OM617 swap into Ford Ranger, what would it take? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

ROLLGUY · #31 05-05-2016, 07:19 PM

Although it looks like a 617 is headed for the engine bay of your Ranger, have you thought about a Mitsubishi 2.3 TurboDiesel? The Ranger came with this engine for a few years ('83-'85?). This engine can also be found in other countries as a 2.5 (I think) intercooled version. A friend of mine got a used low mile one from Japan, and put it in his truck. I do know that finding a Ranger with this engine is rare, but the Mits truck can be found with this engine easier. They are fairly cheap (MUCH LESS than an OM617) to rebuild, as I have done it. Most rebuild parts are available everywhere. This is a very powerful engine for it's size, and moves my truck laden with many pounds of tools, very well...Rich

97 SL320 · #32 05-05-2016, 08:51 PM

The Mustang "double sump is more of a front sump to clear the oil pump and a rear sump to hold most of the oil" . Yes, there is a drain plug in the front buy you only get sub 1 qt out from what I recall.

Mölyapina · #33 05-05-2016, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROLLGUY

Although it looks like a 617 is headed for the engine bay of your Ranger, have you thought about a Mitsubishi 2.3 TurboDiesel? The Ranger came with this engine for a few years ('83-'85?). This engine can also be found in other countries as a 2.5 (I think) intercooled version. A friend of mine got a used low mile one from Japan, and put it in his truck. I do know that finding a Ranger with this engine is rare, but the Mits truck can be found with this engine easier. They are fairly cheap (MUCH LESS than an OM617) to rebuild, as I have done it. Most rebuild parts are available everywhere. This is a very powerful engine for it's size, and moves my truck laden with many pounds of tools, very well...Rich

The trouble around here is that pretty much all of those trucks have rusted off the road years ago... but importing an engine would still be an option. It is a very intriguing idea, though, and might not be too much more expensive in the end, especially if it limits the amount custom work to be done.

97 SL320 · #34 05-05-2016, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am me

I've got a confession, I've done almost no work on cars so I don't know the names of all the parts between the crankshaft and the drive shaft. Everything I know is just extrapolations of what I've seen on the small engines I've worked on and pictures.

Danger, Warning! A swap like this requires fabrication skills in addition to knowing what a factory build looks like.

You may want to consider buying the truck then getting it running by replacing the stock engine. When you get past this, find another parts Ranger and mock up the conversion in that. Once complete, it is just a matter of removing and replacing Vs a total tear down and rebuild that seems to take forever.

Taking things apart is easy, putting back together more difficult and making parts that never fit together before much more difficult. A lot of projects stall just after the take apart , engine sort of sitting under the hood but not hooked up stage.

Charlie Foxtrot · #35 05-06-2016, 07:05 AM

Cummins 4BT is also a popular swap for Ford Rangers. Lots of bread trucks came equipped w/4BTs w/Ford transmissions (auto & stick). -just a thought

t walgamuth · #36 05-06-2016, 07:11 AM

Cummins 4bt in a ranger? That engine will weigh 800# or more and the tranny required would be extra weight too. Not to mention it will probably stick 6" above the hood.

Dan Stokes · #37 05-06-2016, 07:41 AM

There is LOT of love for the 4BT out there on the Interwebs and while it's a GREAT engine I didn't consider it because:
1) They're heavy
2) Their tall, pan to valve covers
3) They run at pretty low RPM necessitating a lot of gear swapping.

I like the 617 as a swap candidate but as mentioned it IS a lot of fabrication and rather advanced parts adaptation. I cautioned about the possibility of it getting stuck in the build stage but projects like this can and do get done. I'll reiterate my call to PLAN, PLAN, PLAN! The results are very rewarding and the engine is (I think) fun to drive. Learning how to get big power out of the engine has been a ton of fun for me.

Don't forget to have fun with the project and the finished project!

Dan

JB3 · #38 05-06-2016, 07:46 AM

another option is a TDI swap. Smaller engine, and pretty good power.

Here is a pretty comprehensive thread on converting a Ranger to a TDI, pretty good read.

TDI Ranger Build - The Ranger Station Forums

97 SL320 · #39 05-06-2016, 07:55 AM

To go off on the 4BT tangent, at 800 Lb that is as much as a big block gas motor, not the best thing for a small truck front suspension of weight distribution.

They are a popular swap because they are available not necessary because they are the best engine for the task.

The 4 / 6 B engines have a steel pan that is below crankshaft level. Whipping up a dry sump is trivial and will reduce height.

The engines can rev higher. Like most industrial diesels, they are rated for 100 % duty so are turned down so they last. Automotive engines are rated for intermittent duty since once at speed power requirements drop. ( Think about a car that tows a trailer constantly or one on a road race track constantly being loaded, engine life is shortened. )

mach4 · #40 05-06-2016, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Stokes

.....PLAN, PLAN, PLAN!

I'll add to that recommended plan - RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. My swap took about a year to do and most of the effort was in researching (and re-doing) Now that the research is done and the problems and issues sorted out, the physical swap could be replicated in a weekend or two plus a bit of prestaging, light fabbing and bit collecting.

Every system will have its challenges, and probably a dozen possible known solutions and a bunch more unknown ones (which is where the forums and Internet can come into play)

clacker · #41 05-06-2016, 12:04 PM

The Ranger running around here with a 617 was a back yard get it done kind of swap, I don't believe it was done professionally or with much thought to it, but I could be wrong. I believe it was both engine and trans swapped in, sitting above the cross member. RWD for sure. Most swaps are limited when doing a 4X4, it really complicates things.
I think the biggest challenge will be mating engine to Ford Trans and having room for everything (transfer case, driveshaft, steering).
The factory Ranger diesel option is really hard to find, not impossible but very very rare and there were several configurations, diesel, turbo diesel, 2wd, 4wd, short bed, long bed, extra cab making it tough to match everything up (driveshafts and such). I have actually test driven a few over the years, lots of turbo lag and not very fast but nice units.

OM617YOTA · #42 05-06-2016, 01:05 PM

I considered the 4BT for my swap and went with the 617 for several reasons. In no particular order:

Cost - 4BT's cost more than my whole conversion around here. Might have been able to come close by buying a bread truck, yanking the 4BT, dropping in a gas 350 and reselling the truck to recoup some of the cost, but dang turn one motor swap project into two? Not worth the work.

Weight - 617 is much lighter than 4BT.

RPM Range - 4BT would have required re-gearing.

Torque - 617 was darned near exactly the same torque as the stock V6, 4BT would have required trans/xfer case/rear end swap to survive. I read reports of 4BT's causing issues with drivetrains when swapped into full size trucks due to huge torque pulses. Wasn't going to deal with that.

Had I to do mine again, I would have used a VW TDI engine and an older solid axle pre-EFI truck. I would have made much greater effort to keep the engine inside the hood and not need that funky radiator box/extension.

I am me · #43 05-06-2016, 01:10 PM

Thanks for the information on how the clutch is mounted guys! I was thinking of the clutch as it's own unit (seeing pictures of automatic transmissions was messing me up) but the clutch engaging with the flywheel makes way more sense. It actually simplifies some of the parts i thought I was going to have to make which is awesome.

So what I'm thinking of doing is getting the flywheel, clutch and pressure plate from a manual Mercedes 240D and putting that on the 300D engine in place of the flex plate. I had been all worried that the engine wouldn't fit on the ranger's transmission but the clutch for the ranger is larger then the clutch for the 240D so it should all fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mölyapina

lol, I'm debating doing an engine swap in my 300SD to an OM603... it would be my second 617 engine pull. I wouldn't turn down help and would also be happy to help with any projects he has.

You're a bit far from me (UMass Amherst area) but depending when you do it I'd be up for giving you hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Stokes

Welding (even as badly as I do it) is indeed VERY helpful. Given that I'm NOT the world's best weldor (I have vision issues that mean that I can't do a lot better) I sometimes tack stuff together and take the project over to a local shop that will TIG weld stuff for a fair price. My point - do what you can but don't be proud!

I forgot to mention that the oil pump and it's pickup are inside that lower sump so you can't alter that too much. You can make it a bit smaller as shown in my build thread but it pretty much has to stay there.

I'm decent at MIG welding but my welder can't handle anything over 1/4" so hopefully there isn't much thicker then that that I'll have to weld. If there is though my friend has a 200 something amp stick welder that could handle bigger stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Stokes

Bill - The Ranger came equipped with an OHC 4 cylinder as the base engine so it likely has a reasonably tall engine bay.

I know guys fit small block Ford V-8s in these all the time (there are kits) so there IS a bit of space in there. Later Explorers (Ranger based) had SBFs as a factory option and I once had an oil pan from one which was front sump. So MAYBE..... My Mustang uses a double sump not unlike the 617 and I don't know if that would fit in the Ranger but it might.

Now I'm curious and am going to look up the Ranger swap pan......

Yep, they (Trans-Dapt) recommend using the Explorer engine with the front sump so it sounds like the 617 sump should fit, more or less. I Am Me may have an easier time of it than I did though the 4WD may be a bit of a challenge.

Dan

Sweet! That's what I like to hear! I'll bring a tape when I go to check out the truck this evening to make sure there's room.

I am me · #44 05-06-2016, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROLLGUY

Although it looks like a 617 is headed for the engine bay of your Ranger, have you thought about a Mitsubishi 2.3 TurboDiesel? The Ranger came with this engine for a few years ('83-'85?). This engine can also be found in other countries as a 2.5 (I think) intercooled version. A friend of mine got a used low mile one from Japan, and put it in his truck. I do know that finding a Ranger with this engine is rare, but the Mits truck can be found with this engine easier. They are fairly cheap (MUCH LESS than an OM617) to rebuild, as I have done it. Most rebuild parts are available everywhere. This is a very powerful engine for it's size, and moves my truck laden with many pounds of tools, very well...Rich

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB3

another option is a TDI swap. Smaller engine, and pretty good power.

Here is a pretty comprehensive thread on converting a Ranger to a TDI, pretty good read.

TDI Ranger Build - The Ranger Station Forums

Both are good options but I'm going to stick with the OM617 because they're not hard to get and when I have problems with it I can get help from my friends who drive nothing but Mercedes 240/300 and swear by the engines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97 SL320

Danger, Warning! A swap like this requires fabrication skills in addition to knowing what a factory build looks like.

You may want to consider buying the truck then getting it running by replacing the stock engine. When you get past this, find another parts Ranger and mock up the conversion in that. Once complete, it is just a matter of removing and replacing Vs a total tear down and rebuild that seems to take forever.

Taking things apart is easy, putting back together more difficult and making parts that never fit together before much more difficult. A lot of projects stall just after the take apart , engine sort of sitting under the hood but not hooked up stage.

Ok so I may not know a whole lot about how the truck's actually assembled but hey, that's a big part of why I want to do this. Also, I'm confident I can fabricate all the parts. I can weld and have small welder, I have a manual lathe and can do basic manual machining, I know how to program/set up/run both CNC lathes and mills as well as have a much more experienced machinist friend who can make me all the CNC parts for the cost of the materials if I can't do it my self.
I was thinking of just putting new gas engine in the truck like you recommend but we'll see if that happens.

mach4 · #45 05-10-2016, 09:57 PM

I was just out driving around and a thought popped into my head regarding this, and for that matter, other swaps involving the OM617. As many know, I swapped a 617 into a 380SL chassis. This swap was extremely easy because it so happened that the 107 used the same front subframe as the W114/115 which came with an OM 617, so the engine literally bolted in.

My out-of-the-box "solution" is to research using the MB front subframe on the Ranger. The subframe mounts with 4 simple attach points and has all the front suspension components integrated except the top shock mount.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to just cut out all the Ranger's suspension, fab mount points for the MB subframe and bolt it up. The other remaining issue would be the steering gear. Might be possible to adapt the Rangers or alternately mount the MB steering gear.

If there were a question of strength, there's no reason why the subframe couldn't be welded in directly giving significant frame strength to the front crossmember, as opposed to using the rubber mounts as with the MB.

Just a thought for consideration.

At one time I took detailed measurements, but those have long since disappeared.

Here's a subframe image