Yep! Eco boost crate engine planted into an..
early Ranchero! Looks like a nice fit!
Yep! Eco boost crate engine planted into an..
early Ranchero! Looks like a nice fit!
Not bad but cut out the inner fenders and weld in a mustang 2 front suspension and install a coyote. 
Thats my plan. Kinda, maybe. 
I love this.
I love the idea of taking out a HEAVY, underpowered engine (compared to today's standards) and replacing with a smaller/more compact, lighter, and more powerful engine.
Keep those classic looks with [more] modern performance.
In reply to hybridmomentspass :
Yes sir! That would make that Ranchero keep up with traffic!
Cool swap. Thanks for sharing.
hybridmomentspass said:I love this.
I love the idea of taking out a HEAVY, underpowered engine (compared to today's standards) and replacing with a smaller/more compact, lighter, and more powerful engine.
Keep those classic looks with [more] modern performance.
It's nice to see someone do something different. And smart. Sad to think how many car-people would frown on this because it's not a small block of some sort. But whatever works for you I guess.
That is a really cool swap and I'm a lover of all El Camino-like vehicles. I bet that's an awesome car to own and drive.
hybridmomentspass said:I love the idea of taking out a HEAVY, underpowered engine (compared to today's standards) and replacing with a smaller/more compact, lighter, and more powerful engine.
Note I love this too swap; sorry to be a pedant but......
Turbo 4s weigh every bit as much as a V8 and often more. You can get a Ford 5.0 down to 405-415lbs with aluminum heads and manifold.
Fully dressed turbo 4s come in around 420-425lbs. Twin cam heads add a lot of weight, as does the turbo hardware.
Tom1200 said:hybridmomentspass said:I love the idea of taking out a HEAVY, underpowered engine (compared to today's standards) and replacing with a smaller/more compact, lighter, and more powerful engine.
Note I love this too swap; sorry to be a pedant but......
Turbo 4s weigh every bit as much as a V8 and often more. You can get a Ford 5.0 down to 405-415lbs with aluminum heads and manifold.
Fully dressed turbo 4s come in around 420-425lbs. Twin cam heads add a lot of weight, as does the turbo hardware.
The 5.0 is an unusually small and light engine. It had to be in order to fit in narrow early 60s Ford engine bays.
The Coyote is not small or light. IIRC it is about on par with a 429/460 with aluminum heads in weight and girth.
Tom1200 said:hybridmomentspass said:I love the idea of taking out a HEAVY, underpowered engine (compared to today's standards) and replacing with a smaller/more compact, lighter, and more powerful engine.
Note I love this too swap; sorry to be a pedant but......
Turbo 4s weigh every bit as much as a V8 and often more. You can get a Ford 5.0 down to 405-415lbs with aluminum heads and manifold.
Fully dressed turbo 4s come in around 420-425lbs. Twin cam heads add a lot of weight, as does the turbo hardware.
Add in that this car was likely a straight six, as most of them built were. The 170-200cid I6s weigh ~375 pounds fully dressed.
The weight difference between the I6 and the V8 required different front springs, more robust steering assembly, and chassis reinforcement in the form of torque boxes down low by the footwells (beginning in '64).
Still, there is no denying that a crate Ecoboost is more powerful than anything stuck in a '64/'65 Falcon 'Chero at the factory. In '64 would have been the 225hp 'HiPo' 260 and then in '65 the HiPo 289 in 271hp form. I would have to look it up, but I'd bet they made less than 1000 K-Code (HiPo 289) Rancheros.
Now, when we get to '66+ that's when the Ranchero switched to the Fairlane/Torino chassis and they started stuffing big blocks into them.
Ford's literature lists a dry weight of 311lbs for the 2.3 Ecoboost:
That probably doesn't include some accessories and/or hardware like intercooler, etc.
In reply to STM317 :
The non-turbo 2.0 in the ND Miata is 290 lbs including oil, clutch/flywheel, wiring and accessories (weighed on our own scale, not taken from a random website). The block on that engine looks like a person with low body fat, you can see all the coolant passages. I'm assuming the Ecoboost weight does not include the clutch/flywheel (27 lbs), wiring or accessories. Which makes 310 lbs plausible without the IC.
An LS3 in the same state as our ND engine is 450 or 485 lbs (not sure why we have both in our internal database).
In reply to STM317 :
The weight of an intercooler & turbo is probably 60-70lbs, then 8-10lbs for an alternator and your easily at 390Lbs. I researched going this route with the Datsun and the SR20DET was something like 425lbs and the Ecoboost motors were right on 420lbs fully dressed. The Ford 5.0 was the same weight and with the aforementioned aluminum heads putting out 350-375hp.
I don't really like V8s but they make a lot of sense.
Again I love that the guy put an Ecoboost motor in his car; many years ago I talked about doing that with Mustang (my friends groaned). The fact that he did something different makes the car cool.
DocRob said:Now, when we get to '66+ that's when the Ranchero switched to the Fairlane/Torino chassis and they started stuffing big blocks into them.
1967. '66 was still on the falcon platform. The 68-up are also 10x uglier.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Good information; when contemplating motor swaps for the Datsun I found most NA twin cam 2.0 motors to be somewhere between 310 & 325 fully dressed. A couple of them were in the 360 range. These were from people who actually weighed the motor before installs.
This is when I started looking into the V8s a bit more and stumbled on a guy who was putting a 5.0 in something like a MGB and he weighed the full dressed motor.
I also discovered that the LS motors weigh quite a bit heavier; granted they'll reliably make more power than the 5.0
The Rover V8s (from memory) were something like the high 300s.
As an aside the fully dressed motor in the 1200 is 172lbs.
Ranger50 said:DocRob said:Now, when we get to '66+ that's when the Ranchero switched to the Fairlane/Torino chassis and they started stuffing big blocks into them.
1967. '66 was still on the falcon platform. The 68-up are also 10x uglier.
Yes and no.
'66s built in late '65/early '66 had Falcon front end. Late '66s had Fairlane front end.
The '66 Falcon was built on the Fairlane chassis, anyways. Though the Falcon wasn't available with a big block while the Fairlane was.
I love it! Makes me think of the guy here who was putting new GM V6s into older A bodies.
hybridmomentspass said:I love the idea of taking out a HEAVY, underpowered engine (compared to today's standards) and replacing with a smaller/more compact, lighter, and more powerful engine.
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks like this. Personally, I'd get the biggest sedan from the 50s or 60s and see just how small of an engine I could put in it that could also match the car's original power output.
In reply to Colin Wood :
I'm still "old school" - in that I see the engine bays of old full size Fords and Mercurys and see a place to stuff the biggest engine I can. And by that I mean physically and displacement. Then add boost.
But what I'm really looking forward to is a well sorted Bullitt-clone with a Godzilla in it. If someone doesn't build one soon, I guess I'll have to do it.
You'll need to log in to post.
