2.8 or 2.9 performance??

[10strokin]

Which do you guys think is easier to build more performance out of, 2.8 carbed engine, or 2.9 fuelie? I have seen videos of both on youtube, but i want you guys real world opinions.....Thanks!

 

[dangerranger83]

In the end, a v8 swap would have better results and be easier to do. Yes you can put a bit more into the 2.8 and 2.9 but not worth the time IMO. Most I have seen out of a 2.8 going all out was 220HP. A 302 roller block from a Grand Marqui or Crown vic start at 150hp and can be converted to HO that will bump it to 200hp and can be converted to carb. Or you can start with a 302 HO engine from a mustang or exploder and go from there. And yes you will have to change out the transmissions.

Plus the 302 has a larger aftermarket too.

 

[CROW T. ROBOT]

I would do this to a 2.9 in a heartbeat. Yes, I know it's not a Ranger, but it's still the same engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vzjh4u3jnQ&list=FLRntItvFyT5F049O7F-nF1Q&index=1&feature=plpp_video

 

[exbass94]

"2.8/2.9" and "performace" are oxymorons. I wouldn't bother with either one of them.

 

[10strokin]

I am not into boring V8 conversions...Thats why this country is in the shape we're in. Everyone follows the leader blindly and their is no creativity left! I will stick to one of the smaller V6 engines. I am not looking for astounding power. And i dont want to have to change an entire drivetrain to boot. I think I will look into Turbocharging....

 

[CROW T. ROBOT]

I am not into boring V8 conversions...Thats why this country is in the shape we're in. Everyone follows the leader blindly and their is no creativity left! I will stick to one of the smaller V6 engines. I am not looking for astounding power. And i dont want to have to change an entire drivetrain to boot. I think I will look into Turbocharging....

Agreed! After watching Skogen Racings videos I'm definitely thinking of going with a milder version of what they've built. Nothing wrong with being a little different!

 

[dangerranger83]

The only thing I have with the 2.9 is the weak heads that were later "improved" but still had their problems. The 2.8, yes it can be made into a TBI FI setup and be given some power but it is what it is and actually didnt start life in the ranger but life in Europe as a race engine that is German engineered.

In the end its your money but I wouldnt put my time or money into them, if anything, a 4.0. With that you start at 200hp and 225 foot pounds of torque and may have had good luck turboing them and whatnot.

 

[stegomon]

, a 4.0. With that you start at 200hp and 225 foot pounds of torque and may have had good luck turboing them and whatnot.

 

[James86]

In the end its your money but I wouldnt put my time or money into them, if anything, a 4.0. With that you start at 160hp and 225 foot pounds of torque and may have had good luck turboing them and whatnot.

Fix't...... unless you're talking SOHC's

 

[10strokin]

Holy Hell, check out MoranaV6Racing.com...all kinds of proven performance parts for 2.9 V6! Hmmmmmm...

 

[dangerranger83]

It just seems like more being put into something then its worth in the end to me. Plus if something breaks then you have to go to a specialty store or the place you got it to get a replacement and it wont be a cheap fix either.

If I had to mod a v6, then it would be the early 4.0. Just seems like a much better thing to start with.

But the down side to making such high horse power on one of the v6's is finding a transmission that can handle it too.

 

[CROW T. ROBOT]

Holy Hell, check out MoranaV6Racing.com...all kinds of proven performance parts for 2.9 V6! Hmmmmmm...

Crap! I forgot all about these guys! They're even just a couple of provinces over!

 

[AllanD]

I am not into boring V8 conversions...Thats why this country is in the shape we're in. Everyone follows the leader blindly and their is no creativity left! I will stick to one of the smaller V6 engines. I am not looking for astounding power. And i dont want to have to change an entire drivetrain to boot. I think I will look into Turbocharging....

Doing something "different" purely for the purpose of being different
is just as stupid as following the herd.



2.8/2.9 performance IS an "oxymoron" (a contradiction in terms)

As I pointed out on the Old ford Ranger.com more than 15years ago
the 2.9 engine already makes more power per CID than a 5.8 Lightning engine
and nearly the same power relative to displacement as a 5.0"cobra" engine.

So Just how much room for performance increases do you think there is without completely trashing driveability and utility as a TRUCK engine?

failing to realize this is the very definition of STUPID.

The Slightly longer definition of this is remaining insistantly ignorant
(Ignorance = lack of knowledge, which is EASILY corrected) of reality,
denying reality.

I can define 2.8/2.9 performance for you easily... 4.0

a properly tuned 4.0 will easily out perform a 2.9 that isn't using some sort of forced induction.

I'm not talking all the dilusional dreams and rantings of people that like to masterbate their own ego with outrageous claims of performance increases due to their own "Mods" (at this point I ask: What? The Fuzzy Dice give you 30hp?)


a 4.0 bolts to the 2.9 mounts and the stock manifolds bolt to the 2.9 Y-pipe. it's as EASY as a dis-similar engine swap gets.

But if you REALLY want 225HP in a Ranger doing the other stuff to put a V8 in WILL get you there, and probably for a small fraction of the cost of gettign as much as 200hp out of 2.9 engine would.

Want really stupid? the people who spend $4500 on that Tom Morena stroker kit for a 4.0...


By the time you are done I coudl build a steel crank ALUMINUM headed 5.0 that will romp all over any V6 you
can imagine that isn't either turbo or supercharged.

My "THING" against the 5.0HO is that it is a bit too "Revvy" to make it a good offroad truck engine, it's RPM
characteristics are virtually identical to a 3.0.

Highway runner? yes, offroad truck? less than ideal.

If you actually look at the power and torque curves there are significant areas (down low) where
a rock-stock 4.0 outperforms the 5.0 V8

If you believe otherwise you've watched the Fast & the Furious one time too many while huffing glue.

 

[CROW T. ROBOT]

Well said Allan, and you make one hell of a good point. I was offered a 92 Explorer for parts if I needed any for my 93 Limited. Maybe a 4.0 build-up will be the next project for the Ranger.

 

[dangerranger83]

And I did save a quote of yours AllanD and will post it here....

You wanna be different? Smear your body with feces, stick a peacock feather up your butt and run down the street naked screaming "I'm a peacock ain't I beautiful" while jerking off. That'll make you "different"

Different ain't "Better".