What about fords 4.0 L engine 90-2003 ?? - TCCoA Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-02-2005, 08:01 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,598
What about fords 4.0 L engine 90-2003 ??

Hi!! just wandered over here with an evil gleam in my eye regarding the 4.0 liter V-6 that i'm assuming is a truck mill.... comparing the bore ,spacing bore/ stroke, etc. its pretty close to the mythical '4.5 L ford racing v-6' that went into some birds ... I am allmost done with the 5.4 project, and want to start something new... what probs will I encounter trying to build and swap a 4.0 int0 a MN-12? youse guys are the xperts on 6's ... any input?
jake
Leland Jacobson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-02-2005, 08:13 PM
PostWhore
 
fast Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Caledon, Ontario ... CANADA !
Posts: 1,548
Leland, the 4.0L V6 used in the Explorers and Rangers, and now the 2005 Mustang as well, is a 60 degree design that first came as an OHC design in 1997 model year. It can trace it's roots all the way back to early 70s, the 2.6L V6 that was available in the European Capris that were imported here up to 1978. It grew to a 2.8 by around 1974, then a 2.9 in 1986 for the Rangers and Bronco IIs, and finally a 4.0L in 1990. It shares nothing with any of Ford's other V6 engine families such as the 3.0L Vulcan used in the Taurus / Sable etc., or the 3.8 / 4.2L either.


cheers,
Ed N.

95 T-Bird SC 5-speed -- SOLD!!
88 T-Bird Turbo Coupe 5-speed
07 Mustang GT 5-speed with some stuff
fast Ed is offline  
post #3 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-02-2005, 08:36 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,598
oh, well..... back to the drawing board, maybe I'll come up with something, new worlds to conquer, a focus or somethimg? hmmmmm? thanks tho'
Leland Jacobson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-05-2005, 12:17 AM
Moderator
Iowa Chapter Director
Uber Luber
TCCoAAC Member
Moderator
 
Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ames, Iowa
Age: 35
Posts: 8,978
you could get a new 3.9 block and stroke it. The new 3.9 block is supposedly the strongest yet to come out of Ford, and has enough room to make it 4 bolt main cap. Now that would be a v6 block ready for some abuse
-Thomas

1988 Notch Mustang: - 438W, direct port n2o, t56
2003 SVT Focus: - SCT X3 tuner
Thomas is offline  
post #5 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-05-2005, 08:24 AM
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 241
Whatever you do, dont get the 3.0. Its a ****ty, ****ty little engine. Same power as a 3.8, but it gets mileage like a big block.

I should know. I drove it to work this morning in the Ranger.
brokenmachines_e2 is offline  
post #6 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-05-2005, 10:16 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,598
Well, I was blue skying a reworked V-6 with a bit more displacement, but bore bigger than stroke, and some really exotic machening i have access to... pricey, but exotic... more along the lines of a bigger bore 3.8 with steroids and no headgasket probs by ringing the heads and block for boost, tweaking other aspects and a lightened birdie to handle it in .... It is on a back burner now, but us old guys still never stop thinking, y' know........, and you never know what I'll do....
Leland Jacobson is offline  
post #7 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-05-2005, 05:36 PM
Moderator
Iowa Chapter Director
Uber Luber
TCCoAAC Member
Moderator
 
Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ames, Iowa
Age: 35
Posts: 8,978
the 96+ heads and blocks had hardly any problems with hg's, and the 99+ I've never heard of blowing hg's like the earlier ones. With o-ringing it could hold a lot of boost. I'll have my sc block o-ringed when I get it built. Do it
-Thomas

1988 Notch Mustang: - 438W, direct port n2o, t56
2003 SVT Focus: - SCT X3 tuner
Thomas is offline  
post #8 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-05-2005, 09:44 PM
Cougar Pilot
 
BlackCat94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gopher State
Posts: 3,443
How about a 300-6? 4.9L I6, good torque, 3.8/5.0/5.8 tranny fits (right?). Then do a cam, p&p head, turbo, etc. Definately would be different, and cool. They made them up to 1996 I think.
BlackCat94 is offline  
post #9 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-05-2005, 10:19 PM
Moderator
Moderator
 
JustinH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 37
Posts: 8,239
Send a message via AIM to JustinH
my buddy has a ranger with a 4.0, its decent power for a new little truck, but I wonder why the little truck didn't get the 4.2 motor? That would be badass.
JustinH is offline  
post #10 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-06-2005, 07:44 AM
PostWhore
 
fast Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Caledon, Ontario ... CANADA !
Posts: 1,548
They have never installed a 90 degree V6 in the Rangers. The 4.0L SOHC is 205 hp, and around 260 torque. There would be no advantage to going with the 4.2 V6 at it's current power level.


cheers,
Ed N.
fast Ed is offline  
post #11 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-06-2005, 10:23 AM
Moderator
Iowa Chapter Director
Uber Luber
TCCoAAC Member
Moderator
 
Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ames, Iowa
Age: 35
Posts: 8,978
he was talking about putting a 4.0 in an mn12 and I am saying that a 4.2 project would be more feasible.
-Thomas

1988 Notch Mustang: - 438W, direct port n2o, t56
2003 SVT Focus: - SCT X3 tuner
Thomas is offline  
post #12 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-06-2005, 11:18 AM
PostWhore
 
fast Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Caledon, Ontario ... CANADA !
Posts: 1,548
I understand that Thomas ... I was replying to Justin's comment about the 4.0 Ranger.


cheers,
Ed N.
fast Ed is offline  
post #13 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-06-2005, 11:19 AM
PostWhore
 
fast Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Caledon, Ontario ... CANADA !
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCat94
How about a 300-6? 4.9L I6, good torque, 3.8/5.0/5.8 tranny fits (right?). Then do a cam, p&p head, turbo, etc. Definately would be different, and cool. They made them up to 1996 I think.

Have you noticed how tall and long one of those engines is? Leland would need an ever stranger looking scoop that he has on his 5.4L car!!


cheers,
Ed N.
fast Ed is offline  
post #14 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-06-2005, 11:07 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,890
A 4.0 would be a step above the 3.8. Even in my parents Aerostar I could do burnouts with that engine.
Blue LS is offline  
post #15 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-07-2005, 06:51 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,598
well, looks like a 3.8 has the most favorable Bore/Stroke ratio, as well as being a pretty simple engine.... the question now is how much can it safely be bored to? hmmm???
Leland Jacobson is offline  
post #16 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-07-2005, 10:01 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,921
most people that have sonic checked a block are able to go .060 over pretty easy. and With a 3" cowl hood a 300-6 WOULD fit under the hood of an MN 12 with a custom oil pan and moving the radiator forward (I set one of my spare 300-6's in a 93' cougar I had the engine out of just to take a peek)
rancherlee is offline  
post #17 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-07-2005, 10:02 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,921
The 3.8/4.2L is too wide for a ranger without cutting sheet metal, they are slightly wider than a 351W which I KNOW is a shoe horn fit in a ranger.
rancherlee is offline  
post #18 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 01:11 AM
Cougar Pilot
 
BlackCat94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gopher State
Posts: 3,443
So a 300-6 fits in a MN12 and a 351W fits in a Ranger you say? That would make 2 cool projects for sure.
BlackCat94 is offline  
post #19 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 01:34 AM
Raoul Duke
 
cougarcragar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue LS
A 4.0 would be a step above the 3.8. Even in my parents Aerostar I could do burnouts with that engine.
This is true.
My Dad used to have a 4.0 Aerostar... That thing would boogie! I can remember filling the wheel wells with smoke several times in that beast.
I also drag raced a 3.8 Thunderbird and smoked it with that van.


1996 Mercury Cougar XR7
4.6 - Dynomax-Equipped - Tranny Cooler - 3.27 T/L - 125k Miles
cougarcragar is offline  
post #20 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 10:36 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,890
Its weird seeing my dads mini van that can easily smoke my Cat . Its too bad Ford didnt at least use the Four liter as the standard engine in the Tbirds/Cougars.
Blue LS is offline  
post #21 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 12:49 PM
Moderator
Iowa Chapter Director
Uber Luber
TCCoAAC Member
Moderator
 
Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ames, Iowa
Age: 35
Posts: 8,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue LS
Its weird seeing my dads mini van that can easily smoke my Cat . Its too bad Ford didnt at least use the Four liter as the standard engine in the Tbirds/Cougars.

Well then it would have had just as much power as the 4.6, and that would be kind of weird, no?
-Thomas

1988 Notch Mustang: - 438W, direct port n2o, t56
2003 SVT Focus: - SCT X3 tuner
Thomas is offline  
post #22 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 02:33 PM
Cougar Pilot
 
BlackCat94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gopher State
Posts: 3,443
If they used the 4.0L of the early to mid-90's, no it wouldn't have just as much power. If they used the new SOHC 4.0L it wouldn't have as much torque.
BlackCat94 is offline  
post #23 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 02:40 PM
Moderator
Iowa Chapter Director
Uber Luber
TCCoAAC Member
Moderator
 
Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ames, Iowa
Age: 35
Posts: 8,978
I didnt mean EXACTLY the same amount of power. Would you spend the extra money for a v8 is the v6 has very close to the same power? Thats what my point is.

1988 Notch Mustang: - 438W, direct port n2o, t56
2003 SVT Focus: - SCT X3 tuner
Thomas is offline  
post #24 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 02:55 PM
Boom.

Moderator
 
Palmguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Niceville, FL
Age: 34
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas
I didnt mean EXACTLY the same amount of power. Would you spend the extra money for a v8 is the v6 has very close to the same power? Thats what my point is.
The only 4.0 in the same power ballpark is the SOHC 4.0. The pushrod 4.0 is nowhere close. It's closer in power level to the 3.8.

TCCoABAMFC - Founding Member
Official Member of the TCCoA Evil Underground Moderator Conspiracy
TCCoA Gun Club

2003 Mach 1 - 4.6L DOHC V8/4R70W

1995 Cougar XR7 - PI 4.6L SOHC V8
Palmguy is offline  
post #25 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 03:47 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,890
My dads is a 95 (still pushrod I think) and it definately has more power than the 3.8.
Blue LS is offline  
post #26 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 04:02 PM
Moderator
Iowa Chapter Director
Uber Luber
TCCoAAC Member
Moderator
 
Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ames, Iowa
Age: 35
Posts: 8,978
1993 4.0 Ranger - 160hp/223tq

the 94 4.6 had around 190 (ford overrated them)

1988 Notch Mustang: - 438W, direct port n2o, t56
2003 SVT Focus: - SCT X3 tuner
Thomas is offline  
post #27 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 04:58 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by cougarcragar
I also drag raced a 3.8 Thunderbird and smoked it with that van.
Odd... I raced an Aerostar or two and left them in the dust. However, my Astro van would demolish the Tbird.
brokenmachines_e2 is offline  
post #28 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 05:00 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,890
The Aerostars could also have had the 3.0 or if they were older the 2.8/2.9 six.
Blue LS is offline  
post #29 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-08-2005, 05:04 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 241
Hrm... this is true.

Either way, The Astro is more stylin, and so is the Tbird. I gets da hoes, yo.
brokenmachines_e2 is offline  
post #30 of 34 (permalink) Old 01-25-2005, 11:52 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6
Probably to keep costs down, the 3.8/4.2 have the SBF tranny bolt pattern and same sized input shaft on the tranny. The 2.6/2.8/2.9/4.0's have the 4 banger tranny bolt pattern and input shaft size(smaller), it'd be cheaper to just use the same tranny all across the board. There are some speed parts available for the 4.0, but they're pretty expensive, you'll have to downgrade your tranny and get one that will fit this motor, could always get a 5-speed automatic out of an Explorer =).
fordinlinesix is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TCCoA Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome