Planning a 2.0 to 2.9 swap in my 1984 2wd, auto trans

[neinnein_nein]

for some reason I'm not finding a thread where someone attempted this, any famous ones that come to mind?

planning to swap my auto trans to a manual fm146, and I wanna read up as much as possible on before I start woking--it's my daily driver!

current engine is 2.0L 4-banger, no AC, didn't have power steering until I added it a few months back, rear axle is a 7.5, front axle not upgraded to anything... should be fun...?

 

[neinnein_nein]

also, planning on lifting somewhat and putting bigger tires on her once it's done but nothing too crazy, could I possibly get away with keeping 7.5 rear axle?

 

[Dirtman]

The 2.9 is not a commonly swapped motor. It's certainly a power improvement over the 2.0 but unless you are simply using what you have available a 4.0 ohv and m5od or even a 5.0 would be a better choice with essentially the exact same amount of work as the 2.9 swap.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Cough AMR500 cough....

 

[RonD]

As said, when you swap engine sizes the work will be pretty much the same regardless of the size, assuming it fits in the engine bay, lol

Nothing wrong with 2.9l swap, you are swapping from carb to EFI(fuel injection) which adds alot more wiring and you need a computer
As said above you could do a carb V8 swap, no wiring no computer, for the same labor

But to each their own, you will need a donor vehicle to get the 2.9l engine and trans, computer and engine wiring harness, also exhaust system and radiator and a few other parts like engine fuse box and relays

Now the FM146 was a 4x4 transmission, FM132 was the 2WD version that came with 2.9l
4x4 transmission can't be used with 2wd, wrong output shaft

2WD and 4WD frames are different, so not a simple change to make 2WD Ranger into 4WD
7.5" axle is fine with even the V8 engine as long as tires are under 33" diameter, IMO
Then the larger axle diameter of Explorer 8.8" would be needed, NOT Ranger 8.8" axle, its the same diameter as 7.5" Ranger

 

[neinnein_nein]

Cough AMR500 cough....

Will look more into that today! Sounds like it would be an easy project and turn the truck into a sort of steampunk Golf GTI with a six foot bed, kind of cool.. but ultimately, I think I need.. MORE POWER

As said, when you swap engine sizes the work will be pretty much the same regardless of the size, assuming it fits in the engine bay, lol

Nothing wrong with 2.9l swap, you are swapping from carb to EFI(fuel injection) which adds alot more wiring and you need a computer
As said above you could do a carb V8 swap, no wiring no computer, for the same labor

But to each their own, you will need a donor vehicle to get the 2.9l engine and trans, computer and engine wiring harness, also exhaust system and radiator and a few other parts like engine fuse box and relays

Now the FM146 was a 4x4 transmission, FM132 was the 2WD version that came with 2.9l
4x4 transmission can't be used with 2wd, wrong output shaft

2WD and 4WD frames are different, so not a simple change to make 2WD Ranger into 4WD
7.5" axle is fine with even the V8 engine as long as tires are under 33" diameter, IMO
Then the larger axle diameter of Explorer 8.8" would be needed, NOT Ranger 8.8" axle, its the same diameter as 7.5" Ranger

I do like the idea of staying carbed.. If I don’t need to change the axle, it becomes really interesting to look at v8 conversion. For some reason there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of info on 2.0 to v8 5.0(?) swap in the tech pages. Where should I look? Is the 84 2wd auto 2.0l bolting pattern similar to something that swaps well with the 5.0?

It sounds like I would *only* need an engine and a trans, and a lot of courage..?

I might have figured out a semi-appropriate ground floor place to work on it in the city where I live, so I’m pretty motivated now..

I’ll try to get photos of my engine bay in case anyone recognizes the bolting pattern or engine size my frame can accommodate..

 

[RonD]

1983 to 1988 Rangers were about the same for swaps, read here: https://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/V8Conversions.shtml

Thats as far as fitment, which is what you are talking about, the Carb or EFI is the BIG DEAL

EFI is of course better, in economy and reliability, but carb is "easier"

2.9l were all EFI, there are carb intakes available but often cost quite a bit

302(5.0) V8 came with carb or EFI

 

[neinnein_nein]

thanks for the link Ron! I was looking in the forums, forgot that the tech pages are on the main rangerstation page for a minute..

still somewhat hypothetical but if I go 302, why not stay carbed? "easier" sounds ok to me!

I'm sure I'll have lots of questions pretty soon..

and just for the hell of it, photos of my dusty 2.0 and.. the passenger side engine mount!

 

[Dirtman]

Staying carbed will definitely be easier. Swapping in any EFI engine will require the extensive amount of wiring and the computer that goes with it as well as upgrading the entire fuel system. A carbed engine is basically just a matter of bolting it in and running a few wires for ignition and starter...

 

[19Walt93]

Depending how much power you're after, a 2.3 would be the easiest swap. They respond well to increased compression from planing the head and there are some performance parts available. 2.3's are happy to rev so deeper gears will really help,too.

 

[neinnein_nein]

Depending how much power you're after, a 2.3 would be the easiest swap. They respond well to increased compression from planing the head and there are some performance parts available. 2.3's are happy to rev so deeper gears will really help,too.

I'm reading about it and thinking carbed 302 V8 more and more. why not? especially now that I might have a place to work on it.

just wondering where the best place is to get an engine in decent condition with a compatible transmission... do I just look for a 1990's 5.0L V8 explorer, take the engine and trans and slap a carb on it lol?

 

[RonD]

Ford 302(5.0l) was made from 1961 to 2000
1962 to 1985 used carbs
1986 and up used EFI
Between 1981 and 1982 Ford changed the balancing of the 302, 28oz to 50oz, just a heads up that the harmonic balancer and flywheel need to match the YEAR of the 302, not a big deal unless you don't match them, lol

Explorer only had V8 1996 to 2001, and all were EFI and automatics

You can often find running 1975-1985 un-restored trucks or cars with running engines and manual transmissions for not too much money, i.e. old Broncos and F-150s

The 1997-2003 M5R2 manual trans is probably the best to use in a Ranger since its shifter placement matches Rangers seat layout better.
But not a deal breaker, its just if you are going to buy a transmission that would be the one to buy
1997-2003 Ford F-150 with 4.2l V6, this 4.2l bolt pattern matches 302.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Hey.

Rare time I'm going to speak out in favor of carb.


You have a Carburetor. For the price of a carb and a AMR500, you'll have 5 psi off of it.

It's seriously an afternoon.

On the street.

And you're done.

@Uncle Gump, @rusty ol ranger , carb options in such a setup?

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Hell, it's a carbed lima... Will the turbocoupe stuff bolt up?

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

And more I think... Stay carbed. 2.8 with duraspark and offy makes waaaaaaaay more sense than 2.9.

300, 240, 289, 302 I have heard and have seen various firms of evidence.

85_Ranger4x4 has the most logical build on a vehicle known to man. Just so happens he was in a similar situation as yours. His build thread would be a goldmine for your truck.

Is diesel an option? Bobby crammed a 6.5 gm battlefield pickup (pun) engine in his. Hm.

any of the older carb v8/i6 combos that get pulled out of F100s for chebby crap....

If mine came with a 2.8, I'd have a sprintrex with a draw through on it by now. Lots of mustang 2 and capri 2.8 goodies around. Cams, carbs, Cortina r/s stuff on ebay, burton, etc.





Ok I'll go stand in the corner.