I've been trying to come up with an estimate of what is going to happen when the Danger Ranger is up and running, and also get an idea of other projects that can be figured or factored on paper ahead of time.

The bottom line with any set of wheels I THINK is Power/Weight. So I started plugging in numbers after checking on what's in the door of the Ranger and using 1 HP per cubic inch as a baseline - which is reasonably attainable with a moderate street & strip build.

Originally the Ranger had a 2.3L, roughly 140 Cubic Inches. The new engine is a 351W. Gross Vehicle Weight (stock, and the Windsor will add some pounds I know) on the tag is 4020.

4020 divided by 140 is 28 pounds per HP.

4020 divided by 351 is 11.45 pounds per HP. Roughly 12, figuring the extra engine weight.

Another way to look at it is that the 351W is a 5.8L. Factoring in 2.3L, I get 5.8 divided by 2.3 = 2.52174...

Or right at 2 1/2 times the engine.


I'd like to get some more data to compare these numbers to.

Anyone got a Mustang they can get the GVW from the tag in the door?

 

Looks like you are calculating Pounds/CID not Pounds/HP.

 

Nope, for HP/CID I'm using a rough estimate based on one HP per CUBIC INCH based on what I have been seeing in average engine builds since the mid seventies. This is because stock Chevy 350's were rated 1:1 for HP:CID, even before adding improvements.

DYNO figures are often inflated to give DYNO customers a warm fuzzy feeling, so I didn't trust the figures I was getting there in my searches online - it seemed to me the best course was to take a blanket figure and use that instead of factoring in N/A versus TURBO or Mech Charging, and so on.

IN OTHER WORDS A "GENERIC STANDARD"

* As a tech, and a gear head, I love using numbers to describe phenomena in the real world.

Anyway, 1 HP is defined as the amount of force used to raise 100 pounds 100 feet (vertically) in 1 minute. We can also say: "at a rate of 100 feet per minute"...

Looking at it, there are several mathematical transformations possible given that each of my horsepower are acting on not 100 pounds, but 28 originally, 12 in the stock 351W scenario, and potentially if I build a 408 Windsor 4020(+/-) divided by 408 = 9.8 pounds per horsepower.

Stock 2.3L = 1/28
351 = 1/12 (approx)
408W = 1/10

For general purposes we can think of the blue highlighted result as the P/W factor

Interesting...

I have a friend across the street who has a number of Mustangs, among them an '88 5.0 that has been much modified. I wish I had the GVW from one of his four cylinder 'Stangs, but the GVW for the 5.0 is 4198 - which means that the Ranger is right on top of the same weight as a 5.0 Mustang. It was just never built to have a V8 engine inside it.

*I just got that GVW info ten minutes ago, reading it directly from the tag inside the drivers door

I just glommed onto even more info:
A stock cast iron 2.3L engine with accy's weighs about 340 Lbs.

A stock cast iron 302 w/accy's weighs 540 Lbs. (windsor)

The 351W has a 1/4 inch taller deck height over the 302. Best guess is maybe 550 Lbs.

With a two hundred pound weight correction, the numbers are still in range, and the GVW of a Ranger with a Windsor becomes approx. 4220 vice the 1988 Mustang 5.0 at 4198


To my eyes it looks like they are EQUAL in that department - but Mustangs have a better airflow shape in terms of streamlining.

A 408 somewhere in the future looks real tasty! With the new info;

4220 divided by 408 = 10.34 for a base P/W factor of 1:10.35 or 1:10 rounded off


~Anything around 1:12 to 1:10 can be considered 5.0 Stang accelleration.

IN FACT, plugging in the stock "out of the box" information for the 88 stang:
4198 divided by 302 = 13.9 Lbs/HP so I mean like, WOW...

STOCK 5.0 Mustang P/W is therefore defined as 1/14

 

I had to reread your first post to see the comparison. I didn't think the 2.3l had 140 hp. But I can see it as a possibility, that was a tough little engine. But are you sure all your other engines are going to be equal to your assumption of 1hp per 1 CI?

 

I have a bud across the street from me who is a local Mustang guru. He took a left recently and got into turbo charged 2.3 and 2.5 engines and tells me that some of those little sewing machine motors have been built to crank out upwards of 300HP.

The ECOBOOST engines Ford is out with now, notably for the new GT-40, are rated as high as 600HP with twin turbos and they are V6 engines.

There is an old build/modification for 2.3L four cylinders that incorporates a Volvo 4V head from a 720I engine that takes advantage of valve timing to do similar radical numbers without turbo or super charging...

So, a lot can be done. More so than ever - I think that one horse per cube in this day and age is a perfectly reasonable baseline. That is not to say that all engines are going to do that, nor is that the stock rated power out of the box, but a decently set up mildly modified engine that is a good choice of powerplant to begin with should be capable of achieving AT LEAST that mark.

It comes right down to planning a matched and intelligent series of performance modifications rather than just throwing a lot of cash on dress up and bolt on goodies that might in the long run work against eachother. A smart (grease) monkey will begin by deciding on the RPM range that is to be exploited for the max output. Everything else follows from there.

An example would be to look at what cam, heads, and intake go together for mid to upper midrange RPM's, say about 4500 to 6500. Edelbrock, Team G, and several other performance manufacturers have engineered "GROUPS" that combine to liberate a whole lot of energy from Ford and GM products.

The lower end is an area of serious focus, both the crank and flywheel (or flyplate and TQ) can be replaced with lighter, faster spinning versions that will increase the "SNAP" that an engine has in getting up to high RPM's and reduces mechanical loss.

We have lighter and harder rods and pistons, and better info on crank angles & other aspects of stroking engines. New designs even include super light composite pistons!

Roller cams and rockers further reduce mechanical loss.

Precise fuel metering from EFI can accomplish amazing things too, so the range of options we have today (not to mention new materials) gives us more advantages than ever before. We also have the benefit of all those years of racing and technology results culminating in the aftermarket products of today AND ALSO the information sources that we have at our fingertips. "DESKTOP DYNO" for example.

The 1HP per CI barrier was broken ages ago...

 

The Shelby weighs in at 3850. 662 HP yields 5.81 pounds per HP. I consider anything 8 or under 'fun'.

 

We should look up the new GT-40 and compare it to the older ones.

All of this of course bears no relation to handling, or how much of that power can be applied by 'grip' (traction). Top speed also has an aerodynamic factor that is very critical.

A brick wall with a jet engine wouldn't be as fast as an F16

 

^In a vacuum?

 

It would be a tie (no air for the engines).

So far I have this:
1966 GT40 Le Mans winner: 2682 pounds, 485HP @ 6200RPM

GT MK II: 2400 pounds, 550HP @ 5600RPM

2016 Ford Gt - 600 HP but I'm still looking for what it weighs.

I did read where the top speed is electronically limited to 205 MPH

Ya know what? It's beginning to look like what that sucker weighs is a closely held secret.

 

Hey Wolfie, I didn't know you were in Memphis. I have to bring Sheryl down there to see the eye doc in a month or so.

 

GVWR numbers are for fully loaded vehicles (max passengers, max cargo).

The CURB weight with full tank of fuel plus the driver is the most important number to determine power to weight.

For example (and I use numbers like this for fuel economy purposes, not outright speed) the curb weight of a modern fuel efficient car like a Ford Focus wagon with the 2.0L engine and 5-speed manual is about 2775 pounds. GVWR by comparison is 3715 pounds. Put me in as a driver (260lbs) and add fifteen gallons of gas (120lbs) and you're at about 3155 pounds. That car gets 24mpg city and 33mpg highway. You can take that engine and mount it longitudinally with a bellhousing adapter from Quad4Rods and put a T-5 manual behind it.

Now throw that combination in a 1968 Fairlane coupe. The Fairlane 2-door hardtop weighed 3113 pounds (curb weight). I don't know the GVWR but I'll assume it's in the 4100-4200 pound range with a couple hundred pounds of cargo and six 150lb passengers. That gets you a 200cid straight six and a 3-speed manual transmission. The weight savings with the four cylinder and the five speed will be decent. A Falcon six is around 385lbs. The Zetec four is around 220lbs. The 3-speed (303) toploader is probably close to 150lbs. A T-5 will weigh more in the 75lb range. So figure 200lbs savings there. The rear axle on a six cylinder Fairlane is probably a 7.25 inch, so the axle ratio can't be matched easily to the Focus gearset (stock Focus is 3.82 so a 3.20 is a 16% difference, this might require a 9 inch swap to use 3.50 or higher gears, like commonly available 3.64, 3.70, or 3.89) In theory, the Fairlane with the Focus engine and T5 transmission should get close to the same mileage as that Focus wagon because it is moving the same weight with the same diameter tires and similar gear ratios.

As far as horsepower calculations, the original 200cid six in 1968 put out 115 gross horsepower. By comparison the SAE net horsepower of a 1972 Maverick's 200cid six was only 91hp. So that's about a 20% difference. Same goes for the torque rating. 1968 Fairlane says 190lbs-ft. 1972 Maverick says 154 lbs-ft. The Focus engine puts out 130hp and 135lbs-ft. Alternatively there is a 2.3 liter Duratec engine that went in PZEV Focuses and sporty models. That provides a bit more hp/torque (145hp and 149tq), and Quad4Rods makes T-5 adapters for them too, but I digress. At any rate, the 43% increase in horsepower should overcome the 12% loss of torque.

Would I actually make that swap? Probably not. I can weld injector bungs in a Clifford intake manifold and put that and a divorced exhaust header on the 200cid six, run duals with Flowmasters, do the T-5 swap behind that six, and adjust the gear ratios until it goes like I want it to go and sound like I want it to sound. Ever hear duals and a divorced header on a little Falcon six? It sounds mean...



It might not get 33mpg highway, and in fact I'll probably be lucky to crack 20 because I'll enjoy the sound too much. But hey, when my kids grow up and get jobs and families and I die and they're at the podium eulogizing me, they're not going to remember the times I got better than 30mpg in the little Fairlane. They'll remember the times we scared old ladies, passed grain trucks, and echoed off the tunnel walls like a muscle car.

 

I know it isn't possible, but I want a truck with an internal combustion engine to have it's power rated by thrust, not horsepower.

 

I know that for a while there, horsepower ratings were being "fiddled with" because insurance companies started getting real nervous at a point in time. Back around the days when if a cop could find the fill valves to your air shocks, they'd let the air out even (in fact especially) if it meant the back fenderwells came down right on top of your street slicks. But if we take cubic as a guide, and do our own thing with induction and so on, I think it's at least halfway honest.

Especially when manufacturers get hinky from year to year, and corporations want to shoot it out as far as who makes the best engine and wheels...

Kudos to Alan - that was brilliantly written.

~Dutch

 

Dutch, a word of advice on the 408: your cam choice is going to be critical in attaining 408hp. The W 408 kits are basically to square up the motor. 4" stroke by 4.030" bore. You will gain a ton of torque, but you will not necessarily spin fast enough to see 408 hp. My 408M is about 325hp, but 445ft-lbs.

I switched to a 4bbl carb, Lunati cam, straight up timing and long tube headers. The Beast tips the scales just past 4500lbs. For what I want, it's damn good numbers. The Xterra. I estimate at 4000lbs, so I'm looking at a Windsor tuned to 410hp/420ft-lbs for the swap. I will be adding 4WD to it as well.

Lets talk suspension for a second. Am I correct to assume you are shooting for a drag racing truck that's tame enough for the streets? Because right now, a PreRunner build would be a quick and easy setup. A lot of those are 2WD for speed.