4.2 in a ranger? - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


New Ideas Have a new idea for your Ford Ranger? General discussion of new ideas for the Ford Ranger.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 01-25-2007
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: west melbourne fl
Posts: 44
4.2 in a ranger?

has any one ever done this i just got my ranger and i wanna set it up prerunner style and was figuring that the 4.2 would be a better swap than the 351 that i have sitting in my back yard, i was just wonderin if anyone had done this before and what would be involved i have a 3.o with bout 245000 miles on it with a 5 speed tranny
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-25-2007
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by bondoford
has any one ever done this i just got my ranger and i wanna set it up prerunner style and was figuring that the 4.2 would be a better swap than the 351 that i have sitting in my back yard, i was just wonderin if anyone had done this before and what would be involved i have a 3.o with bout 245000 miles on it with a 5 speed tranny
The 4.2L has comparable output to the 4.0 SOHC Ranger engine. I've never heard of one being swapped into a Ranger.

The 3.0L transmission that you have now will not bolt up to the 4.2. The 4.2 bolt pattern for the bell housing is the same as the 5.0L, so you should be able to use the same transmissions as used in 5.0 swaps like the T5, M5ODR2, C4 or 4R70W.

If I were going to do the work involved with an engine swap, I would just install a 302/351. It is a well established swap with kit parts available and the 302/351 has a huge aftermarket where the 4.2L has almost none.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-25-2007
03bamaGT's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B'ham, AL
Posts: 1,752
302 FTW...BUT...the 4.2 would be different and lighter.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-25-2007
mx98ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 1,493
thats an interesting idea... im surprised no one has said anything about it before...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-25-2007
0RangerEdge2's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,593
I say shoehorn a 300 cu. in I-6 in there even though I don't think it's possible due to length. But the 4.2 probably wouldn't be that beneficial over a 302. Yes lighter but what about power and aftermarket? Pricing would be an issue as well.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-26-2007
NicksterSVT's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 1,955
4.2 is nothing more than the 3.8 head gasket blowing windstar motor. Timing cover leaks galore, oil pumps suck, not a good idea... Seen too many of these in their stock form and in their stock home not stay together... Dont waste your time with it...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-26-2007
LILBLUE04FX4L2's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Exit 105 New Jersey
Posts: 2,409
one word
why






































































































































ok maybe two - dumb
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-26-2007
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 5,782
302!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-26-2007
Sonic04Edge's Avatar
RF Veteran

iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Madison. AL
Posts: 5,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by NicksterSVT
4.2 is nothing more than the 3.8 head gasket blowing windstar motor. Timing cover leaks galore, oil pumps suck, not a good idea... Seen too many of these in their stock form and in their stock home not stay together... Dont waste your time with it...
3.8 is a good motor since around 99+. However before they were garbage. We had a 96 windstar that blew the head gasket as well as a bunch of other crap. Also a 4.2 stroker kit for the 3.8 makes it a very good and powerful motor. With power around 300 crank hp and around 250whp.

However I agree just do the 5.0 swap. It'll be easier and honestly a lot more fun to drive.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-26-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
I think it is a Waste of money, But I deny the premis of them being POS motors. I worked with these in Fleet F-150 Varying from 1997 to 2004 (When I left the ford dealer) Almost without fail these motors went to 250K+ with little or no work and very little maintenance (Most guys beat the pi$$ out of then and never changed the oil) I can only think of one in the years I was there that ever needed a new motor, and none that ever Blew a Head gasket.

The stock 5 Spds in these trucks were another story (not sure what tranny it was) but we went through shift forks like candy. After 2000 we never bought another stick truck.

Here is my Last truck, 150K miles and nothing more than maintenance, they still have it last time I visited in December:

Name:  meandworktruck.jpg
Views: 0
Size:  64.3 KB
^ The tan one next to it, had 220K the last time I drove it and it also is still in the fleet almost three years later
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-26-2007
NicksterSVT's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 1,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN
I think it is a Waste of money, But I deny the premis of them being POS motors. I worked with these in Fleet F-150 Varying from 1997 to 2004 (When I left the ford dealer) Almost without fail these motors went to 250K+ with little or no work and very little maintenance (Most guys beat the pi$$ out of then and never changed the oil) I can only think of one in the years I was there that ever needed a new motor, and none that ever Blew a Head gasket.

The stock 5 Spds in these trucks were another story (not sure what tranny it was) but we went through shift forks like candy. After 2000 we never bought another stick truck.

Here is my Last truck, 150K miles and nothing more than maintenance, they still have it last time I visited in December:


^ The tan one next to it, had 220K the last time I drove it and it also is still in the fleet almost three years later

Not doubting you, just saying... I have been in the automotive field all my life, i have seen several of these come through and had to replace lots of stuff... i have a severe hatred for them...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-26-2007
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: west melbourne fl
Posts: 44
i was just thinkin maby the milage would be better and ive drivin the f-150 with the 4.2 manual and it seemed to preform pretty nice for the weight of the truck with a v6 in it and im still a highschool studend soon so be college student so i still need somthin economical that i can afford to drive and i have a heavy right foot so my 351 with the holly 4 bbl dosnt exactly fit those perimiters
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-26-2007
TORQUERULES's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ripley, WV
Posts: 302
My father and I had a Thunderbird 3.8 V-6 in a 1986 Ranger (an old 2.0 powered truck) with a 302 C-4 transmission, custom intake with 670cfm Holley Pro-Jection throttle-body EFI, dual exhaust, Racer Walsh camshaft, and home ported heads. Sure it was not V-8 swap, but we did it because it was different and it was a lightweight combo. We put over 400,000 miles on that old truck before finally retiring it. The last 50,000 were with a 302 when the old 3.8 started to feel weak (age). It would waste 4.3 S-10s, etc. with ease. It is not a bad combo. Sure a V-8 swap is easier (can buy a swap kit, but it is just as easy to make your own stuff like we did for the 3.8 and the current 5.0 V-8 Ranger my Dad has), but if it is what you want, then I say go for it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-26-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by NicksterSVT
Not doubting you, just saying... I have been in the automotive field all my life, i have seen several of these come through and had to replace lots of stuff... i have a severe hatred for them...
I know, I was just relaying my Experiance. I wouldn't buy one, becasue they are slow, but id it was just reliable transportation, I Personally am sold on them.

~HJ
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:02 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.