All wheel drive mustang project.

[RangerSVT]

I'd put my 89 5.0L mustang motor up against two 2.9L's any day...and win both in power and performance...in my sleep...
SVT

 

[heptofite]

That's pretty bold. You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Don't get condescending with me, the 1982 mustang GT had a 302 with 175 horsepower, that's really fcuking impressive.

in 1984 it was down to 165 horsepower, even more impressive.

but no, you're right, it's a WONDERFUL engine.

 

[shane96ranger]

I'd put my 89 5.0L mustang motor up against two 2.9L's any day...and win both in power and performance...in my sleep...
SVT

Mine too. Bring them on.

 

[shane96ranger]

don't get condescending with me, the 1982 mustang gt had a 302 with 175 horsepower, that's really fcuking impressive.

In 1984 it was down to 165 horsepower, even more impressive.

But no, you're right, it's a wonderful engine.

lol

 

[heptofite]

lol

my POINT of course, being that the transmission and transfer case that actually fit the system I'm planning on using are already designed for the 2.9, a supercharged 2.9 would put more power for the weight than the 302 that came with the mustang, certainly it's not worth grafting the 302 onto a transmission not designed for it for a meager 20 horsepower and excessive fuel consumption.


don't act like i haven't thought this through, but i'm not going to use a 5.0 'just because' and certainly not put all the effort into adapting the transmission.

 

[shane96ranger]

my POINT of course, being that the transmission and transfer case that actually fit the system I'm planning on using are already designed for the 2.9, a supercharged 2.9 would put more power for the weight than the 302 that came with the mustang, certainly it's not worth grafting the 302 onto a transmission not designed for it for a meager 20 horsepower and excessive fuel consumption.


don't act like i haven't thought this through, but i'm not going to use a 5.0 'just because' and certainly not put all the effort into adapting the transmission.

If the 2.9 is so great, why is everyone yanking them out and putting in a 4.0 or a 5.0?

This was taken from the tech library:

The cylinder heads also sport a more conventional three-port exhaust manifold. Output was rated at 140 hp @4600 rpm for the Light trucks (1986-92 Ranger & 1986-90 Bronco II) and 144 hp @4800 rpm for the Merkur Scorpio in the US market and anywhere from 150 to 160 hp for the European Market.

This is better than 175hp? It is indeed a pretty bold statement to hate on the 80's 5.0 foxes. It's a rare occasion that I get beat.

I don't doubt you've thought out your project, I just hope you have a rather large wallet to get it done. That motor will have a lot more money in it just to get it to comparable power of the later 80's foxes. Good luck putting boost to it too. Oh, and your comment about excessive fuel consumption? The 5.0 Mustang actually does rather well. My buddy just got 31mpg's in his 89 LX on a road trip.

Don't hate dude. We were just trying to help.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

the stock 302 in 80s fox mustangs were utter garbage, i'd take a worked 2.9 over them any day, especially considering the 2.9 IS the powerplant that drives the all wheel drive system that is in the car i planned on taking parts off of for the conversion.

The worst 302 is still a tad more than an OHC 4.0. TONS more SBF aftermarket to rectify any problems you might have with that.

If weight balance is an issue... go 2.3T.

 

[heptofite]

The worst 302 is still a tad more than an OHC 4.0. TONS more SBF aftermarket to rectify any problems you might have with that.

If weight balance is an issue... go 2.3T.

the 2.3 is an iron block, it's heavy as hell, like 450 pounds.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

the 2.3 is an iron block, it's heavy as hell, like 450 pounds.

Never would have guessed that...

They don't have the 2.9 but I would guess the 2.8 would get you close.

http://www.team.net/sol/tech/engine.html

I thought people liked the 4 cyl turbo Mustangs because they were lighter? Same weight as a 302... only I would trust a 2.3T a lot more than a built 2.9.

For what it is worth, I didn't notice much of a difference in handling between my 2.8 to a 5.0... it still sucks.

 

[kissofdeathracing]

I would just get an AMC Eagle SX4:

I mean, it is essentially what you're trying to build right? a 4x4 sport coupe from the 80's? It has the torque of a 258 (4.2L) inline six, and four wheel drive with solid axles... I know I've always wanted one. It pisses me off when I see a Subaru ad touting how they were "pioneers" in 4x4 station wagons and compact SUV's..... I'm sure the fine people of AMC and Renault would be more than willing to gesture at the historical significance of the Eagle, the Cherokee and Grand Cherokee. We probably wouldn't have had Bronco II's or Explorers, or even the whole crossover category if not for AMC...

Rant over....

Agreed! I had an '84 eagle sedan that thing could tackle anything I mean anything. Id like to see a legacy or forester do the things Ive seen those eagles do. But I must say the ride not so comfortable somewhere between riding in a t34 tank and water-boarding

 

[kissofdeathracing]

Mine too. Bring them on.

want a 3rd fox in on that?

 

[kissofdeathracing]

Don't get condescending with me, the 1982 mustang GT had a 302 with 175 horsepower, that's really fcuking impressive.

in 1984 it was down to 165 horsepower, even more impressive.

but no, you're right, it's a WONDERFUL engine.

and then in 85 it went back up in power to 210 with a 5spd

 

[RatDog8o8]

Don't get condescending with me, the 1982 mustang GT had a 302 with 175 horsepower, that's really fcuking impressive.

in 1984 it was down to 165 horsepower, even more impressive.

but no, you're right, it's a WONDERFUL engine.

According to what I've found online, the stock HP in an '89 5.0 was 225, with torque at 300 lb-ft.

On a side note.....has anyone ever thought of or even considered swapping a Jeep 4.0 straight-six into a Ranger? I know.....hoots of derision await, I'm sure.....but was just curious.

 

[CHKNFKR]

According to what I've found online, the stock HP in an '89 5.0 was 225, with torque at 300 lb-ft.

On a side note.....has anyone ever thought of or even considered swapping a Jeep 4.0 straight-six into a Ranger? I know.....hoots of derision await, I'm sure.....but was just curious.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a 4.9. I had a fullsize 4.9 5speed, it pulled like a diesel. I'd like to see that in a ranger.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

and then in 85 it went back up in power to 210 with a 5spd

When EFI and roller blocks came out they really came alive. My 5.0 gets about the same milage as a 4.0 around town (about 15) And if you want more, it will make a lot more than a 2.9.

A stock 2.9 dies if you look at it wrong, I can't imagine 'charging one. Again, they make blowers for a 4.0... which is a vastly superior engine.

According to what I've found online, the stock HP in an '89 5.0 was 225, with torque at 300 lb-ft.

On a side note.....has anyone ever thought of or even considered swapping a Jeep 4.0 straight-six into a Ranger? I know.....hoots of derision await, I'm sure.....but was just curious.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a 4.9. I had a fullsize 4.9 5speed, it pulled like a diesel. I'd like to see that in a ranger.

It has been talked about, but the length is what makes them ugly. The length of a 5.0 is borderline comfortable in there.