If you could bring back....

The bulls, IMO had a much better styling and much cooler interior then the 92-96/7s did. Athough, for some reason, that brick interior gets me everytime.

Technically, yes, you can swap a 80-86 dash into a 92-96, but, the speedo wont work because in 92 they used a VSS instead of a cable. Athough, the medium duty (F650-750s) used the bull dash up till 2000, and IIRC around the mid 90s they used a sensor for the speedo. So it could be done.

You could pry swap a bull body onto a 97-03 truck, but then you would still be stuck with vaccuum hubs and torsion bars, athough, you pry could use a 5.4 superduty...

As far as the 300s toughness, i seen a guy at a mudbog overheat one to the point it was boiling, then nosedive it in a water hole and hydrolock it, he let it cool, pulled the plugs, shot the water out, and drove it on a 200 mile trip the next day.

Your 86 was pry pinging because of the crappy feedback carb stuff. They started that on the I6s in 84 IIRC, the 84-86 300 are really the only bad years unless you want to convert them. But they were produced from 65 untill 96, gained EFI in 87, and in the 70s/80s were used in trucks up to 30,000lb GVWR, as well as in any manner of generators, forklifts, ups trucks, irrigation pumps, they were a helluva engine

adsm08 said:

You know the cab and doors are the same from 80-96, so you could put the older interior in.

Click to expand...

I don't think the 80's bullnose dash would mesh with the very 90's style exterior.

rusty ol ranger said:

Technically, yes, you can swap a 80-86 dash into a 92-96, but, the speedo wont work because in 92 they used a VSS instead of a cable. Athough, the medium duty (F650-750s) used the bull dash up till 2000, and IIRC around the mid 90s they used a sensor for the speedo. So it could be done.

Click to expand...

If you can swap an interior you can swap a t-case. I even have a 208 that nobody seems to want to buy.

rusty ol ranger said:

You could pry swap a bull body onto a 97-03 truck, but then you would still be stuck with vaccuum hubs and torsion bars, athough, you pry could use a 5.4 superduty...

Click to expand...

That is what started my idea. Way way back when someone posted a new Superduty that had a tree fall on it at the dealer that was on ebay. Totally crushed the body. Still ran and drove IIRC. Thought at the time was how cool would it be to put a bullnose body on a brand new running gear?

85_Ranger4x4 said:

I don't think the 80's bullnose dash would mesh with the very 90's style exterior.



If you can swap an interior you can swap a t-case. I even have a 208 that nobody seems to want to buy.



That is what started my idea. Way way back when someone posted a new Superduty that had a tree fall on it at the dealer that was on ebay. Totally crushed the body. Still ran and drove IIRC. Thought at the time was how cool would it be to put a bullnose body on a brand new running gear?

Click to expand...

Didnt even think about swapping the t case lol. But yes a bull running around on superduty parts, even in my book, would be chuck norris level bad ass.

Actually, you could buy a 92-96 and swap the front clip and dash, the body lines would be a bit different around the wheel wells (the 87-96s flare out, 80-86 were creased/indented), but its been done and then you would have the benifits of the newer stuff you want (kinda) with bull styling.

rusty ol ranger said:

Actually, you could buy a 92-96 and swap the front clip and dash, the body lines would be a bit different around the wheel wells (the 87-96s flare out, 80-86 were creased/indented), but its been done and then you would have the benifits of the newer stuff you want (kinda) with bull styling.

Click to expand...

There is a guy around town with a later box on his bull that drives me nuts. It is a clean looking truck but the front wheel arches are /---\ (like a first gen Ranger) and the rear arches are half of a circle (like a third gen Ranger). Totally a different shape.

Even at their latest evolutions the old style engines were not that hot.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

There is a guy around town with a later box on his bull that drives me nuts. It is a clean looking truck but the front wheel arches are /---\ (like a first gen Ranger) and the rear arches are half of a circle (like a third gen Ranger). Totally a different shape.

Even at their latest evolutions the old style engines were not that hot.

Click to expand...

My 460 is pretty potent at 245hp/410ftlbs.

Rips my 32ft travel trailer right on down the road.

A later model 351 is pretty close in power to the 2V 5.4s. Atleast the 97-98 ones.

rusty ol ranger said:

My 460 is pretty potent at 245hp/410ftlbs.

Rips my 32ft travel trailer right on down the road.

A later model 351 is pretty close in power to the 2V 5.4s. Atleast the 97-98 ones.

Click to expand...

Barely double digit mileage though.

While I am dreaming I won't be dreaming of a non-PI one.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

Barely double digit mileage though.

While I am dreaming I won't be dreaming of a non-PI one.

Click to expand...

Actually, suprisingly, it gets a pretty steady 13mpg empty in mixed driving. Thats a 2wd club cab with an 8ft box and 4.10s.

It does drink it pretty fast towing on the freeway though, pulling it out of O/D dragging a piece of plywood thru the wind at 65mph, itll drop to 8 or so.

Wow...he asks about any Ford engine being remade with current technology and nobody has mentioned a Y-block in 3 pages so far?

A 292 Y-block V-8, like was in my first truck, the 1959 F100.

I can only imagine with an aluminum block and heads, EFI, and more. That was a mighty fun engine as is.

@Rusty: Figures. I would get one from the three bad years. My sense of timing is crap.

Never had one but the 289 V8 HO.

planeflyer21 said:

Wow...he asks about any Ford engine being remade with current technology and nobody has mentioned a Y-block in 3 pages so far?

A 292 Y-block V-8, like was in my first truck, the 1959 F100.

I can only imagine with an aluminum block and heads, EFI, and more. That was a mighty fun engine as is.

Click to expand...

Im suprised no one was brought up a 390 yet, or a 351C.

Id like to toss a vote out there for the 400. Even with simple mods they wake right up, i bet with an ecoboost type setup, they'd be a real frickin screamer

rangerenthiusiast said:

@Rusty: Figures. I would get one from the three bad years. My sense of timing is crap.

Click to expand...

Lol, the early-mid 80s were dark days for ford, the only bright spot being really, the 2.9

rusty ol ranger said:

Lol, the early-mid 80s were dark days for ford, the only bright spot being really, the 2.9

Click to expand...

And even that wasn’t very bright.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

And even that wasn’t very bright.

Click to expand...

It was a damn supernova compared to the other V6 of similar displacement that came out the same year in one very rounded, fore-father beigemobile

rusty ol ranger said:

It was a damn supernova compared to the other V6 of similar displacement that came out the same year in one very rounded, fore-father beigemobile

Click to expand...

There could only be one other V6 that you're referring to, the 3.0 Vulcan. The 2.8 came out in the 1970's, so even though it's of the same engine family, you wouldn't be referring to it.

I don't know, the 2.9 in my truck seems to have little to no power. I've had three Vulcan powered vehicles (1990 Taurus, 1991 Sable, 1991 Ranger), and compared to the 2.9 in my 1990 Ranger, all three of them seemed to have more than enough power. The 2.8 in my 1985 Ranger seemed to have more power, too.

I'm not saying that the 2.9 is crap. No, not at all. Just that the 3.0 (and I'm assuming it's the engine you're referring to) would be my choice of engine over the 2.9, if I could choose.

1990RangerinSK said:

There could only be one other V6 that you're referring to, the 3.0 Vulcan. The 2.8 came out in the 1970's, so even though it's of the same engine family, you wouldn't be referring to it.

I don't know, the 2.9 in my truck seems to have little to no power. I've had three Vulcan powered vehicles (1990 Taurus, 1991 Sable, 1991 Ranger), and compared to the 2.9 in my 1990 Ranger, all three of them seemed to have more than enough power. The 2.8 in my 1985 Ranger seemed to have more power, too.

I'm not saying that the 2.9 is crap. No, not at all. Just that the 3.0 (and I'm assuming it's the engine you're referring to) would be my choice of engine over the 2.9, if I could choose.

Click to expand...

You have a sick 2.9.

And yes, j was reffering to the vulcan