Ranger progress

All you can handle multimedia.

Moderator: MalcolmV8

Post Reply
98V8RANGER
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:19 pm

Ranger progress

Post by 98V8RANGER »

Here are some pictures of my Ranger build. I read an article from Car Craft were they took a stock short block 5.0 and got 399hp. I am using almost the same set up so hopefully my hp numbers will be the same or better.

Parts list.
PC 3830 heads
X303 cam
Parker Funnelwebb intake set up for fuel injection
Speedway tight fit headers
3000 stall converter in a 4r70w
3:73 gears
Attachments
1355699265449.jpg
User avatar
cgrey8
Supporting Member
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:23 pm
SM: No
Location: Acworth, Ga (Metro Atlanta)
Contact:

Re: Ranger progress

Post by cgrey8 »

You can do stuff like that and if you REALLY know what you are doing, you can get those kinds of numbers. But what you often don't get in return is driveability. The engine is purpose-built for getting those high HP numbers, and it doesn't like doing much of anything else like idle, take off smooth, get decent fuel economy, etc etc. The only get "more" from the engine is to pour more money into it. Replace heads, replace cam, upgrade stroke, upgrade the exhaust, maybe add a turbo/supercharger, and now you end up with a combination more likely to get those same HP numbers or higher, idle decently, and behave itself on the road with near-stock manners. Depending on what you do, you may even eek out something better than 16MPG. Some hi-po turbo builds with mild cams can get up near 20MPG.

It's just a question of what you want from the build and how much time and effort you are looking to put into the build to match all the parts to each other and your goals.
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331, ported GT40p heads w/1.6RRs, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, ported Explorer lower, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, A9L w/Moates QuarterHorse, Innovate LC-1, James Duff traction bars, iDelta DC Fan controller

Admin of EECtuning.org
98V8RANGER
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Ranger progress

Post by 98V8RANGER »

Cgrey8

Fuel mileage is not a concern I am setting this up to race. I know the idle qualitiy will be poor but I like a nasty rough idle. Nothing like smelling e85 burning at the race track. Anyway here are some more pictures.
Attachments
1355710067270.jpg
User avatar
cgrey8
Supporting Member
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:23 pm
SM: No
Location: Acworth, Ga (Metro Atlanta)
Contact:

Re: Ranger progress

Post by cgrey8 »

Then this is a purpose built engine for a true purpose. I just cringe when I hear about people that go quoting HP numbers with stock equipment and then are disappointed when it doesn't drive well or has some other undesirable issues they didn't expect. It's just unfortunate that advertising with big HP numbers works to get parts sold. It just doesn't always work as well at marketing the best use of their product with the average buyer's expectations and intentions. But once the sale is done, mission accomplished, right?

The other thing I notice in your pic above is the oil bolt in the oil filter hole. Either that's a bolt from an oil filter relocation adapter or that's a stock Explorer bottom end you are working with. If it is an Explorer bottom end, those cast pistons aren't that great for performance. I wish I'd gotten more pics of my Explorer engine before I tore it down. But at the time, I wasn't focused on documenting what the engine looked like in stock form. I was focued on making it a 331 stroker!

Regardless if it is an Explorer engine or not, check the piston-to-deck clearance of each piston before you put the heads on. The stock Explorer engine I rebuilt had the pistons, on average .015" in the hole. If you've done that measurement before, I won't insult your intelligence describing how to do that, but if you've never done this before, ask how. It's not quite as simple as just using a gauge to measure between the piston and deck.

Point is if your compression calculations assumed the pistons are flush with the deck, a .015" difference is enough to create an significantly lower compression than intended AND kill quench. Tight quench reduces the chance of detonation, in fact quench pads on heads are sometimes refereed to as mechanical octane. If after doing the check, you find that your engine has pistons deep in the hole like my engine was, there's a cheaper way to get that back without doing machine work. Use "thin" head gaskets instead of stock head gaskets. The stock Explorer gaskets from AutoZone are .047" crush thickness. Combine that with another .010-.015" distance with the pistons in the hole, and you have no quench to speak of. A set of .025-.028" thick gaskets would be worth considering. Although they are pricey to the tune of $80-100 each!!! However if this is for racing, that's a fairly low price for improved detonation control AND a bump in performance.

Despite what Ford says their stock engine specs are, I found their adherence to not be as tight as I once believed them to be. When I cc'ed my GT40p heads, they were supposed to be in the 58cc range. I found them closer to 63cc. Even after having .010" taken off at the machine shop, every compression chamber was still over 60cc.

If you want more proof of lax engineering tolerances on those heads, check this out...

Head1, chamber 1:
Image

Head1, chamber 4:
Image

Head2, chamber 4 (what would be cylinder 5 if mounted on the DS):
Image

Ford considers this perfectly acceptable on a truck oriented production engine. And if all you care about is emissions & getting the engine through the warranty period, these differences are of no concern. But if you are looking for consistency in cylinder-to-cylinder performance and are looking to optimize as much performance for the purposes of racing, you might find this a bit more concerning than Ford did. And I see you are going with aftermarket heads. That's good, you don't get that kind of "slop" on most aftermarket heads. But if you are using a stock bottom end, you might want to check things like the deck height.
...Always Somethin'

89 Ranger Supercab, 331, ported GT40p heads w/1.6RRs, Crane Powermax 2020 cam, ported Explorer lower, FMS Explorer (GT40p) headers, aftermarket T5 'Z-Spec', 8.8" rear w/3.27s, Powertrax Locker, A9L w/Moates QuarterHorse, Innovate LC-1, James Duff traction bars, iDelta DC Fan controller

Admin of EECtuning.org
98V8RANGER
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Ranger progress

Post by 98V8RANGER »

Current engine build pictures.

Almost done with the engine, I will start on the transmission in about a week.
Attachments
1359825536693.jpg
Post Reply