Has anyone put an inline 6 in a Ranger?

[Downey]

^^^ exactly

 

[jimmyess333]

I was thinking inline 6 for longevity, simplicity, and(usually) room to work on and maintain it.
You're right, it's not much of a performance upgrade but then that's not where my head was at.
So far it looks like more work than it's worth compared to just dropping a rebuilt 2.3 back in it when the time finally comes.
I was just considering the options and curious what was involved.
A V8 would be a great option if I ever decide to retire the truck from primary vehicle status but I'll probably build an old 60's car when I want to fool around with V8's again.
Who knows, anything can happen between now and then.

 

[dangerranger83]

I'm not after high power and high torque. I'm all for modifing stuff to get it to work. And I bet it uses less fuel then a v-8.

A v-8 is over kill for what I do with my truck.

 

[jimmyess333]

I'm not after high power and high torque. I'm all for modifing stuff to get it to work. And I bet it uses less fuel then a v-8.

A v-8 is over kill for what I do with my truck.

I look at it like filling an ice cube tray.
My practical needs are the cubes by the faucet, and only after they are filled does the next cube get any water.
As long as everything is taken care of at the important end of the tray I have no problem giving water to the toys and wants at the other end of the tray.
If something at the important end needs attention, flow stops to the rest of the tray until it is taken care of.

 

[mentalbreakdown00]

I personally know of a ranger with a 200 I6 in it from an old stang

 

[strvger]

i remember the old 170ci six in the Falcons, but wasn't there also a 240ci six back then? i too had a 200ci six in a '66 mustang with a c-4 tranny. not a bad combination really. wouldn't mind having an old straight six replace the 2.8 in my ranger.

 

[Spdrcer34]

The 200/250 I6 fit in the Fox Body from the factory....I don't see why it wouldn't fit in the Ranger just as easily.

Ryan

 

[Captain Ledd]

There was a 250 I6 based heavily on the 200 I6, the 240 I6 is actually the smaller brother of the 300 I6.

Interestingly enough, the 250 I6 has a standard Ford Small Block pattern.

 

[dangerranger83]

I think a 200 I6 is the perfect size motor for a ranger with a c4 behind it. But are they avalible in 4wd or would you be looking at a divorce transfer case?

 

[strvger]

There was a 250 I6 based heavily on the 200 I6, the 240 I6 is actually the smaller brother of the 300 I6.

Interestingly enough, the 250 I6 has a standard Ford Small Block pattern.

so would that make it easier to adapt the 250 to my 5 speed tranny?

 

[Spdrcer34]

Since the 250 and 302 share the same transmission bellhousing pattern....I think your options are pretty limitless.

For as STOCK set-up, you could install a M5OD from a 4.2L F-150....and use ALL FoMoCo parts in the swap...

Ryan

 

[Will]

A V6 is better than in I-6 because it's much more compact. The pushrod 4.0 is a great engine--it's a 60* V and is extremely compact considering it's displacement. A 60-degree V6 isn't a lot wider than an inline motor. The pushrod 4.0 is my favorite gas motor. It's so compact and still has full-size power. Mine is from a '91 and has no EGR and a minimal of sensors--one O2 sensor. No distributor, nothing to go wrong. It has the serpentine belt--easy to work on because you just pop it off and can get to anything, and it automatically adjusts tension. You can run the M50D behind it, but the C4/5 also works behind it using the bell from a 2.8.

Why would you want to patch some garbage together when a pushrod 4.0 is so easy to install, and such a great motor? Doing something just to be different is stupid. To be different I could poke out my left eye. Better to look at your needs and work backwards. Don't plan for failure. When you attack something you pile everything you have into it. Doing something weird means leaving most of your resources behind--there are no 300-6 Rangers in action by anyone on the boards. There are dozens of 4.0 swaps in action. Putting in a 300-6 or something, you will most likely fail. A 4.0 is a better motor and many of us have done it and can help you get through it.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Have any of you seen a 300 straight six outside of a truck? The block is ginormous and I'm pretty sure that engine weighs at least 3x as much as any ranger engine. You'd have to put the front suspension from a F150 in as well just to hold the stupid thing up.

That being said, I am a big fan of the 300/4.9L. I just don't think it belongs in a ranger - it's too long and heavy. The 4.0, as Will described, is a great engine for a ranger, and they really do have quite an impressive amount of torque down low where it counts. Going from a 2.8 or a 2.9 to a 4.0 is a huge upgrade in torque.

But you still can't compare a 4.0 and 300/4.9L when it comes to torque, and realistic things like what the truck feels comfortable towing. That's like comparing a pocket knife to an assault rifle. If you want a fair comparison when it comes to towing crap, the 300/4.9L, 351/5.8L, or the modular 5.4L are pretty similar as far as how much trailer they'll feel comfortable with. The 302/5.0L and modular 4.6L don't even measure up to the 300/4.9L with a trailer behind them.

 

[choped84]

the 300 I6 in my B2

 

[Will]

The 300-6 isn't comparable at all to a 5.4. The 5.4 has a longer stroke and makes 390ft# compared to 265ft# of the EFI 300-6. The carbed 300-6 was good for about as much torque as a 4.0. The difference being that with it's nearly 4" stroke the 300-6 is running much faster at a lower rpm. Piston speed is the important factor. A 5.4 is a beast of a tow motor it's capability beyond what it's displacement indicates. I'd rather have a 5.4 than a 460.

I like the 300-6 for what it is, not for what it isn't. It's simple, can lug a big load and looks cool. What it isn't is powerful and it's not the torque monster people make it out to be. 265ft# is not earth-rotating torque. It's all about piston speed. The Dodge slant-6 has an even longer stroke and even though it's much smaller at only 225cid, it was used in trucks as well and had no problem shrugging big loads into motion. The stroke makes it feel like a bigger motor than it is. But once you get it moving, you quickly realize that it only has 100hp.

That 300-6 is in there, and in several other Rangers. But it's not in service in any that I have seen. And all that hacking. It's not worth it to me.