Foolish Motor Question for you Gearheads.

[TOFIC]

This has been bugging me for some time. so here goes.
Has anyone done, or looked into, putting a modern V-6 into an EB
Just curious nothing serious.
TOFIC

 

[Broncobowsher]

There are a few threads about this. For the most part with negative reviews. About the only thing that peaks any interest is a 3.8 from a supercoupe.

 

[TOFIC]

interesting anyone else with some input?

 

[broncnaz]

A few people have talked about it but I think we tend to talk them out of it. Most think they will get the same fuel mileage out of them if they put it in a bronco. I dont think they will.
I have a 03 Ranger with the 4.0 SOHC engine rated at 210 hp or so. While it works well for the ranger it just doesnt have the torque I'm used to in a bronco. My ranger only weighs slightly more than a bronco and the ranger has better areodynamics it gets 21-22 mpg on the hiway. This is with 4.10 gears and about 30 in tires. RPM's in OD at 75mpg are about 3000. If you hit a good hill it loses speed in OD.
Considering how the Ranger drives I dont think that engine would be any good in a bronco. I think it would be lucky to get high teens for mileage and still be under powered where right now with my current 302 in my 73 I get mid teens for mileage and it doesnt loose power on those same hills. And I run slightly less RPM's with higher gearing bigger tires and no OD.
Just my opinion on my experiance other claim there rangers have tons of power and think the 4.0 would power a bronco just fine. Only problem is no one has done the swap yet.

 

[trailpsycho]

I think in a few years one of the new direct-injected sixes that are in the new Mustangs and trucks will make for a great transplant. These new 6s are supposed to have very flat torque curves with power coming in at just over 2K ...while rated at 305 HP, the torque output of these motors is 365 lb/ft at like 4K. The ECO-boost motor would be the sweetest choice as it makes it begins making power below 2K and peak torque is low (like 2700 rpm 425 lb/ft). Thats pretty awesome. We would still have aerodynamics fighting us, but I would guess that we could see high teens to low 20s even for our rigs. It will be a while before there are any available...and it remains to be seen if Ford will develop/assist the aftermarket support for stand alone engine management systems. That would be awesome.

 

[blubuckaroo]

A GM 4.3 has been done. I don't know about mileage but it has better torque and HP than the stock 302. Its a nice fit and makes lots of extra room between the radiator and motor. Advance Adapters makes an adapter for a 700R4 GM transmission to a Dana 20. Too bad Ford didn't make anything comparable.

 

[bmc69]

A neighbor of mine just bought the new Mustang with 305HP V-6. That engine sounds mean! That said, I'm betting the power curve is all wrong for an EB except as a street machine. Still....;D

 

[MattW]

A Toyota 4.7 liter from a 4Runner recently came up on Craigslist around me and I was sort of wondering the same thing. I have the 4.0 liter in my 4Runner and was wondering what kind of sense, if any the 4.7 would make putting in an EB.

The 4.7 puts out about 280hp with around 340ft/lbs of torque if I remember correctly and just comparing the engine bays, I believe it would fit. The motor is mostly built for low end power as well from what little I've read. Not a clue as to what transmission or transfer case would work behind it. Of course the electronic knowledge to make the switch is beyond my ability currently as well as my wallets ability.

Just an interesting thought for my next one.

 

[broncnaz]

A GM 4.3 has been done. I don't know about mileage but it has better torque and HP than the stock 302. Its a nice fit and makes lots of extra room between the radiator and motor. Advance Adapters makes an adapter for a 700R4 GM transmission to a Dana 20. Too bad Ford didn't make anything comparable.

Only marginally better numbers than a 70's 302. really HP means nothing its the torque that moves the vehicle. the 302's torque range is still lower in the RPM range. Also with a few small mods the 302 will far outshine the 4.3. without adapters. Want even more just go with a newer 5.0 like from the 90's 300 ft lbs of torque.

You can look at Fords 4.0L in the same light it has more hp and close to the same torque as a 70's 302 but again its higher in the RPM range and thats the whole point the smaller the engine the higher the RPM's will be to get those numbers.


As for the toy 4.7 L again its more of a high RPM engine and lacks a little low end toy's always have thats why they have always had low axle gearing. I believe vehicles with the 4.7 l come with 3.90 gearing. but again why go through all the swapage when you can just build the 302 to do the same thing.

 

[73azbronco]

width is the biggest issue with these newer "flatter" motors. lots of fittment issues,but anything is possible.

 

[needabronco]

The 4.7 in my Tundra is a great engine, tons of low end torque, and revs great. Good on the highway, with decent. Gas mileage. Its an awesome swap for your 4Runner, and would be an easy(er) swap.

Still I would rather put some money in a good came/intake/exhaust in a SBF and be ahead in torque AND dollars spent. The fuel economy would NEVER be realizeda in a Bronco to justify the expense either...

 

[trailpsycho]

A neighbor of mine just bought the new Mustang with 305HP V-6. That engine sounds mean! That said, I'm betting the power curve is all wrong for an EB except as a street machine. Still....;D

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2010-10-28-Ford-F150_N.htm

I had read another article that had slightly different specs...but at the bottom of this article, they give the torque/HP #s for the various engines in the new F-150 line-up. Taking into account that the F-150 are probably larger and just as non-aerodynamic as the Bronco...I think you can see why we might be able to get some decent service out of this new family of motors. Although Healey's reviews are typically pretty lame, he (they) really liked the new motor line-up with the 6s.

Maybe down the road...

 

[MattW]

I'm not doubting the expense of dropping a 4.7 in an EB. The motor just sort of appeared to my untrained eyes as a potential swap with good results. Again, untrained eyes here

The 4.7, prior to VVTi which I believe Toyota put in '05-'06ish, has a max torque of 320ft/lbs at 3,400ish RPM. Not sure what the numbers are for VVTi equipped motors.

Somebody school me real quick, what would a rough cost be to build a stock 302 to over 300ft/lbs of torque and what where in the RPM range would it peak at?

 

[broncnaz]

building a 300 ft lbs 302 is very simple and very cheap.. Consider that from 68-71 testing was slightly different but stock engines were rated at 205 hp and 300 ft lbs @ 4000/2600 rpm. Later model mustang engines (87 up) with the standard testing put out 225 hp and 305 torque at 4000 and 3000 rpm. The truck engines were rated at something like 195 hp amd 270 ft lbs at 4000 and 3000 rpm.

keep in mind that these are stock engines so the numbers are easy to replicate. Most of its a matter of camshaft choice. it will determine where in the power band your torque and HP numbers will be.

All in all a simple cam swap will get your torque numbers up to 300 ft lbs easily. of course intake, exhuast, and maybe even better heads will also help greatly. But for a couple hundred dollars you can do it.
If you want a easy 300 ft lbs then just swap in a 351W even in stock from they will put 300 ft lbs to the ground and do it at lower RPM's