I think you need to have headers and worm the steering shaft through, if I remember correct. Been a while.

 

Never had any problem with the steering box on any SBF Ranger we ever built...............other than relocating the oil filter for clearance.
Short headers from a Mustang work very well with a little grinding on the frame.

 

Shorty headers from a pick up work with no grinding, they dump straight down.
use a mopar filter, it's shorter, and no re-locate is needed

 

It's a big disclaimer, but what you see from the Advanced Adapters website is that you have to have your own fabricating skills to make it work - and it is "ASSUMED" that you know your stuff before going there....

I think I smelled a run over pole kitty in that to begin with.

I mean - EVERYTHING I have seen points to smaller, less well flowing exhaust solutions - and that just doesn't DO IT for me. Why would I go to all of that for an engine that did not run at it's best? It's PRIME...

My thoughts are to do a prep on the extra chassis I have, put a mill and transmission and all the rest in it, and then fit a cab onto it at the very last. I really think that "STUFFING" a 351 of any flavor into a frame with a body on it is the hardest way to go.

BUILD THE CHASSIS FIRST - and then make the cab fit.

I still say advanced adapters is far over rated, I think they are full of themselves!
~Jackasses in bankers suits...

What I need the most is "SHORTY" Valve covers for a 302 or something. JEGS has them - I wonder if they will reduce the clearance problems when the cab is let back down - because HEY!!!

I AM NOT going to jack the center of gravity just to make it work out. NO BODY LIFT KITS are allowed. It all has to sit just like it was meant to when it is all done. And that makes for mucho problemo's, it means room has to be made for unnatural things

About the only way I can think of to do that, is to cut the front section out of a mustang F body, and weld it in.

That means that the end result will be a MUSTANG UTE

 

I think I have a set of "shorty" valve covers in the one shed, I'll look first chance I get. They are aluminum cast, if I remember correctly

Seems to me, I had to run the milling machine inside them a tiny bit when I went with roller tip rockers, to keep them from hitting, they were that close to the valve train.

I'll see if I can put my hands on them..... they would give you about 3"

 

Wolfie, you are making things out to be too hard..............SBF Ranger swaps are almost slam-dunks.
Don't over complicate/overthink it.

 

He's using a 5.8

I haven't seen one in a ranger, not sure how they work or not work, I know they are wider/ taller.

 

Windsor or M?................Windsor is no harder than a 302.

M?.................Unexplored territory.
IMO the Windsor is so superior to the M, that it was never even considered.

 

One of my "THINKS" is that a four valve per cylinder head is optimal. For the Cleveland and "M" blocks - that could work if I understood the valve timing.

My thoughts on the "M" block is that the crank is stronger and can withstand higher pressures from "CHARGING" of different kinds.

But a 4V head changes all of that - combined with a turbo it would conceivably have two stages:

ONE where the turbo cuts in
TWO when the valve timing takes over...

But you would have to have an unbreakable bottom end to include nitrous

I'm thinking far ahead of where I am going

*The CLEVELAND crank is lighter, and will spin up faster, but it could break

In Windsor blocks - the 408 made out of a stroked 351W is considered the top.

But what the crank can withstand is the final limiter.

I think a four bolt main "M" is unexplored territoty

 

I have never encountered anyone who will mess with "M's"...............The massive availability of performance parts and the undeniable reliability of the SBF, make it a no-brainer IMO.
If you have a real Cleveland, run with it..................but M's are boat anchors.

 

5.8 w crank on a 5.0 is a 347
That with a set of gt40 p heads will flat out scream

 

The SBF is one of the finest engines ever designed, IMO every bit as good as the SBC.............You cannot go wrong going this route.

 

Yeah - but then there was Jon Kaase:

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/0902phr-jon-kaase-400m-ford-engine/

TMeyer is heavy into them also.

 

That Kaase engine Was a high dollar build. It proves if you throw enough money and his skills at something it will make power!! I am not sure what you are after, but I agree a sbf 302-351w is the way to go in a ranger. By the way a 351w crank is not a bolt in for a 302 block.

 

Main bearing journals a different size? I expect the crank could be turned in a machine shop, but why short-deck a 351 crank?

I also sold my last 302 off several years ago, the M and the W (plus the W that is already in the Ranger) are just what I have laying around on hand, that I kept no matter what.

If I was going for plain looks alone - the 351M could be turned into a Cleveland look alike, and no one would be able to tell. What I actually plan for it is not a hotrod though, exactly. I was thinking of a beefier rear on the spare chassis, and using it to pull a car trailer. Now I KNOW I'm going to catch hell, but the Ranger chassis I have actually has what appear to be sturdier rear frame rails than more recent F150 trucks - the rails of which taper towards the back.

That one doesn't really need to be discussed, going from the frame up anything is possible, right up until it's time to fit a cab onto it. And Don out in Oregon tells me that the Ranger frame itself can easily accommodate a fifty-something F100 cab if I wanted to go that route. If I do anything long those lines though - a '39 would really be a hoot. A '32 would be a BLAST...

The '89 Ranger already has a 351W that wouldn't take much at all to get it running. I was stuck on what transmission to slap in it, mainly. I can always trash the yippy-skippy headers I got from Advanced Adapters and put a set of headers on it that will solve almost every one of the damn problems I see. Good thing I never started fitting an exhaust system together, ain't it??? Those (F)ing headers that were supposedly DESIGNED just for this swap are the biggest problem, and have been the hugest hassle with the whole freakin' project!!!