need a 93 ranger 5spd

plowboy · Post by **plowboy** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:53 pm

was wondering if any body has takin out a good 5spd for a 93 ranger w/3.0 to do a v8 swap friend of mine is needing the trans not sure what other years will work

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:58 am

I've pulled an 89 Ranger 2.9L 5-speed. It's a Mazda transmission. If there are any other numbers that would help you know if it'll work, I can get them. I can also snap a pic of the bellhousing bolt pattern for you to compare with. The downside is the tranny that I pulled had more miles on it than the factory tranny lasted (~160kmiles). It's well overdue for a rebuild, however I'll give it this...it was still getting me 70 miles a day up until I took the truck out of service to do this swap.

MalcolmV8 · Post by **MalcolmV8** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:41 am

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but Chris you and I both have the same basic block. The 4.0 is the 2.9 stroked and bored. We could probably interchange transmissions. The 3.0 Rangers have a completely different motor with a different bell housing bolt pattern.

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:27 am

I was not aware of the block similarity between the 2.9L and the 4.0L, however I wouldn't be surprised. I thought block similarity was between the 2.8L and 2.9L.

As far as the 2.9L vs 4.0L, I'd almost be willing to believe the 4.0L wasn't even bored larger. The 2.9L has an extremely short stroke and a big bore. The 3.0L was just opposite. It makes a little more torque than the 2.9L because of a much longer stroke and the added .1L displacement. I think the 3.0L is also a little more efficient on fuel because of the smaller diameter too hence why the 2.9L was discontinued.

There were 7 engines that I know of that went into the Ranger/Mazda Bseries:
2.0L-L4
2.3L-L4
2.5L-L4
2.8L-V6
2.9L-V6
3.0L-V6
4.0L-V6

It stands to reason some were going to have different bolt patterns. But I have no clue which ones were block-brothers of the other. Although my 89 2.9L exhaust manifolds do look a lot like my 97 4.0L's.

MalcolmV8 · Post by **MalcolmV8** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:30 am

Read this

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_li ... ebuild.htm

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:46 am

After reading that article, it goes to show Ford engineers just can't leave anything alone.

I'd never even heard of the 2.6L. I don't believe that was ever used in the Ranger. So with the 2.6L, 2.8L, 2.9L, then 4.0L all being related...sortof, how did the 3.0L ever get in the Ranger mix?

Oh and I realized I forgot a Ranger engine option that was rarely seen...the 2.2L diesel.

evensteven · Post by **evensteven** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:47 am

The 3.0L was the Taurus and Mercury equivalant, and in the Topaz. The only difference between the Ranger vs. the Taurus is natuarlly the accessaries, the head gasket is different to allow the coolant to enter from the rear on the FWD cars, the water pump and timing covers may be different also. I had a 83 2.8L auto, in high school it was a gutless, powerless truck. Good for a student though. It had dual tanks and would last forever, gas was very cheap compared to today. My 3.0l of today is better I think. It is less likelly to crack a head like the 2.8 and 2.9. The 3.0 from 92 has a rollercam, the availability of replacement engines is great. Ford made alot of Tauras'. Wasnt it the car that saved Ford during the really bad sales years? I read that in a book once. Just my thoughts. The 4.0L SOHC was a great motor. I test drove one in a 97 ranger 4x4 new in 97 and it was peppy. Way more than my 94 3.0L was. But i decided to keep the trusty 94. It was paid for! And has never let me down yet., well almost never.

MalcolmV8 · Post by **MalcolmV8** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:51 am

evensteven wrote:The 4.0L SOHC was a great motor. I test drove one in a 97 ranger 4x4 new in 97 and it was peppy.

Didn't the SOHC motors only start in 2001?

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:54 am

A peppy 4.0L in 97? My 97 4.0L automatic is slightly better than my 2.9L manual was when it was new, but the 4.0L with 3.55 gears is hardly what I'd classify as ideal performance from an engine that only gets 18-20mpg. I think there is/was a lot of untapped potential in that engine.

And I believe you are right, the SOHC 4.0L wasn't in production until 2001.

Hardhead · Post by **Hardhead** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:57 am

I have a 98 4.0 SOHC in my Explorer.

MalcolmV8 · Post by **MalcolmV8** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:11 am

Right but the 4.0 SOHC didn't start in the Rangers until 2001. A neat little tool to compare cars is at http://autos.msn.com/research/compare/

V8-Ranger.com

need a 93 ranger 5spd

need a 93 ranger 5spd

3.0L

Re: 3.0L