He was not counting simply the weight difference between the two engines. But the total weight difference in parts required to add a 5.0 at a factory level.
We are talking about a production vehicle that MUST include upgrades that people who do motor swaps don't necessarily need.
Larger cooling system = more weight
Larger transmission = more weight
Larger rear differential = more weight
Heavier springs = more weight
Larger brakes = more weight
Larger wheels = more weight
Etc etc...
Add all that stuff up and 200 pounds seems reasonable.
I know a guy with a V8 swap that has a transfer case that weighs 130lb dry... but it fits like a dream!
But a V8 C5 with a 1350 wouldn't weigh much more than a V6 C5 pre 1985...
@don4331
The original post was for a V-8 in a '91 Ranger. At that time, there wasn't a V-8 Explorer, so all the engineering would need to be done for the Ranger. The BorgWarner T5, doesn't fit in OEM position - yes, you want swap on a S-10 trail shaft, but does the T5 meet durability requirements for a truck? GMC found they didn't last behind 4.3s and changed to 3550s for S-10s.
They did have a sporty M5OD2 they designed for Supercoupes with different gearing floating around in addition to the normal F-150 variant that came out around 1987 with more trucky ratios.
All V-8 Explorers came with 4R70W Autos, they also came with big tube/bearing/31 spline axle. Yes, the difference between a Ranger 8.8 and Explorer 8.8 (5.0 version with traction bars/damper) is only about 10 pounds but every pound adds up.
207hp 4.0 Rangers lived long and prospered with 28 spline 8.8's, a 225hp 5.0 probably would too.
If Ford would have gave up putting lipstick on the A4LD pig and just went 4R70W across the board for RWD/4WD stuff the world would be a better place anyway.
Ranger spring don't do "just fine" in OEM environment - the truck winds up being over GAWR when optioned to max. Which is why 5.0 Explorers have heavier torsion bars and GAWR 200 lbs heavier than 4.0 (2950 versus 2750lbs). And you get GVWR which are higher too.
They had some wiggle room too. I mean a '85 with the camper package had more GVW than my supercab 5.4 4wd F-150... they had room to work and end up with a truck that might not have had as much GVW as it could have but still as much if not a tad more GVW than most camper packageless Rangers just using off the shelf parts. If we are talking a couple hundred pounds, no biggie. Payload 1600 as opposed to 1800, still well more than a base 4cyl. Not uncommon to give up GVW for something else, they do it with the Raptor today.
Larger brakes on '95+ is relatively easy - not so much on a '91. And the knuckles to allow 12" rotors as found in '01+ are still a decade in the future.
4wd first gen Explorers used the same front brakes as 4wd second/third gen Rangers... so the brakes were not really tapped out on the Ranger.
Larger wheels are required because in '91, the stock rim was a 14".
15's were optional since the beginning. More common on 4wd's than 2wd's (I actually don't know if you could get 14's on 4wds) A 351 F-150 had 15's too.
@85_Ranger4x4
The 331 in my Ranger makes about double the power of the 3.slow it replaced. And with Al heads might not weigh that much more...
How much of the time do you run your V-8 at 4,400 rpm? If your not running it at peak power, it doesn't need fuel flow for match. And note Ford went to 110l/hr pumps when they went to 4.0 SoHC (205 hp versus 210?) so V-8 really didn't need much more flow.
Unlike my 2.8 I don't have to, 2.8 was 4lo and PLANT IT to get enough power to spin 235's. 5.0 loafs along just off idle doing the same with 31's in high range. It hauls my camper, it pulls trailers and is more than willing to move fuel doing so.
Don't disagree Ranger frame is pretty robust, but it still needs to be analysed.
'Yoda added an X-brace to the X-Runner...
Agreed
V-8 is going to need some exhaust development, the Mustang cats aren't going to fit on Ranger.
Agreed
They were crash test to some extent - we failed Transport Canada's side intrusion test on the "Nexus Trike" we were designing at UofS in '88.
Hard to find info on crash testing in general that far back. Unless they were running them into pillows it had to have been depressing.
p.s. The brother's '91 Mustang GT has MRSP of $15.5k.
I think I looked up '87 at random to stay with the first gen vibe and that would have been US $.
Also back then you didn't HAVE to get a GT to get a V8, it was optional in a LX for cheaper without all the frills but I think you also lose some suspension tuning.
I'll still standby my opening statement, Ford didn't see market demand. People were buying Rangers because they were the cheapest thing on the lot, the loaded ones never moved.
You need volume sales to amortize that engineering cost and GM didn't get the demand for the Syclone/Typhoon to make it more than a 1 year blip.
Ford did much better with Lightning - for about the same engineering cost, they sold almost 30k trucks over 6 years (5.4. supercharged version)
[/QUOTE]
I would look to the 318 Dakota for inspiration more than boutique junk like the Syclone/Lightning. And they even dabbled with 5.9's in the R/T.
I don't know how well what sold back then as I was born in '84... I can vouch it is freaking hard to find headliner delete windshield trim or first gen Ranger Custom trim fender badges (Custom replaced XL for awhile starting in '87) If they didn't sell as well the loaded trucks stayed on the road longer (it plausible they received better care etc too)