school me: 4.6 in a van chassis.

[racsan]

my ranger's days are numbered, im thinking my next "truck' will be a 1/2 ton van. and with the 4.6 being a common engine now in a van chassis, i know nothing about them. are they as good as a 302? id rather have a 302 but they havent been made for some time now, dont think i want the bigger 5.4, im not going to be towing 8,000 daily with it or be driving in the mountians. or should i just keep looking for a mint, garaged 302/C6 van that was only used for summer trips in a salt-free enviroment? i can always re-gear a differential, most fords need re-geared anyhow.

 

[Raptor22]

The Van that the school has to go to wrestling tournements has no power at all and its a 302. My dad is the asst. coach and from a stoplight it had ridiculously low power until the higher RPMs. In a heavy van a 302 isnt ideal. The 4.6L in my car (2004 Mustang GT) has good get-up-and-go, but then again so does my buddy's Capri with a 302. Its all relative with the size of the vehicle.

 

[polarbear]

The best Ford Van had the 300 six in it. I've sold quite a few new Chebbies to Companies that are unhappy with the Ford 4.6 powertrain. Issues seems to be more transmission related than engine though.

 

[O'Rattlecan]

The gas mileage isn't all that different moving to a 5.4 from a 4.6 I wouldn't write it off.

Ryan

 

[polarbear]

Also true.

 

[racsan]

i wish they still offered the 300! and the C6 for that matter. im just not sold on the E4OD. hopefully ive still got a few more years left in my ranger. ive got a 300 i could put in the ranger, but thats hardly practical.

 

[racsan]

so, given the same chassis, trans & gearing, is there a big difference between the 4.6 and 5.4 the way there is between a 302 & 351? both sets of engines have the same bore (for their engine group) but the bigger of them both use longer rods. in theory the bigger ones should have more torque. i know we had a big fuel useage change between bronco's with the same gearing (3.55) one was a '89 (302) the other was a '96 (351) the biggest difference between the 2 broncs was trans, the 89 ran a creeper 4 speed manual and the '96 has the E4OD. i would think it would be even worse in a van given the weight/aerdynamics. gearing can do alot though, drove a conversion van with the 300/6 and it was only trailer rated at 1,500 pounds, must have had way tall gears, it had a aod and seemed very underpowered.

 

[1985 Ford F-150]

Put the 300 in the ranger. That would be cool.

 

[john112deere]

^^Cool, but LOTS of work. Based on how the I-4 fits under the hood of a Ranger, I'd bet he's gonna have major clearance issues with the I-6.

 

[racsan]

its been done, in a old wwwtherangerstation.com post, a gen 1 4x4 ranger had a 300 with a C4 auto. it did have a body lift. id go with the creeper 1st 4 speed manual myself if i were to do that. it would be tight, you would need a electric fan, some firewall modification, alot of patience. the 300 is a torque monster, no doubt, but the weight of that thing and the length would pose some real issues. a 302 would be a much easier avenue, though it still would take some doing. for that much work id just step up to a 1/2 ton chassis of some sort. (the bronco is a favorite) and by the way, milage differences betweeen the two broncos: '89 302 std/3.55's got around 17 at best, 12 while towing a 24' travel trailer. the '96 351 E4OD/3.55's gets 13 at very best and around 10 towing a 28' travel trailer. i realize the newer trailer being pulled by the newer bronco is probly heavier, but empty (not towing) it seems like a big difference between the two broncos on fuel consumption. and remember, the '89 is a non-overdrive, the '96 has overdrive. i do think a re-gear to 4.10's would help, the '96 turns about 1,600 in o/d thats seems way to low for that motor, i think if it could spin around 2,000-2,300 it would be better for it, and more in the operating range it should be.

 

[1985 Ford F-150]

My 302 in my 85 turns 2500 at 60 with a granny four speed and 3.50s with 31x10.50x15 tires.