2.9L to early 4.0L swap really worth it?

[88ranger4x4offroad]

I was reading in the technical information and noticed that the horsepower ratings for the two motors aren't very different. I was just wondering if the swap is really worth all the trouble. Thought I would start this to see what everyone thinks. I have an 88 Ranger 2.9 and have the option to get an early Explorer with 4.0. Thank you.

[AllanD]

The difference between the 2.9 and the 4.0 is rar, FAR more than it would appear in the published Horsepower specs of the two engines...

First off while 20hp isn't all that much of a difference the difference in torque is actually quite profound... the 2.9 makes 170ft/lb@2600rpm and while toe torque spec varies between 2400rpm(Aerostar) and 3000rpm for various calibrations of the 4.0OHV the torque specs are 220ft/lb, 225ft/lb or 230ft/lb(Aerostar)

Ponder this a moment, 225ft/lb Vs 170ft/lb, that's a 32% increase in torque.... But even that doesn't tell the entire picture... because the 4.0 produces significant useful torque well below it's torque peak.

While the 2.9 kinda falls flat below 2300-2400rpm the 4.0 is still making torque in the 1600-1800rpm range.

Yeah, if the 4.0 made the same power at higher rpm like the 2.9 does it'd make ~195hp but that isn't where you really use the power, or even need it....

Now if you do like I did and switch from a 2.9 to a 4.0 with headers (Borla) you'll really like the 4.0...

To me with the headersit does seem to make bit more power up high, and more torque through the entire power band.
I'd even venture to say that the 4.0 (with headers) makes more torque at 1800rpm than the 2.9 makes total

Borla used to advertise that their headers added 35hp and 50ft/lb of torque and after driving my truck I have little trouble believing it.

I only finished the conversion in the last few weeks and have accumulated 78miles test driving and 1800miles and change driving it home from wyoming

It was flat-towed out there as my ride home after "ferrying" an F-250 out there.

Yeah, I was pretty sure everything was "right".

It wasn't the first time (or the second or even the third) that I have assembled a vehicle from parts (or a major repair) and hopped in it and driven 1000 (or more) miles without a second thought.... (well, not entirely without second thoughts, but...)

I'm still chasing an annoying problem with an uncooperative A/C-WOT cutout relay (It trips out and never re-connects) and I just found a loose ground that caused the headlights to blink out intermittently (striped thread), but the engine, MASSIVE changes to the entire vehicle wiring (converted an '87 Ranger to a '93 explorer's power distribution system) as well as actually finishing the installation of my factory dual tank system (but not actually using either of the factory tanks or fuel pump installations)

And finally I rewired the lighting so that the headlight and multifunction switch do not actually switch the rear brake and turn signals or tail lights. as I added an additional relay box under the hood so that the relays actually switch on the rear lamps, I also added a set of diode isolators so that I could control those lights from the vehicle I towed my ranger with, which is actually pretty slick...


AllanD

[rusty ol ranger]

No....not really.

Put some 4.10's behind that 2.9L....and you wont miss a 4.0L at all.

Some agree the 2.9L was very underrated from the factory.

later,
Dustin

[Hahnsb2]

Ahhhh the great 2.9vs4.0 ensues again.... I have 4.10s behind my 2.9, its not enough, get a 4.0... A 32% increase in torque doesn't lie Dustin...

[rusty ol ranger]

Ive drivin them both....for an extra liter in displacement, and the extra fuel, and the work of swapping them over, the extra 1\4 sec you save to 60 isnt worth it.

A 2.9L will jump a 4.0L till about 25 anyways.

later,
Dustin

[85_Ranger4x4]

Ive drivin them both....for an extra liter in displacement, and the extra fuel, and the work of swapping them over, the extra 1\4 sec you save to 60 isnt worth it.

A 2.9L will jump a 4.0L till about 25 anyways.

later,
Dustin

If you tow it will be worth it however, that 55 ft lb of difference in torque will shine in that arena.

Afterall if a somewhat peakier 2.9 170 lb-ft will out tow a 4.0 smooth 225 ft-lbs, then my really peaky 2.8 with 143 will whoop them both.
:tease:

[Hahnsb2]

Ive drivin them both....for an extra liter in displacement, and the extra fuel, and the work of swapping them over, the extra 1\4 sec you save to 60 isnt worth it.

A 2.9L will jump a 4.0L till about 25 anyways.

later,
Dustin
Were both rigs you drove equipped the same? Same tranny, gears, tires, bed, cab and 4x4 or 4x2? I average 15 mpg with my 2.9, doesn't matter how I drive it... I'm POSITIVE I'd get better millage with a 4.0. Don't get me wrong my 2.9 is has been a tough bastard and comes back for more but Id take a 4.0 any day. I have 2 friends with rangers, ones a 93 SC 4x4 4.0 auto with 31s, the other is 90 2.9 5 speed SC 4x4 with 28s and both have 3.73 gears. The 2.9 truck feels more peppy but they're equipped differently, one's an auto with 31s and the other is a manual with 28s.
4.0 FTW!

[rickcdewitt]

if you can do the electrical bullshit go for it.i could make my 91 sploder chirp third gear and my 91 2.9l would only chirp second gear.pretty much is the electrical and smog worth the big increase to you.there are superchargers and all kinds of stuff for 4.0l's also so you can approach v8 power levels.

[rusty ol ranger]

Aftermarket is better ill admit for the 4.0L then the 2.9L. The 2.9L has just as much (if not more potenital) if the aftermarket woulda noticed it.

The 2.9L already makes more power per CI then a 351 lightning, or 302 HO motor, so by strict defintion its a high performance motor.

The 4.0L i drove was in a Ext cab 2wd with an auto, and the 2.9L has been in various ones, but i drove a 2.9L Regcab long bed 2wd, is what rusty is.

A supercab cant be 300lbs heavier then a Reg cab, so if the 4.0L is as torquey as everyone claims then 300lbs extra it still shoula run harder then the 2.9L, and i know that auto tranny didnt zap much.

Even the 2.9L Ext cab 4x4 with a 5sp i drove had more nuts to it then that 4.0L.

They both beat the pants off the 3.0, and the SOHC 4.0 is a decent motor, but the OHV 4.0 just isnt all that great.

later,
Dustin

[2manyfords]

A supercab cant be 300lbs heavier then a Reg cab,

Oh yes it can.
A 2nd generation ext cab 4.0L Automatic would easily weigh 300lb's more than a 1st generation reg cab.

My '92 4.0L 5 speed 4x4 Ranger with 3.55 gearing and 32" tires can still whip my stock '88 2.9L 4x4 5 speed with 3.45 gearing and stock sized tires quite easily.

Swap in the 4.0L. You won't regret it.

[AllanD]

No....not really.

Put some 4.10's behind that 2.9L....and you wont miss a 4.0L at all.

Some agree the 2.9L was very underrated from the factory.

later,
Dustin

Dustin, Only one word comes to mind.... :bsflag:.

I already HAD 4.10's behind my 2.9.

I'm comparing apples to apples, a 2.9 with 4.10's Vs a 4.0
with 4.10's and I don't care what you do to a 2.9, my
freshly swapped 4.0 utterly stock '93 engine (except
for borla headers) will stomp your 2.9's dick into the dirt.

It isn't about a puny 1/4sec 0-60 it's about cutting the time by a third.
It's about going up hills with the 4.0 part throttle in fourth where
with the 2.9 you had to be SCREAMING @ WOT in third.

there simply is NO comparison

Now yes, I'm the one who first pointed out that the power/CID of the 2.9 is similar to the 351Lightning, but that is an impediment to improving the 2.9, the 4.0 has much more potential, because if a 4.0 was producing the same power relative to displacement as the 2.9 it would make 193hp

I think actually getting 200hp form a 4.0 is easier than getting more from a 2.9 would be...

The same old problem applies the higher the performance is stock the harder it is to improve upon it.

Now as for mileage, I'm close to being a champion at squeeking mileage froma 2.9, my best of 26.2 over a full tank of gas (all highway miles) is fantastic
However running at the same speed towing my 2000lb trailer and my 2.9's would drop to the High-12's or low-13's.
That being said the 4.0 while returning from Wyoming managed high-16's
and low-17's over a 1900miles distance and six tanks of gas.

Honestly I don't expect the peak mileage with the 4.0 to
be as good, but EPA estimates for the 4.0 in the early 90's
were 20-21 highway. I can live with that is it is about the same as my average mileage with the 2.9.

I simply haven't had the chance to drive the 4.0 with the truck
unloaded on the highway to find out how it'll do, but a "tight"
4.0 has gotta be better than an aging 2.9.


where the 2.9 was always straining the 4.0 just seems to loaf along and do things effortlessly.

I would not only put my 4.0 up against ANY 2.9 in a 4x4 supercab, but I'd be fairly confidant going up against
MOST 5.0 installs in a 4x4 supercab.

AD

[rusty ol ranger]

The 302 is junk anyways. Its worthless in a truck. But still.....i gurantee it would be faster then a 4.0L, (Unless you have a worn out 302 and a fresh 4.0), and outpull it.

Ill get my 300 and whoop both of you (Pulling anyways).....and a 351 would eat us all alive.

Techinically its dumb to compare the 2.9L to the 4.0L, its like compareing a 4.3L to a 350....They were never made to compete against each other. The 2.9L competed with the 3.0, the 2.8L Chevy, etc, and it kicked both of there asses. The fact that the 2.9L can be compared in anyway to the 4.0 proves its a good engine.

My nephews 2.9L, (Port and polish, headers, 2.8 pistons, and some other goodies, incliding a cam) with 4.10 gears will walk a 4.0L Sohc with a stick shift.

A 2.9L is a hellacious running engine for what it is, The 2.9L is the best all around engine ever stuck in a ranger, it may not be as efficent as a 2.3L, and might not be quite as powerful as a 4.0L.....but its a good tradeoff. Alot better then the 3.nogo that replaced it.

Bottom line....its not worth the time and effort and BS you have to go through.

later,
Dustin

[2manyfords]

its like compareing a 4.3L to a 350....

Well some of us remember a 4.3L running with a 351W a couple of years back in a pulling contest.:stirthepot:

[AllanD]

Apples and Oranges.

ANY comparison of the different engines NOT involving a similar truck (Cab type, 2wd or 4x4, gearing) is worthless.

I've seen a non-turbo 2.3 that would walk 2.9's, but the 2.3 had 4.10's in a shortbed 2wd while the 2.9 was in a 4x4 supercab with 3.45's.

There was someone else locally that thought 4.0's were junk because he HAMMERED the one his brother had, problem is that a 2.9 with 4.10's shpould stomp all over a 4.0 with 3.08's....

Remember that it's more likely that a 4.0 truck has 3.27's or 3.55's than anything else and the difference in gears between 3.27's and 3.73's makes the difference between the engines a wash...

Objective fact, the 4.0 has far more "grunt" ANYWHERE in it's range than the 2.9 does and ALL the mods in the world will HURT the 2.9's bottom end grunt.
And frankly unless you are RACING (on a track) top end is less than useful.

Can you outrun me with your 2.8 pistoned highly modified 2.9? yeah, probably, but you are going to have to catch up to me first.

And remember that the 2.9 was only made from 1986 through 1992
while the 4.0 was made from 1990 through 2001 and MANY TIMES
more 4.0's were made, and the 2.9's out there are only getting older
The very youngest are already 16 years old!

AD



AllanD

[rickcdewitt]

the only thing i diden't like about the 4.0l in my 91 sploder was it would start to misfire if you ran through water too much and splashed it around the engine compartment.i've been up to the bottom of the headlights in my 2.9l truck and it diden't cut out with a relocated air intake.(but if my truck stopped while up to the lights i'de probably be shit out of luck).i know it could just be that particular truck but anyone else have their 4.0l start sputtering after a few mud runs?

[AllanD]

the only thing i diden't like about the 4.0l in my 91 sploder was it would start to misfire if you ran through water too much and splashed it around the engine compartment.i've been up to the bottom of the headlights in my 2.9l truck and it diden't cut out with a relocated air intake.(but if my truck stopped while up to the lights i'de probably be shit out of luck).i know it could just be that particular truck but anyone else have their 4.0l start sputtering after a few mud runs?

That sounds like an issue with spark wires....

I'd trust a 4.0 in deeper water than I'd trust a 2.9.

a 4.0 doesn't have a distributor to get wet.

[rickcdewitt]

so the crank trigger will work a couple inches under water?i heard there was some kind of crank trigger retrofit for this.then again the ford tech i worked with who told me that was full of s*@t most of the time.

[rusty ol ranger]

Well some of us remember a 4.3L running with a 351W a couple of years back in a pulling contest.:stirthepot:

That wasnt a fair test at all because the 351W was a in a 3\4ton ext cab with 3.55's while the 4.3L was in a S10 blazer with 4.10's.

Thats like a 2000lb weight difference, eaisley, plus the gearing difference. Put 3.55's and another ton of weight on the blazer and im sure it would be chug a luggin.

Im sick of argueing about which is better. Allan, you just dont like the 2.9, because youve had bad experince with them. The 4.0L is a turd, givin its displacement and the power it makes for its displacment. If it was as "good" as the 2.9L it would be making something like 200hp, so inreality, even the SOHC 4.0L isnt all that great compared to the 2.9.

If the 4.0 was tuned as good as the 2.9L it should be making exactly 193HP and 254FTLBS of Torque.

And we all know it makes no where near that.

later,
Dustin

[85_Ranger4x4]

The 4.0L is a turd, givin its displacement and the power it makes for its displacment. If it was as "good" as the 2.9L it would be making something like 200hp, so inreality, even the SOHC 4.0L isnt all that great compared to the 2.9.

If the 4.0 was tuned as good as the 2.9L it should be making exactly 193HP and 254FTLBS of Torque.

So the bigger more powerfull engine is a turd because it doesn't have the same power / dispacement ratio as a smaller engine? The 2.0T in my Laser made 100hp/liter, so it must be a better truck engine than my 5.4 with 49hp/liter, heh, thats a good one. Comparing hp/displacement really proves nothing IMO, the smaller engines have an advantage.

Given that the 4.0 and 2.9 both weigh about the same, I would guess that the engine with more power would outdo the smaller one in the same truck setup.

[rickcdewitt]

o.k. recap- big electrical,wiring job.use the 4.0l tranny.is lots of extra power worth tearing apart your engine bay?come on guys this was really all he was asking about.good luck deciding.

[Psychopete]

o.k. recap- big electrical,wiring job.use the 4.0l tranny.is lots of extra power worth tearing apart your engine bay?come on guys this was really all he was asking about.good luck deciding.

I've noticed that they do this off and on. Give it time - about 6 months - they'll have this same debate.

I wouldn't say "lots of extra power". :)

In my opinion, no, it's not worth the money or your time. Especially if you already have a good running 2.9L already there, if it's not asbolutely neccessary, you might just ride it out until a head finally cracks. Not that it's (4.0L) a bad engine, you're just probably not going to get what you'd expect. Not to mention you could open a new can of worms and have all sorts of issues with your swap.

Pete

[Natedog]

if you can do the electrical bullshit go for it...pretty much is the electrical and smog worth the big increase to you. there are superchargers and all kinds of stuff for 4.0l's also so you can approach v8 power levels.

X2....if you can do the work go for it. I've driven both and the 4.0 in similiar Ranger smokes the 2.9. I've got a 2.9, and wish I had a 4.0...same mileage almost, but lots more power.

[jcmtbfreak]

I've noticed that they do this off and on. Give it time - about 6 months - they'll have this same debate.

I wouldn't say "lots of extra power". :)

In my opinion, no, it's not worth the money or your time. Especially if you already have a good running 2.9L already there, if it's not asbolutely neccessary, you might just ride it out until a head finally cracks. Not that it's (4.0L) a bad engine, you're just probably not going to get what you'd expect. Not to mention you could open a new can of worms and have all sorts of issues with your swap.

Pete

I agree. If you have a 2.9 thats still running well. Don't bother with it. Wait till it dies. My cents on the 4L (of which I am no where near an expert, I can just tell you my experience). We had a 93 2WD explorer and we could tow our tent camper up and down hills with no issues. Most of the time it wouldn't shift out of OD and we wouldn't lose speed. The 2.9 in my 87 4X4 auto B2 can't keep me at speed going up a hill with the tank near empty and just me inside. Granted, I know things would improve if I put a manual in there. But still.... And on the flip side, I dont' know about others, but if I was going to swap in another engine. I'd get it rebuilt and put a bit of money into it to improve the performance and to have a fresh engine that would be good to go for quite awhile. And would have above stock performance. So stock hp and torque numbers would be mute point. But yeah, for now if the 2.9 is running well...run with it. :)

[AllanD]

Im sick of argueing about which is better. Allan, you just dont like the 2.9, because youve had bad experince with them. The 4.0L is a turd, givin its displacement and the power it makes for its displacment. If it was as "good" as the 2.9L it would be making something like 200hp, so inreality, even the SOHC 4.0L isnt all that great compared to the 2.9.

If the 4.0 was tuned as good as the 2.9L it should be making exactly 193HP and 254FTLBS of Torque.

And we all know it makes no where near that.

later,
Dustin


Dustin, if you are sick of arguing stop arguing

I'm DISCUSSING against your arguements.
I concede some of your points and you disrespect mine with hyperbole.
You sir are the one doing the arguing and you can keep doing it or not
as it amuses you, I will refute factual errors until hell freezes over if
necissary.

No onto the facts:
Ford specifically didn't want the 4.0 to be a peaky engine Frankly the power from a 2.9 isn't as useful as it could be because the engine simply has to rev too much. and optimizing it for lower rpm reduces the peak numbers, that's life a compromise.

the 2.9 is "adequate" for a 2wd std cab, but for anything else you simply need a larger engine, because only displacement can give you torque.

"Power" isn't the important thing Torque is.

if the 4.0 was making 193hp it wouldn't be making useable torque down at 1500rpm (which it does!) and wouldn't be as useful offroad or towing as it is.
and the 2.9 CANNOT overcome that, it simply doesn't have the displacement to be "torquey".

The issue is that the 2.9 despite the best efforts to run it as one is NOT a "truck" engine and all the wishing and hoping to the contrary isn't going to change that. Additionally the 2.9 because it is stressed so much of the time has reliability issues, not to mention they were kinda built "on the cheap"

I have a great use for a 2.9 engine! I'll but another TVR 280i and swap in an EFI 2.9 (with a scorpio intake) in place of the POS 2.8 engine that my TVR had, I won't have another one in an RBV.

EVERY man who has a good opinion of the 2.9 has likely only had a few and all of those few have been good ones. My PERSONAL experience with 2.9 engines now stands at ELEVEN, of those One was superb, two others were
"So-So" and the rest? pure shit.

I have 370K miles with 2.9 engines in my Ranger supercab alone and another 320K miles between my two bronco2's, so I think I know a bit about them.
Then there are the 2.9's in the vehicles of friends and relatives that I get to fix, because it seems I'm the only one that really understands them...

And my decision to pass on another 2.9 is by no means emotional
I Like the 2.9 in general, when the example you are speaking
of runs "right", but IN REALITY they do that all-to-rarely.
I don't believe that it's any exaggeration to say that for
every "good" 2.9 there are four or five (or possibly six)
that are utter crap.

If Ford had made the 2.9 "better" there'd probably be three times as many Ranger enthusiasts than there are.
Frankly I think the 4.0 is what the 2.9 should have been
in the first place.

you are assuming that I'm emotional about the 2.9, I'm not.
I ran 2.9's because they WERE (for me anyway) CHEAP.
And since my '87 ranger was factory wired for a 2.9 the easiest solution.
I gave up on the 2.9 after killing three of them in 18 months and having no really good gambles on further junkyard replacement engines and having three 4.0 engines on hand...

I won't swap in a junkyard engine unless I have another one on-hand.
and I will immediatly aquire another (I won't drive anything without a "spare")

The real conversion from a 2.9 to a 4.0 took me an actual time
working on conversion specific stuff of about three weeks.
I had my truck mostly together as a 4x4 with the 2.9 when
the "new" 2.9 was determined to be bad when I had to pull it
and start on the 4.0 conversion.

The truck actually took far longer to assemble because of all the
other stuff I did (I also converted to 4x4, created by own body mount hardware and did a 1" body lift completely replaced ALL the wiring and power distribution in the truck...About the only thing I left alone was the FRONT lighting and horn wiring. (everything going to the rear of the truck now runs off of relays)

But for that effort the engine essentially started on the first try.
I say essentially because I had a fuel pump wiring issue that was
caused by a ground lug I didn't screw down that would have
crippled a fresh 2.9 install just as completely....

My install was difficult only because I deliberatly made it so
when I REFUSED to modify the '87 connectors at the drivers
side firewall or dashboard and I INSISTED on switching over to the 1993 power distribution system thereby ELIMINATING virtually all of the fuseable links in the trucks wiring. and to do all that I had to cut up TWO other wiring
harnesses to Create an adapter harness (mostly because I'm
replacing my entire CAB at a later date)


Yeah you can "turd polish" a 2.9 into something it really isn't
but at what price?
You talk about the 2.8 piston swap? Did you pack the short block in cumpled $50 bills for the trip home?

I probably spent less on the complete conversion than anyone doing the 2.8 piston swap does on the machine shop work and gasket sets.

I take offense at your characterizing my thoughts on the 2.9 as disliking it?
I don't actually dislike them, I am just HONEST about the 2.9's (many) flaws
and recognise that a 4.0 is simply a better foundation to build upon.

In reality the mods many suggest for the 2.9 are no easier than switching to a 4.0, the difference is in the nature of the challenges, mechanical/machining that you PAY someone else to do or electrical that you CAN do yourself if you are capable of tying your own shoes...

The very fact that the 2.9 is as powerful as it is for it's size makes the proposed task of "improving" it essentially an exercise in futility for use in a truck.

Remember the old hotrodder's maxim: Cubic Inches? Yes!

the 4.0 simply has 75 more cubic inches to work with, that plus
bigger ports, heads (even the 90-91 4.0 heads) that are FAR
more resistant to cracking than even the vaunted "world product"
or TM90 2.9 head castings. the later '93-94 head casting are probably the most crack resistant of the 4.0 heads, and Hey, the 4.0 has a friction reducing roller cam as well!

and there is SOME aftermarket support for the 4.0 whereas the aftermarket support for the 2.9 is non-exsistant unless you count the availability of headman or pacesetter headers. (JBA having discontinued their 2.9 headers)

Getting rid of the distributor (and the TFI module)
can hardly be a bad thing either...

And no adjustable rocker arms for the misguided backyarder
to screw-up.

Not to mention that the 4.0 finally did away with those
damned V-belts

It seems to me that what everyone wants to do to a 2.9 is CONVERT their 2.9 into a 4.0 and most of what I'm saying is that it is easier (no to mention cheaper) to simply convert TO a 4.0 rather than convert a 2.9 INTO a 4.0

And basically I switched to a 4.0 because trustworthy junkyard
2.9's are getting as rare as finding REAL silver coins in your change...
while finding a good '93-94 (or later) 4.0's is as easy as finding someone
wearing a leather jacket in a biker bar.

and to get back to the original question is the swap worth it? Only the person doing it can decide.

I did it but if I'd had another 2.9 engine around Id've probably stuck with the 2.9 engine for a while atleast... (however long or short the engine lasted) but, now that I've made the switch I won't go back.

Yes, I'm glad I switched.

I wish I'd done it seven years ago when I first aquired my engine swap donor.

Don't fear the wiring, it isn't really as hard as it looks.

AD

[gfbgreaser289]

well i have delt with 4 2.9's and everyone of them seem to keep eating up the cam bearings. i had just bought a 90 regular cab shortbed with a 2.9 5speed with 3.73's. and my 87 xcab 4.0
5 speed 3.73's feels a hell of alot more powerful then my 90. also. i went wheeling with the 90 and it started knocking. so should i swap to a 4.0 or put in another 2.9.

[CopyKat]

I say Bring it. 4.0L all the way. 2.9's suck

I should take mine to the track next year, Just for Shits and giggles.

[351ranger]

Putting a 4.0 in my b2 was THE best thing I could have done. I've done alot to it but the very best thing was the motor swap. Luckily I had someone (bobbywalter) who could do the wiring because I'm an electrical idoit, but other than that it wasn't a hard swap. The power difference is truly amazing.

[AllanD]

What people "feel" is acceleration, particularly low-end acceleration
and low-end acceleration, IMMEDIATE reaction to the loud pedal is torque.

this is why for YEARS when someone asks about a "mod" to improve performance the old timers on TRS always answer the same way:
GEARS!

People always TALK about "horsepower", but what they want
(and just don't know it) is Torque.
Torque at the wheels (via a gear swap) is ALMOST as good
as torque at the flywheel, with a 4.0 and 4.10's I have BOTH

I had a lot of fun with my 2.9's, I expect to have more fun
with a lot less work and a lot less worrying about what's
going to break next with the 4.0.

BTW Dustin, you need to check your math, the 4.0 makes 225ft/lb
and if it were making the same torque relative to displacement as a 2.9 it should be making 235, not 254.

AD

[rusty ol ranger]

Your telling me about torque?

Whos the one that defended big blocks against sidewalk and Redshed for the past 3 years when they started spouting off about turboed 4 bangers?

Sorry, didnt mean to sound like a Man Part....but still.

I love the 2.9L....if you seen what i have put mine through and having it still run, then you would know why. I have never seen a Bad 2.9. Im sure there out there....but me personally have never seen one.

Most people agree the 302 V8 is a good motor.....I think its junk.

Its all relitive on what your opinion of that certain engine\trans\rear end\vehicle\woman\politician\whatever is.

Ill agree....the 2.9 is no 300 Inline......but to me, its not worth swapping out a perfectly good running engine, just to gain a few extra horses. When most people never even load up a 2.9 enough to actually make it stall.

....and besides.....why fix what isnt broke? Because if you try you'll end up worse then when you started.

If you want power I stay screw the V6's and swap in a good 351W with a 4bbl, cam, and headers.

Be a little more work for an actual meaningful gain.

I dont have a problem with you Allan.....i think your a good guy.

I know that cubic inches is the only way to make torque, and torque is what hauls around weight, i have a very good understanding of that. I know that while a 4 cylinder honda with a Turbo might be fast.....put that engine in my Dually and it pry wouldnt even move.

I know that.....but what im saying is the 4.0L doesnt do that great of a job compared to the 2.9L.

My ex wife had a 4.0SOHC with a Stick Shift.....yes it would run from my 2.9....but from a dead stop till about 30 that little 2.9 stuck right with it.

The 2.9 has plenty of Low End kick in the ass.....its HP where it falls on its face, and the abilty to carry itself in the higher gears.

The 2.9L runs like mad through 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Hit 4th and its all over.

I will admit.....2.9s are getting rare as time goes on. But it doesnt change the fact there a great little workhorse motor.....and i may be stubborn but you wont convice me otherwise.

later,
Dustin

[fastpakr]

Your last sentence really sums up your stance on all this. Regardless of demonstrable facts and irrefutable evidence, you make the choice to be ignorant and laugh in the face of truth.

[AllanD]

I get the impression that Dustin's net experience with 2.9's is exactly ONE.

and if I had been asked while I was still inside 250K on my original engine I'd have probably agreed with him, mostly anyway.... but the simple fact is that while
I had my 245K mile 2.9 in my '87 2wdsupercab, my brother had a '90 4x4 supercab that we got with a dead engine, which we replaced with a junkyard engine (literally a $50 U-pull-it engine) that was WELL past it's prime, and even saddled with 3.55 gears
he could simply run away from me on the two mile climb up over broad mountain.But that isn't the point, what is the point you ask? The point is that the situation did NOT improve when I switched to an 80K mile 2.9 that was running as well as any 2.9 I've ever driven.
And it got worse when we regeared his truck to 3.73's
(which is why I switched to 4.10's)

I always wondered how a healthy 4.0 in my supercab would run with 4.10's
Well, I don't need to wonder any more.


Is the 4.0 "better" unquestionably.
Does Dustin have a leg to stand on with his claim that it's
not ENOUGH BETTER to justify doing it? No

would I want a 5.8 with a 4bbl gas leak? only slightly more than I'd
like to experience a prison shower while wearing a dress and makeup.

Would I want to pay for gas to FEED that 5.8? that doesn't sound
like much fun either...

An EFI 5.8 MIGHT be tolerable is you built the rangers with say...
3.27 gears to keep that 5.8 from revving.

AND you were working with a fairly late 5.8 ('95-97 with a rollercam)

But what you'd wind up with is a hideous, nose heavy beast that would want
to sink the front axle to china in the first patch of mud deeper than the laces
of your Nike ACG hiking sneakers.

in a 2wd you say? Bwwhahahahah... only if you built it to trailer to car
show burn-out contests.

as for turbo engines? a properly setup turbocharged engine can make gobs of torque
or gobs of power, but like any other engine can't make both unless the engine is enormous. a 2.3T can make power AND torque comparable to the 5.0HO, amusingly
the '87-88 2.3Turbo makes it's peak torque at a LOWER rpm than a 5.0HO does.

I agree that the 5.0 is a POS for TRUCKS, a ranger isn't REALLY a "truck"
though some of the proper parameters are "trucklike"...
So while a 5.0 is just wrong in an F150 (and even more so in an F250)
a 5.0 is a better match for a ranger, but I wouldn't recommend the
higher revving HO engine for an offroad ranger.

Hey, I'd use an HO, but to me "offroad" means getting in and out of
my driveway after mother nature delivers 18" of snow as a followup
to the 14" she delivered the week before...


And to me a "Traffic jam" means that there are more than five cars waiting at the nearest traffic light (which is SIX miles away)

And the biggest problem is that people convince themselves that their 5.0Junkyard engine is somehow different (I.E. better) from all the others and much of the heartache comes from disillusionment... in discovering that the previous owner junked it for a reason....

Or they simply fail to take into account that a 190hp(non-HO) or
225HP(HO) engine is going to be a bit more thirsty than the 4cyl
or small (anything other than a 4.0) V6 they pulled out to make
room for it...

I already know that while towing my 1880lb 16ft trailer my 4.0 gets
16.66mpg (AC-off, cruise control set at 65mph) from Douglas, Wyoming
to North Platte, Nebraska, then from North Platte, NE to somewhere in Iowa
(all on I-80) AC-on cruise set at 70mph I got 14.9mpg
which is still 1.7mpg better than I ever managed with the 2.9 engine.

My overall mileage on the entire trip from Casper, Wyoming to Palmerton, PA
was 15.22mpg, mostly at 70mph with the AC running.
Mind you this is with a 4.10 geared 4x4 supercab TOWING a 1900lb trailer!

I'll find out what mileage I get when NOT towing in a couple of weeks
when I do a "short run" across Ohio and Indiana and back.


AD

[rusty ol ranger]

Allan.....first off how much experince do you have mud bogging?

Second off....Im done with the 2.9\4.0 debate for now.....mainly because ive stated what i need to say and its up to whoever posted this to make up his own descion.

A 2.3T is junk compared to a halfway decent running Carbed 351W with a 4bbl.

Mud, street, or otherwise.

later,
Dustin

[CopyKat]

My best milage I got this past summer. It was around 20 Mpg. Loaded with camping gear.

There is a replacement for Displacement..................it's called Boost.

Bring your 440 charger to the track, if you can pull an 11.09, they you can say you've beaten a a 2.2L daytona turbo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfDOseUxX3s

[AllanD]

Mud bogging? and this is relevant to what exactly?

Dustin, if you are done stop posting in this thread....
you flatter yourself to think I'm still talking to you
or rather AT you because you have already made your
"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up" statement.

so if you aren't having this discussion just stop.

I don't regard the 5.8 as all that much better than a 5.0, it shares
many of the same faults, though fortunatly lack of torque isn't one of them.

But the 5.8 IS heavier than a 5.0 because the 5.8 was never "lightened"
like the 5.0 was

Hey, I've always wanted to put a 5.8 into a Bronco2... So I'd have a vehicle
that could do somersaults as well as roll over:)

Frankly the ONLY offroading I do is on sandy prarie in Wyoming
Try 100 miles of sand washboard sometime.
Your shocks get hot enough to make the decals blister.

AD

AD

[4x4junkie]

As someone who currently owns one of each (2.9 & 4.0) both in excellent running condition, I can't help but wonder how it's even possible to call a 4.0L a "turd" next to a 2.9. :icon_confused:

My 4.0L (OHV) is in a 4600lb truck saddled with 4.10 gears on 33" tires (not quite ideal), and it still feels way punchier off the line than my 2.9L (3900lb truck, 5.13 gears and 35s).
The 2.9 really does come to life after the RPMs get past 4000 or so, but by that time, a 4.0 has already blasted past.

While I don't believe the 2.9 to be "junk" in any way (other than maybe the (usually avoidable) head-cracking issue), the only thing I've found it to have on the 4.0L is MPG (and that's ONLY when it's geared properly, which was seldom the case as they rolled off the assembly lines :no2: ).

Would I replace a perfectly-running 2.9 with a 4.0L? No.

Would I put in a 4.0L when it finally comes time to rebuild/replace it? You bet!


(My 2¢)

[AllanD]

That's pretty much my take on it.

Would I replace a RUNNING "good" 2.9 to do a 4.0 swap? No friggin way!
I tend to replace things when they BREAK!

when you have a DEAD engine is the best time to consider a swap
to something else.

Just like when you have a Dead A4LD is the IDEAL time to consider a 5sp conversion.

If my 2.9 had bad heads would I replace them? No, because "bad heads" usually fratracide the cam bearings.

And I kept replacing 2.9's because they kept falling into my lap
When the last one died (or actually I accidentally killed it) I realized
that there weren't many more that could fall from the tree...

So I moved onto the 4.0

I just can't see REBUILDING a 2.9 or worse rebuilding AND heavily modifying one
when the junkyards are full of perfectly good 4.0's bolted to very dead A4LD's

Particularly when the discussion turns to a Gen2 ranger with a DEAD
(or atleast terminally ill) 2.9.


AD

[2manyfords]

As someone who currently owns one of each (2.9 & 4.0) both in excellent running condition, I can't help but wonder how it's even possible to call a 4.0L a "turd" next to a 2.9. :icon_confused:



+1

I also own both and agree 100%

Even a burnt out 4.0L would out work a healthy 2.9L

[bronc]

After my swap, I found the 4.0 to be pretty amazing. It's a different truck. Before, I could only do 100 km/hr on a dead calm day or with the wind and even then it would be pretty much wide open. Get in a wind and forget about it. Wouldn't even do 85. Now with the 4.0, I can cruise 110-120 no problem, even in a wind. What the 2.9 could do wide open, the 4.0 can do at half throttle without breathing hard. A 3500lb vehicle should never have a 140 horse motor. Way under-powered. The 4.0 makes a huge difference. And as far as gas mileage goes, it's better since I don't have to put my foot to the floor just to get the truck to move. More power = less throttle = better mileage to an extent.

My theory was the exact same as allanD's. When my 2.9 was on it's way out, there was no way I was going to spend money on it. I always said if I have to pull the motor for some reason, it's not going back in. I'd rather swap in a 4.0. Well worth it.

[88ranger4x4offroad]

Thanks for all the input. My 2.9L in my opinion runs great I just have problems at highway or interstate speed always having to downshift to maintain speeds. Other than that I enjoy it very much. I guess I will look into getting headers than to bump it up a little more. Thanks for all the help. I will chack back again later.

[AllanD]

Let me ask, what gears do you have?
what size tires do you run?

I found oddly enough that I got best mileage with my 2.9's when running
4.10 gears... and 235/75-15 tires.

Thing is it's about throttle pedal position
or more precisely throttle position sensor position...

The engine RPM provided it's ABOVE 2600rpm and below 3200rpm
is nearly irrelevant, the position of the throttle OTOH...

The fact is that an engine spinning faster at a lower "load" will
usually generate better mileage.

Not to mention that you don't need to downshift as often...

I could actually get better than 26mpg on long cross country trips.


AD

[philS]

I average 15 mpg with my 2.9, doesn't matter how I drive it...

Really? I get 28 mpg avg with my tired 2.9 and 5-speed.

[Hahnsb2]

Really? I get 28 mpg avg with my tired 2.9 and 5-speed.
Well thats not freeway but its not exactly town driving. I probably get around 20 on the freeway. Ive tried driving a bunch of different ways and it didnt matter, it was always the same, so I said fawk it, Ill just drive the piss outtta it all the time now.

[4x4junkie]

Really? I get 28 mpg avg with my tired 2.9 and 5-speed.

I know the 2.9 is capable of some pretty good MPG, but that sounds a bit hard to believe (maybe if the engine was in a car with decent aerodynamics, but not in a RBV).
You sure your speedo (odo) is accurate?


For the record, my BII did somewhere around 25-26 MPG (hwy mileage) when it was bone stock on the dinky little P205 tires (60 MPH). Now that it's on bigger tires and lifted (and the stock bumpers removed (no airdam, tires/axles exposed, etc)), it's dropped into the 22-23 range.

[Totalled]

Dustin, you are on drugs. My explorer will flat out annihilate any 2.9 powered rig I've driven. And I've driven some very good running 2.9s that really impressed me. My pig Explorer weighs at least 500 lbs more than a BII, 1,000 more than a ranger. It flat out gets it. And it averaged 18 mpg on it's first tank after the 5 speed swap.

The 4.0 has a 3.30" stroke. That's longer than a 302's. The 2.9 has a 2.8" of stroke. You can't argue with low end torque. It's what moves you off the line.

[zuki]

the only thing i diden't like about the 4.0l in my 91 sploder was it would start to misfire if you ran through water too much and splashed it around the engine compartment.i've been up to the bottom of the headlights in my 2.9l truck and it diden't cut out with a relocated air intake.(but if my truck stopped while up to the lights i'de probably be shit out of luck).i know it could just be that particular truck but anyone else have their 4.0l start sputtering after a few mud runs?


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/234173802_14de488ff6_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/84/214462548_2ee96ad0d6_o.jpg

never had a problem with water with my 93 4.0v6 in my samurai.

[rickcdewitt]

nice:D is your truck stuck in the top pic?

[zuki]

nice:D is your truck stuck in the top pic?

yep, i will admit it. i was stuck.

[chittybangbang]

The 4.0 will eat the 2.9 for dinner.I had 92 areostar AWD with a 4.0 ,it was no slug.
My 2.9 5pd w 3.45 gears get just what the factory states. 18 city,23 hwy,while the 4.0 should get around 15 city,20 hwy(not much better than a full size f150)

[almostclueless]

The 2.9 is a great little motor in my experience but let's not be ridiculous.....33% more torque is HUGE. That's like going from a 351 to a 460 in a midsize car (assuming they have virtually identical cam, compression, and tune).

[blackbronc]

It's all about powerband. A 2.9 doesn't really do much of anything til 2500 rpm while a probably 4.0 has more torque at idle. I have had 3 2.9s. 2 pos. 1 junkyard dog that runs great and gets 15 city 27+ hwy. I have 3.0 Reliable and gutless. Don't care what the mileage is cause it's got no torque curve only a very steep and narrow peak. The only fun of driving it is to hear it rev to infinity and still not be impressed by any aspect of it's performance. My 4.0 is fun and easy to drive. Unlike the 2.9 which I do like, the 4.0 has a choice of gears to use for any situation. The 2.9 has to be in the RIGHT gear or it doesn't go ar all. The 4.0 pulls better from idle to 4000 than the 2.9 does from 3k to 5500. Horsepower numbers are irrelevant in this case. Allan is 100% on the money IMO. When my current 2.9 starts to tick the lifters the 4.0 in the garage will replace it. If you're running a 2wd standard cab with the right gears I can see having a bunch of fun with a 2.9. Light weight and low torque works. 4wd BII or Supercab Ranger needs more than a 2.9 to pull itself around without straining. Notice that Ford never put anything smaller than the 4.0 in an Explorer, there's a really good reason for that.

[Hahnsb2]

I'd take a 2.9 over a 4.0. Just because of gas mileage...nothing else. If I was going to have a lifted truck with big tires (not too big) then definitely a 4.0. Also, my friend and my other friend did a pull off. They tied a strap to there hitches and went at it. One friend had an 89 Ranger with a 5spd, 4wd, 2.9l, and my other friend had a 97 Ranger, 4wd, 4.0, auto. Now, which one do you think won? Yeah, it was kind of weird, but the 89 won the whole time. It doesn't really prove anything, since tires, and what not. But it surprised the hell out of me. If they do it again I will post a vid of it.
You do realize that a 4.0 in most situations will pull equal milage to a 2.9? Even if it didn't (which it would in my rig) get better milage I would be willing to pay more at the pump for the added torque and power.

[schroader]

My friend and my other friend did a pull off. They tied a strap to there hitches and went at it. One friend had an 89 Ranger with a 5spd, 4wd, 2.9l, and my other friend had a 97 Ranger, 4wd, 4.0, auto. Now, which one do you think won? Yeah, it was kind of weird, but the 89 won the whole time. It doesn't really prove anything, since tires, and what not. But it surprised the hell out of me. If they do it again I will post a vid of it.

let me guess, the guy that won set there tell the other started spinning and then got on the gas.

I have had both, the 4.0 is a big upgrade. I have a 4.0 in an 84 (that is for sale) and I can go anywhere I need to. Truck has more power than you really need.