY&feature=player_embedded