Opinion: 4.0 vs 2.3T Swap

[scotts90ranger]

ALL '87-96 2.3L 4x4 rangers have the M5OD transmission, the bellhousing isn't removable so you need the whole tranny. If you are very determined you can combine a 4x4 tail housing to a 4x2 M5OD which can be easier as the 4x4 2.3's were somewhat rare.

 

[fordman2121]

Ive got the tk in mine but thats because thats what I had laying around. If I were to do it again(and I will be grenading my trans with my turbo) I am/would put a auto in just because Im building it for a mudder/trails. I am going to use a c6 out of an 80s F150 with the x-case also. Just have to buy the adaptor plate for 185 bucks and be set. If going the manual route then I would, like said above, look for the m50d.

 

[Protowrxs]

Problem solved:

Picked up a 92 Explorer rolling chassis - 4.0, 5 speed, e-Transfer, 8.8 with complete under hood wiring harness and computer, and exhaust for $375.

This way I ended up with a 4.0 and tranny for the price of most 4.0 engine only options I've seen as well as a D35 to replace the D28 and an 8.8 option if I want later. The seller had even gone to the trouble to find a complete 92 under hood harness, hosing and computer for it before selling the B2 he was going to put it in. Seller is a very good helpful guy as well!

Will be pulling the 4.0 down slightly to check condition but was supposed to be around 150K in good shape. Will be installing a new high volume oil pump, rear seal if needed, water pump, etc and detailing over the winter for a swap next spring.

Open to any other suggestions for checking the 4.0 out and/or should do items before it goes in.

I'm happy -

Sorry Turbo Fans - I need to find something to put another 2.3T in now.... ;-)

-Stephen

 

[Gotta_gofast]

Turbo the 4.0L!

 

[saab900]

Hey soorry to bump an old threadbut I made a new one and never got an answer. Are the ranger 2.3 n/a engines the same as the lima bellhousing bolt pattern? I think that would help clarify the trans questions for the 2.3 swap.

 

[scotts90ranger]

Yes, the Lima 4 cylinder is what was in the Rangers from '83 through mid '01, and as far as I know was the only 4 cylinder used in Mustangs up til they stopped putting them in in like '94, the only 2.3L that Ford used in that time range that won't work transmission wise was the one in the Tempo/Topaz

 

[AllanD]

I've seen that comment in various other threads. Not sure how to ID what I have though. I believe it's an FM 146 trans, and I guess that is not good for a 4.0? I'd just as soon go with the 2.3T for my needs but am not sure that wouldn't require a trans swap in itself? Unless someone has a lead on a replacement bell housing.

If so it seems 2.3 4x4's are not that easy to find anyhow so I'm not sure what trans I'd need to put the 2.3T in.

Loads of bars leak and similar seems to stop the water in the oil issue for the short term until I find a better solution. Just don't want to dump a load of money into a $400 play vehicle at this time.

The early T-K5 trans or FM146 will not stand up behind a 225ft/lb 4.0
a 265-290ft/lb producing 2.3T will twist one into garbage even more swiftly.

However it should be noted that swapping the bell-housing off of the 146 is "Possible" there is no existing bell-housing for any engine other than the 2.9.
as this transmission was never used with a 2.3.
(with some searching you might find a bellhousing for a Mitsubishi 2.6L 4cyl)

I need to point out that I've personally snapped the output shaft off of a 4x4Mazda trans with a stock 4.0... So I'd recommend being "Nice" to one wth a 2.3T

The torque character, torque relative to rpm, of an '88-89 2.3T with an IHI turbocharger is very similar to that of a well tuned 2.9 engine.
Both engines get into their torque happy zone at 2400rpm, and are pretty much "done" at about 4500rpm.

The 4.0 OTOH starts making torque really low, 1100rpm and by 1350rpm is already making more torque (170ft/lb) than the 2.9 makes at it's peak (2600rpm) and makes >200ft/lb from ~1700-4000rpm.

At any rpm you are likely to have a 4.0 in gear and under load it is making 170-200ft/lb, in other words, it is an engine that just doesn't care, it pulls and keeps pulling.

The best part of a 4.0 is that it was specifically engineered to fit in the engine bay where a 2.9 had previously been, so swapping one in is literally a No-brainer.

a 2.3T has several points of interference, mostly related to the turbocharger and associated plumbing.

I had a low mile '89 TC engine sitting on an engine stand the entire time I was doing my 4.0 Swap. I subsequently sold it, but the real reasons I didn't use it
were because I was unhappy with any of the available clutch options and was really unhappy with the turbo Vs Air conditioning interference issues in the ranger engine bay.

I love my AC and the 4.0 is Adequate... it will be "more than adequate" if I can equip it for a moderate 30-50hp) shot of nitrous.
(I'm thinking a moderate shot, but a BIG bottle, so I can get that 30-50hp boost for several minutes at a time

AD

 

[scotts90ranger]

Allan, unfortunately you can't use the 4.0L clutch on the 2.3L but Centerforce makes a nice replacement that drives well and holds well, I used their stock replacement friction disc and their pressure plate with the counterweights, it's held up like a champ with the turbo engine for the last 4 years that I've had it in, and I haven't really been nice to it , it's been behind the turbo engine twice as many miles as the stock clutch that I put in when I did the turbo swap originally and hasn't really shown signs of a problem.

 

[AllanD]

I ran a CF-II clutch on my 2.9 for several years, but comparing it to a stock clutch for a 4.0? the CF-II fails.

I've run both back to back on the same truck, with the same engine and trans, so I know the difference

The CF2 grabbed well, but it was a bit twitchy when you tried to modulate into engagement. OK if you are going to floor the throttle and sidestep the pedal...

To be really happy in a 4x4 it needs more flywheel mass and a lot more grip.

Another point for the 4.0 is that generally they'll run on any gasoline you feed it.
To run more tham minimal boost on a 2.3T it needs and wants premium.

 

[scotts90ranger]

Yeah, I'm with ya on all your points , it's harder to work the CF clutch than a stock clutch, I really liked the 4.0 in the Explorer I had, wish I still had it... ran good, just put new clutch and brakes on it... I think my first post in this thread said I'd rather have a 4.0 for most of what I do I do like my turbo 2.3L but it's temperamental at times...

 

[AllanD]

Actually my "base" set-up is a 1993 slave and a 1988 master, which results in a really quick acting clutch, so I have basically created the feel of a 2.9 CF-II clutch with stock 4.0 hardware. but better modulation at engagement

The extra mass of a the 4.0 flywheel covers it's sins nicely.

EDIT: Allow me to express me feelings on the subject as succinctly as possible...

I had BOTH available to me, and each had it's advantages and disadvantages
and I chose the 4.0

If I had the same choice again I'd probably do the same.

AD

 

[svo_jon]

Scott

What kind of fuel mileage can you get with your t2.3?

 

[scotts90ranger]

With my Ranger I get 15mpg just cruising around on the street, if I'm towing or being hard on it it goes down near 12mpg (have got it down to 9mpg on a few spirited street drives...), going wheeling all bets are off... I don't tow or anything with it as much as I used to since I got an F350, it's 8000lb just by itself and gets 15mpg on the street, and 13mpg towing a car down the highway, so I use that for those situations

 

[svo_jon]

I would have figured a t2.3 would have got better than that... interesting.

Thanks
Jonathan

 

[scotts90ranger]

I'm on 35" tires, when I was on 31" tires I got 17mpg, when I was on 31" tires with the stock engine I got 19mpg, I don't have a setup that's going to get good mileage no matter what I do , when I was 2 wheel drive with 28" tires I got 23-4mpg with the stock engine