Hell Yeah, we've seen the front one, now we need an episode on the one in back!

Uhhh that's why you come back to see the follow up video...bait is hard to understand folks... Jkjjk :)

DeezyPNW i would beg to differ

Not for everyone, but people used to do SVO swaps into those. Those things can really put out. A modern version would be the 2.3 EcoBoost or zetec. If I were doing offroad only, no smog, cheap, fast, and easy..... I'd probably just go v8.

@@xmo552 cost for cost and time, The 302 with a F150 trans makes more sense.i decided finally. need that low end.

@@TurboGreggZ have you driven a 4 cyl Ranger ?

@@deezypnw9284 I'm not sure what year Ranger you've got. At my old job we had a fleet of 3rd generation Rangers. I think* some of the 4 cyl trucks had dual plugs... Those were ok. I'm pretty sure some had the larger v6. I would drive a v6. But 💪😁🤘... I support you 100% on a 302. I have 2 fox body cars; an SVO actually haha and an 88 gt. Everyone and their momma tells me to swap out the 5.0 and put in a coyote or LS. I'm keeping the damn 302/5.0. That low torque is all I need and she runs *purdy* good. That torque comes from (relatively) big cubes breathing through long and narrow runners. Performance was dying back then. The manufacturers had to go to smaller and smaller engines that were gutless. They experimented with turbos. The Ford and Chevy V8 sports cars were anemic but they held onto the dying v8. Chevy went efi earlier and then they tuned their intake for crazy low end torque from a small engine. Ford went efi later and then they also went with a tuned long runner intake. Chevy's is the TPI, the runners bulge out and cross under the plenum. Ford's design has the runners all in line mostly but they're bent over on itself. All this tech comes from tunnel rams, Chrysler's cross ram 413s, and even further back - the Ramchargers engineers designing on the track. www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/secrets-of-chrysler-ram-induction/ Sorry I geeked out there a minute.😁