EFI ?
Post Fiend
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
From: Kiev, Ukraine
220 HP -eeeh! mid size truck engine... what can fit aero? OM904LA, Cummins B-series ore ISL, Cat 3126.... anyway heavy engines.. a lot of welding and cutting work + truck transmission, may be alisson auto, may be ZF ore Eaton.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Manton,MI
I already have a NP435 truck tranny so a Ford V8 will bolt right to my powertrain.
Postmaster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 7
A 4.6L doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of fitting. For that matter, few engines with overhead cams will. I'm sure you are willing to modify the engine compartment, but for fitment reasons, I would take the old 302 5.0L over the 4.6L just because its going to fit much better.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Manton,MI
The only 4.6L that will bolt to a 435 is the early car engines. They changed the bolt pattern when they came out with one of the electronic tannny's. The old windsor engines are 1/2 the price to work on to boot. Thats why I have the 289 W in my garage.
Lead Driver
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 7,010
Likes: 203
From: SoCal
I think Brothers Performance (BBK) may still have a small supercharger for the 4.0 liter v6. It will actually generate the power levels you want, without blowing the head gaskets. But it was designed for trucks like the Ranger or Explorer, so it is a little too tall for the Aerostar. However, I've seen the modifications you've done before, so I'm pretty confident that you can figure something out.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Manton,MI
I think Brothers Performance (BBK) may still have a small supercharger for the 4.0 liter v6. It will actually generate the power levels you want, without blowing the head gaskets. But it was designed for trucks like the Ranger or Explorer, so it is a little too tall for the Aerostar. However, I've seen the modifications you've done before, so I'm pretty confident that you can figure something out.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,868
Likes: 9
From: Rhode Island
Ever considered a DIY turbo setup? I'm not sure about the 4.0 OHV, but the 2.9 can handle around 16-19 PSI of boost on stock internals with a good tune. I can't imagine the bigger and beefier 4.0 would be any less capable.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Ford Super Duty: 5 Things Owners LOVE, 5 Things They LOATHE!
Joe Kucinski
Every 2026 Ford Truck Engine RANKED from WORST to FIRST!
Michael S. Palmer
The Best F-150 Deal of Every Trim Level (XL through Raptor)
Joe Kucinski
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Manton,MI
No but all options are on the table. I take it someone else has done it?
Postmaster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 7
The 4.0L won't take it. You need forged internals and lower compression. The engine will run ok on boost for a little while, but as soon as something goes wrong, the engine will self destruct.
For what you are trying to do, the cost or value of the van is irrelevant. Either you want a high powered Aerostar or you don't. People will shell out $10,000 to put out 300 whp in a 1990 Civic. When you are doing this kind of work where you may have to cut and paste, a cheaper vehicle is almost ideal, especially if it is your first time doing something like this.
If you really want to put out some power, go for a 2.3L Turbo motor out of a late eighties Mustang, Thunderbird, or Merkur. The stock motor is just 164 hp, but it is smaller and lighter than a V6. Thew stock motor can handle up to 400 hp before the internals have to be further upgraded. The great news is relative to a performance versus cost, these engines are fairly inexpensive.
For what you are trying to do, the cost or value of the van is irrelevant. Either you want a high powered Aerostar or you don't. People will shell out $10,000 to put out 300 whp in a 1990 Civic. When you are doing this kind of work where you may have to cut and paste, a cheaper vehicle is almost ideal, especially if it is your first time doing something like this.
If you really want to put out some power, go for a 2.3L Turbo motor out of a late eighties Mustang, Thunderbird, or Merkur. The stock motor is just 164 hp, but it is smaller and lighter than a V6. Thew stock motor can handle up to 400 hp before the internals have to be further upgraded. The great news is relative to a performance versus cost, these engines are fairly inexpensive.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Manton,MI
The 4.0L won't take it. You need forged internals and lower compression. The engine will run ok on boost for a little while, but as soon as something goes wrong, the engine will self destruct.
For what you are trying to do, the cost or value of the van is irrelevant. Either you want a high powered Aerostar or you don't. People will shell out $10,000 to put out 300 whp in a 1990 Civic. When you are doing this kind of work where you may have to cut and paste, a cheaper vehicle is almost ideal, especially if it is your first time doing something like this.
If you really want to put out some power, go for a 2.3L Turbo motor out of a late eighties Mustang, Thunderbird, or Merkur. The stock motor is just 164 hp, but it is smaller and lighter than a V6. Thew stock motor can handle up to 400 hp before the internals have to be further upgraded. The great news is relative to a performance versus cost, these engines are fairly inexpensive.
For what you are trying to do, the cost or value of the van is irrelevant. Either you want a high powered Aerostar or you don't. People will shell out $10,000 to put out 300 whp in a 1990 Civic. When you are doing this kind of work where you may have to cut and paste, a cheaper vehicle is almost ideal, especially if it is your first time doing something like this.
If you really want to put out some power, go for a 2.3L Turbo motor out of a late eighties Mustang, Thunderbird, or Merkur. The stock motor is just 164 hp, but it is smaller and lighter than a V6. Thew stock motor can handle up to 400 hp before the internals have to be further upgraded. The great news is relative to a performance versus cost, these engines are fairly inexpensive.
Postmaster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 7
HP and torque are really equivalent. Horsepower is really nothing more than a dynamic measurement of torque. Torque is commonly referred to as a low end power figure, but in reality, horsepower is a measurement of power versus time. You can have a vehicle that produces a lot of power at low RPM, yet doesn't produce much horsepower. Such a vehicle can be almost unstoppable, and slow as a turtle because it still doesn't produce any real power.
If you set up the 2.3L with a turbo that spools quickly and produces good boost at low RPM, it will produce way more torque than a naturally aspirated 4.0L, or even a naturally aspirated 5.0L. It doesn't matter that the Aerostar is heavy at that point, power is power when geared correctly.
If you set up the 2.3L with a turbo that spools quickly and produces good boost at low RPM, it will produce way more torque than a naturally aspirated 4.0L, or even a naturally aspirated 5.0L. It doesn't matter that the Aerostar is heavy at that point, power is power when geared correctly.
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 287
Likes: 1
From: SE WI
For the application, torque is required.
Torque is a measurement of force. Horsepower is how fast the work gets done. A tractor and a motorcycle can both have 100 hp. The difference is how fast the work gets done.
How well would your Aerostar get moving if you had to wait for the turbo 2.3 to spool up, then shift pretty often to keep it in its power range? The 4.0 has torque down low, and isn't working as hard to make what power it does. A V8 would be even better, more torque and less stress on the engine.
I have a '99 Sable with the 200 hp engine. I also have a '96 Windstar with a 200 hp engine, but more torque. If I got the weights pretty similar (load down the Sable), the Windstar would be quicker off the line. On the Sable, you have to wait till about 3500 rpm for it to get into the power band, and then it takes off.
More extreme is the 300 straight six in my dad's F150. It can chirp the tires off the line, but runs out of steam at 55-60 mph.
With a stick shift you cant down shift so you need speed at the bottom without stalling at the top.
How well would your Aerostar get moving if you had to wait for the turbo 2.3 to spool up, then shift pretty often to keep it in its power range? The 4.0 has torque down low, and isn't working as hard to make what power it does. A V8 would be even better, more torque and less stress on the engine.
I have a '99 Sable with the 200 hp engine. I also have a '96 Windstar with a 200 hp engine, but more torque. If I got the weights pretty similar (load down the Sable), the Windstar would be quicker off the line. On the Sable, you have to wait till about 3500 rpm for it to get into the power band, and then it takes off.
More extreme is the 300 straight six in my dad's F150. It can chirp the tires off the line, but runs out of steam at 55-60 mph.