Iv been wanting to put this motor in my ranger for some time. I know some of the details about the 5 sp swap and those parts. But I want to know about the upper intake flip and the ecu since I will be going with the manual trans. And what about rewiring to the ranger cluster?

 

Sorry to hear of your project's demise.

For the longest time, my wet-dream engine swap would a 3.8 Grand National engine/trans utilizing all of the GO goodies to get my Aerostar in the 9's. Standard V6 packaging. I totally believe that is possible...

 

I think the 3.8 v6 in the GN was a small block Chevy with 2 cylinders chopped off, so it would be too wide to fit into the Aerostar's engine compartment.

You'd have better luck turbocharging the 2.3L I4 that came in early models. Or swap in the engine from a Tbird Turbo Coup.

 

You say it's probably a 90 degree V6 vs. a 60 degree? Not sure what angle it actually was.

Or, maybe a new 2.7 V6 Ecoboost...

 

Yes, it was a 90 degree v6. It needed offset crank throws to even out the firing order, but it still vibrated a lot.

Any of the ecoboost V's would have very wide top ends due to their DOHC, so would again, not fit into the Aerostar's engine compartment.

Now, the ecoboost 2.3 I4 in the new Focus RS, that would be fun to try. 350HP is actually more than the 2.7 v6 EB. But I'm not sure what transmission you would attach that to.

The old 2.3L Lima engine that came with the early Aerostars had a couple of transmission choices. Souping up the engine will require strengthening the stock transmission, vs trying to find adapters for other transmissions.

 

Any knowledge on that stuff?

 

You can find all of that info on SHOforum.com

 

Iv tried to make an account to search and ask there but it kept not allowing me to register. Which is why I'm asking on this thread because this guy seems very knowledgable

 

If you haven't registered with in the last year, try again. The person previously running the forum was MIA for many years and the forum became very dormant. The forum changed ownership and the person now running the forum is outstanding.

 

Have you looked at the Ford 4.9 It would be longer but narrow to fit between the foot wells?

 

The 4.9 I-6 engine is HUGE! It may fit the width of the engine compartment, but it will probably stick into the cabin to the console. IE, it will also require a lot of cutting of the firewall and front floor.

 

Two years since I launched this thread, and the SHO 3.2 is still in the shop and I'm still staring at it.

Same two dozen problems to be resolved but I'm a little more up beat.
Since before, my shop has additional fabrication capability and I've even managed to do some (unrelated) production from a CAD design.

The manifold issue I think I can deal with, by tossing Madusa and instead packaging curved runners inside a box.
Sounds ambitious, but I think its within my skill level.
That gains me the ability to mount a throttle up front, above the cam belt.
Won't be pretty, but it will be adequate for initial R&D, and it doesn't improve the conflict between wide heads and narrow dog house.

So now I'm looking at brackets for both accessory mounting and engine mounting, hoping to maintain reversibility back to the Vulcan.

Just yesterday I also had the Aerostar out for another baseline performance run.
Same miserable numbers I always get: 11.6 seconds, 0-60.
By playing around with an (online performance) calculator, I find my Vulcan 3.0 is generating only about 123 horsepower and my Aero has a maximum speed of 102mph.

In theory the SHO, with my forward looking manifold generating 195 horsepower, could reduce that 0-60 number down to 7.7 seconds (and go to 123mph).

So, I'm still staring at it, and pondering how much trouble I'm in for.

 

I can only dream how FUN the aerostar would be to drive with some real HP. I've had motorcycles with more HP.
I hope you do it.

 

I recall that the SHO engine is based on the Vulcan v6, but I don't know how different it is. If you do design a new air intake for the engine, maybe it can be installed onto a regular 3.0 liter engine? That way we don't have to deal with trying to wedge the DOHC heads into the all-too-small engine compartment.

The other thing is the SHO engine made most of its power in the higher rpm ranges, aided by the fancy plumbing and DOHC. The heavier Aerostar needs help downstairs to get better acceleration, so that is a consideration for a new intake design.

 

Your post prompted me to look back and review my decision tree where one of the options was/is to develop the Vulcan.
Previously I had not considered in that plan, designing a new manifold, only updating with an off-the-shelf two-piece plus the 56mm BBK throttle, ala Morana, others.

Original one-piece plenum, with integral 50mm throttle and cruise.


My Jan 2017 planning review of the SHO highlighted not only the chassis hack discussed, but also fleshed out the requirement for bracket development for accessories and engine mounting, which would cost time and money. So your post reminded me to once again compare the pros and cons of the SHO vs mod'd Vulcan. The Vulcan would require no chassis hack and no new brackets but would not likely return the same performance or be as smooth.

The intake design I have sketched out, typical for dual bank vee configurations, could not be shared because the port surface on the Vulcan are sloped whereas the SHO appear to be horizontal. (I'll know more when/if I pull Medusa). However, I could simply make two designs.

{ed: Nope, not only are the Vulcan ports sloped but OHV pushrods eliminate a clean box design, and without a box the runners would have to be collected on the upstream end some other way.
The original lower manifold is responsible for clamping down onto the ports and may also be responsible for sealing off the block and covers.

}

As for throttle choice, the SHO 65mm is difficult to adapt because the idle air channel passes thru the body rather than off to the side. The BBK1548 56mm is nice with standard IA port, but a new one is pricey compared to a used Ford Mustang 60mm. In all cases, cruise control goes away and would not return until e-throttle could be developed.

In this spreadsheet I plug in the test weight of the Short Wheel Base, along with its Cd=0.37, deduct 18% from engine horsepower to reach rear wheel horsepower, then pick off from along the hp vs performance curve the plausible outputs from our selection of fantasy engines. On the 3rd line the Vulcan has been bored from 89 to 92mm, 10.0CR pistons installed and then graced with my custom intake and a 60mm throttle. On the 4th line I subtract 25hp from the factory SHO because I have killed off Medusa, but left the torque stand because my intake design features long tuned runners.

Note: Except for the first line, this spreadsheet is speculation and just for high level comparison.
So don't take the details too literally or too seriously.


Anyway, my SHO has used up one more life and didn't get kicked out the door.
Instead it will get move from a temporary dolly onto an official-looking engine cart and will probably used to (once again) continue development on the controller (ie my custom PCM).


{ed: Wow, parts support is not good.
Triple whammy: old, low-volume, Yamaha engine in a Ford universe.
Took hours to sort thru a "simple" issue like pulley replacement, serpentine belt.
Doesn't look good for the long haul compared to other options.

The ATX pulley collection.


Bearing, ATX lower idler pulley.

}