3.8 vs 4.0L

[stevenf]

I have a chance to take a 3.8L out of a mustang. Guy said it doesnt run but I plan on doing a compression test before I take it out. I can have the computer, the harness and the engine.
What are these things compared to 4.0L? If it gets rebuilt, would a bore make it a 4.0L or it would have to be stroked? Is it worth the trouble?

 

[Ranger44]

Truthfully a 4.0 swap would be ALOT easier, however it has been done before......

clicky:

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/3_8_Conversion.html

This should give you an idea as to what you want to do.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The 3.8 is about the same size (aside from length), if you are going to go thru that much work you might as well go with a V-8. The 3.8 will require the same tranny as a 302 as well, they have the same bellhousing bolt pattern.

That is a lot of work for a V-6 that loves to eat intake manifold gaskets and burn antifreeze IMO.

The OHV 4.0 and 3.8 is probably about comparable powerwise.

 

[woodyedmiston]

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/3_8_Conversion.html
http://www.therangerstation.com/Magazine/summer2008/2_9-to_5_0-Swap.htm
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/V8Conversions.html

Welcome to TRS. Any one of the sites above (From the TRS Technical Library) will "splain" things to you. But - the logical progression that would make one think that the 3.8 is just a slightly smaller 4.0 is flawed. There are two families here - 2.9. 3.0 and 4.0 OHV engines went into Bronco II, Aerostars, Rangers and Explorers. The 3.8 and the 4.2 that shows up in the Aerostar, T-Bird, Mustang and F150 truck are very different engines. Your profile does not indicate what vehicle you have now - the 3.8 might make a good swap into something . . . but there are better choices if you are working with a Ranger.

 

[Psychopete]

There are two families here - 2.9. 3.0 and 4.0 OHV engines went into Bronco II, Aerostars, Rangers and Explorers.

FWIW, 2.6,2.8,2.9,4.0 OHV engines are the same family. The 3.0L is it's own, but from what I understand FWD 3.8Ls like in a Taurus have the vulcan bellhousing pattern. Same w/ the 2.3L/2.5L HSC engine. My Tempo had the option of the 3.0L V6, and would be a fun engine in that little of a car .

Edit - Here:
Vulcan V6 pattern
2.3/2.5L HSC FWD I4
3.0L Vulcan V6 (FWD and RWD)
3.0/3.2L SHO V6
3.8L Canadian Essex 90° V6 (FWD only)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_bellhousing_patterns

Pete

 

[canyoncritter]

http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/ar90134.htm

give you a over all of what in a 3.8

a 3.8 is pretty much a 351(5.8) with 2 cylinders wacked off and on a metric scale....
this gave was very helpfull to me about 8 years ago when looking for 3.8 parts to run it with a carb set up.
http://www.moranav6racing.com/

these guys also have lots of parts
http://www.supersixmotorsports.com/

if you looking for power, sohc motor would be the way to go for being as bolt in as posible,and Ive been told you can get those in to the 250hp ranger with out internal work.....

 

[racsan]

i thought the 3.8 was a 302 less 2 cylinders (the way a 4.3 g.m. is a 350 less 2) you might as well go with a 302, though a 4.0 is about as much engine with less weight and would be alot less trouble.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

i thought the 3.8 was a 302 less 2 cylinders (the way a 4.3 g.m. is a 350 less 2) you might as well go with a 302, though a 4.0 is about as much engine with less weight and would be alot less trouble.

No, the 302 had 4" bore with 3" stroke, the 351W had 4" bore and 3.5" stroke.

The 3.8 had a 3.8" bore and 3.38" stroke, they are not related.

 

[Psychopete]

No, the 302 had 4" bore with 3" stroke, the 351W had 4" bore and 3.5" stroke.

The 3.8 had a 3.8" bore and 3.38" stroke, they are not related.

I am not sure where that came from (RWD bellhousing?), but it won't die. It's crazy how easy it is for people to simply look this stuff up, IMO.

From Wikipedia:

"The Canadian Essex's origins are somewhat controversial. A common, but erroneous, belief is that the Essex was based on the 5.0 L Windsor V8 engine, due to the fact that they both have a 90° vee configuration, are OHV, and that a 5.0 L V8 less two cylinders would make a V6 displacing around 3.8 liters. Though the practice of deriving a V6 from a V8 wasn't unheard of (auto manufacturers have derived V6s from V8 designs before, such as GM with the Vortec 4300 and Chrysler with the Magnum 3.9), several important differences between the Windsor's design and the Essex's, such as their considerably different bore and stroke, made a common design lineage implausible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Essex_V6_engine_(Canadian)

Pete

 

[rickcdewitt]

the 3.8 would need to have a bunch of custom work done to use it just like a 302 swap.

the 4.0 actually bolts in -in every aspect