2.9 turbo vs. v-8

[twistednturned]

I`m thinking about buying a turbo for my 2.9 it`s my D.D so i kinda want to keep my gas mileage, i know i will lose it with a v-8. i`ve been reading for weeks about turbos an for the price of a turbo kit an making a turbo manifold becsuse i cant find one for a 2.9, my 2.9 is stock just have hearers, an i want more power like v-8 power but what i have been reading is that unless my motor is built somewhat i mite only get 20 hp at 10lbs of boost even thou the turbo maker says 250hp to 400hp at 8lbs of boost. is this true ???? i`m now thinking if it is an the price of the whole turbo kit i mite be better off just going with a v-8.

 

[RangerSVT]

The 2.9L will not handle boost levels about 5 psi without mods (not safely and reliably) And the price of doing a V8 swap is not much at all, probably half the price of a 2.9L rebuild (at least for me it was)
SVT

 

[Sunk]

There's a reason you can't find anything to turbo a 2.9. Now a 2.3T on the other hand...

 

[JPRanger03]

Now a 2.3T on the other hand...

+1

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/Turbos.html

 

[Original_Ranger84]

Yeah if you wanna go turbo then go with the 4 cyl. You may even get better mileage!

 

[4.0B2]

4.0 swap or v8

now if you want turbo, the 4 cyc could be fun and good...

but i'd do the 4.0 or v8

 

[RangerBoy94]

4.0 ftw. You'll easily get 20 mpg.

 

[4.0B2]

i get 21-22 on the interstate, cruise on 72ish

that's with 3.73's, a4ld, and 30's(ish)

 

[straycat]

If you are going to swap out a motor...might as well do a V8 swap. I have not seen a complete turbo kit for the 2.8-2.9 L motor as of yet. I have seen non-complete kits that you need to buy extras for but that will cost way too much in the long run....you buy the turbo, and then buy the extras like the plumbing and the inter-cooler and mounting kit.

 

[RustedRanger]

A V-8 doesn't mean you will kill the mpg's. It would if you used a big cam, carb,and have low rear gears, but if it is a mild V-8 you will probably see a mpg increase over the 2.9. back in 86,87 the Mustang GT's were getting 24-26 mpg.

 

[BlueChariot]

A V-8 doesn't mean you will kill the mpg's. It would if you used a big cam, carb,and have low rear gears, but if it is a mild V-8 you will probably see a mpg increase over the 2.9. back in 86,87 the Mustang GT's were getting 24-26 mpg.

Thats essentially the point I was going to make. The Ranger I had with it's 3.0 got roughly 15 city and 20 highway, whereas my dad's Marquis with it's 2ton+ curbweight and it's bigger V8 got a few miles more per gallon.

 

[heptofite]

no reason you can't turbo a 2.9, no reason at all.

if that's what you want to do, don't let the naysayers stop you.

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

 

[country0001]

i get 21-22 on the interstate, cruise on 72ish

that's with 3.73's, a4ld, and 30's(ish)

+1

I have a M5OD tho. 20 mpg aint bad in a B2

 

[fastpakr]

no reason you can't turbo a 2.9, no reason at all.

if that's what you want to do, don't let the naysayers stop you.

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

 

[jhammel85]

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.

no reason you can't turbo a 2.9, no reason at all.

if that's what you want to do, don't let the naysayers stop you.

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

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..