[BRUTAL64]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

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]

Originally Posted by enkeivette

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 94cobra69ss396

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.

[jedhead]

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



Bob

[Ultraperio]

Originally Posted by jedhead

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]

Originally Posted by Ultraperio

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]

Originally Posted by 94cobra69ss396

The SHO was a Yamaha 3.0 V6.

It was also a Ford/Yamaha 3.4 liter V8

[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]

Originally Posted by Ultraperio

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.

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.