James86, I reread your post and I want to be the first to apologize, you were on my side, I dont know why there are sides here but I do appreciate it...Snoranger, the reason I said "stupid" for Morana Racing is because AllanD said anyone that pays thousands for aftermarket stuff from Morana is "stupid". Drcrgr I am liking your idea of trying to carburete a 2.9, very innovative! If you can figure out how to get the distributor to work, all the better. Do you have a thread started on what you have one so far to get the better mileage? AllanD, I have a spare 2.8 and 2.9 engine on my garage floor. I also have a test engine stand that I put together. I asked the question on here between the 2.8 and 2.9 so I knew which one to tear down and start building. When i am done, it will be test run on the stand eliminating any problems BEFORE installation...Over your "assuming" attitude enough to start to understand? I have been a member of Gator Superchargers here in Bradenton Floria for years now. One of the first things we learned here is to use a TOO SMALL turbo for your engine. Free Air and you can always wastegate it. What this TOO SMALL theory does is spool up the turbo immediately, eliminating lag, thus KEEPING the RPM and Torque range of the engine nearly stock. You will see that I mentioned Squires turbo in my last post. Squires turbo's are mounted Under the vehicle towards the back with a seperate oil pump for itself. Therefore ELIMINATING the HOT underhood temps and keeping the heat away from the Crack Prone heads. What people pay thousands of dollars on plumbing for turbo's on, can actually be done with simple PVC pipe and Fernco clamps saving many hundreds..."THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX". This is also taught in the Gator Superchargers club. Everyone should join and have a read. Old Studebaker and AMC turbo engines running 7 and 8 quarters on the cheap. Insanejughead and Drcrgr, keep the ideas flowing......
The part that gets "glossed over" in "making things easy" by NOT switching to "some other" engine is that the 2.8 and 2.9 have little "reserve strength"
back when ford made the MustangII and similar Capri (before they actually put a V8 in either) there was a lot of interests in turbocharging the 2.8 engine
The problem was that 5-7psi on a 2.8 was often sufficient to bend the skinny 2.8 rods so that the crank counterweights would hit the underside of the wrist pin bosses... that engine is VERY "tight" inside. the 2.9 is not much better.
And I'll add that with less aggrevation you can swap in a Turbocoupe engine which makes 190hp stock and which has been repeatably demonstrated to make >300hp on a stock tall block by making the kind of external "tweeks" that toiy can do in a weekend
frankly I'm all about PROVEN gains, demonstrated improvements that have
been duplicated by dozens of people.
***********************************************************
I will stick to saying that spending $4500 on a 4.0 stroker kit (which costs another $1500+ to install after you have the box of parts to add a mere 500cc to a 4.0 is "Stupid" by ANY definition of the word. (as well as foolish and probably insane.)
What exactly do people expect to get out of a 12% increase in displacement?
If you don't think that is crazy and stupid there is something wrong with your definition of the word.
Now consider that you can but a Nitrous Oxide system for ~$800
BTW, I'm not sure a remote mounted turbo moving the heat away from the engine compartment is going to reduce the tendency of the heads to crack, because they crack normally aspirated, extra power from the extra air shoved into the engine is going to create additional heat and stress any way you go.
Look at it from my point of view for a minute....
I had several 2.9 powered RBV's and several engines in my supercab.
I swapped to a 4.0 when I was literally down to my last "trusted" 2.9 spare
(If I had installed it there would have been no backup), I had TWO 4.0's I was pretty sure about.
Since switching to the 4.0 I never even consider looking back on the 2.9, because frankly I believe the 4.0 is everything the 2.9 should have been in the first place.
The 2.8 is a lightweight eurpean sport/economy engine.
the 2.9 is the 2.8 warmed over with better cylinder heads and EFI
and correcting some earlier design mistakes, but it is an engine that still has inherent major flaws in it's oiling system.
The 4.0 more or less corrected ALL of the original problems
bear in mind I've KILLED half a dozen 2.9's besides the original factory Engine in my Ranger that lasted 262,000 miles.
I've had several crack and turn the lube oil into "latte" even though I'd been running the dual core 4.0 Radiator to keep that sucker cool...
I had one engine crack the block internally, starve the main-bearings of oil and simply SEIZE... and the next to last 2.9 that I hydrolocked crossing a creek?
I hydrolocked that engine driving to a friend's house to get my engine crane
so I could swap out the engine... it had developed oil pressure problems...
but I had my Bronco2 sitting here with a cracked frame that wasn't going anywhere..., when
that engine seized (the second one that did) I gave up on the 2.9 and sold my last spare to Zman(?) (who is SFAIK still running it)
I make my decisions based on practical reality and one bit of practical
reality is that the last 2.9 engine was installed in a 1992 Ranger nearly
20 years ago, the 2.8 has been a dead issue since 1985.... twenty seven years...
AD