2.9L to early 4.0L swap really worth it?

[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.

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 ).

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.

+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?

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