Rebuild 2.8 or swap in 302

[Dasan458]

I picked up an '83 4x4 from a friend for trade on replacing the engine on his mom's leSabre. And well its in pretty good condition cept for the bed.

But what I came here today for is this: it has a 2.8 and iv heard they are both good and bad. Researched it and came up with both sides. Some like the 2.8, and some don't. But what I want is an engine that gets relatively good gas mileage and enough hp. I read that it can get up to 32 mpg and around 200 hp just by deleting the smog control crap. But is it worth rebuilding and making it a better engine (considering putting an Eaton m90 on it) or putting in a 302?

Now the 5.0 is out of a '01 mountaineer, but needs rebuilding too. I'd do the same and put the supercharger on it, but would I have to get a new tranny and rebuild the differentials (due to more power)?

I'd like to hear all and any thoughts and opinions/advice on the 2.8. Winter is coming and a 4x4 is needed.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[SenorNoob]

32 MPG AND 200HP seems pretty out there on anything except the newest tech on the market. I can't believe an '83 2.8 could pull of either of those.

 

[bbbc3]

I've had my 2.8 completely rebuilt and removed the smog pump. I feel my rebuilt 2.8 has plenty of power. It is a single cab shorted 4x4 with 3.73 gears. The best I've seen out of it is maybe 15 mpg. It is a 4 speed manual though.

I would love to see a supercharger added to one of these motors! I'm curious as to how the carb setup would look with the m90 on it?

I'll admit there have been times where I wondered if my money would have been better spent on a 302 because the 30 year old 2.8 takes a lot of maintenance as old parts wear. But I like keeping things original and I know I would crave more and more power from a 302 and break a lot of things in the process.

Also I HATE the starter set up on these trucks and the fact that the cork oil pan gaskets leaks and requires the motor to be lifted in order to get around the cross member. Terrible design!

My 2 cents

Blake

 

[wildbill23c]

The 2.8L V6 is a good engine...many people swap them out because they seem to feel they need to have a V8 engine. The 2.8L V6 was fine, the trouble was Ford attempted to computerize a damn carburetor...when that system went haywire many people threw the engine away for the 302.

I've had 2 vehicles with the 2.8L V6, and the first I wish I would have known back then about the Duraspark Conversion because I'd still be driving my 84 Ford Ranger. I also had an 84 Bronco 2. Engine has plenty of power...they're not meant to be race cars which for some reason so many people try to turn them into a vehicle they weren't meant to be. My Ford Ranger pulled a 14' travel trailer all over the country for many years, I used it quite a bit after I got my license to pull a 2 horse trailer around. The 2.8L V6 is fine if you can get around all the emissions crap and the computer BS.

My Ranger would manage 19mpg on the highway cruising. My Bronco 2 would get 22mpg on the highway...the bronco 2 had a lot of stuff taken off it and out of it though LOL.

32mpg ain't gonna happen driving a box on wheels down the road 22mpg maybe but 32 if you are going down hill maybe. Someone is filling you full of BS LOL. Unless maybe they're talking about the Ranger diesel, but I don't think they got much more than about 25mpg highway.