1st Gen or 3rd Gen Ranger SAS

[posford]

Don't over think it.

Ranger with 2.9 or 4.0ohv, preferably 4.0.
86-88 could be 2.9, 1st gen. 2.9 in this era known for HG problems and cracked heads.
89-92 is 2nd gen, 2.9 available all years, 4.0 available 90+ 2.9 issues were resolved by 91, 4.0 is good in this era.
93-97 is 3rd gen, 4.0 ohv all years, avoid the 3.0. Frame changed to have the front crumple zone in 93. Pre93 has no crumple zone. 95+ is the interior change, 93-94 has same interior as 89-92. 95 is also first year OBDII diagnostic. 95+ has a vehicle speed sensor in the transfer case output, something worth knowing if swapping to a Dana 300.

For manual transmissions, 2.9 Rangers 88+ got the Mitsubishi FM-146 trans, all 4.0 got the Mazda M5OD-R1 transmission, (not to be confused with the -R2 fullsize trans, which shares no parts) The M5OD-R2 is a much better trans, and can be swapped in place of the earlier transmission. I had good luck with the FM-146 in my 91 FWIW.

If you wind up with disc brakes in the back, 95-01 Explorer master cylinder bolts to the brake booster and has the correct proportioning for rear disc.

Plan to upgrade the powersteering pump to a saginaw pump, no matter the year/engine. Its been documented, maybe PSC has a off the shelf option?

Putting a Sterling in the back is as easy as moving perches and shock tabs. Gas tank skid plate clearance can get tight to the driveshaft. Extended cab trucks came with 2 piece driveshafts, single cabs had 1 piece ones, you're changing all that anyways so moot point. If the doubler interferes with the gas tank, BroncoII gas tank fits the back of the frame behind the axle and sending unit jives with the Ranger stuff like gas gauge ect.

Chevy 63" spring swap is well documented, personally I didn't hate swapping to explorer leaf springs for a little lift, and extended shackles.

Front can be as easy or hard as you want to make it, depending on goals. Long radius arms with good joints will surprise you how much flex you can achieve. Common coil springs when SAS are 70s full size stuff. Bronco Graveyard regular or Superflex ones are a good choice.

My NP208 is completely tucked within the frame rail, D300 should be even easier to do so.

Can't think of much else of value to add

 

[fl0w3n]

Heck yeah, that's some good inside baseball. Does all of this pretty much translate to the Explorer as well, other than the 5.0 being offered at some point?

Unless something falls in my lap I'll probably start searching this winter or early next year

 

[arse_sidewards]

Frame changed to have the front crumple zone in 93. Pre93 has no crumple zone.

It's just some "engineered" cutouts. Can be plated over easy peasy if you're already in there doing fab work for an axle swap.

My NP208 is completely tucked within the frame rail, D300 should be even easier to do so.

There are pics floating around of a BW1356 in there as well.

 

[posford]

Heck yeah, that's some good inside baseball. Does all of this pretty much translate to the Explorer as well, other than the 5.0 being offered at some point?

Unless something falls in my lap I'll probably start searching this winter or early next year

91-94 Exploder, yes. All 91-94 Expo are 4.0, I hear there were some that came with manuals, but have never seen a factory one myself. interior is same as 89-94 Ranger, I assume a Ranger manual pedal box would swap but not 100%. 95+ is very different than the Rangers, those were A arm front, so frame is redesigned and unique to them. The 5.0 in them were very detuned.

It's just some "engineered" cutouts. Can be plated over easy peasy if you're already in there doing fab work for an axle swap.

You sure? I have a 93 2wd in the yard I could go look at, but I thought my 94 4wd was full on wavy frame crumple zone like the F-series got around that time.

 

[welndmn]

The 4.3 gm has a good reputation

and the Dakota could be found factory v8 to start, but that also probably comes at a premium

I was never a fan of the 4.3. I think Chevy guys were just happy the 2.8 was gone.

I like the idea of a 4.8 dakota, as long as your swapping out the rest of the drivetrain.
4.0 Rangers are popular because they just work and are reliable.

 

['84 Bronco II]

Heck yeah, that's some good inside baseball. Does all of this pretty much translate to the Explorer as well, other than the 5.0 being offered at some point?

Unless something falls in my lap I'll probably start searching this winter or early next year

The '91-'94 Explorer is pretty similar. The big difference is the rear leaves are under the frame and spring-under instead of outboard and spring-over like Rangers and Bronco IIs which limits clearance. It is easy to go spring over, but since the perches are under the frame, up travel will be limited in comparison. If you go full width, you can probably move the leaves outboard to get it sitting low in a spring-over configuration. The Explorers had the 31 spline 8.8s vs 28 in the Rangers, but it doesn't sound like that matters for you. Manual transmissions and transfercases (M5OD and BW1354) were available, but relatively rare. For a trail rig, the 2 door is the one to get.

The only reason to consider a '95-'01 Explorer is the factory 5.0L and 4R70W combo. I wouldn't waste any time with a V6 one. The A-arm IFS is junk and actually weaker than the Dana 35 TTB. The other downside is that they only came with shitty AWD transfercases that have no low range; however, any 31 spline 6-bolt transfercase will mate to the 4R70W. The only snag, which is the case for all RBVs, full-size chan drive transfer cases don't git great between the frame rails.

There are pics floating around of a BW1356 in there as well.

Here's my old BII with the BW1356 I have posted a few times:

Note: I did not notch the frame, so don't submit me to the hackfab thread It is a tight fit, but you can make it happen if you really want to.

The 5.0 in them were very detuned.

That statement is pretty misleading. The Explorer 5.0L had the best factory Windsor heads Ford ever used (GT40/P) along with the best factory non-SVT/Ford Racing EFI intake manifold. They were also OBD-II with coil on plug ignition which gets rid of the distrubutor and gives better tuning options. The only reason they didn't make way more power than the Mustang 5.0Ls was the baby cam and restrictive exhaust manifolds ford used to shoe horn it into an Explorer. They'll do 300 HP with a cam and headers; good luck doing that with a Mustang "HO" 5.0L or a truck 5.0L.

 

[posford]

That statement is pretty misleading. The Explorer 5.0L had the best factory Windsor heads Ford ever used (GT40/P) along with the best factory non-SVT/Ford Racing EFI intake manifold. They were also OBD-II with coil on plug ignition which gets rid of the distrubutor and gives better tuning options. The only reason they didn't make way more power than the Mustang 5.0Ls was the baby cam and restrictive exhaust manifolds ford used to shoe horn it into an Explorer. They'll do 300 HP with a cam and headers; good luck doing that with a Mustang "HO" 5.0L or a truck 5.0L.

Hence why I said detuned The GT40 stuff is great once it has a cam that can utilize their potential. The 4.0 SOHC made more power from the factory than the v8 Explorers did

 

[fl0w3n]

My first company trucks a decade ago were some early 2000's Rangers, I don't remember much about them other than I was a tight fit at 6'3 and that I enjoyed giving them a beating and they seemed to just take it. I'd throw probably 1500-2k LBS of sod in the bed and just chug along.

I seem to recall some of the ext cabs had the suicide door and some didn't, what year did that start? I guess that would be nice only if I didn't exo-cage it, which it's likely I'd wind up with some hybrid due to my size. Or maybe that would just become the cooler location access door with an interior B pillar far enough back to not knock my noggin. I'm probably getting too far ahead of myself thinking about that now.

 

[posford]

My first company trucks a decade ago were some early 2000's Rangers, I don't remember much about them other than I was a tight fit at 6'3 and that I enjoyed giving them a beating and they seemed to just take it. I'd throw probably 1500-2k LBS of sod in the bed and just chug along.

I seem to recall some of the ext cabs had the suicide door and some didn't, what year did that start? I guess that would be nice only if I didn't exo-cage it, which it's likely I'd wind up with some hybrid due to my size. Or maybe that would just become the cooler location access door with an interior B pillar far enough back to not knock my noggin. I'm probably getting too far ahead of myself thinking about that now.

The 3rd door was a 2001 and up thing, IIRC.

Cooler goes behind the passenger seat so easy to reach from the drivers seat, 3rd door was on the driver side IIRc

I don't like the ext cab with the back door just because I feel like it makes the cab more flimsy over time. 2 sets of hinges to go wrong so the front door doesn't latch right, ect.

 

[arse_sidewards]

91-94 Exploder, yes. All 91-94 Expo are 4.0, I hear there were some that came with manuals, but have never seen a factory one myself. interior is same as 89-94 Ranger, I assume a Ranger manual pedal box would swap but not 100%. 95+ is very different than the Rangers, those were A arm front, so frame is redesigned and unique to them. The 5.0 in them were very detuned.


You sure? I have a 93 2wd in the yard I could go look at, but I thought my 94 4wd was full on wavy frame crumple zone like the F-series got around that time.

My '94 4wd isn't equipped with airbags and doesn't have F150 style accordion crumple zones.

It has some suspicious holes but it's unclear whether those are convenience features for the stamping process or intentionally engineered crumple zones like you see on late 90s trucks and vans. I would need to take a closer look.


Can I buy the frame off your '92? I don't care if it's rusted out. I just need something to copy to build a new one for my '94 without tearing my truck apart in the meantime.

 

[arse_sidewards]

Here's my old BII with the BW1356 I have posted a few times:


Note: I did not notch the frame, so don't submit me to the hackfab thread It is a tight fit, but you can make it happen if you really want to.

That's exactly the picture I was thinking of.

 

[posford]

No the 93 is a pretty complete roller set up for drag racing, not mine, just storing it.

 

['84 Bronco II]

Hence why I said detuned The GT40 stuff is great once it has a cam that can utilize their potential. The 4.0 SOHC made more power from the factory than the v8 Explorers did

They make sweet street sleepers with the V8 and AWD. My cousin picked one up for $700 a while back put a cam and exhaust in it along with some 17" Mustang wheels I think. He might have lowered it a little to. Pretty fun little street truck daily driver

 

[fl0w3n]

Found the right one…

 

[posford]

oh fuck

 

[fl0w3n]

Damnit this is why I need my own trailer

Sounds like someone might already be grabbing it today. I’m 3.5hrs away so it’s not a quick grab.

2.9 auto

 

[posford]

Auto would be an A4LD its pretty terrible in the realm on autos. 4 speed overdrive.

$500 aint bad though

 

[arse_sidewards]

Renting a trailer takes ~30min depending on how out of your way it is.

 

[fl0w3n]

I live in California, Bay Area technically. Nothing takes 30 minutes. Lost out, someone picked it up today.

 

[Ummduh]

I can only add that I think the 3.0 is the worst engine by a long shot, not the 4.0sohc

And 1993 4.0 ohv was the last year without egr from the factory, and 94 was the last year of the easy to work on HVAC system. Could change the heater core in 5 minutes. Then in 95 they redid the dash and you have to remove the entire dash to work on any of it

 

[TrikeKid]

I can only add that I think the 3.0 is the worst engine by a long shot, not the 4.0sohc

And 1993 4.0 ohv was the last year without egr from the factory, and 94 was the last year of the easy to work on HVAC system. Could change the heater core in 5 minutes. Then in 95 they redid the dash and you have to remove the entire dash to work on any of it

3.0 is slow but at least it's reliable. The SOHC is one of those engines Ford produced for many years but never really improved on the original overcomplicated, failure prone design.

 

[ChrisRWG]

I have a 91 with a 5.8, zf 5 and an Atlas. The ZF is a big ol bitch for a ranger. I had to cut most of the trans tunnel away and cut reliefs/bash the foot wells for the driver and passenger side. The only way to access the top trans bolts or to remove the transmission is to lossen the motor mounts and jack up the crank so the engine and trans tilt backwards. The ZF is quite a bit larger than the small block v8 pattern Mazda.

That being said, the ZF is the only trans I would consider running in a small block Ford truck, but that's just me. I had a full manual c4 when I first swapped it and no overdrive sucked.

If I were to start over and do a v8 swap into a ranger tomorrow I would do an LS. That pains me to say that as a purist but the old efi platforms on fords suck and if you want to modify the engines you have to pay to modify extremely outdated efi technology. I am still toying with the option of removing the Ford efi and going with a Holley setup.

Also I would never do a 5.0 swap when a 5.8 fits nearly the same and requires the same work.

 

['84 Bronco II]

3.0 is slow but at least it's reliable. The SOHC is one of those engines Ford produced for many years but never really improved on the original overcomplicated, failure prone design.

Over complicated and failure prone? Sure, having a single head casting and putting one of the timing chains on the back of the engine sucks if you ever need to replace that timing chain, but it is not like it is a regular maintenance item. The SOHC is a huge upgrade in terms of power over an OHV, but it only came in the shitty SLA IFS platform trucks, and it is not good enough to warrant dealing with that torsion bar shit.

The 3.0L isn't really any worse than a 2.9L, but since it isn't a cologne, you can't just drop a 4.0L in its place.

 

[arse_sidewards]

The 3.0L isn't really any worse than a 2.9L, but since it isn't a cologne, you can't just drop a 4.0L in its place.

3.8L from a Windstar fits. Same bell. Tighter on the sides because 90deg but still smaller than a 5.0. No aftermarket support though so limited to stock electronics.

3.0s are way cheaper to source than anything else because nothing "cool" had them and they put millions and millions of them in uncool cars well into the 00s.

 

['84 Bronco II]

I have a 91 with a 5.8, zf 5 and an Atlas. The ZF is a big ol bitch for a ranger. I had to cut most of the trans tunnel away and cut reliefs/bash the foot wells for the driver and passenger side. The only way to access the top trans bolts or to remove the transmission is to lossen the motor mounts and jack up the crank so the engine and trans tilt backwards. The ZF is quite a bit larger than the small block v8 pattern Mazda.

That being said, the ZF is the only trans I would consider running in a small block Ford truck, but that's just me. I had a full manual c4 when I first swapped it and no overdrive sucked.

If I were to start over and do a v8 swap into a ranger tomorrow I would do an LS. That pains me to say that as a purist but the old efi platforms on fords suck and if you want to modify the engines you have to pay to modify extremely outdated efi technology. I am still toying with the option of removing the Ford efi and going with a Holley setup.

Also I would never do a 5.0 swap when a 5.8 fits nearly the same and requires the same work.

LS is

What does your heater box look like? You usually have to hack them pretty good with a 5.0L, an extra 1.3" of deck height seems like you would have to completely butcher it. You can run EEC-V/OBDII, which is coil on plug, with factory parts off an Explorer, or run a Terminator setup that should be more or less plug and play for ~$1,000.

 

[Rangerrod]

I have a 91 with a 5.8, zf 5 and an Atlas. The ZF is a big ol bitch for a ranger. I had to cut most of the trans tunnel away and cut reliefs/bash the foot wells for the driver and passenger side. The only way to access the top trans bolts or to remove the transmission is to lossen the motor mounts and jack up the crank so the engine and trans tilt backwards. The ZF is quite a bit larger than the small block v8 pattern Mazda.

That being said, the ZF is the only trans I would consider running in a small block Ford truck, but that's just me. I had a full manual c4 when I first swapped it and no overdrive sucked.

If I were to start over and do a v8 swap into a ranger tomorrow I would do an LS. That pains me to say that as a purist but the old efi platforms on fords suck and if you want to modify the engines you have to pay to modify extremely outdated efi technology. I am still toying with the option of removing the Ford efi and going with a Holley setup.

Also I would never do a 5.0 swap when a 5.8 fits nearly the same and requires the same work.

In my 5.0 swapped ranger I had a full manual c4 and I concur that no overdrive sucked. And I have an ls swapped cj-7 and also agree the ls is a better smaller platform with better injection. Although the explorer 5.0 I eventually swapped in was decent.

 

[Rangerrod]

LS is

Yeah who likes cheap horsepower.

 

['84 Bronco II]

Yeah who likes cheap horsepower.

Not in a Ford

 

[posford]

I have a 91 with a 5.8, zf 5 and an Atlas. The ZF is a big ol bitch for a ranger. I had to cut most of the trans tunnel away and cut reliefs/bash the foot wells for the driver and passenger side. The only way to access the top trans bolts or to remove the transmission is to lossen the motor mounts and jack up the crank so the engine and trans tilt backwards. The ZF is quite a bit larger than the small block v8 pattern Mazda.

That being said, the ZF is the only trans I would consider running in a small block Ford truck, but that's just me. I had a full manual c4 when I first swapped it and no overdrive sucked.

If I were to start over and do a v8 swap into a ranger tomorrow I would do an LS. That pains me to say that as a purist but the old efi platforms on fords suck and if you want to modify the engines you have to pay to modify extremely outdated efi technology. I am still toying with the option of removing the Ford efi and going with a Holley setup.

Also I would never do a 5.0 swap when a 5.8 fits nearly the same and requires the same work.

I 2nd the heater box question. What headers did you use? What intake did you use with the 5.8?

I have a 351 in my 91, with a 3" body lift, and I really want to ditch the body lift. I run a T19 because fuck overdrive The floor isn't cut, I think I can get away with a 1" BL without cutting.

 

[fl0w3n]

I can only add that I think the 3.0 is the worst engine by a long shot, not the 4.0sohc

And 1993 4.0 ohv was the last year without egr from the factory, and 94 was the last year of the easy to work on HVAC system. Could change the heater core in 5 minutes. Then in 95 they redid the dash and you have to remove the entire dash to work on any of it

I am still very early in the bench racing / dreaming stage, but I think I am leaning towards a 98+ 4.0/m50d to get the rear suicide doors. I'd like the option for this to be a family rig that I can fit a car seat in, and even with suicide doors that will be a hard enough task I'm sure. I can imagine it being annoying quickly, if not downright prohibitive trying to fit a child in the back without those suicide doors. I'm not quite ready to go all in on 4 doors yet if I don't know the family is bought in yet.

I love the look of the face lift 1st gens, and there's some good arguments for the powertrain of the first gens, but I've personally seen some of these 3rd gens take some real abuse and neglect and just keep going (other than the auto's taking a dump) and OBD2 does have it's pro's. For a full-bodied door slamming air conditioned trail rig, the 98+ I think has a good argument for the basic fact that it's 10+ years less age to start with.

I'm also debating if going straight to tons and 40's is the right move too. Maybe starting with someone's castaway built JK D30 and a D44 rear on 37s/38s would be cheaper and easier to package. But... the counter argument would be if I'm going through all that work, why not just go for it from the start. I think I'd potentially be looking at a box tube frame from firewall forward to get it right and low if starting from a 98+ a-arm IFS platform

The other alternative is just be like everybody else and get a 4 door JK cookie cutter bolt on rig