2.9L to early 4.0L swap really worth it?

[AllanD]

the only thing i diden't like about the 4.0l in my 91 sploder was it would start to misfire if you ran through water too much and splashed it around the engine compartment.i've been up to the bottom of the headlights in my 2.9l truck and it diden't cut out with a relocated air intake.(but if my truck stopped while up to the lights i'de probably be shit out of luck).i know it could just be that particular truck but anyone else have their 4.0l start sputtering after a few mud runs?

That sounds like an issue with spark wires....

I'd trust a 4.0 in deeper water than I'd trust a 2.9.

a 4.0 doesn't have a distributor to get wet.

 

[rickcdewitt]

so the crank trigger will work a couple inches under water?i heard there was some kind of crank trigger retrofit for this.then again the ford tech i worked with who told me that was full of s*@t most of the time.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Well some of us remember a 4.3L running with a 351W a couple of years back in a pulling contest.

That wasnt a fair test at all because the 351W was a in a 3\4ton ext cab with 3.55's while the 4.3L was in a S10 blazer with 4.10's.

Thats like a 2000lb weight difference, eaisley, plus the gearing difference. Put 3.55's and another ton of weight on the blazer and im sure it would be chug a luggin.

Im sick of argueing about which is better. Allan, you just dont like the 2.9, because youve had bad experince with them. The 4.0L is a turd, givin its displacement and the power it makes for its displacment. If it was as "good" as the 2.9L it would be making something like 200hp, so inreality, even the SOHC 4.0L isnt all that great compared to the 2.9.

If the 4.0 was tuned as good as the 2.9L it should be making exactly 193HP and 254FTLBS of Torque.

And we all know it makes no where near that.

later,
Dustin

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The 4.0L is a turd, givin its displacement and the power it makes for its displacment. If it was as "good" as the 2.9L it would be making something like 200hp, so inreality, even the SOHC 4.0L isnt all that great compared to the 2.9.

If the 4.0 was tuned as good as the 2.9L it should be making exactly 193HP and 254FTLBS of Torque.

So the bigger more powerfull engine is a turd because it doesn't have the same power / dispacement ratio as a smaller engine? The 2.0T in my Laser made 100hp/liter, so it must be a better truck engine than my 5.4 with 49hp/liter, heh, thats a good one. Comparing hp/displacement really proves nothing IMO, the smaller engines have an advantage.

Given that the 4.0 and 2.9 both weigh about the same, I would guess that the engine with more power would outdo the smaller one in the same truck setup.

 

[rickcdewitt]

o.k. recap- big electrical,wiring job.use the 4.0l tranny.is lots of extra power worth tearing apart your engine bay?come on guys this was really all he was asking about.good luck deciding.

 

[Psychopete]

o.k. recap- big electrical,wiring job.use the 4.0l tranny.is lots of extra power worth tearing apart your engine bay?come on guys this was really all he was asking about.good luck deciding.

I've noticed that they do this off and on. Give it time - about 6 months - they'll have this same debate.

I wouldn't say "lots of extra power".

In my opinion, no, it's not worth the money or your time. Especially if you already have a good running 2.9L already there, if it's not asbolutely neccessary, you might just ride it out until a head finally cracks. Not that it's (4.0L) a bad engine, you're just probably not going to get what you'd expect. Not to mention you could open a new can of worms and have all sorts of issues with your swap.

Pete

 

[Natedog]

if you can do the electrical bullshit go for it...pretty much is the electrical and smog worth the big increase to you. there are superchargers and all kinds of stuff for 4.0l's also so you can approach v8 power levels.

X2....if you can do the work go for it. I've driven both and the 4.0 in similiar Ranger smokes the 2.9. I've got a 2.9, and wish I had a 4.0...same mileage almost, but lots more power.

 

[jcmtbfreak]

I've noticed that they do this off and on. Give it time - about 6 months - they'll have this same debate.

I wouldn't say "lots of extra power".

In my opinion, no, it's not worth the money or your time. Especially if you already have a good running 2.9L already there, if it's not asbolutely neccessary, you might just ride it out until a head finally cracks. Not that it's (4.0L) a bad engine, you're just probably not going to get what you'd expect. Not to mention you could open a new can of worms and have all sorts of issues with your swap.

Pete

I agree. If you have a 2.9 thats still running well. Don't bother with it. Wait till it dies. My cents on the 4L (of which I am no where near an expert, I can just tell you my experience). We had a 93 2WD explorer and we could tow our tent camper up and down hills with no issues. Most of the time it wouldn't shift out of OD and we wouldn't lose speed. The 2.9 in my 87 4X4 auto B2 can't keep me at speed going up a hill with the tank near empty and just me inside. Granted, I know things would improve if I put a manual in there. But still.... And on the flip side, I dont' know about others, but if I was going to swap in another engine. I'd get it rebuilt and put a bit of money into it to improve the performance and to have a fresh engine that would be good to go for quite awhile. And would have above stock performance. So stock hp and torque numbers would be mute point. But yeah, for now if the 2.9 is running well...run with it.

 

[AllanD]

Im sick of argueing about which is better. Allan, you just dont like the 2.9, because youve had bad experince with them. The 4.0L is a turd, givin its displacement and the power it makes for its displacment. If it was as "good" as the 2.9L it would be making something like 200hp, so inreality, even the SOHC 4.0L isnt all that great compared to the 2.9.

If the 4.0 was tuned as good as the 2.9L it should be making exactly 193HP and 254FTLBS of Torque.

And we all know it makes no where near that.

later,
Dustin

Dustin, if you are sick of arguing stop arguing

I'm DISCUSSING against your arguements.
I concede some of your points and you disrespect mine with hyperbole.
You sir are the one doing the arguing and you can keep doing it or not
as it amuses you, I will refute factual errors until hell freezes over if
necissary.

No onto the facts:
Ford specifically didn't want the 4.0 to be a peaky engine Frankly the power from a 2.9 isn't as useful as it could be because the engine simply has to rev too much. and optimizing it for lower rpm reduces the peak numbers, that's life a compromise.

the 2.9 is "adequate" for a 2wd std cab, but for anything else you simply need a larger engine, because only displacement can give you torque.

"Power" isn't the important thing Torque is.

if the 4.0 was making 193hp it wouldn't be making useable torque down at 1500rpm (which it does!) and wouldn't be as useful offroad or towing as it is.
and the 2.9 CANNOT overcome that, it simply doesn't have the displacement to be "torquey".

The issue is that the 2.9 despite the best efforts to run it as one is NOT a "truck" engine and all the wishing and hoping to the contrary isn't going to change that. Additionally the 2.9 because it is stressed so much of the time has reliability issues, not to mention they were kinda built "on the cheap"

I have a great use for a 2.9 engine! I'll but another TVR 280i and swap in an EFI 2.9 (with a scorpio intake) in place of the POS 2.8 engine that my TVR had, I won't have another one in an RBV.

EVERY man who has a good opinion of the 2.9 has likely only had a few and all of those few have been good ones. My PERSONAL experience with 2.9 engines now stands at ELEVEN, of those One was superb, two others were
"So-So" and the rest? pure shit.

I have 370K miles with 2.9 engines in my Ranger supercab alone and another 320K miles between my two bronco2's, so I think I know a bit about them.
Then there are the 2.9's in the vehicles of friends and relatives that I get to fix, because it seems I'm the only one that really understands them...

And my decision to pass on another 2.9 is by no means emotional
I Like the 2.9 in general, when the example you are speaking
of runs "right", but IN REALITY they do that all-to-rarely.
I don't believe that it's any exaggeration to say that for
every "good" 2.9 there are four or five (or possibly six)
that are utter crap.

If Ford had made the 2.9 "better" there'd probably be three times as many Ranger enthusiasts than there are.
Frankly I think the 4.0 is what the 2.9 should have been
in the first place.

you are assuming that I'm emotional about the 2.9, I'm not.
I ran 2.9's because they WERE (for me anyway) CHEAP.
And since my '87 ranger was factory wired for a 2.9 the easiest solution.
I gave up on the 2.9 after killing three of them in 18 months and having no really good gambles on further junkyard replacement engines and having three 4.0 engines on hand...

I won't swap in a junkyard engine unless I have another one on-hand.
and I will immediatly aquire another (I won't drive anything without a "spare")

The real conversion from a 2.9 to a 4.0 took me an actual time
working on conversion specific stuff of about three weeks.
I had my truck mostly together as a 4x4 with the 2.9 when
the "new" 2.9 was determined to be bad when I had to pull it
and start on the 4.0 conversion.

The truck actually took far longer to assemble because of all the
other stuff I did (I also converted to 4x4, created by own body mount hardware and did a 1" body lift completely replaced ALL the wiring and power distribution in the truck...About the only thing I left alone was the FRONT lighting and horn wiring. (everything going to the rear of the truck now runs off of relays)

But for that effort the engine essentially started on the first try.
I say essentially because I had a fuel pump wiring issue that was
caused by a ground lug I didn't screw down that would have
crippled a fresh 2.9 install just as completely....

My install was difficult only because I deliberatly made it so
when I REFUSED to modify the '87 connectors at the drivers
side firewall or dashboard and I INSISTED on switching over to the 1993 power distribution system thereby ELIMINATING virtually all of the fuseable links in the trucks wiring. and to do all that I had to cut up TWO other wiring
harnesses to Create an adapter harness (mostly because I'm
replacing my entire CAB at a later date)


Yeah you can "turd polish" a 2.9 into something it really isn't
but at what price?
You talk about the 2.8 piston swap? Did you pack the short block in cumpled $50 bills for the trip home?

I probably spent less on the complete conversion than anyone doing the 2.8 piston swap does on the machine shop work and gasket sets.

I take offense at your characterizing my thoughts on the 2.9 as disliking it?
I don't actually dislike them, I am just HONEST about the 2.9's (many) flaws
and recognise that a 4.0 is simply a better foundation to build upon.

In reality the mods many suggest for the 2.9 are no easier than switching to a 4.0, the difference is in the nature of the challenges, mechanical/machining that you PAY someone else to do or electrical that you CAN do yourself if you are capable of tying your own shoes...

The very fact that the 2.9 is as powerful as it is for it's size makes the proposed task of "improving" it essentially an exercise in futility for use in a truck.

Remember the old hotrodder's maxim: Cubic Inches? Yes!

the 4.0 simply has 75 more cubic inches to work with, that plus
bigger ports, heads (even the 90-91 4.0 heads) that are FAR
more resistant to cracking than even the vaunted "world product"
or TM90 2.9 head castings. the later '93-94 head casting are probably the most crack resistant of the 4.0 heads, and Hey, the 4.0 has a friction reducing roller cam as well!

and there is SOME aftermarket support for the 4.0 whereas the aftermarket support for the 2.9 is non-exsistant unless you count the availability of headman or pacesetter headers. (JBA having discontinued their 2.9 headers)

Getting rid of the distributor (and the TFI module)
can hardly be a bad thing either...

And no adjustable rocker arms for the misguided backyarder
to screw-up.

Not to mention that the 4.0 finally did away with those
damned V-belts

It seems to me that what everyone wants to do to a 2.9 is CONVERT their 2.9 into a 4.0 and most of what I'm saying is that it is easier (no to mention cheaper) to simply convert TO a 4.0 rather than convert a 2.9 INTO a 4.0

And basically I switched to a 4.0 because trustworthy junkyard
2.9's are getting as rare as finding REAL silver coins in your change...
while finding a good '93-94 (or later) 4.0's is as easy as finding someone
wearing a leather jacket in a biker bar.

and to get back to the original question is the swap worth it? Only the person doing it can decide.

I did it but if I'd had another 2.9 engine around Id've probably stuck with the 2.9 engine for a while atleast... (however long or short the engine lasted) but, now that I've made the switch I won't go back.

Yes, I'm glad I switched.

I wish I'd done it seven years ago when I first aquired my engine swap donor.

Don't fear the wiring, it isn't really as hard as it looks.

AD

 

[gfbgreaser289]

well i have delt with 4 2.9's and everyone of them seem to keep eating up the cam bearings. i had just bought a 90 regular cab shortbed with a 2.9 5speed with 3.73's. and my 87 xcab 4.0
5 speed 3.73's feels a hell of alot more powerful then my 90. also. i went wheeling with the 90 and it started knocking. so should i swap to a 4.0 or put in another 2.9.

 

[CopyKat]

I say Bring it. 4.0L all the way. 2.9's suck

I should take mine to the track next year, Just for Shits and giggles.

 

[351ranger]

Putting a 4.0 in my b2 was THE best thing I could have done. I've done alot to it but the very best thing was the motor swap. Luckily I had someone (bobbywalter) who could do the wiring because I'm an electrical idoit, but other than that it wasn't a hard swap. The power difference is truly amazing.

 

[AllanD]

What people "feel" is acceleration, particularly low-end acceleration
and low-end acceleration, IMMEDIATE reaction to the loud pedal is torque.

this is why for YEARS when someone asks about a "mod" to improve performance the old timers on TRS always answer the same way:
GEARS!

People always TALK about "horsepower", but what they want
(and just don't know it) is Torque.
Torque at the wheels (via a gear swap) is ALMOST as good
as torque at the flywheel, with a 4.0 and 4.10's I have BOTH

I had a lot of fun with my 2.9's, I expect to have more fun
with a lot less work and a lot less worrying about what's
going to break next with the 4.0.

BTW Dustin, you need to check your math, the 4.0 makes 225ft/lb
and if it were making the same torque relative to displacement as a 2.9 it should be making 235, not 254.

AD

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Your telling me about torque?

Whos the one that defended big blocks against sidewalk and Redshed for the past 3 years when they started spouting off about turboed 4 bangers?

Sorry, didnt mean to sound like a Man Part....but still.

I love the 2.9L....if you seen what i have put mine through and having it still run, then you would know why. I have never seen a Bad 2.9. Im sure there out there....but me personally have never seen one.

Most people agree the 302 V8 is a good motor.....I think its junk.

Its all relitive on what your opinion of that certain engine\trans\rear end\vehicle\woman\politician\whatever is.

Ill agree....the 2.9 is no 300 Inline......but to me, its not worth swapping out a perfectly good running engine, just to gain a few extra horses. When most people never even load up a 2.9 enough to actually make it stall.

....and besides.....why fix what isnt broke? Because if you try you'll end up worse then when you started.

If you want power I stay screw the V6's and swap in a good 351W with a 4bbl, cam, and headers.

Be a little more work for an actual meaningful gain.

I dont have a problem with you Allan.....i think your a good guy.

I know that cubic inches is the only way to make torque, and torque is what hauls around weight, i have a very good understanding of that. I know that while a 4 cylinder honda with a Turbo might be fast.....put that engine in my Dually and it pry wouldnt even move.

I know that.....but what im saying is the 4.0L doesnt do that great of a job compared to the 2.9L.

My ex wife had a 4.0SOHC with a Stick Shift.....yes it would run from my 2.9....but from a dead stop till about 30 that little 2.9 stuck right with it.

The 2.9 has plenty of Low End kick in the ass.....its HP where it falls on its face, and the abilty to carry itself in the higher gears.

The 2.9L runs like mad through 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Hit 4th and its all over.

I will admit.....2.9s are getting rare as time goes on. But it doesnt change the fact there a great little workhorse motor.....and i may be stubborn but you wont convice me otherwise.

later,
Dustin

 

[fastpakr]

Your last sentence really sums up your stance on all this. Regardless of demonstrable facts and irrefutable evidence, you make the choice to be ignorant and laugh in the face of truth.