3.0l Swap To Bronco Ii

[Likibo]

hi, i have 1989 bronco II with a 2.9l engine that turned on fire I was looking for some info on a engine swap so i can put on a 3.0l that i have it was from a ranger, do i need to buy special engine mounts? any special parts that i have to buy to make this work? any help is good! thanks!

 

[AllanD]

hi, i have 1989 bronco II with a 2.9l engine that turned on fire I was looking for some info on a engine swap so i can put on a 3.0l that i have it was from a ranger, do i need to buy special engine mounts? any special parts that i have to buy to make this work? any help is good! thanks!

As this is an engine swap question I'm going to move this there...

BUT, I will say it's been done.

You'll need a 1991-1992 Ranger as a donor for the wiring harness and computer
and other engine compartment bits, unfortunatly you'd also need a
1993-up fdonor for a 5sp manual trans or a 1993-94 for an A4LD auto.

AD

 

[rusty ol ranger]

One question....

Why?

The 2.9 will walk a 3.0.

later,
Dustin

 

[AllanD]

You presume he has a "good" 2.9 or can get another one.

Neither fact is something you should assume.

AD

 

[rusty ol ranger]

For the time and money youd spend swapping over you could have a good 2.9.

 

[TinyBear]

AS much as i love my 3.0Ls i dont know if id go threw the hassle of a swap.

That being said you really cant get much better than a 3.0L for reliability. Haveing owned three and beat on all of em i still have yet to have ANY issues with any of em. Not huge power houses but make enuff for ANY duty a ranger should be used for.

I once towed 5000lbs over 200kms away with a 4x4 ranger ex cab with the 3.slow and the auto. Ran the truck at a steady 110km/hr the whole way and it pulled the hills at speed but she sure was screaming. Truck had 250,000 on the clock when i did it too.

 

[88BII got it for $250]

Yeah im with rusty on this, 3.0ls suck go 4.0l or bigger.....

 

[rusty ol ranger]

For the displacment difference between the 2.9 and 4.0 im not impressed with the 4.0 at all. The 4.0 doesnt really seem to run THAT much harder then the 2.9, despite having 1.1L more.

later,
Dustin

 

[Hahnsb2]

For the displacment difference between the 2.9 and 4.0 im not impressed with the 4.0 at all. The 4.0 doesnt really seem to run THAT much harder then the 2.9, despite having 1.1L more.

later,
Dustin

How come whenever you compare the 2.9/3.0 you talk about low end torque yet when comparing the 2.9/4.0 you only talk about HP per CI? The 4.0 destroys the 2.9 when it comes to low end torque, which you only seem to care about sometimes?

 

[fastpakr]

Facts and consistency never really got in his way.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Im not talking about HP per CI, or torque per CI, all im talking about is that for the 1.1L displacement difference the 4.0L doesnt run that much harder.

later,
Dustin

 

[fastpakr]

30% seems like a pretty good bit to me. You complain about the 3.0 being a dog compared to the 2.9 when it's within 5 ft-lb's one way or the other, but the 70ft-lbs of the 4.0 isn't that much?

 

[bobbywalter]

hmmm.


this is a base referance for perspective





clarity

 

[rusty ol ranger]

5 ftlbs isnt much. 1000RPM is.

later,
Dustin

 

[fastpakr]

Again, your hypocrisy reigns supreme, because you ignore the fact that the 4.0 makes as much torque idle as the 2.9 EVER makes, yet it's 'not much' while the 3.0 is a dog even though it makes the same amount of torque (approx) but is cammed up a few hundred RPM.