Posted: May 7, 2008, 7:07 pm
Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor , not a magician!
Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor , not a magician!
Page 1 of 1
Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor , not a magician!
Posted: May 7, 2008, 8:20 pm
Posted: May 8, 2008, 11:23 am
Ford used a 3.0 in the Aerostars also, with auto trans, 3sp with OD. they were a little under powered. There is also a 3.0 Duratic DOHC in the latter Taraus/Sable. And for real power there was the 3.0, 220HP, SHO Yamaha powered Taraus, it will bolt to a regular 3.0 trans. Any of these will not have much for lower end torque.
Posted: May 8, 2008, 1:35 pm
FORD's 4.0L V-6 isn't too shabby either. 
For a "solid" Vehicle engine don't overlook Ford's Cologne 4.0L V-6 engine. It's cast iron, or block & heads are anyway.
I have 2 of these. One, the all wheel drive has 250K miles and never been into. The other has 220K mi same story never been into.
I have been known to pull a 16'- 2 axle trailer with both. I haul as much as 12k Lbs. Both are in XLTN Aerostars w/ beefed suspension.
It can be set up as 4Wd manual or A/T, 3 speed direct A/T, Electronic AWD & 3 Spd manual with a Cologne manual Bell Hsg. & flywheel.
The engines not only come in Aerostars, but small Ranger Pick Ups, Explorers, Mountaineers, and I understand also in Ford's "world car"
transit vans across the pond. American sources can be found from the early 90's onward. They are MAFS/TP-EFI which may turn some folks off,
but for results I get I will stick with them. FWIW they are both OBD-1 Logicand easy to keep up.
My AWD gets 23.8 mpg . The rear wheel drive, which is a 2Wd AOD A/T gets 27.5 mpg.
Just thought you might like to know about these too.
FBp
For a "solid" Vehicle engine don't overlook Ford's Cologne 4.0L V-6 engine. It's cast iron, or block & heads are anyway.
I have 2 of these. One, the all wheel drive has 250K miles and never been into. The other has 220K mi same story never been into.
I have been known to pull a 16'- 2 axle trailer with both. I haul as much as 12k Lbs. Both are in XLTN Aerostars w/ beefed suspension.
It can be set up as 4Wd manual or A/T, 3 speed direct A/T, Electronic AWD & 3 Spd manual with a Cologne manual Bell Hsg. & flywheel.
The engines not only come in Aerostars, but small Ranger Pick Ups, Explorers, Mountaineers, and I understand also in Ford's "world car"
transit vans across the pond. American sources can be found from the early 90's onward. They are MAFS/TP-EFI which may turn some folks off,
but for results I get I will stick with them. FWIW they are both OBD-1 Logicand easy to keep up.
My AWD gets 23.8 mpg . The rear wheel drive, which is a 2Wd AOD A/T gets 27.5 mpg.
Just thought you might like to know about these too.
FBp
Posted: May 8, 2008, 1:48 pm
If thats the same Yamahammer engine Ford used in the Probe, they are easy to find, The junkyards are jam-packed FULL of those. Which does not really bode well as a statement of reliability.bertha66 wrote:And for real power there was the 3.0, 220HP, SHO Yamaha powered Taraus, it will bolt to a regular 3.0 trans.
Posted: May 8, 2008, 1:57 pm
Doc,
My Ranger is a 3.0. It does run great but as bertha66 mentioned it is a bit underpowered. Maybe they should have only used a 4.0 in a 4x4 or extended cab. It does not get great MPG and maybe that's because it is underpowered. I would amost bet the 4.0 trucks get equal MPG and have that much more power.
With some shorter gears it may work out well for you.
My Ranger is a 3.0. It does run great but as bertha66 mentioned it is a bit underpowered. Maybe they should have only used a 4.0 in a 4x4 or extended cab. It does not get great MPG and maybe that's because it is underpowered. I would amost bet the 4.0 trucks get equal MPG and have that much more power.
With some shorter gears it may work out well for you.
Posted: May 8, 2008, 3:52 pm
No, not the same engine as the Probe. The SHO engine was a 24 valve DOHC. They ran 12 intake runers, 6 normal and 6 secondery, and rev past 7k. I have been run a 93 SHO sense 98 and put on 188,000miles.Johnny Canuck wrote:If thats the same Yamahammer engine Ford used in the Probe, they are easy to find, The junkyards are jam-packed FULL of those. Which does not really bode well as a statement of reliability.bertha66 wrote:And for real power there was the 3.0, 220HP, SHO Yamaha powered Taraus, it will bolt to a regular 3.0 trans.
I as agree with FBP about the 4.0 engines, I as have 2 Aeros with the 4.o engines, good power and mileage.
Posted: May 8, 2008, 6:53 pm
well if u dont like all the electronics id suggest stayin away from any late model engine.ive got a pushrod 4.0 with a a4ld automatic in a ranger although truck has been tough as nails its really is slow and underpowered for a v6 at only 160 hp i found this out this weekend when i obught a new 4cyl ranger and found out all i lost was 14 hp and 2cyl.a4ld transmission has and always will be a piece of crap they like to shift hard and go out early and often.4.o only came efi and use coil packs but for a truck it has got good gas mileage 20 mpg and with 200,000 on it still only burns a quart every two thousand miles.it would take alot of creativity putting it in an older vehicle and your mileage would prolly drop off a little with the extra weight
Posted: May 9, 2008, 1:54 am
I really do not mean this as a flame but I just don't get it.
Some times I crank my 63 just to hear the Y block idle. I love the sound and power of a real American V8 and if it costs me more so be it. If I had a 66 truck or T Bird for that matter I would do the same just to hear the FE.
Since fuel costs have risen It seems that a lot of babies are being thrown out with the bathwater.
IMHO this swap would be pointless. The result would be an underpowered slug, so underpowered it may be dangerous. The smallish engine would have to work harder and burn more fuel meaning less miles per gallon. It may even be worse than what you had when you started.
The money spent making this work would be better spent on fuel.
Why not sell the T Bird and Slick and get a Nash Metropolitan?
Some times I crank my 63 just to hear the Y block idle. I love the sound and power of a real American V8 and if it costs me more so be it. If I had a 66 truck or T Bird for that matter I would do the same just to hear the FE.
Since fuel costs have risen It seems that a lot of babies are being thrown out with the bathwater.
IMHO this swap would be pointless. The result would be an underpowered slug, so underpowered it may be dangerous. The smallish engine would have to work harder and burn more fuel meaning less miles per gallon. It may even be worse than what you had when you started.
The money spent making this work would be better spent on fuel.
Why not sell the T Bird and Slick and get a Nash Metropolitan?
Posted: May 9, 2008, 2:05 am
the above makes a lot of sense to me.
i live far from fancy parts too
240/300 for the truck
find a 302 for the bird, thats likely the best you can do, still make road speed, and not drink like a FE
(face value, actual cost of making 2 pennies= 3.4 cents)
i live far from fancy parts too
240/300 for the truck
find a 302 for the bird, thats likely the best you can do, still make road speed, and not drink like a FE
(face value, actual cost of making 2 pennies= 3.4 cents)
Posted: May 10, 2008, 12:58 am
(face value, actual cost of making 2 pennies= 3.4 cents)[/quote]
that is just plain stupid. why the hell do we even have the things anymore? well, rephrase, why are we making them still? we got billions of unwanted pennies in circulation... isnt that enough? just stop making them!
Posted: May 10, 2008, 7:03 am
Somebody may make a carbed intake for the 4.0 if you look around the 4.0 performance sites. Likely your best bet would be a 302 & AOD from a Mustang (the roller cam will give you a tad more torque) or a T-5 if you don't mind shifting. There are all the intakes you could want for it out there, ignition options fit what you want too. For the size & weight of the truck this is likely the best MPG combination. 302s are generally more fuel efficient than the big 6s.
Posted: May 10, 2008, 9:39 am
Hey doc, My younger brother installed a nissian diesel in his 68 chebby half ton .It had a 250 six ,three speed trannie in it. This motor and 5 speed trans. came in delivery cabover flat bed trucks you see running around town. The motor is lighter and shorter so you got plenty of room for the install, you don't have to fool with the springs.
The motor has no computor just a basic simple engine .He runs it on waste motor oil and diesel . A 50/50 mix he fiters old oil with two brown paper bags ,he is a mechanic and gets all the old oil he wants .
He gets over thirty MPH. The trucks not a race horse but runs good .With the 5 speed trans. the overdrive is to tall a gear.I'm sure its a pain to fiter the oil , but he is saving alot on his fuel bill.
Truckerdaddy66 , New Caney,Tx.
The motor has no computor just a basic simple engine .He runs it on waste motor oil and diesel . A 50/50 mix he fiters old oil with two brown paper bags ,he is a mechanic and gets all the old oil he wants .
He gets over thirty MPH. The trucks not a race horse but runs good .With the 5 speed trans. the overdrive is to tall a gear.I'm sure its a pain to fiter the oil , but he is saving alot on his fuel bill.
Truckerdaddy66 , New Caney,Tx.