Close



Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: 4.0 ohv foxbody

  1. #1

    Lightbulb 4.0 ohv foxbody

    Just kicking this idea around, looking for opinions and info. I have a tired 2.3 car and a beat up 92 explorer with a bad tranny. Engine is perfect. Thinking of scrapping the explorer and putting the 4.0 in the stang. I have read that u can use the t5 out of the newer v6 (94-04) stangs but just looking for more info all around on the idea.

  2. #2
    FEP Member LSCR351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North Florida/ "Way Down Yander On the Chattahoochee"
    Posts
    233

    Default

    3.8 has a different bell-housing bolt patern.

  3. #3
    FEP Power Member downtime!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Burleson, TX
    Posts
    1,874
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The 4.0 is in the same family as the old 2.8 and 2.9 V6's (Cologne?), and was used in the Stangs from 2005 through 2010. The motor mounts should be the same as the older 2.8 and 2.9, and the bellhousing from the later models will work. The T5 is pretty weak as is, so I would steer clear of using the one from '05 to '10, but I believe the input shaft is different anyway.
    Bryan
    1985 LTD Police Package

  4. #4

    Default

    after a little more research it looks like I can use a 2.8 mustang manual t4bellhousing to mate a t5 to the 4.0 does anyone else have ideas? this is info i found in internet space so i dont know how relaible it is.

  5. #5
    FEP Power Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    1,229

    Default

    There is/was a guy around here with one, main problem he had was that the explorer intake for it was huge and it required a 4+ inch cowl hood. After he was done, he admitted that the same power would have been cheaper with a 302.

  6. #6
    FEP Power Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    1,229

    Default

    Here is a good book that has a lot of good info on the 60 degree v-6's. The author was Sven Pruitt.





    Problem is, that it's out of print, and the scalpers are holding the book for ransom. Barnes and Noble had it on CD not too long ago for a reasonable price.

  7. #7
    FEP User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada ( optional shipping to Idaho Falls, ID )
    Posts
    80

    Default 4.0 swap

    2.8 mustang ii bell housing.
    4 cyl fox t5
    4 cyl fox pilot bearing (into the explorer flywheel)
    explorer 4.0 flywheel, pressure plate,and explorer PMGR starter for Manual trans..
    10" mustang clutch disk.

    You have to turn down the bearing retainer OD about 1/16" on the t5 to fit the mustang ii bell ( can't tell you exactly how much at the moment). i'm swapping one into another car. I have to fab a custom front sump oil pan. the pan is different from a 2.8 to a 4.0 and only half the pan rail holes line up. the 4.0 'sploder pan might be really close to fitting the fox k-frame.

    2.8 mounts bolt up to the 4.0 but i'm not certain if your k-frame will accept the stock mounts.

    that should give you some things to think about while i finish my oil pump pick up and sort through a huge pile of wiring..

    BUY the factory FOLD-OUT wiring diagram for the explorer. I did. Smartest $25 spent - I'm not sorry.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeraldRice View Post
    There is/was a guy around here with one, main problem he had was that the explorer intake for it was huge and it required a 4+ inch cowl hood. After he was done, he admitted that the same power would have been cheaper with a 302.
    Thanks for the feed back guys. If I do this swap, its not to try and out run a 5.0 or anything like that. I think the 4.0 with out all the emmissions stuff on it and with out the cats, no a/c etc etc would make a good cruiser. I might make another 20-40 hp on the engine.

  9. #9

    Default

    Be careful of the early 4.0L engine in regards to cracked heads. Even though Ford redesigned the heads in 1989 to increase the reliability of the 2.9L, there is still a tendency for them to crack. I have a 1998 Ranger that had to have both heads replaced at 60K miles this past Summer. The heads cracked between the valves in No. 3 and No. 4 combustion chambers (which is the corresponding cylinders on each head). $1400 later, and it runs fine.

    If you need to replace the heads, I found a place that makes loaded replacement heads for half of what Ford wants for a bare one.

  10. #10

    Default

    As a simple testiment to the 4.0 OHV: I have a 92 4.0 Explorer (2 door) that I have owned for ~12 years. It has been very reliable, and makes very good power, all things considered. It's got pretty big balls off idle (for a motor this size) IMO. It wheezes after ~5k RPM, but its a great torque motor. I have added some bolt ons over the years, and it has responded well to those. The 4.0 will take a beating and still easily make it to 200k+ miles.

    I ran that truck down a drag strip once for fun...at the time it was mostly stock & had 3.08 gears and 30" tires; it was runnning in the 16s...not bad for a ~4k lb brick with a sloppy automatic. It has embarassed many vehicles that should have been quicker (stoplight to stoplight)....examples being 350 powered Chebby trucks, v6 imports (camrys, etc). Relax, I don't need a lecture on street racing...just stating some facts.

    I think a 4.0 swap would be great. If you have a decent junkyard nearby, you should have literally dozens of donor vehicles (on top of the one you already have) for extra parts. BBK makes (or at least used to make) an 8lb eaton supercharger kit (m-62 based IIRC)..just food for thought. That motor works much better with lower gears & a 5 speed than it does with an auto, as I'm sure you would imagine.

    Years ago, I bought one of the BBK S/c kits, and I had a set of freshened heads that were milled and ported, etc. I was going to beef up a 4.0, but decided against it and never installed the blower (sold it). Sven Pruitt's book is really good...he used to sell performance cams, pushrods, etc back in the day.

    If you want a good resource, get on the forums at www.explorerforums.com. There are a few guys that have been building on those motors since the early 90's. Lots of dumbasses on that site too, but if you dig around, plenty of good info.

    If you ever decide to go through with it, you want a spare motor, and you are driving through Louisiana, I have one...yours for free, just come pick it up. It's been sitting for years, probably needs freshening, but WTF, it's free.
    Last edited by Handlebar Moustache; 11-29-2011 at 05:04 PM.
    1986 Mustang GT
    Former Fox-1984 Capri

  11. #11

    Default

    Here's a site showing how to mate a Cologne V6 to a T5 using the Mustang II bell housing (which is getting hard to find...):

    http://www.mustangii.net/t5swap.asp

  12. #12
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    pvdave , that was a very important article I've used many times when studying thr SR4 to T5 gearbox changes.


    The example is actually the Mustang II 143 teeth small flywheel SR4 bellhousing, actually devised by Ford's Lima, Mexico design team to ensure the Mustang got a V8 engine in 1974. If it wasn't for there work, the 75 Mustang would have still been without a 5.0.


    Everything Mustang II 5.0 or 2.8 differs from the 1979 Colgne V6 bellhousing. The old C7 bell housing (Mercury captive import 1972 to 1978 Capri) has a crank pilot spacer, but the domestic Mustang II 2.8 V6 with the the SR4 bellhousing has none. So the 4.0 Cologne might fit up, but there are some issues with drawing straight lines between that 5.0 article and the 4.0 OHV Colgone engine. Generally, the swapabilty is great, Ford did a lot of good work making sure the differn outsourced transmisions fitted the German V6.


    I do know that the 5.0 Mustang II bell housing was a radically shortened depth bellhousing that mated up with the 4, V6 and now V8 engines SR4 Borg Warner gearbox, so it might work, but the 1979 Colgne bell housing changed everything to suit the Fox plat form, and the Mustang II platform gearshift and transmission tunnel was a little differnt, although the Fox was based on the Mustang II's rack and pinion, lower cross member and internal floor profile, the firewall and gearstick postion was cut and shut to suit the existing 1975-1980 X shell Granada gear shift postions. In AOD and C5 form, they were 164 teeth spacing firewalss, and they even made space for the Big Block C6 pattern flexplates. The Fox had a huge section added to the wheel base to get the Mustang II 96.2" wheel base up to the Fox Mustangs 100.4", most from the tranmission to the sterring rack center line. Rember, the Fox used the 1977 Pinto and Mustang II manual and power steering rack.

    In a similar way, the SR4 is 80 to 90% a 1981 T4 or 1982 onwards T5 Borg Warner, but Ford changed everything a number of times from 1974 to 1994 to suit the 1978 Fox, and 1994 Fox 4 platorms. The bell housing offset was different, and the total depth of the gearbox and gearbox cross member varied due to design wheel base change requirements,,,they added another 17 to 21 mm (13/16") to the later Cologne engines bell housing depth, and the whole crossmeMber was shifted relative to the gearshift for the SN95.


    For the inaugeral 1978 model year, the Fox platform had adequate space to preserve the Granada/Monarch TopLoader and SROD geabox centers, so the Cologne 2.8 V6 for 1979 got an increased depth bellhousing. The C7 and D4 bellhousings are different to the D9 1979 bellhousings, and also the 2.8 Ranger/Bronco 4 and 5 speed bell hosings for 1983. They used Mitsubishi transmissions, I think.

  13. #13

    Default

    xctasy-

    I'm very familiar with the Mustang Ii platform, as I installed a Fox body T-5 and 2.9 l Cologne V-6 in my '74 Mustang II:

    http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/...aid-than-done/

    I didn't link that article to this thread, since the problems I faced were specific to the Mustang II and T-5. However, based on project research and my direct experience, I can share this:

    1) The 2.9 liter used in the Ranger and Bronco II have bosses on the block to match up to 2.8 liter engine mounts. The research I've done indicates the 4.0 has these bosses as well. Some mounting holes may need to be drilled and tapped, and the front mounting brackets may have to be modified to work with the 2.8 mounts, but the pieces should be there to mount a 4.0 in a Fox body.

    2) As you indicated, some Cologne applications use crankshaft spacers placing the plate ring gears at different depths in the bell housing. Because of this, Ford built two different Ranger starters, and you can mix and match them to fit your needs.

    3) Depending on model year, the Ranger used two different 5 speeds, one built by Mazda and one by Mistubishi. Neither bell housing matches up to the T-5 (or SROD), and both use a hydraulic clutch.

    4) The T-5 used behind the 4.0 Cologne in the 2005 and newer Mustangs ALSO used a hydraulic clutch. Therefore, Unomeetoo will have to install a clutch master cylinder to use either Ranger bell housing or the 2005 Mustang Bell.

  14. #14

    Default

    Or, you could just use the sho motor to t-5 adapter plate.

    Seems like alot of work to put a cruddy engine in though.
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  15. #15

    Default

    I was wrong. Thought the sho used the same Bell housing, it doesnt.
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  16. #16
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    This is why I love Fords, Haystack!

    The Toyo Kogyo transmission was the result of Fords rising % procurement of Mazda (Toyo Kogyo or TK) shares in 1971 to 1996. It did a similar thing with the Cologne, Belgian and Hirshima production capacity that gave the V6 Fords the worlds most amazing international potpourri of component sharing ever.

    The Courier 4 and 5 speed gearboxes were tested in used and abused form in those funny B series Mazda based trucks, and the little trucks Japanese C4 based Jatco 3 speed automatic soon found its way into the 250 I6 Granada, a transmission that can take a Jatco Over drive, its lock-up clutch, and then take 5 liter V8 grunt with its SBF bellhousing pattern. Via the Mazda/Datsun co-op, the auto 3 speed gearbox was used in non overdrive form in the Datsun Maxima, ZXTurbo 280, then got an overdrive, and continued on in heavily revised form, in the AWD Subrarus and AWD Nissan Stageas using it behind turboed engines. Soon, the international and US Escorts and the US Tempo and Taurus gained Toyo Kogyo designed manual transaxles.


    Famously, when pressed by journalists in 1982, European Ford CEO Bob Lutz said "all we want from them (TK) is there 5 speed gearboxes"...


    By 1988, the US rear drives got TK transmissions too, as well as there Diesel engines, the Escort platform, and the Probe, Festiva and carbs for 2.0 Ranger trucks. The F150, the MN12, the Areostar and revised Ranger/Bronco II's and then the Explorers got the next generation MazDog gearboxes.


    The TK 5 speeds rate poorly in terms of service beacuse its a non dividable bellhousing trans, with the center hole clutch, both ideas which don't wash well with the traditional F truck service protocols of ease of removal and never touch the clutch component durability. In actuality, a syncromesh reverse, alloy case gearbox is always looked at with distain compared to the ancient TopLoaders and granny low Borg Warner T18's. It was the advent resonant free one piece Mitsubishi and Toyo Kogyo and 1980 on AOD/ 2001 on 5R55 gearboxes that started forcing things like engine removal as the only option for SOHC 4.0 timing chain replacement, and I don't think there was a lot of love for them in the servicing quarters. The fact that Jatco and Toyo Kogyo copied the 1980 AOD's one piece construction is forgotten now, but simple service dropped out as soon as the alloy SROD's from Tremec hit town in 1979. By 1997, truck service, especailly 4X4's, got a heck of a lot more dificult becasue of this. It wasn't just the MazDog, it was the ZF 5 speed too.


    The six cylinder cars were designed around either Colgone built German engines or US made Vulcan or Japanese SHO Yamaha engines, with forgeign French automatics, and Japanese manuals. Front drives got the US ATX or perhaps the Toyo Kogyo designed, US made 5 Speed. If a rear drive Lincoln, the L code 2.4 Turbo Diesel was 100% German from fan blade to tail shaft housing (care of BMW and ZF gear...).


    Ford gained all this production expediency via its abilty to take war reprations for the Cologne, Belgian and Hirmoshima plants that made these compoents for US and international consumption.



    So your V6 families weren't what you expeccted. The FWD Vulcan and SHO engines can mate up to the 4 cylinder Lima bellhousings, which means a potential Mitsubishi and Toyo Kogyo 5 speed gearbox swap....

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •