OT: New Project ('91 Ranger)

The 4.0 in that truck should be in the same engine family as the 2.8 found in the mustang II. I wonder if the motor mount and bell housing bolt patterns are the same.

BTW, how many Mustang II owners are ranger owners also? I am, Kent (thinkkker) was, ...

G.A. Heath said:

The 4.0 in that truck should be in the same engine family as the 2.8 found in the mustang II. I wonder if the motor mount and bell housing bolt patterns are the same.

BTW, how many Mustang II owners are ranger owners also? I am, Kent (thinkkker) was, ...

Click to expand...

I don't see why not. The 2.9L (also from the same engine fam, and also from rangers) was identical minus the top end. Aside from displacement, and I guess OHC they should be mainly the same.

Should is the key word lol. I'm not exactly sure...

Oh and while we're at it... If they do have the same bell and mounting points and all... this could be an option for people who don't want to part with the 2.8 but still want a 5 speed tranny! And since it is a 5speed, is it a T5? I'm not sure what trannies were in rangers..

PS: Ditch the project "truck" and drop it all into a Mustang II 2.8L! That would be pretty cool also (nothing against rangers mind you, I happen to crave a mildly lifted 4x4 4.0L Ranger, but I digress)

and the obligatory :

Okay, lots to reply to here (I'm a Bronco II/Ranger nut)...

The manual trannies on the Ranger based vehicles (RBV's: Ranger, Bronco II, Explorer, and to a lesser extent the Aerostar) were all hydraulic clutch lines. From what I've gathered so far, the Mustang II lacks enough space to put the master cylinder for the clutch. And the T5 was not an RBV option. The RBV manual tranny options varied by year, and included the Toyo/Kogyo 4 and 5 speed, the Mitsubishi FM 145 and 146, and the Mazda M5OD. General consensus is that the Mitsubishi trannies were the weakest of the lot...

The 4.0 and the 2.9 ARE both close relatives of the 2.8, but they are internally VERY different (and somewhat different between the 2.9 and 4.0, BTW). Both are exclusively EFI, and both have timing chains and hydraulic lifters, and the 4.0 has no distributor at all. They DO share the same bellhousing bolt pattern, but the spacing of the flywheel is slightly different (that's where most of the "replacement" starter issues arise on the 2.8 II's. The "car" 2.8 starter is ~1/4" different in nose cone length, but otherwise identical to the "truck" 2.8 & 2.9 starter, and the 4.0 starter is interchangeable with both of the smaller "truck" engines)

The engine mounts may or may not be compatible. I believe the 2.8 and 2.9 have the same plates between the block and the mount, but I do know that the 4.0 mounts themselves are not the same as the 2.8/2.9 and I'm not sure if the 4.0 has the same bolt pattern on the plates to the block.

One thing to remember on the 2.9 though: DO NOT EVER LET IT OVERHEAT!!! The 2.9 (even with the later revised head design) has a tendency to crack heads if overheated. Its not a "for sure" thing, but a common occurrance.

78CobraII said:

The 4.0 V6 from 2001 onward is OHC. I would think that the earlier OHV engines would make better swap candidates. The OHC engines are big and likely heavier.

With the 4.0 lacking a distributor and not having a carburated intake available, it would be easiest to swap into a MII with the full EFI package. Unless you like building custom distributor-less ignitions and carburated intakes.

The 5-speeds that I've seen with the 4.0 are integrated with the bellhousing, so any T-5 swap would probably require the use of the early 2.8L bellhousing. I've seen some hints of T-5 swaps in Rangers, so I'll look them up and see what they used.

Most would probably say that if you are going to all the trouble of an EFI engine swap in a II, go ahead and swap a 5.0L V8, but this might be a good swap in an original V6 car. Plus it has the "dare to be different" factor. The 4.0L V6 should be a good deal lighter than a 5.0L V8, and with some head porting, a cam, headers, and a new chip should make nearly V8 horsepower.

Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I am thinking, after I am finished with my 302 EFI conversion I may just go find a V6 II and a 4.0 ranger donor. Then there are the super charger kits for the 4.0 rangers, I wonder about hood clearance with those ...

I would tend to agree with the idea of a blown 4.0. Even though there is no replacement for displacement, supercharging is neato. Don't worry too much about hood clearance, its still cool to have a little motor sticking out isn't ? Particularly blowers, tunnel rams, and velocity stacks?

Ya, I'm a bit of a ranger nut myself



Check out www.therangerstation.com , it has pretty much unlimited amounts of information on anything ranger based.

If you put a l/s in that 8.8, theres a nice little mod that you can do by packing a few extra discs in there, should be a link on the ranger station's tech pages if your interested.

The clutch, flywheel and pressure plate for the pre-98 4.0 is actually an upgrade over the 2.9 clutch, and is pretty much a direct bolt in. Could be interesting to work a 4.0L into a II.

http://www.therangerstation.com/Magazine/May06/40_clutch_swap.htm

I'll give TRS credit for having a HUGE tech reference section, but I'm a former TRS "old-timer" (won't go into it....long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away)

My first BII (I wanted a small 4x4, and when I discovered the BII had the 2.8 in it, I was hooked) ended up with a 7.5 with 4.10's and a Trak/Lok with a few extra clutch discs. Never once in the time I had it did it EVER slip...might as well have been welded

I know the Mustang V6 flywheel is ALSO an upgrade from the RBV 2.8/2.9 version, but it was a bit of a pain getting a bastardized clutch disc to fit

It would definitely be interesting to swap a 4.0 into a Mustang, and its definitely workable. Not something I'm going to add to my list of projects (unless it somehow becomes a free option)

I have no idea how the OHV 4.0 compares to the OHC version. I know they are somewhat different, but I've never actually looked at them much.