What engines will bolt up in an exploder?

[Brian_B]

Correct....same bell housing bolt pattern on all of them. 2.8, .9, 4.0 OHV, 4.0 SOHC.


I was told the newer mustangs had a version of the 4.0 SOHC, but I doubt they have the same bolt pattern.

 

[sicktight722]

cool deal. didn't know that, or either i did and forgot, lol. makes sense though seeing how they are from the same 'family'

 

[Greywolf]

This is where the rabbit hole gets deep.

I'm thinking 4X4 drag truck project, and simon says it's simpler to bag an Explorer chassis than hack all kinds of mods onto a Ranger frame.

Far as I have seen - V6, 5.0 and 351W all have the same bell pattern, the 5.0 mounts work, the deck height of the engine makes it taller.

This is a long termer with at least one false start - I have a 3.73 limited slip out of an explorer under one ranger frame in the driveway now.

Looking at the front suspensions, and the rear axle hardware made me rethink the whole idea into this new paradigm.

Why do it the hard way when a chassis will only set me back about $500.oo?

I know: "Take the blue pill, or the red one..."

I have a seasoned 351W block waiting in the back of the shop for a direction to go in and the cash to go there.

It may sound insane. But so did supercharging and nitro once upon a time.

NOTE: COURIER cabs and beds have the same wheelbase as Ranger. Explorers have the same wheelbase front to back - but the wheels are about two inches farther apart side to side.

 

[john112deere]

This is where the rabbit hole gets deep.

I'm thinking 4X4 drag truck project, and simon says it's simpler to bag an Explorer chassis than hack all kinds of mods onto a Ranger frame.

Far as I have seen - V6, 5.0 and 351W all have the same bell pattern, the 5.0 mounts work, the deck height of the engine makes it taller.

Couldn't you start with a 4x4 Ranger? (Mostly 'cause I'm guessing they're lighter than Explorers...)

Also, what V6 shares a bell pattern with the 302/351? I'm pretty sure the 300 ci I-6 does, but I didn't think any of the V6s did...

But I'm beyond exhausted, so I may not be thinking right...

 

[Fellro]

The 2.8, 2.9 definitel donot share with the 5.0, and as far as I am aware, the 4.0 shares with the 2.9, so no go there...

 

[Greywolf]

I know the 3.8 definitely does, but the smaller V6 family(s) may not. There was a 3.8 in my old blue 82 F100 that I bolted a 302 right up to with no hassles at all. It was likely a C4 or a C5, the truck was last seen with a C6 in it when I sold it to a numbskull...

The thing about a Ranger frame is that the front end of an Explo has a much nicer suspension setup. No I-beams or power arms (or were they called torque arms?) to fuss with, and even a two wheeler would be good because they have much lighter A-arm setups.

The Explo front brakes are also desirable because they are dual piston calipers, but mount a lot different than on a ranger. I'm not at all sure they could be modified to go on a ranger unless the entire front end had major suspension surgery.

At the back end - I noticed there was a cross-linked damper that helped center the rear axle. Rangers have nothing like that. The only downer I saw was that I prefer to have axles mounted UNDER the leaf springs rather than above them. If you bust a U-bolt it will still get home.

Over all - it seems a lot simpler to kit the body over to the frame, than it does to kit everything else over to a frame not made for it. The cab and bed will still be lighter than an Explo body, and can be lightened even more.

 

[Greywolf]

Spent a chunk of the day looking at e-40-d trannies and transfer case electrical and electronic stuff.

It's all simple - but the T-case chain looks weak.

It bothers me....

 

[70blue]

Might be a dumb question but I will shoot anyway. What keeps you from using a c6 or aod with married transfer case backing a 351. Could you do that without a body lift? I know the obvious answer is computer and wiring harness but a 4 barrel and duraspark should make it run without it providing no emissions inspections.