351m in a 94' Ranger

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 04-25-2003, 04:15 PM
mtyrell's Avatar
mtyrell
mtyrell is offline
Freshman User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question 351m in a 94' Ranger

I am thinking of buying a 351m, what are the diffrences between a 351m and a 351c? I know that a 351m is basically a 400 with a shorter stroke? Right? How difficult would it be to build a 351m to approximatly 400hp / 400tq? This motor will be for my Ranger with 1 ton axles, and 44s. I dont need a ton of power but I want alot of torque. The motor runs good C-6 trans works well also. How much power does this have as is? Its from a 79' Thunderbird. Any input or opinions are appreciated.
 
  #2  
Old 04-25-2003, 06:41 PM
gregdatech's Avatar
gregdatech
gregdatech is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sapulpa
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
351m in a 94' Ranger

Well, the 302 is a tight fit in the rangers, and I dont see how the even bigger and alot heavier 351m is going to fit without some cutting. Better to go 302 and stroke it, as alot more performance options are viable for what you have, in the way of the conversion etc. If your gonan go with the M block, put a 400 crank, rods pistons etc in it. No external difference, and youll get more torque at a lower RPM.
 
  #3  
Old 04-26-2003, 07:25 AM
mtyrell's Avatar
mtyrell
mtyrell is offline
Freshman User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
351m in a 94' Ranger

I have completely stripped the truck, only the frame and cab are left. I was planning on setting the motor several inches lower in the frame. If I have to make new mounts for engine, trans, and t-case I might as well put it where I can get a lower C/G. I can get the 351m, c6 trans in good condition for $200, thats the only reason for using it. I need something that works good as it but, can be modified later under a reasonable budget. Thats why I like the 351m, I can make it a 400 fairly easily. Right? Is the 351m/ 400 a bad idea all together? Weight is no issue I have 1 ton springs to go up front.
 
  #4  
Old 04-26-2003, 03:39 PM
macguyver's Avatar
macguyver
macguyver is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
351m in a 94' Ranger

I don't think weight would be an issue but the width of the engine (with exhaust) might be. Will it fit between the frame rails? I'd love to see it but you might want to measure first.
 
  #5  
Old 04-26-2003, 05:16 PM
shazam's Avatar
shazam
shazam is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Porterfield
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
351m in a 94' Ranger

Well boys I'll tell you this if they can stuff a 460 into a ranger then a 351m/400 will fit just as easy....
And seeing you have it stripped down lift the cab off set the motor, trans, and transfer then repostion the cab over it all ... put a 3" lift on the cab and you'll make it a whole bunch easier....
 
  #6  
Old 04-26-2003, 11:15 PM
mtyrell's Avatar
mtyrell
mtyrell is offline
Freshman User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
351m in a 94' Ranger

I'll try to get some work done on it this week, and get some pictures. Thanks for the reply's.
 
  #7  
Old 04-29-2003, 08:40 PM
battered_bronco's Avatar
battered_bronco
battered_bronco is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: not mass
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
351m in a 94' Ranger

got a freind w/a 5.0(he calls it a 302 but whatever gets ya thru the night) if he didn't have an idiot do it he would be doing good

its not an extream pain

heII we put a 302 in an exp(2 seat escort not explorer) friggin awsome but it didn't work so well. well couldn't get big enough tires on it to keep it planted

i wanted a 2.0 cosworth but this way was cheaper
 
  #8  
Old 04-29-2003, 10:15 PM
fordguy76's Avatar
fordguy76
fordguy76 is offline
Posting Guru

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Union, OH USA
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
351m in a 94' Ranger

ford put a 5.4 in a ranger. i read an article on it. its just a concept, they're never going to make it. but anyway, they put it as low and as far back as they could to make it fit. so there are some tips for ya. good luck.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
351Cleveland C4
1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
2
12-19-2013 03:59 PM
HoustonGuy
1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
4
07-15-2013 06:12 PM
VicSevenSeven
335 Series- 5.8/351M, 6.6/400, 351 Cleveland
6
07-05-2013 11:30 AM
spartan117_mc
335 Series- 5.8/351M, 6.6/400, 351 Cleveland
2
03-09-2007 04:05 PM
cruz76
335 Series- 5.8/351M, 6.6/400, 351 Cleveland
1
03-26-2006 05:40 PM



Quick Reply: 351m in a 94' Ranger



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 PM.