2.8 or 2.9 performance??

[AllanD]

Originally Posted by 10strokin

James86, I reread your post and I want to be the first to apologize, you were on my side, I dont know why there are sides here but I do appreciate it...Snoranger, the reason I said "stupid" for Morana Racing is because AllanD said anyone that pays thousands for aftermarket stuff from Morana is "stupid". Drcrgr I am liking your idea of trying to carburete a 2.9, very innovative! If you can figure out how to get the distributor to work, all the better. Do you have a thread started on what you have one so far to get the better mileage? AllanD, I have a spare 2.8 and 2.9 engine on my garage floor. I also have a test engine stand that I put together. I asked the question on here between the 2.8 and 2.9 so I knew which one to tear down and start building. When i am done, it will be test run on the stand eliminating any problems BEFORE installation...Over your "assuming" attitude enough to start to understand? I have been a member of Gator Superchargers here in Bradenton Floria for years now. One of the first things we learned here is to use a TOO SMALL turbo for your engine. Free Air and you can always wastegate it. What this TOO SMALL theory does is spool up the turbo immediately, eliminating lag, thus KEEPING the RPM and Torque range of the engine nearly stock. You will see that I mentioned Squires turbo in my last post. Squires turbo's are mounted Under the vehicle towards the back with a seperate oil pump for itself. Therefore ELIMINATING the HOT underhood temps and keeping the heat away from the Crack Prone heads. What people pay thousands of dollars on plumbing for turbo's on, can actually be done with simple PVC pipe and Fernco clamps saving many hundreds..."THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX". This is also taught in the Gator Superchargers club. Everyone should join and have a read. Old Studebaker and AMC turbo engines running 7 and 8 quarters on the cheap. Insanejughead and Drcrgr, keep the ideas flowing......

The part that gets "glossed over" in "making things easy" by NOT switching to "some other" engine is that the 2.8 and 2.9 have little "reserve strength"

back when ford made the MustangII and similar Capri (before they actually put a V8 in either) there was a lot of interests in turbocharging the 2.8 engine

The problem was that 5-7psi on a 2.8 was often sufficient to bend the skinny 2.8 rods so that the crank counterweights would hit the underside of the wrist pin bosses... that engine is VERY "tight" inside. the 2.9 is not much better.

And I'll add that with less aggrevation you can swap in a Turbocoupe engine which makes 190hp stock and which has been repeatably demonstrated to make >300hp on a stock tall block by making the kind of external "tweeks" that toiy can do in a weekend

frankly I'm all about PROVEN gains, demonstrated improvements that have
been duplicated by dozens of people.

************************************************** *********


I will stick to saying that spending $4500 on a 4.0 stroker kit (which costs another $1500+ to install after you have the box of parts to add a mere 500cc to a 4.0 is "Stupid" by ANY definition of the word. (as well as foolish and probably insane.)

What exactly do people expect to get out of a 12% increase in displacement?

If you don't think that is crazy and stupid there is something wrong with your definition of the word.

Now consider that you can but a Nitrous Oxide system for ~$800

BTW, I'm not sure a remote mounted turbo moving the heat away from the engine compartment is going to reduce the tendency of the heads to crack, because they crack normally aspirated, extra power from the extra air shoved into the engine is going to create additional heat and stress any way you go.

Look at it from my point of view for a minute....

I had several 2.9 powered RBV's and several engines in my supercab.
I swapped to a 4.0 when I was literally down to my last "trusted" 2.9 spare
(If I had installed it there would have been no backup), I had TWO 4.0's I was pretty sure about.

Since switching to the 4.0 I never even consider looking back on the 2.9, because frankly I believe the 4.0 is everything the 2.9 should have been in the first place.

The 2.8 is a lightweight eurpean sport/economy engine.
the 2.9 is the 2.8 warmed over with better cylinder heads and EFI
and correcting some earlier design mistakes, but it is an engine that still has inherent major flaws in it's oiling system.

The 4.0 more or less corrected ALL of the original problems

bear in mind I've KILLED half a dozen 2.9's besides the original factory Engine in my Ranger that lasted 262,000 miles.

I've had several crack and turn the lube oil into "latte" even though I'd been running the dual core 4.0 Radiator to keep that sucker cool...

I had one engine crack the block internally, starve the main-bearings of oil and simply SEIZE... and the next to last 2.9 that I hydrolocked crossing a creek?
I hydrolocked that engine driving to a friend's house to get my engine crane
so I could swap out the engine... it had developed oil pressure problems...

but I had my Bronco2 sitting here with a cracked frame that wasn't going anywhere..., when that engine seized (the second one that did) I gave up on the 2.9 and sold my last spare to Zman(?) (who is SFAIK still running it)

I make my decisions based on practical reality and one bit of practical
reality is that the last 2.9 engine was installed in a 1992 Ranger nearly
20 years ago, the 2.8 has been a dead issue since 1985.... twenty seven years...



AD

[drgrcr]

Alan, the only 2.8 that I have had any experience with is the one that I put together for my sons first vehicle which was a 84 Ranger that we bought from the local water company. The vehicle had a lot of miles on it because it was used as a water meter reader vehicle. It was a 2.8 with a 4 speed and the ugly little 14" tires but it was cheap and made a perfect vehicle for a first time driver. All of my children's first vehicles were manual trans vehicles and they all were beaters they were rebuilt.

We put 15" wheels and P235 tires on the Ranger and changed the 3.08 axle to a 3.73. The engine was removed and rebuilt, .030 pistons, Comp cam, milled the heads to get the compression up to 9 to 1 a set of Hedman headers into a 2 1/2" exhaust system through a Dynomax muffler, a 1.08 ford 2 barrel and of course the Duraspark ign with a custom curved dist. It sounded sweet and ran very good. Of course it didn't run like a V8 or a 4 liter, but a 16 year old first time driver didn't need that kinda of power. It did have a Mellings HV oil pump, maybe that helped it survive?

He drove that truck for 5 years. 2 years too a community college that was 200 miles from where he lived. We had intentions of putting a 5 speed in it but never got around to it. When it was on the freeway it was driven between 70 and 80 mph, So the engine was being buzzed pretty hard and some of the time in 100+ degree weather. The only thing that broke on that truck was the trans. He kept tearing up second gear from power shifting. After the second time I told him if he did it again I was putting a auto trans in it.

You guys are right, if a person is looking for a lot more power a V8 or a 4 liter is a great choice, as far as being easier to do?

I am building a 2.8 for my around town 83 Ranger. I don't need a a V8 or 4 liter. As run out as the engine is in my truck it still gets 18 to 20 mpg around town with a auto and the AC on. I live in AZ and the temp. is over a 100' every day, AC is important. I never have had a problem with overheating, even when I drive it to Bullhead city and back over a 7% grade in 110' weather. I suspect part of the problem with this era truck was the horrible attempt at emission control with a feed back carb. that was running way to rich when the air control valve would stick and the thermactor was pumping air into the head and creating and burning inferno inside of the combustion chamber. I am lucky as to where I live and we do not have any emission inspection, so the cat, egr valve and other related emission junk is gone and the tune up is somewhat correct, probably why my truck doesn't run hot.

Just throwin my experience with 2.8 out there for anybody considering building one. I have been shopping Ebay for parts and there are some pretty good deals on 2.8 stuff right now, probably because of the bad rep they have.....I aint afraid of no ghost..;)

[10strokin]

Excellent post Drgrcr....

[Insanejughead]

I ain't afraid of no ghost neither.



Dammit Drgrcr, now I guess it's time to have an 80's movie night again with that one being the main event...





Btw, now that everyone has pretty much spoken all that can be said about this issue, let's just let everybody be. Just like the Beatles said, "Let it be."

[AllanD]

Originally Posted by drgrcr

Just throwin my experience with 2.8 out there for anybody considering building one. I have been shopping Ebay for parts and there are some pretty good deals on 2.8 stuff right now, probably because of the bad rep they have.....I aint afraid of no ghost..;)

Comming from the land of HUGE (cheap) junkyards definatly colors my opinion on building things from the ground up... when you can buy an engine that you can SEE running before it's pulled from the donor vehicle for $50 less than the cost of an engine gasket set is a big inducement to say "Why bother?"

But on another note I owned my last roadworthy vehicle with a carb in 1992

That's when I parted out my Toyota pickup with it's unsynchronized "crash box" racing trans
(aquired when a friend totaled his SCCA RWD Celica)
and built up 20R engine with dual DCOE Webber-Mikuni's

The only thing I've owned since was an '82 F-250 that I used as a "Yard mule" and NEVER registered/plated over the six years I owned it before I scrapped it.

I'm about as enthusiastic about owning another vehicle with a carb as I am about waking up with a leech on my pecker. (given time to think I might
actually choose the leech)

I maintain a similar enthusiasm for advising other people about Carbs and/or leeches.

[kryptonitecb]

The people that hold on to carbs are the ones likely to remove the cats for better performance

Sent from the road while ignoring traffic

[dangerranger83]

I kept my cat on mine that my 2.3 exhaust system had. Why you ask? Due to it would be my luck I would get the one police man that would check for it in the state plus it was free to keep it on
vs buying a straight pipe and I knew it wouldn't give any performance improvements not having it.

Now for my 302 swap, it may lack having them.

Sent from my SGH-T499 using Tapatalk 2

[Insanejughead]

He's decided to still continue working on the v6s.

How about closing this sorry excuse of a thread?

It's interesting how all of this is the same length.

[10strokin]

Found a source for the early Pre-Smog (No exhaust Gas crossover hump) heads for the 2.8 engine. These are the best flowing heads out of the box for these engines. Very good price too! PM me if interested. I have decided to do the old reliable 2.8 for a decent build. Not looking for huge numbers, just a real good seat of the pants upgrade with half decent mileage to boot. Thanks all!

[dangerranger83]

Well my responce to it is I would like to see you build this engine, always like watching people mess with the 2.8s.

Sent from my SGH-T499 using Tapatalk 2

[RICO9]

Here's a video of my fuel injected 2.8. I can answer any questions about it if you have any. Can't wait to see what you come up with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOPZP...ature=youtu.be

[dangerranger83]

And here is my video of mine with the 3.8 TBI unit, that is when I had it on the engine, that was running the 3.8 computer and wire harness. If you want this one to work right, get the 2.9 harness setup and computer and it will metter out fuel for the 2.8 since it doesnt know that its feeding a 2.8 but thinks its still feeding a 3.8 or make it into a return style fuel setup before it gets to the TBI. The high idle went away after I put the exhaust system on it.

[IMG][/IMG]