In reply to Ranger50 :
The stock HO roller cam was 0.444 lift, to the 0.447 of the 260H. They were very close in duration as well.
The 260H had a bit more duration, but without the mid lift advantage of the roller cam I figured it was a wash. I think the biggest difference between it and a stock engine would be the ported heads.
275/325 wouldn't have been an unreasonable estimate, but I always figured we come in below our estimated values.
Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:I'm surprised at the low mileage estimates for the 302. I've always liked the idea of a 302 ranger, but I figured that it would be capable of at least 18 to even the low to mid 20 range MPG with a manual with overdrive.
Now, this wasn't a jaguar, but I'll still relate it to my own experience with some small block fords in my panther platform 79 LTD. It weighed about 3700, I'm assuming that to be more than the Branger.
Overview: I had a couple of different 302 short blocks, with a couple of different holly vacuum secondary 600 carbs (the 650 double pumper we'll ignore for this discussion), a performer 289, ported and decked E7 heads and a flat tappet Competition cams Extreme Energy 260H. Short tube Hedman headers, cats with dual 2 1/4 exhaust and (of course), three chamber flowmasters. So, pretty basic mild build.
I doubt I had enough cam to reach your goal of 275/300, but I would expect at least 250/275, with more weight, fewer gears (wide ratio gear set in the C4), and a 2.26:1 rear end. 2000 RPM at 60 MPH.
Would a presumably lighter, fuel injected, roller cam, more efficient GT40p heads, overdrive manual transmission truck really get 3-5 MPG worse? That would really be a disappointment to me.
I can't even get close to 20 mpg with the 4.0L stripped down to nothing but me and fumes in the tank. The 302 is based on 1960s architecture and limited by Ford's and the aftermarket's lack of availability of evolutionary head designs. They are just old-school. My estimates were based on the current 4.0L numbers. Currently I can hypermile about 17 empty and hope for 11 towing 3500 lbs in the mountains. That is with all brand new maintenance items; plugs, wires, coil, fuel filter, new injectors, cleaned TB, etc. I can't imagine a 302, even with modern chambers and ports doing that well.
Your Panther LTD also had 2.26 gears compared to my 3.73s. It also probably had 235/75-14 all-season whitewalls compared to my 265/75-16 A/T. It also wasn't an aerodynamic brick with a lumber rack like my truck is. Curb weight on my truck is about 3300 if I believe the googles, but weight is more important for stop/start than it is on the highway. Once you're moving and maintaining speed, weight has less of an impact on mpg.
Trucks are really where the mileage difference between gas and diesel really collide. You might have a Jetta that gets 35 mpg with the gas 2.0L or 39 with the TDI 1.9L, but in a (for instance) Silverado you might get 14 mpg with a 6.0L gas and 22 mpg with a 6.6 Dmax. Aero, gearing, weight, tire rolling resistance... they really bring out the fuel consumption disparities.
Dad's hopped-up Dmax puts 938 lb-ft to the wheels and I can get 14 mpg towing 10k. My BIL's same exact truck with the 6.0L gas struggles to make 14 mpg empty and gets 9 mpg with the same 10k behind it.
Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Ranger50 :
The stock HO roller cam was 0.444 lift, to the 0.447 of the 260H. They were very close in duration as well.
The 260H had a bit more duration, but without the mid lift advantage of the roller cam I figured it was a wash. I think the biggest difference between it and a stock engine would be the ported heads.
275/325 wouldn't have been an unreasonable estimate, but I always figured we come in below our estimated values.
I have also heard that ramp speeds on the HO cam were really wimpy. I wonder if the Comp version had faster ramps.
I probably have more experience than most with the 4.0 ohv and own at last count 3 explorers and a ranger. 3 4.0 ohvs and a 5.0v8. My mom had a 4.0 SOHC and so did my wife when we met.
First things first.....run screaming from the SOHC. They say there's more power there.....but it doesn't feel like it. It does have more power above 4000 rpm but the torque is almost the same. Besides the stupid handful of timing chains it also gets terrible mpg.
The 5.0 does have more power......but driven back to back it's not a huge jump. Torque wise it has more down low though. It's not exactly awe inspiring.
Gearing makes a huge difference with the 4.0....huge. My ranger has 3.73s in it I believe and a manual transmission. Massive difference from the 3.55s and an auto and massive to the other explorer with 3.27.
You can hop up the OHV a little, apparently there's a cam that really wakes the engine up and adds a whole lotta torque, I've seen people mention numbers that moves it really close to the 300 i6 in sheer torque and how low it is.
I have about 400k miles of driving on the 4.0 OHV in 4 different cars, even an Aerostar that my dad owns too. It's a pretty rugged engine. I've put a literal ton of sand in my ranger and driven it around, it wasn't slow really. You have to remember though that the torque cones in at 2200 rpm and falls off fast from there though
All of this discussion is great for my processing. Just chatting about it helps me figure things out.
Talking about mpg and torque and diesel and stuff is exactly what I need. It also reminds me of how much I hate gasoline. I would straight up diesel-swap a Ferrari if I had the money.
Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:The 5.0 does have more power......but driven back to back it's not a huge jump. Torque wise it has more down low though. It's not exactly awe inspiring.
In stock form, agreed. I would likely do some of the standard things; proper cam, bowl blend the intake ports, tune the timing curve, etc. Pretty easy to make 1hp/ci and still have a torque peak at a truck-friendly RPM.
The problem I have with the 4.0 is the low RPM torque peak. Great if you have a ton of cubes, but when you are limited by displacement (and old school engineering), you kinda have to skew the torque peak up to get some hp. I wouldn't mind if I could just rev the crap out of it, but it falls on its face at 4500 and doesn't make enough torque at its peak (2400 rpm) to maintain speed. The 4.0L is remarkably durable, but it is just bloody wheezy.
It's one thing to have a torque peak at 2400 rpm. It's another thing when that torque number is 220. Granted, my perspective is skewed. The last engine I built was a Caddy 500 and it made so much torque that the dyno couldn't hold it under 1800 rpms where it was making about 600 lb-ft. I will always wonder what it made at 1600 rpms.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:The 5.0 does have more power......but driven back to back it's not a huge jump. Torque wise it has more down low though. It's not exactly awe inspiring.
In stock form, agreed. I would likely do some of the standard things; proper cam, bowl blend the intake ports, tune the timing curve, etc. Pretty easy to make 1hp/ci and still have a torque peak at a truck-friendly RPM.
The problem I have with the 4.0 is the low RPM torque peak. Great if you have a ton of cubes, but when you are limited by displacement (and old school engineering), you kinda have to skew the torque peak up to get some hp. I wouldn't mind if I could just rev the crap out of it, but it falls on its face at 4500 and doesn't make enough torque at its peak (2400 rpm) to maintain speed. The 4.0L is remarkably durable, but it is just bloody wheezy.
If it was me I'd hop it up a bit before doing a swap. Cam and easy bolt ons maybe?
Although if I ever swapped it out.....I'd see if a 300 would swap in so you know where I stand with lowend torque
In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
I have spent some time with head flow numbers and dyno sims. The 4.0 heads are kinda crap. A cam upgrade might actually slow it down. The 4.0L seems a lot like a chevy 305; you can spend a lot of money making a few more ponies and kill torque in the process by creating a mismatch.
If I could shoehorn a 4.9 in there, I'd do it. I love those big sixes.
I think my first step is to see if I can get some breathing on the exhaust side. I'm feeding it plenty of cfm on the intake side, so maybe a well-chosen 2-1/4 exhaust is in order.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
I have spent some time with head flow numbers and dyno sims. The 4.0 heads are kinda crap. A cam upgrade might actually slow it down. The 4.0L seems a lot like a chevy 305; you can spend a lot of money making a few more ponies and kill torque in the process by creating a mismatch.
If I could shoehorn a 4.9 in there, I'd do it. I love those big sixes.
I think my first step is to see if I can get some breathing on the exhaust side. I'm feeding it plenty of cfm on the intake side, so maybe a well-chosen 2-1/4 exhaust is in order.
I have no real world experience with the cam so you could be right.
I know everyone ignored me earlier, but I'll say it again, 400M. They still litter junk yards, they're cheap because no one wants one, and they're a blue oval. You want cheap torque right?
Also see, Hot Rod's "Mutt." Not cheap, but further proof of concept.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-0702-ford-400m-engine-build/
My '92 Mustang GT (5spd, 3.08 gears, exhaust) would return 25MPG on the highway at 65MPH under normal driving. The combo of a tall OD, relatively high gears, and low-end torque made it surprisingly efficient, even considering the poor aerodynamics. I'd guess you could do 20+ with a 302, given your lower gearing but larger tires.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:Your Panther LTD also had 2.26 gears compared to my 3.73s. It also probably had 235/75-14 all-season whitewalls compared to my 265/75-16 A/T. It also wasn't an aerodynamic brick with a lumber rack like my truck is. Curb weight on my truck is about 3300 if I believe the googles, but weight is more important for stop/start than it is on the highway. Once you're moving and maintaining speed, weight has less of an impact on mpg.
My F150 with the 300ci would get 20-21MPG on the highway when I first got it. After I changed the exhaust and drove it a bit harder it would be in the high teens. Also 1960s architecture, but the head was revamped when they put EFI on it.
I can't speak of what it will do now with a boat because it has a few issues I'm still tracking down, but in a lighter vehicle I'd think it would be possible to get close.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:All of this discussion is great for my processing. Just chatting about it helps me figure things out.
Talking about mpg and torque and diesel and stuff is exactly what I need. It also reminds me of how much I hate gasoline. I would straight up diesel-swap a Ferrari if I had the money.
Now I've got a vision of a Fiero kit car with a VW TDI stuffed in it and boosted to the moon. Put some suspension tweaks in it and see if you can cause much embarrasment at a track day.
One other oddball diesel that showed up in Fords - the BMW M21! They put it in a few Lincoln Mk VIIs to meet CAFE requirements. I saw one in a junkyard about a decade ago and suspect it's the only one I will ever see, but it is an amusing bit of trivia.
A Detroit Diesel 3-71 crossed my mind... then I looked up the weight. Makes a Cummins B4T look light. For other small diesels, I wonder if there's something out of a skid steer loader or smaller tractor would work?
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:If I could shoehorn a 4.9 in there, I'd do it. I love those big sixes.
There are a couple of guys that have done this. First example I found online http://www.cardomain.com/ride/598778/1984-ford-ranger-regular-cab/
Sidenote: Cardomain is still up and running, WTF?
dj06482 said:My '92 Mustang GT (5spd, 3.08 gears, exhaust) would return 25MPG on the highway at 65MPH under normal driving. The combo of a tall OD, relatively high gears, and low-end torque made it surprisingly efficient, even considering the poor aerodynamics. I'd guess you could do 20+ with a 302, given your lower gearing but larger tires.
Curtis sounds like he had that well thought-out, but I still wonder about the mileage potential.
Do it, put the 302 in so I can find out!
Curtis, since you're a diesel guy I'm going stick to that lane. This one may sound a little off the wall at first, but I think it might actually be a good option.
Kubota diesel - one of the most popular Diesel engines in industrial equipment and tractors. They're starting to show up in swaps, especially the rock crawler crowd. An adapter to Ford bolt pattern is $775, so you can keep your current trans. Or adapt to any other manufacturer if you have a preference. A quick google search shows quite a few Rangers with Kubota diesels swapped in, so you can lean on those guys for the recipe.
edit: parts are cheap too and can be found at tractor supply stores
adapters:
https://kubotaswappers.myshopify.com/collections/all
I get 23mpg with my 91ranger 4.0 ohv and 5spd. 22mpg 00 explorer 4.0 ohv auto. 17mpg with a 98explorer with the 5.0
The fact that you are getting less mpg and you feel it's a bit wheezy might be tied to the same thing.....you could be revving it higher than optimal.
Don't get me wrong......it's not the most powerful ever so we aren't dealing with huge amounts of hp and torque no matter what but it really drops off at higher rpm. I pretty much never run it above 3k. I usually try to run it as close to peak torque, which as I remember was 2200rpm all the time. Yes the peak hp is around 4500rpm but between 3k and 4500 the torque drops off very very fast.
I can't remember exact numbers but if you were really revving it chances are you were approaching 150ft lbs .
I've loaded it way down, and I've towed with it a little.....I've even pulled stumps out of the ground. I don't really see the total lack of power or lower mpg you've seen at all.
Wait.....32 inch tires? There's your problem right there, that's 4 inches bigger than stock. Stock they came with 215-75 r15s.
You are effectively using something like.....2.87 gears now. Yeah.....that would be waaaayyyyy gutless compared to 3.73s
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:I would straight up diesel-swap a Ferrari if I had the money.
You are dead to me.
Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:Wait.....32 inch tires? There's your problem right there, that's 4 inches bigger than stock. Stock they came with 215-75 r15s.
You are effectively using something like.....2.87 gears now. Yeah.....that would be waaaayyyyy gutless compared to 3.73s
Yep. A re-gear may make a big difference.
Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:Wait.....32 inch tires? There's your problem right there, that's 4 inches bigger than stock. Stock they can't with 215-75 r15s.
You are effectively using something like.....2.87 gears now. Yeah.....that would be waaaayyyyy gutless compared to 3.73s
Maybe that was the size for the 2wd 4-banger work truck, but mine came from the factory with 31" tires. Right on the door sticker it says 265/75-15. Stepping up to my 265/75-16 (which is something like 31.8") actually corrected my speedometer, so I haven't affected the effective gear ratio really at all. I have added a bit of rolling resistance and changed my moment of inertia, but not by much.
Recon1342 said:Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:Wait.....32 inch tires? There's your problem right there, that's 4 inches bigger than stock. Stock they came with 215-75 r15s.
You are effectively using something like.....2.87 gears now. Yeah.....that would be waaaayyyyy gutless compared to 3.73s
Yep. A re-gear may make a big difference.
For getting it moving from a stop, yes. Maintaining speed on hills, not necessarily. It's about the final drive ratio, not just the axle ratio. And a gear swap for both front and rear axles isn't cheap.
A 4.10 rear in 4th gear has a final drive of 4.10:1. A 3.08 rear in third gear has a final drive of 4.35. They would both maintain about the same speed on a hill. So I wouldn't be gaining torque to the wheels, just shifting more. Basides, 3.73 to 4.10 isn't a very big step, and going to 4.56 means a new differential as well as the cost of the R&P and bearing kit.
Yeah, 3.73 to 4.10 is pointless. I like the suggestion of the Kubota diesel, but how do you get something like that to pass inspection?
In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
I might be able to sneak it by. The EPA says it has to come from the same class of vehicle; truck for truck, car for car, etc, but they already blur the line with the car/truck designation. Maybe I could say that the donor vehicle was a Jeep. It's a stretch, but Kubota made diesels for Mahindra/Jeep knockoffs in Egypt in the 80s for the government as part of an environmental irrigation project. Yeah... a stretch.
You'll need to log in to post.
