4.0L V6 to 2.7L Ecoboost Conversion Question

[chucky2]

It is true that 30mpg is nothing for a car and that gas is cheaper in a per gallon cost than diesel. That really has nothing to do with Troy S. (or anyone else) wanting a good/best $/mi solution to swap into their truck.

If someone is wanting a 4x4 truck so they have a 4x4 truck, bringing car mpg into the discussion is like someone asking what is the best apple and then someone saying well oranges are better. Yes, they may be better, but that's not what is being asked.

If someone is wanting the best $/mi solution for their Ranger, and assuming they're doing the work themselves, then assuming they're going to be putting some real miles on post swap, a diesel swap makes a lot of sense.

It's definitely not a drop in solution either though...just reading the threads here really make me wonder what I'll be doing when my 4.0L SOHC goes bye bye...

 

[don4331]

85_Ranger4x4:

M-6017-35T is supposed to be the standalone plug and play harness kit for the 3.5 EB. (Don't know the cost/availability).

Even the M-6007-20T (2.0 EB) at 252hp/360ftlb (on 93 Octane) would be pretty nice in Ranger and would improve fuel economy if you could keep your foot out of throttle. The $5.5k for engine + $1.9k for controls pack, M-6017-20T is a little pricey for entry... It would still need adapter to transmission, etc, etc. But it is 75lbs lighter than my 4.0L...

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

It is true that 30mpg is nothing for a car and that gas is cheaper in a per gallon cost than diesel. That really has nothing to do with Troy S. (or anyone else) wanting a good/best $/mi solution to swap into their truck.

If someone is wanting a 4x4 truck so they have a 4x4 truck, bringing car mpg into the discussion is like someone asking what is the best apple and then someone saying well oranges are better. Yes, they may be better, but that's not what is being asked.

If someone is wanting the best $/mi solution for their Ranger, and assuming they're doing the work themselves, then assuming they're going to be putting some real miles on post swap, a diesel swap makes a lot of sense.

It's definitely not a drop in solution either though...just reading the threads here really make me wonder what I'll be doing when my 4.0L SOHC goes bye bye...

If someone asks if it is better to use their hand or their forehead to drive a nail into a wall I will recommend a hammer. Others that limit their answers to the given options can do want they want but I will give my .02 for what I think is the better option.

Setting up a truck strictly for mileage will hurt the truck part of it. Need it for towing? Prepare for it to take a kick to the knee for power. Going offroad? Better bring with garbage bags for the aerodynamic molding you added to improve airflow and spares for the small lightweight tires. A winch would be great to drag it along but they are heavy and will hurt mileage...

He mentioned improving mileage and power... which to me feels as if he finds both areas lacking already.

I know Snoranger has a 4cyl Cummins in his and they can make decent power and return fairly good mileage... not a really cheap or simple swap though.

If you treat your 4.0 well you won't have much of a truck left to swap anything into when it dies.

85_Ranger4x4:

M-6017-35T is supposed to be the standalone plug and play harness kit for the 3.5 EB. (Don't know the cost/availability).

Even the M-6007-20T (2.0 EB) at 252hp/360ftlb (on 93 Octane) would be pretty nice in Ranger and would improve fuel economy if you could keep your foot out of throttle. The $5.5k for engine + $1.9k for controls pack, M-6017-20T is a little pricey for entry... It would still need adapter to transmission, etc, etc. But it is 75lbs lighter than my 4.0L...

NOTE; Currently engine requires stand alone aftermarket engine controller and custom engine calibration to function

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=22829

Hopefully something is coming down the pipe at least

I don't know if EB swaps will really hit their stride until a few years down the road and you can pull used ones from wrecks for a decent price. Then the easy plug and play stuff will look pretty good.

Like right now a new Coyote and control pack is cheaper than just the crate 3.5EB... and it isn't particularly cheap either.

 

[don4331]

Who pays full price:
http://www.rpmenginesvt.com/ford_engines/M-6007-35T.php

I agree though, it will be 5 years before EB engines are available/reasonably priced.

Quote:
NOTE: Currently engine requires stand alone aftermarket engine controller and custom engine calibration to function

M-6017-35T is supposed to be that part. I just can't find it on website yet; was hoping an insider, like adsm08, could help us.

'Course, I am thinking that the EB 2.0 is close enough in power to my 4.0 (which is sipping antifreeze/transmission slipping due to neglect/abuse of previous owner) so that when it lets go, I will be able to find an Escape which has been rolled and get engine, add a manual and universal harness, and not lose any 4x4 ability while gaining fuel economy. (And having some fun with conversion).

My air nailer solution.

 

[PlumCrazy]

damn....saw the thread title and thought someone was actually doing the swap....not just asking random questions...

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Quote:
NOTE: Currently engine requires stand alone aftermarket engine controller and custom engine calibration to function

M-6017-35T is supposed to be that part. I just can't find it on website yet; was hoping an insider, like adsm08, could help us.

If Ford Racing doesn't make the kit then Ford won't either. A plug and play control pack wouldn't have a home in an OEM application.

Since they make it for the 2.0 I wonder if they are working on it.

 

[bobbywalter]

what a horrific thread.

 

[Jfive]

Mustang N/A 3.7 should net 25mpg and has 300hp. I've talked to guys with them in the mustang and they can get 29/30mpg on the highway in a car that weighs more than a ranger.

 

[zutz23]

Well, my first suggestion, to everyone, for better MPG is to write your congressmen and start pestering them to have the ethanol taken back out of the gas.

After that, keep fluids changed, filters, tire rotated and inflated, and drive lightly.

The 4.0 is not a great engine for MPG, most of them top out in the high teens.

i take offense to that my ranger is averaging 420kms inner city on 60 dollar tank. thats amazing. Especially for the 4.0

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

 

[adsm08]

i take offense to that my ranger is averaging 420kms inner city on 60 dollar tank. thats amazing. Especially for the 4.0

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Two things in response to this:

1) I am told that I am, generally, a fairly offensive person.

2) Sorry, I don't speak kilometers per tank.


Your miles per tank is a worthless number because "a tank" is not a standardized unit of measure like a gallon or a litre.


My Ranger gets 200 miles to a tank, my Bronco II gets about 350 to a tank. The Ranger's mileage is pretty good in my opinion. The Bronco's mileage sucks because it runs like shit, but it's tank is almost twice as big, 14.5 gallons in the truck vs 23 in the Bronco.

 

[bobbywalter]

this thread sucks.





asdm....before the two things.....tell em to quit knocking the dust off shit if being stupid is involved.

 

[stegomon]

A. 2.7 sound cool. But I would love to do a 2.9 cosworth swap in a bronco 2.

 

[AllanD]

You might like the idea of a 2.9Cosworth, but the reality is like
wishing for a 3.0SHO-Taurus (Yamaha) engine...

It's a nice ide to have a revvy and powerful engine, but Have you ever driven one
of those engines?

They are awesome in the chassis they were designed for... but in a Ranger that weighs half a ton more they tend to be as exciting as a dish of cold mush (or lukewarm spit)

I hear people talking on other forums about the 1970 351-4V Cleveland engine.
Yeah by the spec's it was a great engine, but I actually owned one and it was fun in a Mustang.. when it wasn't trying to kill you... but not exactly useful...
That engine was best described as "Demonically possessed" and the torque came on like a fat nitrous shot that was controlled by someone you could hear laughing maniacally over the exhaust note.. and this was a car I owned, but was actually, with good reason, scared of.


Around two years ago I got a chance to drive a BMW M6, their questions about my comments on the car were "amusing"..... because back in the early, 80's I also briefly
owed a BMW 3.0CSL (I wish I had never sold it)

A long time ago I drove a couple of amazing cars one was an L88 Camaro the other was a Lotus with a transplanted 3.5liter Cosworth V8 (a Detuned F1 engine) either engine was Kinda like sleeping with a beautiful women who made "Victoria's secret" models look like
your worst mental image of Hillary Clinton, but who might slit your throat while you slept just to see the expression on your face when you awake gurgling your last breath...


The Camaro was owned by an acquaintance (a friend of a friend) I only drove it once to get it home from a car show when it's owner was arrested for public intoxication at a swap meet...I got tapped to drive it home because of the friends at the swap meet I wasn't scared of the Camaro and they all knew why, they all knew my Mustang was much worse... I will say speed shifting that Camaro from 2nd to 3rd was like slamming home the hyperspace lever on the Millenium Falcon doing the same from 3rd to 4th is something I wouldn't do that again on a bet, unless winning me would net me a
Mercedes SLS-GTR...

Or as Matt Farah phrased it "you want a car to want you dead "some of the time", but one that wants you dead all the time... NO!

If I could drop my ranger off somewhere to have a 2.7 Ecoboost engine installed I'd ask you "Where?" and "How Much?"

AD

 

[rubydist]

M-6017-35T is available for around $2300 from Ford Performance. This controller is only for off-road use and for a manual trans vehicle, so you cannot use the 10 speed auto with this. M-6017-23T is the control pack for the 2.3 EcoBoost and it is available for around $2000. Same thing here, its only for manual trans vehicles.

Even the 2.3 EcoBoost would be a nice improvement over the 4.0 sohc, but its a bit hard on the wallet.