Four cylinders...

check into reliability issues with that 4.0 too. I've seen or heard of many with head gasket problems. is this something that can be easily overcome? under boost? Maybe I've only heard the bad but they were explorers with real head gasket problems.

 

I understand the aluminum...

really makes a v-8 light. As for the head sealing I would probably go with copper gaskets. I'm going to run the v-8 that I have now but for the future it's v-6 or I-6. I just like to be different. I like the v-6 in my Beretta. It's 60 deg. which is well-suited for high rpm's. It also is a dual bellhousing for front and rear wheel drive. That's pretty far out though. I was thinking also about all-wheel drive too. That would insane to fabricate but would be totally unique.

 

jfjkldehytjixrhtljkrhtdljktrhdlkjrlkj

 

"I was thinking also about all-wheel drive too. That would insane to fabricate but would be totally unique."

That has crossed my mind from time to time to , I wonder if I could weld the front part of a 4x4 ranger frame on a maverick .

 

I don't know, i've got a 2.3 turbo with 800 miles on it sitting in my garage, rebuilt it for the wifes xr7, but the wiring harness was trashed. $2000.00 in a 4 cylinder! went 14.90s in the quarter. 2000.00 in a 302 would have went it the 13s .still thinking it would look good in a Mav.

 

I had an 88 turbo coupe when I was 18 or 19. I loved that car. Heavy car for the motor but I could run with a stock 5.0 automatic car and keep close pace. I ended up building it up a little. New turbonetics ceramic bearing turbo A better turbo cam bigger valves Stock pistons and rods(which by the way are basically 302 boss rods) Balanced rotating assembly. Ported head and intake. Custom made(by me) header and 3 inch down pipe into 2.5 dual ex with flowmastas beeyatch. Best run was 13.42. I kept burning up clucthes though. In a lighter car 12s would have been easy. It pulled like a torquey 302 midrange. Soggy on the bottom till the turbo spooooooled up. I ran 30 psi boost. Standard head gasket for turbos. About 10,000 miles after the build the sealed power oil pump took a CRAP and wiped the mains rods and turbo. The turbo was plumbed into the oil and coolant passages. I would have had that car in the 12s with a better intercooler and custom chip. Oh yea I ran 42 or 46 lbs injectors. I want to build a turbo pinto with some NOS. Nasty import slayer for sure......

 

Here's the thing about the 4.0 v6: Its maybe 50 lb. lighter than a 302. It drinks just about as much gas as a 302. They have had more typical ford "mid-year" changes than a 302. You'll either be stuck with a Ranger manual tranny or a c4 from a mustang II as the Ranger auto's won't hold up to much over stock output. You'll HAVE to run EFI with a Manual tranny computer (autos controll the shifting and will throw a code).

As far as performance, they do make a super-charger kit for the 4.0 but it costs more that a SC kit for a small-block. Plus you have to get your computer re-programmed.

The 4.0 is a big v6. Its basicly a stroked and bored 2.8 or 2.9 v6 with a larger block (think 302vs351w) and the block is thicker for added strength. A 2.9 comes in at only 100lbs (give or take) heavier than a 302.

At any rate, its your vehicle and you can do with it as you wish. I can understand the wanting to be different thing and I have much respect for that. Its one reason i'm putting a hopped-up 220 hp 2.8 v6 in my 73 pinto, so I'm not trying to talk you out of something you really want to do, but its always good to weigh out the pro's and con's.

-Harry

 

Go for it. Sounds neet. Isnt there someone on the board puting an SHO motor on theirs?

I dont think I would like the look of the Lambp doors on a Mav but I'm sure thats just me.