Replacing a 98 3.0 engine

[JP02XLT]

Yes it can, I have done it several times, you also need to un-bolt the condenser behind the radiator and swing it all carefully around and over the passenger fender, you will need 4 hands to help move it, take your time and just let the thing swing how it wants to go, it will also swing right back into place with no issues.

JP02XLT

 

[tonyd]

All of that has been removed so its not an issue, Wasn't working anyway. After everything gets back together, the luxuries of cold air will be my next project. Thanks again. How hard to replace the rear main seal while the engine is out. Any special tools?

 

[flatlandriver]

The FFV heads are different than regular. Larger "squish/quench" area. Take different spark plugs and I imagine the knock sensor programming in the computer is different also. FFV gets poorer mileage when using regular gasoline. It also seems like more guys with the FFV heads have pinging issues.

 

[stmitch]

The FFV heads are different than regular. Larger "squish/quench" area. Take different spark plugs and I imagine the knock sensor programming in the computer is different also. FFV gets poorer mileage when using regular gasoline. It also seems like more guys with the FFV heads have pinging issues.

The early FFV engines had smaller combustion chambers. The later engines used the same heads as non-flex engines. Either cylinder head can be used with either fuel type.

The reason the FFV trucks tend to ping more than regular is in part due to the increased compression ratio from the smaller combustion chambers. Using high quality fuels, eliminating carbon deposits in the combustion chamber, and performing proper maintenance will reduce any pinging regardless of fuel type.

I got better mileage with my ffv than most 3.0 owners do regardless of the engine configuration (18-21mpgs with gasoline in a 2wd auto trans). I've never seen anything that would suggest the ffv engines get worse fuel economy than the regular gasoline engines while running regular unleaded. FFV's fuel economy numbers suffer when running e85, but they should be the same when using gasoline. Why do you say ffv's get worse fuel economy than regular 3.0's?

 

[flatlandriver]

Hey stmitch
My assumptions about the mileage differences comes from the fueleconomy.gov website and looking at owners ratings between FFV and non for 2002 and 2003 model years. The gov ratings are the same, but the real owner numbers are worth looking at. I also note that the FFV versions are only available in automatic tranny versions, where engine lugging will be less of an issue contributing to pinging.
The problem with all of these flex fuel engines, imho, is that E85 is a poor compromise for alcohol, and "gasohol" at 10% and sometimes more, is a poor substitute for gasoline. So when a gas tank ends up full of a mixture of these two, say effectively 50/50, it's the worst of both worlds. Knock sensors may cause timing to be retarded, but nothing short of tetra-ethyl lead is going to stop the pre-ignition in this situation.
The whole ethanol as green fuel thing is just a bad idea. Sorry, I might have said that out loud

 

[flatlandriver]

Otoh, my memory is fuzzy as to the year the dedicated ffv heads were phased out. Thought it was '99, but uncertain.

 

[stmitch]

I believe the dedicated FFV heads were phased out in 01, but I could be wrong.

If the ffvs in your comparison were only available with an auto trans, while the regular 3.0s were available with either transmission, that alone would drop the fuel economy of the FFV trucks, and it's not even engine related.
I went to fueleconomy.gov and compared a 2000 2wd FFV with manual vs the same truck with an auto trans, and the manual trans truck was listed as getting 1 more mpg than the auto equipped truck by the EPA sticker. The users with manual trans trucks were actually reporting nearly 2 mpgs better fuel economy. If we apply that 1-2mpg difference due to the transmission to your regular 3.0 vs FFV 3.0 argument, then the numbers are much more similar.
And if we compare an 01 2wd regular 3.0 equipped with a manual, to a 2000 2wd FFV equipped with a manual, the FFV is actually rated 1mpg better than the regular, and the users reporting show nearly identical fuel economy, with the FFV having a slight edge.

Fuel economy depends on so many variables that it's difficult to predict, especially in a vehicle like the Ranger with multiple platform variations and power train configurations. A base model, regular cab, short bed, 2wd FFV with a manual trans weighs around 3200lbs. If you put that same engine into a 4wd, extended cab truck with an auto trans, and power everything and it pushes the weight beyond 4000lbs. Obviously, the larger, heavier truck will have worse fuel economy.

Either way, for the OPs situation, picking an FFV engine shouldn't matter. Getting an engine in decent shape is much more important than getting a regular or FFV. Other than the fuel injectors, they should be identical, and perform the same.

 

[flatlandriver]

I was comparing ffv automatics to non-ffv automatics. Apples to apples. Don't really appreciate your assuming that I would skew things otherwise. It's important to note that this ffv mileage disadvantage appears to apply to post 2001 ffv vehicles where the heads are not the dedicated variety.
I also note that the manufacturers of ffv sensor replacements that disable the E85 capability advertise higher post-conversion results. Those claims I take with a grain of salt.

 

[flatlandriver]

http://www.tandselectronics.com/Flex_Fuel_Replicator.html

 

[JP02XLT]

02 & above Flex fuel Rangers do not use the sensor like the 01 & prior, the 02 and after FFV's use an adaptive fuel strategy in the ECU, It uses 02 readings to make a calculated guess as to what the content of alcohol in the fuel is, and adjust duty cycle of the injectors accordingly, It sucks for tuning, period, especially in my case for a supercharged engine, as this adaptive strategy overrides normal tuning at times.

As for the heads I have seen & ported both head styles, very minor differences in the combustion chamber, the gains with the later model heads is the smaller diameter valve stem which takes up less room in the port, allowing more flow, & a beehive style spring, otherwise they are very similar in all other aspects.

If anyone needs a replicator PM me.

JP02XLT

 

[stmitch]

I was comparing ffv automatics to non-ffv automatics. Apples to apples. Don't really appreciate your assuming that I would skew things otherwise.

Sorry if you were offended. I didn't mean it that way. You didn't specify in any post until now, which configurations you were comparing, only the years and that the ffv trucks you used in your comparison were only equipped with the auto trans. I just wanted there to be no confusion.

There were several changes made between 00 and 01 that may contribute to the fuel economy discrepancy. 01 trucks equipped with the ffv 3.0 didn't use an EGR system, they used the same heads as regular gasoline 3.0s and the ethanol content of the fuel was estimated by the PCM instead of a dedicated "Flex fuel sensor".

 

[flatlandriver]

Some days I'm just too grumpy for my own good and I end up shooting from the lip. Apologies as well. I blame it on the late stages of middle age

 

[det107]

A little long winded, but I'm trying not to miss any thing.

 

[tonyd]

Everything is going well. Im swapping everything over to the new engine. Changed motor mounts, fuel rail and injectors will be cleaned and tested. A rear sensor near the crank sensor was different and Im changing rear main seal and starter while I can. Does the engine line up to the trans with the motor mounts installed? Do you use the indexing pins to mate the trans to the motor then drop it down on the motor mount bolts? Thanks again Ill keep you posted.

 

[don4331]

I lined up the engine with the transmission with engine mounts attached - there as a little juggling, before indexing pins lined up and engine and transmission came tight together.

*Remember, if it won't go tight together by hand, pull it apart and confirm torque converter is 'seated' (Push while rotating). Nothing worse than forcing torque converter into the automatic's pump and then having to replace the transmission. <There's a Ranger for sale here in Calgary Kijiji which has had this issue...>

Then, with them tight together, I installed the 6 engine/transmission bolts, so it wouldn't come apart while I shifted/lower it into the engine mount studs.

** Don't bolt the torque converter to the flex plate until the transmission bolts are snugged up - Murphy's Law says it would shift, torque converter would get pulled out and you would be starting over.