PDA

View Full Version : Whats the difference between the engine in an aviator and a mach 1?


DRFTNGKNG
04-18-2011, 12:58 PM
hey,

I am cosidering in a while from now, to do a 4.6L DOHC swap in a 1999 and newer ranger, and i know that the mach 1 has 3 more hp than the aviator, but is there any difference in the engine internals that one should know about that can help performace?

thnkz,

DRFTNGKNG!! :P

doyouquaxu
04-18-2011, 01:04 PM
good luck getting the 4.6 to fit, it's a wide SOB. only trucks i've seen had them crammed in there were 97 and older.

http://www.mustangmafia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1996&stc=1&d=1264260162

DRFTNGKNG
04-18-2011, 01:11 PM
yea??

because they did a project on this on trucks on spike tv. i thought that it would be a better build because of the A- link suspension instead of the I- beam suspension and also the rack'n'pinion steering.

2000ranger302
04-18-2011, 03:02 PM
yea??

because they did a project on this on trucks on spike tv. i thought that it would be a better build because of the A- link suspension instead of the I- beam suspension and also the rack'n'pinion steering.

The one on spike they modified the frame of the truck heavily to get that 4.6 into that Mazda, so unless you want to strip the truck down to the frame, a 302 would be your best bet. Also the Mach 1 Engine does not have forged internals where as the Aviators are forged i believe. And BTW, my buddy has an 04 Azure Blue Mach 1 and man does that thing light em' up even at 305 horse

More_Cowbell
04-18-2011, 03:20 PM
they are the exact same the mustang makes more power due to a more agressive tune on it

DRFTNGKNG
04-19-2011, 05:28 AM
huh.. yea however, the 5L everyone does that. plus the dohc 4.6L is a lot lighter and creates more power than a 5L. so its a win, win situation. on spike they were putting the truck as a track vehicle so it had to be sturdy, but for cruising, it should be fine.

More_Cowbell
04-19-2011, 05:35 AM
you still going to have to modifiy the hell out of the frount suspension to make a 4.6l fit in there

DRFTNGKNG
04-19-2011, 05:41 AM
is it because its wider? arent the new a- arm suspensions in the 1999 and newer rangers make it better for an engine to drop in because its smaller and provides more space and cleareance in the engine bay? u c i still dont understand why a 302 can fit easily into an engine bay of a ranger, rather a new gen modular motor.

More_Cowbell
04-19-2011, 05:51 AM
a 302 is a 60Degree v8 meaning each bank of 4 cylinders is 60 degreees apart whereas a 4.6l is a 90 degree v8 and it is much wider so it would hit the a-arms. dimension wise a 4.6l is bigger then a 460

doyouquaxu
04-19-2011, 10:31 AM
u c i still dont understand why a 302 can fit easily into an engine bay of a ranger, rather a new gen modular motor.

look at that picture i posted. the 4.6 is like double the width of the 302. now go look at your stock engine bay, take some measurements. you can find dimensions of the engines online to help you make your decision. also, there are no headers pictured. there are headers specifically designed to drop a 302 into a ranger. there is no such system for the 4.6, so good luck first shoe horning the engine in there, then finding room for the exhaust.

terryduanemiller
04-19-2011, 10:49 AM
look at that picture i posted. the 4.6 is like double the width of the 302. now go look at your stock engine bay, take some measurements. you can find dimensions of the engines online to help you make your decision. also, there are no headers pictured. there are headers specifically designed to drop a 302 into a ranger. there is no such system for the 4.6, so good luck first shoe horning the engine in there, then finding room for the exhaust.

exactly, Steve is dead on!..... but, If you have super deep pockets, go for it... it will def be a challenge,, and more than likely will lead to a dead end... these guys are only giving a fair warning

pooleo
04-19-2011, 10:58 AM
351 windsors are trouble some to fit in because there like 2" wider at the intake, that 4.6 is going to be hell to try and fit. I would go 302 also, you can build a 302 cheap since parts are everywhere

DRFTNGKNG
04-19-2011, 01:23 PM
wow!! what?? btw where are the picts of it. loll will look and do some more research on that.

----------

look at this

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2052265/1998-ford-ranger-regular-cab

apparentlyy he says that its an easy install. idk but hes prob joking. :P

doyouquaxu
04-19-2011, 01:28 PM
wow!! what?? btw where are the picts of it. loll will look and do some more research on that.


did you not see this picture i posted?

http://www.mustangmafia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1996&stc=1&d=1264260162

DRFTNGKNG
04-19-2011, 01:32 PM
1) how heavy is a 5.0L (302) -500 lbs? iron block and heads?
2) would a 4.6L 3V or a coyote motor (5.0) b better?

doyouquaxu
04-19-2011, 01:38 PM
1) how heavy is a 5.0L (302) -500 lbs? iron block and heads?
2) would a 4.6L 3V or a coyote motor (5.0) b better?

1) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+much+does+a+ford+302+weigh%3F
2) 5.0.

DRFTNGKNG
04-19-2011, 01:39 PM
lol that was funny.

Blacked Out FX4
04-19-2011, 01:42 PM
the new 5.0 is so fresh on the market your gunna pay a fortune for it. nevermind what its gunna take to make it work. You would most likely be the first.

DRFTNGKNG
04-19-2011, 08:05 PM
so basically you guys are saying that for me not to put a 4.6 mod motor in the ranger, but the classic and most common engine... the 302! right?

Little Blue
05-24-2011, 05:46 PM
To answer the original question, the aviator is a 4v motor. Most 4.6s are 2v.

doyouquaxu
05-24-2011, 06:24 PM
so basically you guys are saying that for me not to put a 4.6 mod motor in the ranger, but the classic and most common engine... the 302! right?

yes. every single post has been saying that, pretty blatantly on my part too

knightmare1015
05-25-2011, 02:22 AM
did you not see this picture i posted?

http://www.mustangmafia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1996&stc=1&d=1264260162

hey,

I am cosidering in a while from now, to do a 4.6L DOHC swap in a 1999 and newer ranger, and i know that the mach 1 has 3 more hp than the aviator, but is there any difference in the engine internals that one should know about that can help performace?

thnkz,

DRFTNGKNG!! :P

There aint no way you're going to get that thing to fit. The only way to get it to fit is to redo the front half of the truck period. I'm talking from firewall forward, frame and all. After you get through doing that you'll be doing some body work too, because none of your body panels will even come close to original fitment either. I know of one guy that did it when he restored an old 98 ranger on another website. He also swore he'd never do it again either. That was just the actual physical swap. He had all kinds of problems after he got in the engine bay. He pretty much spent nearly 4 times what it would cost to do a 5.0 engine swap and it took 10 times longer for him to complete it too.

Little Blue
05-25-2011, 10:00 AM
One thing...check therangerstation.com Someone HAS put a 4.6 is a Ranger. It's VERY possible. I'll post a link at lunch.

doyouquaxu
05-25-2011, 04:36 PM
One thing...check therangerstation.com Someone HAS put a 4.6 is a Ranger. It's VERY possible. I'll post a link at lunch.

sure, anything is possible. jay leno owns a motorcycle powered by the engine from a helicopter.

is a 4.6 a better choice over a 5.0? no.

Little Blue
05-25-2011, 04:56 PM
...that comment was ridiculous. Simple question: If the 5.0 is better than the 4.6, why did Ford replace the 5.0 with it?

FordDude1991
05-25-2011, 06:15 PM
because SOHC was all the rage in the 90's...lol

DRFTNGKNG
05-25-2011, 06:58 PM
LOL!! excellent comment Little Blue!! i was thinking of doing a 347 swap on an HO and prob put a few hairdryers on it. prob about 600hp in a little ranger. woop woop!! u guys are right, because of the smaller size of the 5L, there is more space for forced induction!!

knightmare1015
05-25-2011, 07:12 PM
we're not saying it is impossible because it is possible to do that and it has been done before. The point we're making is that for his paticular application, there will be alot of fab work and it will take longer than normal. If he can pull it off more power to him, in fact I hope does try it and post a project thread of it on here. I'm sure others would love to see what's involved. Too bad that the new 5.0 costs too much and there's virtually no aftermarket support for it yet because it's still new and in it's testing phases still.

DRFTNGKNG
05-25-2011, 07:15 PM
loll ill c. gotta wait a few yrs still in school....

knightmare1015
05-25-2011, 07:24 PM
loll ill c. gotta wait a few yrs still in school....

Well if you want to wait it's your decsion really. We just wanted you to know that is wouldn't be a virtual overnight/weekend project to do. It will take time and alot of money. The one guy I did meet that did do the 4.6 V8 swap did tell me a little tip. He said to use an explorer that came with a 4.6 liter V8 to help with all of the clearance issues that you'd come across. He wouldn't tell me about what he had to do for the exhaust system. In fact he tried changing the subject many times over when I went back to it.

DRFTNGKNG
05-25-2011, 07:27 PM
lol tru say but i'd rather get the engine from a mustang along with the rear end and all the other things from it. explorer lacks power.

knightmare1015
05-25-2011, 07:35 PM
lol tru say but i'd rather get the engine from a mustang along with the rear end and all the other things from it. explorer lacks power.

I was talking about using the suspension and mounting components. This guy I talked to, used only the exploder's mounts and steering components. He used a Mustang engine and rear end. In fact he said the rear end was the easiest part of the project.

doyouquaxu
05-25-2011, 08:04 PM
...that comment was ridiculous. Simple question: If the 5.0 is better than the 4.6, why did Ford replace the 5.0 with it?

i'm not saying that the 4.6 is a worse motor than the 5.0. i'm saying that for this application, the 5.0 is a better motor choice.

lol tru say but i'd rather get the engine from a mustang along with the rear end and all the other things from it. explorer lacks power.

they're the same motor. swap the heads on a explorer 5.0 to the gt40 heads, and you're in the fast lane to cool town. also, you have to remember that an explorer weighs a lot more than the mustang.

in this link, the expo has an 8.8 0-60 time, 215 hp, and 288 torque.
http://www.explorerforum.com/ntrprize/spec1998.htm

the mustang in 1994 (the last year of the 5.0) also had 215 horsepower in GT trim, 6.9 second 0-60 time, and weighed a little over 3k lbs.

http://www.themustangnews.com/content/2009/08/1994-mustang-data-specifications/

knightmare1015
05-25-2011, 08:24 PM
i'm not saying that the 4.6 is a worse motor than the 5.0. i'm saying that for this application, the 5.0 is a better motor choice.



they're the same motor. swap the heads on a explorer 5.0 to the gt40 heads, and you're in the fast lane to cool town. also, you have to remember that an explorer weighs a lot more than the mustang.

in this link, the expo has an 8.8 0-60 time, 215 hp, and 288 torque.
http://www.explorerforum.com/ntrprize/spec1998.htm

the mustang in 1994 (the last year of the 5.0) also had 215 horsepower in GT trim, 6.9 second 0-60 time, and weighed a little over 3k lbs.

http://www.themustangnews.com/content/2009/08/1994-mustang-data-specifications/

X2. Comp Cams even offers cams that bolt right in with no other mods that give you alot more power and that old school muscle car sound to boot. they're called "Thumpr Cams, hated by neighbors and envied by friends". They show an install of cams only and the results spoke for themselves. That's just one mod of many you can do to the top end by itself with these motors. The Old 5.0 would be a better choice for this project and cost alot less money and time. Plus wouldn't that explorer motor have more power and torque considering it's moving more weight than the mustang has?

doyouquaxu
05-25-2011, 08:52 PM
the explorer is a family car. it scoots along just fine with the power it was given.

knightmare1015
05-25-2011, 11:58 PM
the explorer is a family car. it scoots along just fine with the power it was given.

I figured that much after I already posted. Have you tried the Trickflow Twisted Wedge R heads yet? Those things are nice. I like them better than the GT40 heads, but they do tend to be a little on the expensive side though.

Sonic04edge
05-26-2011, 03:56 PM
To answer the original question, the aviator is a 4v motor. Most 4.6s are 2v.

He was comparing the Mach 1 motor which is a 4v. Only the gt's got the 2v. I have owned two of them. The 4.6 is a great motor, but the 5.0 is the cheaper alternative overall. Neither is really better then the other. They both have their pros and cons. However ford already made is simple for us to put the 5.0 in the ranger thanks to the explorer. You CAN put a 4.6 in a ranger. Ford already proved you can put the lightning motor in the ranger which is a 5.4 4v. It all depends on your wallet though. Anything besides a 5.0 is going to be more expensive.

knightmare1015
05-26-2011, 05:53 PM
He was comparing the Mach 1 motor which is a 4v. Only the gt's got the 2v. I have owned two of them. The 4.6 is a great motor, but the 5.0 is the cheaper alternative overall. Neither is really better then the other. They both have their pros and cons. However ford already made is simple for us to put the 5.0 in the ranger thanks to the explorer. You CAN put a 4.6 in a ranger. Ford already proved you can put the lightning motor in the ranger which is a 5.4 4v. It all depends on your wallet though. Anything besides a 5.0 is going to be more expensive.

I agree. It's possible but not very practical and can be expensive. The guys that I know that did do this swap, had access to a huge shop from the beginning of the project and had years of exp. and knowledge of restoring vehicles. That's what it usually takes to install a 4.6 liter engine in just about any small/light duty vehicle.

Little Blue
05-27-2011, 11:49 AM
I'm just making the argument that after looking at build threads for it, it's NOT that big of a deal to do a 4.6. That said, look at my V8 thread, I'm doin a 5.0 myself.

knightmare1015
05-28-2011, 01:08 AM
I'm just making the argument that after looking at build threads for it, it's NOT that big of a deal to do a 4.6. That said, look at my V8 thread, I'm doin a 5.0 myself.

Well in terms of what he's really talking about, he's wanting to do it on a 4.6 liter on a budget. Yes it can be done, but is he really willing to spend the extra time and money that it would take? That was really the question we've all asked to be honest about it.

Little Blue
05-28-2011, 05:42 PM
On a budget, 5.0 for sure. It's not stupid money to do the 4.6, but it'd cost more for sure.

knightmare1015
05-29-2011, 05:04 PM
On a budget, 5.0 for sure. It's not stupid money to do the 4.6, but it'd cost more for sure.


X2. You can do alot with a 5.0 engine block. I mean alot. You can stroke it, use forced induction, carb or efi, and the list goes on and on. Plus your parts availibilty goes up to. People under estimate the 5.0 in many different ways. The old 5.0 is almost a perfect fit for the ranger as the 350 SBC was to the S10.

blackacre
06-07-2011, 09:03 AM
If you really really want that 4.6.. put the ingine in the bed of the truck, it can be done. and for some reasons would be easier then putting it in the engine bay haha.. go euro and make the engine bay into a boot "AKA a trunk)... haha

just an idea, oh and i would go with the 302 as well.
Goodluck.