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

4.2 in a ranger?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 25, 2007
  #1  
bondoford's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
From: west melbourne fl
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
Old Jan 25, 2007
  #2  
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,910
Likes: 27
From: Michigan
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
Old Jan 25, 2007
  #3  
03bamaGT's Avatar
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 0
From: B'ham, AL
302 FTW...BUT...the 4.2 would be different and lighter.
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2007
  #4  
mx98ranger's Avatar
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,493
Likes: 1
From: GA
thats an interesting idea... im surprised no one has said anything about it before...
 
Reply
Old Jan 25, 2007
  #5  
0RangerEdge2's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,592
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
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
Old Jan 25, 2007
  #6  
NicksterSVT's Avatar
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
From: NC
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
Old Jan 25, 2007
  #7  
LILBLUE04FX4L2's Avatar
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,409
Likes: 0
From: Exit 105 New Jersey
one word
why






































































































































ok maybe two - dumb
 
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2007
  #8  
Gearhead61's Avatar
RF Veteran
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 5,782
Likes: 2
From: College Station, TX
302!!!!!!!
 
Reply
Old Jan 26, 2007
  #9  
Sonic04Edge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,718
Likes: 1
From: Madison. AL
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
Old Jan 26, 2007
  #10  
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
From: Wyoming MN
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: 449
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
Old Jan 26, 2007
  #11  
NicksterSVT's Avatar
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
From: NC
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
Old Jan 26, 2007
  #12  
bondoford's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
From: west melbourne fl
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
Old Jan 26, 2007
  #13  
TORQUERULES's Avatar
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
From: Ripley, WV
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
Old Jan 26, 2007
  #14  
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
From: Wyoming MN
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




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:58 AM.