2.9 turbo vs. v-8

[heptofite]

Power wise, I think you might as well go the V8 route or even the 4.0 route. Frankly, if it's your DD, I feel that you would run into more issues than needed when it comes to something you rely on everyday. That's for turboing the 2.9 / 4.0 or V8 swap.



I can understand being hesitant about turboing a 2.9 and I've seen it done on here before with good results (IIRC). However, I feel that honestly the 2.9 is doing the best it can in it's stock form.

I don't know about beating out a 2.3 though....
Where'd you get that from? Not being an ass, I'm serious..

larger bore, shorter stroke, higher stock ratings, more cylinders, more displacement.

It'll rev higher and it's bigger.

it's the same work either way to convert an N/A 4 cylinder block to be able to use it for turbo'd applications as it is to do the same to a 2.9, the SINGLE AND ONLY advantage the 2.3 has is that it was available as a stock turbo'd engine.

if you're shooting for the moon anyway, you're not going to stick with the stock parts anyway, so may as well start out with a superior engine.


edit:

the cosworth 2.9 made 210hp on inferior combustion chambers and identical bore and stroke simply because they pushed more air through it, a turbo does the same thing, and if you'll notice the upper figures for TURBO'D 2.3s is 210hp in stock applications.

quite frankly, i'm sick of the notion that the 2.9 isn't worth it and the ONLY solution is to do whatever the **** everybody else is doing and just throw more engine at it.

i don't abide by the notion that the 4.0 is the only 'upgrade' for the 2.9, or that a V8 is the only way to get power.

so you know what? Challenge ****ing accepted, stay ****ing tuned for the results of what i'm going to do.

 

[RangerSVT]

Calm down heptofite...We are mearly speaking stock internals of the 2.9L and if its cost effective to build the motor to sustain boost applications....personally I'd love to see a 2.9L built, stroked and poked and boosted
SVT

 

[heptofite]

i'm not uncalm i'm just tired of every ****ing thread i see related to 2.9 performance turning into everybody parroting the same 'swap in a 4.0 or a v8' line, those swaps are ****ing boring.

 

[RangerSVT]

I hear ya...Most of the responses are made cause it's not that it's impossible or impractical to do performance mods to the 2.9L, its more economical to do the swap...
SVT

 

[heptofite]

I hear ya...Most of the responses are made cause it's not that it's impossible or impractical to do performance mods to the 2.9L, its more economical to do the swap...
SVT

yeah but you can't tell me that popping the hood a b2 and seeing a pair of snails under there wouldn't give you a chub.

 

[BlueChariot]

I agree with heptofite to an extent. I've said a few times that I'm a fan of making a vehicles stock engine the best it could be through whatever means you wish (boosted or not). Part of the soul of the truck was the engine it came with. Kind of like the guys who prefer numbers matching cars but I don't see it as a boost in collectivity, just a cool factor.

However, for the simpler idea of just choosing this over that over the other, for cost effectiveness involving the factors of power and fuel economy, a V8 swap would be my recommendation. Basicly, if you want to possibley expand your budget and keep your current engine, build the hell out of it and take lots of pics. If you want to keep a smaller budget, V8 swap it and take lots of pics.

 

[86 slo-vo]

a turbo 2.9 will outperform a turbo 2.3 ten times out of ten.

you should really rethink that sentence.

i'm not uncalm i'm just tired of every ****ing thread i see related to 2.9 performance turning into everybody parroting the same 'swap in a 4.0 or a v8' line, those swaps are ****ing boring.

iuts because you would have to drop 10x the cash to make a 2.9 perform with anything else.

it is what it is, just a small turd of a v6. yes if you throw enough money at it im sure kit could lay down 500hp...but so could every other motor with a shit ton of money in it.

it just doesnt make sense.


the the OP...im not bashing, but a turbo setup can be very complicated and takes a whole lot of work AND understanding. if its a DD youll be spending alot of days walking if you try to go that route. swap in a 4.0 or 5.0 .

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

If you want something more different than a 2.3T or V8 you might check into a supercharged 3.8 too... or apply that theory to a late model 4.2.

Much better transmission options out there too than for either the 2.3 or 2.9 as well.

They may be out there but I don't think I have ever seen one in a Ranger.

 

[chrwilkins30]

heptofite, dude a 2.9t would be awesome to see. seriously spend some money and begin a build so everyone can see how cool it is. and get it dynoed and prove everyone wrong.

 

[heptofite]

you should really rethink that sentence.

no, i'll stand by it.

iuts because you would have to drop 10x the cash to make a 2.9 perform with anything else.

it is what it is, just a small turd of a v6. yes if you throw enough money at it im sure kit could lay down 500hp...but so could every other motor with a shit ton of money in it.

it just doesnt make sense.

we'll see how much money it takes though, i'll keep a running total, and we'll compare notes.

 

[86isuzu]

yeah but you can't tell me that popping the hood a b2 and seeing a pair of snails under there wouldn't give you a chub.

lol. sigged

 

[86 slo-vo]

no, i'll stand by it.

we'll see how much money it takes though, i'll keep a running total, and we'll compare notes.

please do. my 85% stock 2.3T laid down 320hp and 380 TRQ...all for around $4-500.

the 2.9 just doesnt have the after market for parts to be made at decent prices.

would it be cool? yea i guess. extremely impractical? definitely.

 

[heptofite]

please do. my 85% stock 2.3T laid down 320hp and 380 TRQ...all for around $4-500.

the 2.9 just doesnt have the after market for parts to be made at decent prices.

would it be cool? yea i guess. extremely impractical? definitely.

have you got a dyno sheet and a list of mods? because frankly, that's incredible and i'd love to see it.


i still stand by my statement, the 2.9 has more potential, i wasn't talking about whats available cheap, just what can physically be done.

 

[86 slo-vo]

have you got a dyno sheet and a list of mods? because frankly, that's incredible and i'd love to see it.


i still stand by my statement, the 2.9 has more potential, i wasn't talking about whats available cheap, just what can physically be done.

no graph but i have a sheet.

there are several hundred 2.3T's running around the states with over 5-600 HP, and i dont believe ive ever heard of a 2.9 making over 250. there just isnt the aftermarket support for parts unless you drop $10K into a longblock and then you still have no idea how tough the block is.

 

[mhughes165]

if you are friends with a machinist anything is possible, it is possible, there is a 2.9sittin in my crawl space for just that purpose, just gonna cost about 2500 between machine work and parts, and then i have to build the engine after the machine work is done, realistically a twin turbo setup is probaby what would happen, two t304's or something similar that will spool very quickly and is good for 15pnds with no lag, building this motor to hold 50 pndsis the idea, and then just play it safe, 2.9 under about 30psi of boost is feasable for a driver.....i dont know how much of a daily driver it would make, but i know id drive it

have to be in a lowered 4wd truck though, then theres all the balancing of the front axle non sense for high speed use of the 4wd. its a dream for the time where money is no object for me, because theres always something else, it would HAVE to be a c4 because i dont know a 2.9 or 4.0 transmission in existense that could handle that, and a cast iron 205,

and slo vo, i have a graph very similar to that one, just has a bit more on the bottom end, in a 86 lebaron convertible at 20 pnds