Fuel injection for V6?

Putter · Sep 12, 2005

I have been looking into converting my V6 to fuel injection. The engine is the same as Ford Ranger V6s, there is some info at rangerstation.com about using an entire ECM and harness w/ a throttle body injection system. Has anyone here done something similar? Any links would be appreciated.

Dano78 · Sep 13, 2005

Putter said:
I have been looking into converting my V6 to fuel injection. The engine is the same as Ford Ranger V6s, there is some info at rangerstation.com about using an entire ECM and harness w/ a throttle body injection system. Has anyone here done something similar? Any links would be appreciated.

I've been dealing with 2.6s and 2.8s for some time. I'm not sure if the 4.0 will have what you're looking for that and the fact it's a DIS type system and could be pretty hard to adapt to a 2.6 or 2.8. Personally if room permits I'd swap the whole 4.0 into what you're working on.
However, the 2.9s in '86 recieved EFI and would be the closest to the 2.8 and 2.6. I don't think the 2.9's intake will work on the 2.6/2.8 engine without swapping to the 2.9 heads. I have NOT tried it yet, but I do believe the 2.9 Cylinder head should fit on the 2.8L. I have a EFI 2.9 and old 2.8 but it's all burried away as I'm still in the build process of my new shop, so it'll be a while till i could confim that for sure. If you're looking strictly for the EFI, I'd would consider just a whole 2.9 swap as you will gain hydraulic lifters rather than solid, and larger valves in the heads as well as a little better compression and larger ci. diplacement. The 2.6/2.8/2.9/ and 4.0 all share the same transmission bellhousing.
Hope this helps you out some.

Putter · Sep 14, 2005

Thanks for the reply.

Here is a link to what I was reading.
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/2_8_FuelInjection.html

What vehicle has the 4.0?

I was thinking that with throttle body injection the same intake would be used and an injector plate replaced the carb.

I like the idea of swapping 2.9 heads with intake and EFI, that would take care of the mild oil consumption problem I have also. I'll start looking for 2.9 heads also. Can't see better compression and more CI though? Bigger valves will help though.

Edited for sp and additional question

jeffnoel · Sep 14, 2005

I believe Explorers and the Mazda version both came with 4.0s

Dano78 · Sep 17, 2005

Putter said:
Thanks for the reply.

Here is a link to what I was reading.
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/2_8_FuelInjection.html

Not a bad article. Is there something significant about the 3.8s FI that is better than the 2.9s? I really don't know squat about the 3.8s at all other than i know they are not 60 degree v6s like the 2.6, 2.8s, 2.9 and 4.0s are. And honestly, I'd rather get that Offenhauser 4bbl intake and toss on a 4bbl just because F.I. and I don't see eye to eye.

Putter said:
What vehicle has the 4.0?

90-up Ranger, Bronco II ('90 only), Explorer (91-up), Mountaineer (Mercury version Explorer)

Putter said:
I was thinking that with throttle body injection the same intake would be used and an injector plate replaced the carb.

Yeah I suppose it could, at least it seems possible after reading that article you posted. Again, I'm kinda injection impared I guess you could say...

Putter said:
I like the idea of swapping 2.9 heads with intake and EFI, that would take care of the mild oil consumption problem I have also. I'll start looking for 2.9 heads also. Can't see better compression and more CI though? Bigger valves will help though.

Likewise, you may not even have to swap the heads. I just can't remember the intake port configuration on the 2.9. Though something tells me that the 2.9 and 2.8 are the same. I do know that the 2.6 and 2.8s are definately different. The better compression is in the 2.9 as it runs at 9.0:1 wheras the best 2.8 (1974) runs at 8.5:1 (the rest are 8:1 or close) And going form a 2.8 to a 2.9 will gain you 8 more cubic inches of displacement. A 4.0 would be a gain of 71 cubic inches though i'm betting that a 4.0 will probably cause hood clearance issues in a Mustang II. The 2.9 heads also offer a little better runner design/flow (along with bigger valves) and it also rids of the simease exhaust ports and splits them up individually, as they shoud be.

Hope this helps.

fastmonkeywheel · Sep 18, 2005

A turbo charged 2.3 EFI is a pretty easy swap. I just finished doing mine. It's nice to have fuel injection in such an old car, and boy, the room I have with this 2.3, it's really nice.

About a CFI setup, I would avoid that at all possible costs. An outta tune carb will normally run better than thoes setups. A few years ago I had an 86 Mustang with the 3.8 CFI system, for the life of me I could never get that thing to run right. I finally junked the CFI and put a system from a 99 3.8 with SEFI. It's extreamly easy if you can read a wiring diagram.

I believe the 3.8's used 5.0 motor mounts, not 100% on that, but I believe that to be true. So, if you're looking for an EFI swap and wanting a 6cyl the 99+ 3.8's have MUCH better flowing heads and intake. FYI, FWD and RWD 3.8's are different.

Another FYI, the 99+ 3.8's are making around 210-220 hp stock. And if you can find a late 80's early 90's T-bird SuperCoupe, then you can have a supercharged 3.8L. But I still recomend the 99+ heads for the 3.8L.

77sleeper · Sep 18, 2005

if you are gonna do the 3.8 swap you might as well go with the 4.2 truck motor (same engine) and pick up the extra torque

Blue Thunder · Sep 18, 2005

If I recall correctly, SVO used to list a 5 Liter stroker kit for the 4.0 Liter engines. (or was that only available when used with the specific SVO block too? hmm.)
Anyway, even the stock 4.0 motor is a hell of a lot better than the 2.8. Drop the whole mess in there.

77Sleeper, what's that 4.2L come in? Full size trucks? Did that motor replace the old inline 300" or something? Is it a stroked 4.0?

Blue Thunder · Sep 18, 2005

jeffnoel said:
I believe Explorers and the Mazda version both came with 4.0s

And Rangers, too. My friend had a little 2wheel drive 5speed 4.0 (1994?)Ranger, and it was quick.

77sleeper · Sep 18, 2005

Blue Thunder said:
77Sleeper, what's that 4.2L come in? Full size trucks? Did that motor replace the old inline 300" or something? Is it a stroked 4.0?

yup it is in the 150 since 97 it is the same block as the 3.8, but its B/S is 3.81 X 3.74 where as the 3.8s B/S is 3.81 X 3.40

btw the 3.8 and the 5.0 are similar castings same motor mounts and bell housing pattern/size, so I actually have plans on doing this swap in the very distant future project

power is respectable 210hp/260tq but can be cammed or what not

Willy0314 · Sep 18, 2005

Just to throw my two cents into this thread....

1) although 2.9 heads will bolt onto a 2.8 block, this swap isn't possible without a custom ground cam. The arangement (order) of the intake and exhust valves in the 2.8 is different from the 2.9, so you would need a cam ground with 2.9 specs, except to fit into a 2.8 block.

2) From what I have read about the 3.8Tb conviersion for the 2.8 (this is going on 3 years ago maybe?) , the swap isn't really worth it. It dosen't work quite perfect, and has some general problems and quick fixes that aren't they way you really want to be doing things.

3) As for the 4.0, after building my 2.8 and putting alot of money into it, I wish i would have gone with some form of a 4.0 swap. The motor will bolt right in (im not sure about the tranny though, as i never got that involved with the swap), uses a 2.9L port configuration so that headers would be easily found / customized to fit. And the heads on the 4.0 are 100x greater then the 2.8L heads. The 4.0 block even has a factory hole in the block where you could put a distributor if you wanted to ditch the EFI. The 4.0 uses a crank trigger EFI system, so you would either need to transfer the entire engine management system from the parts car, or the easier route would be to fab up a custom sheet metal intake.

Blue Thunder · Sep 19, 2005

The thought never crossed my mind before, but a 4.2 truck motor swapped into a V6 II would seriously kick ass for a daily driver, in terms of performance and economy. If you wanted more power, a vortech belt-driven bugger would be an easy option. Talk about a sleeper.. sheesh. I bet that 4.2 is a lot lighter than the old 302s, too.

78CobraII · Sep 19, 2005

I seem to remember that the Mercur Scorpio was imported with the 2.9L and a nice EFI system. That would have been about 1988/1989. I poked around on the net a bit but couldn't find anything specific to the American version though.

All other American uses of the 2.9L V6 seem to have been for trucks (Aerostar, Bronco II, Ranger).

The guys at the Mercur Club of America (MCA?) would probably be able to help you with more info. A good manual for the Scorpio would also.

http://www.merkurclub.com/

77sleeper · Sep 20, 2005

Blue Thunder said:
The thought never crossed my mind before, but a 4.2 truck motor swapped into a V6 II would seriously kick ass for a daily driver, in terms of performance and economy. If you wanted more power, a vortech belt-driven bugger would be an easy option. Talk about a sleeper.. sheesh. I bet that 4.2 is a lot lighter than the old 302s, too.

78CobraII · Sep 20, 2005

Even a stock '99+ 3.8L V6 makes more HP and torque than a factory '78 302 and it probably weighs only a little more than the 2.8L V6. But the 3.8 swap is actually easier for 302 powered MII's as the mounts should all line up and the radiator should be properly sized. The 3.8L exhaust headers are a bit of an unknown, but at least its shorter by one pair of cylinders over the 302. As a swap for a 2.8L V6, the 3.8L V6 would require you to find nearly enough parts to swap in a 302.

Probably the easiest way to fuel inject a 2.8L engine (other than to use the Scorpio 2.9L engine) would be to find a 2.8L Offenhouser 4bbl intake, have injector ports machined in, and use an aftermarket EFI system such as DFI or FAST makes. It would be plenty expensive as you would need the services of an expert tuner and some dyno time to get the fuel map worked out.

If you want a nice daily driver\cruiser with more getup than the factory 302, a 3.8 V6 with EFI and its late model OD transmission makes a lot of sense.

If you want more of a high performance car, then a 302/5.0L or a hot rodded 2.3L Turbo makes more sense.

I found an article on a guy that built a Mercur XR4Ti with a 2.3L Turbo for racing at Bonneville. He was trying for the "200 Mile Per Hour Club" and finally made it...with a 650 HP 2.3L Turbo. Traction problems at 150 mph caused the car to go sideways for a short while though...

Blue Thunder · Sep 20, 2005

The only thing that would make me nervous about the 3.8/4.0/4.2 swap in a II is the width. It looks a lot wider than the 2.8/2.9, so header fab. could be a nightmare.

Blue coyote · Oct 9, 2005

Actually, a 4.0 swap into a II should be a cakewalk. The motor mounts and bellhousings are the same as the 2.8 so its all about the wiring, ignition, and fuel delivery. The 2.8 will rev better than either the 2.9 or the 4.0 though. Unlike the 2.8 they are both based on, the 2.9 and 4.0 are not gear driven cams or solid lifters. My 87 Ranger 2.9 gets HUGE valve float at 6200 while my 2.8 will not bat an eyelash at 7400.....

The reason for trying the 3.8 EFI swap onto a Ranger or BII 2.8 is because of the NIGHTMARISH clusterfork of an ignition Ford cobbled onto it. The 83-85 2.8 had an electronic feedback carb, a bunch of sensors, and the same timing advance/ignition "brain" as the EFI engines (TFI/EEC-IV). It works okay as long as ALL the sensors and wiring are good, but its notorious for being a HUGE PITA to diagnose or repair. I have to pass emissions testing here, and when the "brain box" on my 84 Bronco II got buggy, it was cheaper (and cleaner at the tailpipe!) to swap a Mustang II distributor and carb onto it and run an MSD6A than to replace the EEC-IV box. This is the "Duraspark swap" mentioned on that site (I'm a former regular at that site, but I don't even read the forums there anymore)

78CobraII · Oct 18, 2005

The SHO 3.0 DOHC swap would be a lot more work, but it would be wicked! I came across this swap into an old Austin Healy body recently an was impressed on how this guy solved the mounting issues: http://members.cox.net/rdgrauman/Healey.html .

He even used the SHO rear disc brake calipers and radiator cooling fan!

He used an Aerostar manual bellhousing with a custom adapter for a T-5...I bet that a MII manual bell and trans would be easier.

Putter · Oct 26, 2005

Thanks all for all the great input.
I have found a possible donor 4.0 engine out of a '00 Explorer.

Blue Coyote, is this the same block as the 4.0 you are thinking of?

A guy at work says there are two versions of the 4.0 V6. This one is an '00 with a SOHC.

If someone knows if this engine is the same block I will call the guy. I am thinking that it will be a real nice restomod with a T5 tranny.

Blue coyote · Oct 27, 2005

I'm not positive, but I believe the OHC 4.0 is a bit different, but should fit. Of course you'll still need ALL the engine wiring and ignition. I've heard that the OHC 4.0 has a bit more in the grunt department.....

Fuel injection for V6?

Putter

New Member

Dano78

Putter

New Member

jeffnoel

Dano78

fastmonkeywheel

Member

77sleeper

GO BUCS!

Blue Thunder

Blue Thunder

77sleeper

GO BUCS!

Willy0314

New Member

Blue Thunder

78CobraII

Moderator

77sleeper

GO BUCS!

78CobraII

Moderator

Blue Thunder

Blue coyote

78CobraII

Moderator

Putter

New Member

Blue coyote

Similar threads

Fuel injection for V6?

New Member

New Member

Member

GO BUCS!

GO BUCS!

New Member

Moderator

GO BUCS!

Moderator

Moderator

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency