Shiny is Good! => General Pinto Talk => Topic started by: dumcheesemonkey on December 14, 2014, 10:57:58 PM

Title: engine choice
Post by: dumcheesemonkey on December 14, 2014, 10:57:58 PM
Im curious if anyones put in a 300 straight six at all. Im kind of going over my future options. currently i figure 302 but i like the option to do something a little more different (like driving a pinto at all)
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: Srt on December 15, 2014, 02:50:02 AM
good motors but long (dimension wise) motors.  i'm pretty sure the pinto engine compartment doesn't have the length to accommodate a 300" six
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: Wittsend on December 15, 2014, 10:58:19 AM
Long - and HEAVY too.  Basically it is a truck / economy motor for midsize/fullsize cars.  The other inline 6 is the Falcon/Mustang 144, 170, 200, 250. Lighter and smaller, but the cast in log intake does nothing for performance. If you are looking for lighter weight and more power maybe some of the modern V-6's might work.
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: dumcheesemonkey on December 15, 2014, 11:09:22 AM
that makes sense
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: Reeves1 on December 18, 2014, 08:06:01 AM
One swap I'd like to see someone do is the 4 LT engine - full drive line - out of a Ranger - into a Pinto.

Wife's 2 she has had , has 4:88s for the rear gears.

Would be a snappy (fast) car with this done !
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: dick1172762 on December 18, 2014, 09:17:55 AM
Low gear in that Ranger if its a manual, would be really LOW and useless in a Pinto I would think????
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: Wittsend on December 18, 2014, 11:28:28 AM
Low gear in that Ranger if its a manual, would be really LOW and useless in a Pinto I would think????

I'll second that. Years ago I was given a Datsun 510 that was essentially an Autocross car on the street.  It had the stock 4 speed and 3.90 gears (which were also stock).  When I replaced the tires I purchased 215-50-13" (smaller than stock) as they seemed close to the letter sized tires the previous owner used.  Unfortunately the collective effect was a car that I was shifting into 3rd gear before I crossed an intersection. I never had much perception of accelerating.  It was also 4,000 RPM @ 60 MPH.  Fortunately early 240Z's came with 3.36 gears and the swap made a significant change in the drive-ability of the car.

For any given engine torque curve there are ideal ratios that maximizes the torque. All one needs to do is drive a ten speed bike to grasp the concept.  How many of us have hopped on the bike not aware it was in 1st gear and within a pedal stroke and a half it became obvious that the power (torque) available in our legs wasn't properly being utilized. Shifting up a few gears brought significant acceleration without taxing our strength.   Also, ratios like the 4.88 mentioned often are associated with drag cars and thus are assumed beneficial for acceleration. But drag cars typical run rather tall slicks and often to some degree expand at higher speeds.

I bring this up often, but it would be nice if there was a universal scale to measure by. A scale that took the rear ratio and the tire circumference into consideration.  Something like engine revolutions per 100 feet (as an example).  From that it could be graphed against the torque curve.  That way one could see how rear ratios and tires size work with their engine.  But just changing tire sizes to something popular (because they look cool) or rear ratios because they imply acceleration can really hinder a cars performance.  The two will always have a single combined result and they need to be paired properly.  Maybe some of the engine computer programs have something to calculate that. Though they probably do the math "internally" and externally there is no universal standard for the COMBINED effect of tire size and rear ratio.
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: Reeves1 on December 18, 2014, 01:42:41 PM
Don't know the weight of an 07 Ranger, but cannot be tons more than a Pinto ?

Her 1st 07 was an auto. 2nd 07 standard. Both work well with the way they are set up.

Still think it would be an awesome set up......
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: pinto_one on December 19, 2014, 04:10:25 PM
this summer will make my chose on engine for my 79 cruse wagon ,  4.0 out of a 94 ranger (same great engine in my 93 ranger ) or diesel , everything fits but have to mod the oil pan , the car had a 2.8 and the engine mounts fit the 4.0 block , will make photos when I start when it turns warmer , later guys and have a great Xmas
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: dumcheesemonkey on December 19, 2014, 04:26:05 PM
id love to see that
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: 65ShelbyClone on December 19, 2014, 11:13:55 PM
The Ranger/Explorer 4.0 OHV is comparable to a small V8 IMO. They came with 160hp/220ft-lbs and the power band starts at idle. RPM seems to be their enemy; they can be massaged out to about 200hp all-motor although they will probably tolerate a lot more than that with boost and keeping the revs down. I don't know what they weigh, but I briefly considered putting one in my car.
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: righthandman on December 20, 2014, 12:27:45 AM
  I've never done it myself, but I seen one years ago. The gentlemen had set a wagon body down on a full size Bronco frame with a 300 six and a heavy duty 4 speed. I don't remember a whole lot about the car besides it was very rough.
  As already noted it is very long and heavy.
  I would like to try an do one with a small turbo Diesel (possibly Kubota). Later after some other dream projects are done.
  Anyway good luck with your project and post some pictures as you go. 
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: 65ShelbyClone on December 20, 2014, 10:03:48 AM
I have heard of people using Yanmar shipping container engines to do economy-focused diesel conversions, but the engines are tiny and don't make a lot of power. Imagine a 2.0/2.3L Pinto with half of the factory power, if that.

Volkwagen 1.9 TDI swaps are not that uncommon among older 4X4 minitruck enthusiasts. There were also diesel Rangers offered in the mid-1980s that had Mitsubishi and I think Mazda-Perkins engines, but don't quote me on that.

Another engine I have recently discovered is the Mazda F2 2.2L used in the B2200 trucks, 626, MX-6, and Ford Probe cars of the late '80s to early '90s. It's a durable 12v SOHC engine with a seriously undersquare bore x stroke of 86 x 94mm...and they were available with a turbo.

One thing I definitely would not do is put a huger, heavier engine in an already significantly front-biased Pinto. I hate to say it, but GM's LS_ series is probably the best option if you must have a V8. My 2.3T is only slightly lighter than a 302 and it changed the handling dramatically.
Title: Re: engine choice
Post by: pinto_one on December 20, 2014, 05:50:19 PM
The diesel I am planing if I do not use the 4.0 came out of a 240D, but will add a turbo to it, to bring up the HP to the org 2.3 power, but will have a tad more torque , early 2.3 turbo T5 because of almost 4 to 1 first gear , the turbo and manifolds will come off the 300 SD with mods to the intake and exhaust manifolds to fit the 240D engine, but the weight is just about the same as a 2.8 V-6, simple motor mount will make it a bolt in and they run forever , if I go that way, just that I have a spare engine for my old rusty but trusty 240D, but still over in the other corner sits a 4.0 , I bolted it in the car a few years ago to see how things would line up, just about the same as the 2.8 I took out of it , it fits the C-3 the mounts fit like they belong , only I had the remove the oil pan to do it (pump pick up in back) the 2.8 oil pan will fit with mods to one side of the pan , one inch wider on one side only , the other side all the bolt holes line up and will take the same 2.8 gasket , the only problem I see is the tall intake, might weight a few lbs more but it is the same engine family as the 2.8, but if I do I will have to find another A4LD to put it on the back of the 4.0 because it went into my 76 2.8 pinto,  hope this helps you , later Blaine