I6 swapped b2


Dantebxvi

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Bakersfield California
Vehicle Year
1984
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Manual
So I'm looking at getting rid of the 2.8 currently in my truck. I looked at the 2.9 and a few others but with the associated problems of the 2.9 and Cali's laws, I think I've settled on the AMC 258 out of a cj7. Is there anyone here that has done something similar in a b2 or a ranger?
 


Rock Auto 5% Discount Code: 4FF3E9EEA14805 Expires: October 1st, 2020

rusty ol ranger

2.9L Mafia-Don
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
6,516
Reaction score
1,898
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
177 CID
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
If cali's law wont allow a 2.9 they arnt going to allow a AMC 258.

The ford 4.9L (300) has been done, but its not for the faint of heart.
 

PetroleumJunkie412

2.9 Mafia
Supporting Member
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
5,356
Reaction score
3,919
Points
113
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
Ranger
Engine Size
2.9l Trinity
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
2.9 is a good engine. Very easy to mod to hell and back.

Ford 300/4.9 apparently fits, but I haven't personally tried it.

That 2.8 will turn into a runnin' SOB with a little work.


Keep in mind, EFI > Carb


The Motorcraft feedback carb on your engine is a POS from what I'm told. There are a few aftermarket units that fit. @RonD @85_Ranger4x4

The biggest problems with the 2.8 beyond the ignition system and carb is their restrictive head ports and lack of coolant passages in the head decks.

Luckily, before Pruett went on to give the world the Viper V10 and Gen. 3 Hemi, he worked with Cologne V6:


You need this. Take it to staples and have them print it and toss it in a binder or have it bound by them. $25 for the bible for your engine.

He mostly covers the 2.8 in the book. Very detailed instructions on how to improve your heads, ignition, fuel system, cooling system, etc.
 

Ranger850

Well-known member
Supporting Member
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Jan 24, 2018
Messages
4,586
Reaction score
1,287
Points
113
Location
Tallahassee Florida
Vehicle Year
2001
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
Born with a 3.0, looking for a donor V8
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Lift
Stock 2"
Tire Size
Stock
My credo
Doing things wrong, until I get it right.
I've only seen one Ranger with a i6 here. Lots of fabworrk eent into it iirc
 

85_Ranger4x4

Forum Staff Member
Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
OTOTM Winner
TRS Banner 2010-2011
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
23,163
Reaction score
3,606
Points
113
Location
SW Iowa
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
5.0
Transmission
Manual
Motorcraft 2150 with 1.08 venturis is the ideal carb for a durasparked 2.8. You can get a four barrel intake and run a Holley 350 also.

But California would have a stroke over either of those.

Fitech and others make EFI kits that would work with a Duraspark distributur... but again California.

IMO if you are scared of the 2.9, look for a pushrod 4.0 V6. As long as you maintain all the emissions equipment of the model year of the newer engine you SHOULD be ok. Talk to your smog people about it before you do it.
 
Last edited:

PetroleumJunkie412

2.9 Mafia
Supporting Member
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
5,356
Reaction score
3,919
Points
113
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
Ranger
Engine Size
2.9l Trinity
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD

Will

Forum Staff Member
Forum Moderator
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Messages
6,717
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Gnaw Bone, Indiana
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Toyota
Engine Size
4.0
Transmission
Manual
Sven Pruett. Don't talk to me about Sven Pruett.

His book about Cologne motors is worthless to us. He was actually on this site 15 years ago and I argued with him.

Our use of the Cologne motor is different than his. He was building them as racing engines. It was in the infancy of fuel injection and he tells you in the book that fuel injection sucks and to swap it out for a carb.

He gives you these drawings that depict how to modify the heads, grind the ports, patterns, almost. We can't do that stuff. And you wouldn't want the engine it would build if you could do it.

It's a useless book. I bought it when it was in print for $18. Ten years later, or more, I don't remember, it was $200. I put mine on Ebay, and told everyone it was rubbish and not to buy it. I still got $200 for it.

He knows what he's talking about. That book is not a book written for us. When I was bashing it, I was bashing it because people were paying $200 for it. It's not a good book for us. It's not useful. It sucks. It has no 2.9 or 4.0 info. It doesn't cover anything but the 2.8. It assumes the 2.9 and 4.0 are like the 2.8, and they aren't.

It's rubbish.

The 2.8 he wants you to build is a race engine. The torque is the same, but you push it up the tach so it makes more power. But it's still a 2.8 with 2 valves and pushrods in the way and a modern 2.0 in a Focus would kick the living crap out of it. I like the 2.8, but it needs to be tuned and used the way it was built. It's a good truck motor in the Ranger.

The world has moved on.

It had already moved on when Sven wrote that book.
 

Dirtman

I pooped in the furnace
Supporting Member
EMT / Paramedic
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
10,639
Reaction score
6,223
Points
113
Location
Over there --->
Vehicle Year
2009
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
466.63 teaspoons.
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Tire Size
So friggin big!
My credo
RUM HAM!!!
Hugs not drugs
 

snoranger

Forum Staff Member
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
ASE Certified Tech
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
7,330
Reaction score
3,363
Points
113
Location
Jackson, NJ
Vehicle Year
'79,'94,'02,'17
Make / Model
All Fords
My credo
I didn't ask for your life story, just answer the question!
Sven Pruett. Don't talk to me about Sven Pruett.

His book about Cologne motors is worthless to us. He was actually on this site 15 years ago and I argued with him.

Our use of the Cologne motor is different than his. He was building them as racing engines. It was in the infancy of fuel injection and he tells you in the book that fuel injection sucks and to swap it out for a carb.

He gives you these drawings that depict how to modify the heads, grind the ports, patterns, almost. We can't do that stuff. And you wouldn't want the engine it would build if you could do it.

It's a useless book. I bought it when it was in print for $18. Ten years later, or more, I don't remember, it was $200. I put mine on Ebay, and told everyone it was rubbish and not to buy it. I still got $200 for it.

He knows what he's talking about. That book is not a book written for us. When I was bashing it, I was bashing it because people were paying $200 for it. It's not a good book for us. It's not useful. It sucks. It has no 2.9 or 4.0 info. It doesn't cover anything but the 2.8. It assumes the 2.9 and 4.0 are like the 2.8, and they aren't.

It's rubbish.

The 2.8 he wants you to build is a race engine. The torque is the same, but you push it up the tach so it makes more power. But it's still a 2.8 with 2 valves and pushrods in the way and a modern 2.0 in a Focus would kick the living crap out of it. I like the 2.8, but it needs to be tuned and used the way it was built. It's a good truck motor in the Ranger.

The world has moved on.

It had already moved on when Sven wrote that book.
I’m pretty sure that’s going to make @PetroleumJunkie412 cry.

Hugs not drugs
Basement hugs, I assume.
 

bobbywalter

TRS Technical Staff
TRS Technical Advisor
TRS Banner 2012-2015
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
20,036
Reaction score
996
Points
113
Location
woodhaven mi
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
FORD mostly
Engine Size
BIGGER
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
sawzall?
Tire Size
33-44
My credo
it is easier to fix and understand than "her"
Remember the context is what Will is referring to.





If an inline is really what you want...

I would look at the Jeep 4.o or a supra engine. The BMW offerings are good but the Toyotas are bad ass...there are quite a few inline 6 that are modern that will be nice. The Jeep stuff fits better then the full-size ford stuff. Easier to fit trans and t case


The Ford 300 with a speedway style intake/exhaust, a fi tech and matched cam will fit and be a monster. With a turbo it would be wild.





Then there is the easy button.

The 4.0 is to the 2.9 what the 351 is to the 302. A waste of time or a dream come true depending on your specific needs.

In a stock truck doing mostly car stuff... say commuting, the 2.9.... especially paired with a manual trans is really good.

like the 351....the 4.0 just uses more gas for required commuter performance.

If your generally loaded with 800 or more pounds or haul shit regular....have a lifted truck with 33 or larger tires, the 4.0....again especially paired with a manual trans, is by a a sizeable margin the best engine outside of the 2.3 Ecoboost....


Two things about the rbv....evicting a Dana 35 or a 4.0 that works well from an rbv for a stockish 302 and Dana 44 is a waste of time if your not going all out. This means 37 or larger tires and 300 or more HP...in which the d44 is upgradeable a d like the 302....easily so. But money.


And for effort and time over performance...a downgrade.


With a 2wd.....a supra seems the easy power of you can find it cost effectively. Big engines though.
 
Last edited:

rusty ol ranger

2.9L Mafia-Don
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
6,516
Reaction score
1,898
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
177 CID
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
The 2.9 is still a rather large improvement over the 2.8...

Oh and @Will @PetroleumJunkie412 build is more along "race" lines. What hes done is very impressive.
 

PetroleumJunkie412

2.9 Mafia
Supporting Member
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
5,356
Reaction score
3,919
Points
113
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
Ranger
Engine Size
2.9l Trinity
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
@Will!! My favorite detractor!

Truly! You're one of the VERY FEW people who can back up the negative they say about the cologne engines. Know that even though I ball bust literally every post of yours, that I respect your informed opinion.

So! I cannot publicly agree whti anything you say. Cause. Ya know. You're Will. And I disagree with you. But, it's 2020 and the world is on fire, so **** it.

You and Bobby brought up a very good point that I've been prattling on about for some time - the 2.9 is NOT suitable as a truck engine to do STRICTLY truck stuff. Yes, it will do some truck stuff with ease because they're impressive for a V6, but it's 177 cubic inches in a oversquare configuration. It's a euro touring and rally engine.

In fairness, the 2.8 (from my very limited experience with them) and especially the 2.9 are meh truck engines for doing truck stuff. Towing heavy, hauling, crawling rocks.... 2.9 and 2.8 are good enough for both in a light duty sense. They are NOT comparable to the truly truck engines I have experience with - namely the Mopar 383, 440, and 360 (NOT a Ford guy). Even the Ford 4.0 ohv in stock configuration does better off road than a 2.9 or 2.8 in stock form - they developed the 2.9 into the 4.0 for that exact reason - purpose built for light truck stuff.

What the 2.9 IS good at is what it was designed to do - run highways, track, dirt roads, etc. and to do it very, very well for their era.


Lots of good info in a very small thread - and some sincere discussion of the advantages of the 2.9 12 valve over the 24 valve.

On to pruett....

So, you have a point about his book - it discusses the 2.6 and 2.8 far more than the 2.9. The 4.0 is barely a footnote. At times, it's been difficult to tease out the info that I need. I did find a satisfactory amount after almost two years invested. Yes, it's taken far too long and way more hours than I'd like to count in order to make it this far into piecing the info together to build the engine I want.

In the end, Pruett provided less than half of it. Most came from the euro guys that have been working with these engines for 30 years. Most of his parts references are useless, and I strongly disagree with his recommendations on carburetors. Granted, that's mostly due to the fact that carbs are ****ing terrible when compared to modern tuning technology.

I will somewhat disagree with you (big surprise) on his recommendations on ports, etc. He gives you enough to get started, but not enough to get a set of 2.9 or 4.0 heads performance ready. 2.8, sure. So, I've been doing my own research on how to handle the ports and flow design:

_20200425_100509.JPG




I've had to go as far as taking silicone molds of the ports to get a glimpse of where I can pick up flow. Pruett provides one cutaway shot, and one recommendation on bowl hogs, but that's about it. So my strategy is to mold the ports, then cut a head into profile slices and determine bias, shape, etc. Pruett left me high and dry on this one, so I went the Sagan route - if you want to bake a cake from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

Another huge shortfall in his writing is his complete lack of detail concerning manifolds available. In the back of that shot is a Merkur 2.9 intake (top) and Sierra (bottom). Radically different from one another in terms of design and cross-manifold balance.

He neglected to leave out that there's at least three RBV upper intakes, four euro style ones, and at least half a dozen different lower intake configurations, some with dual cooling setups that allow for crossflow cooling.

He also neglected to mention things like turbo exhaust manifolds that were available at his time of publication.

I've done my best to get the info that he left out, including flow testing via volumetric efficiency mapping of different intake combinations to see which will give me the characteristics I want out of the engine, and to let others read and use as they see fit.




After all of this, I've asked myself many, many times if what I am doing is useful. Best answer I can come up with is a strong maybe. The moment I'll know is my first dyno run. But, I've kept track on here for those like me that can't (and would NEVER) drop the $6700 (or whatever the **** ludicrous price Ford charges) on a Ford 2.3 ecoboost crate engine to dump into a 30 year old pickup. My work has been for those like me that can junkyard together a 30 year old mouse motor on a budget that can hold its own in the modern world; once someone has cut a path, the rest of it gets cheaper and easier. Edelbrock is evidence enough.




In a sense, it comes down to cost and time versus reward. Yes, my path has been stoopid difficult and at times more expensive than I'd like, but that's because from what I can tell I'm the first to do this in the USA in 20+ years.

Yes, the colognes are antiques now. So are 350 chebbys, 383 mopars, and 302 ford's. And that doesn't matter to folks that want that old school V8 feel. They'll build whatever gas guzzling carbureted big block theyve always wanted and drive the **** out of it. True, a modern four banger may eat them alive. But who cares? This is a hobby. 😊

For me, I wanted the euro V6 that I watched hand a Lamborghini it's own ass in Bern, Switzerland in 2009-ish. So, when I figured out i had the bones of that engine in the cancered out shitbox rotting in my driveway, I decided to make it happen. Yes, it's been difficult, but I'm chasing a sound I remember hearing echo through the Swiss Alps when I was 21. And to me, that has been its own reward.











Tl;dr: @Will, I disagree! Well, somewhat.
 
Last edited:

85_Ranger4x4

Forum Staff Member
Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
OTOTM Winner
TRS Banner 2010-2011
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
23,163
Reaction score
3,606
Points
113
Location
SW Iowa
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
5.0
Transmission
Manual
In fairness, the 2.8 (from my very limited experience with them) and especially the 2.9 are meh truck engines for doing truck stuff. Towing heavy, hauling, crawling rocks.... 2.9 and 2.8 are good enough for both in a light duty sense.
I color my 2.8 as "adequate" for a stock Ranger.

With oversize 235/75-15 MT's and 3.73 gears I had to have it in 4lo to get the engine in its powerband to clean the tires in heavy mud. 2.9 is supposed to be better for truck duty but I have never been around one.

In a Pinto or Mustang II which IMO is more what the 2.8 was originally intended for it would have been great.

For the 4.0... mom's '94 Explorer (with 235's and 3.27's) was a dog. So inspiring I never considered it for a swap and still have no regrets. And my 5.0 gets better mileage than the old Explorer did too. :icon_twisted:
 

bobbywalter

TRS Technical Staff
TRS Technical Advisor
TRS Banner 2012-2015
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
20,036
Reaction score
996
Points
113
Location
woodhaven mi
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
FORD mostly
Engine Size
BIGGER
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
sawzall?
Tire Size
33-44
My credo
it is easier to fix and understand than "her"
There are a ton of calibration with the explorers. 327 and 308 stuff certainly suck



4.0 with 410 and 35s works good. .

Stock to stock. The 4.0 lugs better then the 302 or the 2.9. that's running m5od up hill.

I have seen the v8 best the little engines on mpg in the right situation regularly. Ir
 

franklin2

Active member
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Messages
582
Reaction score
187
Points
43
Location
Virginia
Vehicle Year
1984
Make / Model
Bronco II
Transmission
Manual
I think the 2.9 makes a decent small truck engine. Why do you think they put 3.73 gears in it? Let it wind out, it will get a loaded truck moving. I ruined the rear leaf springs in my 2.9 ranger from hauling full loads of green firewood in it. And it had the longbed on it. You won't use 5th gear very much when loaded, leave it in 4th and let it eat.

The 2.8 I have now is pretty weak. But if I really dog it, it will go half-decent. If it doesn't complain about me using all it has each time I drive it, then I think we can get along and get the job done.

And I agree about the book. Not much info in there that I saw besides standard engine rebuilding techniques. Go out and buy "How to rebuild your small block Ford" and you will get 3/4 of the info in the cologne book.
 


Top