• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

Ford 3.0 in a 240? Just Thinkin

OldCarNewTricks

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Location
Oregon
I see all sorts of swaps that people have done in these things, because they have tons of room to work with. I love a good V8, but since I already have 6.0 LS going into my IROC, theres no need. So here's a thought: why not a sensible v6 like the Ford 3.0 out of a Ranger??

My DD is a 3.0 Ranger, and they are reliable, and they love to rev! Plenty of power to scoot a 240 along, and would likely get some decent MPGs. There's millions of them around, and parts are a dime a dozen, so way easier to replace or build up than a PRV.

I'm just messing around with different ideas for fun, but, who knows? Maybe I'll end up doing something unique for my 242 in the future.
 
It just seems like a lot of work (putting any engine in a car where it doesn't 'belong' is a lot of work, esp if it isn't partly paved by other people first) just to get a 148 hp engine in a 240. Or as the saying in truck circles goes - 4 cylinder power with 8 cylinder thirst.

Doesn't seem like a good balance of effort to result. *TO ME*, that is. You could slap a cam in an NA redblock and get that sort of HP.

A VW TDi swap would probably be a more interesting 140-ish HP swap. Nice diesel clatter, probably 35 - 40 mpg (we get almost 50 in out '03 Jetta wagon on the hwy).
 
I would lean towards a 2.3 or better yet a 2.5 Duratec. You'll get everything that the 3.slow will give you, but also fuel economy. Plus they love the boost.
 
You are all absolutely right. The 2.3 is such a beast. I just love seeing the power delivery of something so small that can keep up with all the "big boy" motors.

There are definitely better options than a 3.0, and I do also know that 2.3 Lima in the Rangers are pretty much the same as those that they use in the EcoBoost, so it would be pretty darn easy to get that going.

I need to look into a 2.5 Duratec. I know very little on them.

JohnMC, it seems those TDi motors are pretty cool, as well! I've heard that they are pretty tough longevity-wise. 50 mpg is no slouch!
 
From my somewhat limited research (I did before buying a manual '03 Jetta TDi wagon) the older, 'low tech' diesels are the ones with the reputation for lasting forever. Up through the ALH motor (2003 MY). In 2004 they came out with the 'Pumpe Deuse' engines. A bit more HP (although the ALH's can easily make the same, just not in factory tune, for whatever reason). But the cam driven injector pump system is not as long lasting. And that was followed up by the common-rail injection systems (that lead to Dieselgate, oof) that are sort of like gas injection systems, a fuel pump pressurizes a fuel rail, electronic injectors open to inject fuel. Only done at 1000's of PSI instead of 30 - 40 psi. Those are also not as trouble-free - the pumps that create those pressures can have issues, and are not cheap.

The ALH has some electronics mixed in, but it's mostly and old-style mechanical injection pump, 4 pistons, 4 hard metal lines leading to non-electronic mechanical diesel injectors. They just keep on going. Only caveat is that they were made for slightly slipperier high(er)-sulfur diesel, and the ultra-low sulfur diesel sold now is both less slippery, and 'drier'. So it can wear pumps and dry out/shrink seals. Unless you run a fuel additive.

Ours recently turned over 200K miles. We bought it with around 150K on it. It's needed nothing that entire time other than a timing belt, a belt tensioner, and a cooling fan that entire time. it's only 90 HP, but it feels like more because like most turbo diesels, it's got tons of torque, just doesn't rev. So the HP number is low, but it feels like a gas engine with double the HP down low (1700 - 3500 RPM). And even with 'only' 90 HP, it hauls the Jetta along at 80 mph on the freeway with no sweat, A/C blasting. With a roughly 16 gallon tank in it (larger to suit the thirsty VR6 models) you easily get 700, 750 miles out of a tank on road trips. I forget if we've ever made 800 miles or not. Of course, that's somewhat pointless on a road trip, nobody can sit in a car for that long. But it sure reduces 'range anxiety' out west in the desert where the fuel stops are few and far between. Pfft, you can blow on through multiple states without refueling.
 
That's incredible! I started doing research on the TDi, and it seems pretty solid. It's a shame the VW diesel motors offered in the 240 were not nearly as good, or common, for that matter. I need to keep looking into this...

The thing that I'm wondering is why the +t and ft motors that members have on here, they generally don't seem to make good gas mileage numbers. The ecoboost motors, however, make excellent MPGs. Alot of other turbo motors nowadays do, as well. So what would need to be done for one of these B23 or B21 motors to make better power than their NA counterparts while keeping the same or similar MPG numbers?
 
That's incredible! I started doing research on the TDi, and it seems pretty solid. It's a shame the VW diesel motors offered in the 240 were not nearly as good, or common, for that matter. I need to keep looking into this...

The thing that I'm wondering is why the +t and ft motors that members have on here, they generally don't seem to make good gas mileage numbers. The ecoboost motors, however, make excellent MPGs. Alot of other turbo motors nowadays do, as well. So what would need to be done for one of these B23 or B21 motors to make better power than their NA counterparts while keeping the same or similar MPG numbers?
Reducing reciprocating weight will help, a 20lb flywheel isn't very efficient. Better flowing head would help as well. The addictive qualities of boost doesn't help either


Ross Converse was working on a 3.5L eco boost into a 164.
 
That's incredible! I started doing research on the TDi, and it seems pretty solid. It's a shame the VW diesel motors offered in the 240 were not nearly as good, or common, for that matter. I need to keep looking into this...

The thing that I'm wondering is why the +t and ft motors that members have on here, they generally don't seem to make good gas mileage numbers. The ecoboost motors, however, make excellent MPGs. Alot of other turbo motors nowadays do, as well. So what would need to be done for one of these B23 or B21 motors to make better power than their NA counterparts while keeping the same or similar MPG numbers?

A lot of those Ecoboost motors seem to have better EPA estimates than real world consumption figures. I think they may have 'gamed' the EPA tests a bit? Maybe if you drive them really carefully you'd match it, but drive it like a regular schmoe and you end up in boost, and generally speaking boosted motors in boost need to run rich, and rich motors are eating gas.

There may be other websites, but here's one I use to track fuel purchases and MPG: https://fueleconomy.gov/ Lots of people do, no reason to fudge numbers around, and you can use it to research what real drivers are getting in real-world usage.

FWIW unless I'm being stooopid with the accelerator pedal - the 550-ish HP 5.3L V8 in my wagon gets better MPG than the 2.3L 16V used to get. And the gearing is still too short on the V8, it will get better when I fix that.
 
A MPG B23 build would be interesting! With lesser reciprocating weight, as you say, alongside some newer technology, I.E. better 4 nozzle injectors with a better ECM that gets rid of the primitive LH/Chrysler system, and I expect it wouldn't be bad at all. That, and lesser unsprung weight, and that would be one efficient brick (theoretically).

Yeah, I feel that so many ratings are just too good to be true. Unless one was willing to hack a FWD setup into a 240, I doubt they are capable of 30+ MPGs. On gas, that is. Diesel seems like it may be a good option for these cars. The Ford 16v non turbo 2.3L engines dont actually get much better fuel mileage in a similar weight Ranger than our 240s. So I'm guessing, that, yes, the EPA did something with the 2.3 ecoboost estimates.

The 6.0 LS that I am building up for my 86 IROC, is a 10.7 CR, and will likely out do both my Ranger and 242 in MPG easy. It's NA, but the LS platform is so efficient.
 
Just toss an LS in the 240, then you can share spares and parts between the IROC and the IRoll (heh, pun on Volvo's Latin meaning).
 
That's incredible! I started doing research on the TDi, and it seems pretty solid. It's a shame the VW diesel motors offered in the 240 were not nearly as good, or common, for that matter. I need to keep looking into this...

The thing that I'm wondering is why the +t and ft motors that members have on here, they generally don't seem to make good gas mileage numbers. The ecoboost motors, however, make excellent MPGs. Alot of other turbo motors nowadays do, as well. So what would need to be done for one of these B23 or B21 motors to make better power than their NA counterparts while keeping the same or similar MPG numbers?

The answer is DI.
Our ecoboost 3.5 truck is a complete beast, and runs on 87 or worse.
Would make a fine swap, but I believe the dimensions are unfavorable, and wiring harness challenging.
 
I do have a spare 4.8L sitting around. A 206/212 112 cam, as well. That would scoot the Volvo just fine. LOL that would be great, having two LS cars.

DI is the answer, true. It's a much higher percentage towards complete burn, which is what you want for those precious MPGs and keeping those Cats healthy! A 3.5 would be so cool, but stupid expensive, especially for putting in an old brick.

I do like the idea of the ecotec 2.5 and the TDi is super cool to read about. It does seem like either another 4 banger or just a +T may be the best options.
 
There's also no provision for a power steering pump on the eco boosts, they are all electric power steering. I'm guessing that saves a little too.

That would be nice to have in our bricks! I also wonder if electric fans really give any boost in gas mileage for the 240's..
 
Wouldn't that be something?! Electric power steering and an electric fan. I mean, a large alternator would definitely be a requirement, but I bet the amperage draw required for the updated components would still be far less effort for the engine to turn than a P/S pump and clutch fan.

I bet the result would be much better get up and go from a stop, as well as a pleasing improvement in fuel mileage.
 
3.0 is a wimpy motor, but then again ford ****ing rangers are my mortal enemy. Ide do somthing else
anything else
please

On the electric power steering topic, I am partially involved in the ownership of a NA miata with a combination of scion TC and Prius electric PS parts, works like a dream and makes it much easier to push when its not running like a ford 3.0 swap will be most of the time
 
3.0 is a wimpy motor, but then again ford ****ing rangers are my mortal enemy. Ide do somthing else
anything else
please

On the electric power steering topic, I am partially involved in the ownership of a NA miata with a combination of scion TC and Prius electric PS parts, works like a dream and makes it much easier to push when its not running like a ford 3.0 swap will be most of the time

On this model of a Ford Ranger, can you tell us where it touched you?? Lol

I like my Ranger, simply because the 3.0 is stupid maintenance free. Powerful? No. But it works for now. It was just a conversation starter to get some ideas going.

Yeah, I really do bet that the Prius system would work pretty nice. A 242 weighs less, as well. Not too bad, I bet.
 
Back
Top