EFI ?
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Manton,MI
My thought was to build a spacer between the frame and engine cradle to gain some room and some lift at the same time. Like an inch or so
Post Fiend
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
From: Kiev, Ukraine
With 601 it was a problem. after intercooler was installed it was a real pain with A/C condencer
Postmaster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 7
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.
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.
Considering how much space you would get under the hood with the 4cylinder turbo and the fact that you cut your engine weight so dramatically. I'm serious, those 2.3L turbos are easily upgraded into V8 killers. They are also known to be extremely reliable. They are designed to take boost, you get a 300 rwhp 2.3L Turbo motor that spools up quickly, it will easily outrun V6 and V8 regardless of their torque. Just to give an example, a stock 4.0L, which has a lot of torque produces a peak troque of 220 ft.lbs at 3800 RPM. A 300 hp 2.3L will produce about 305 ft.lbs at about the same RPM.
Post Fiend
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
From: Kiev, Ukraine
Well considering that the 2.3L Turbo was designed to get behemoths like the Thunderbirds off the line quickly, it is designed to spool fast. The stock Turbo spins up quickly, but runs out of steam at higher RPM. Aftermarket turbos can spool faster, depending on their A/R ratio.
Considering how much space you would get under the hood with the 4cylinder turbo and the fact that you cut your engine weight so dramatically. I'm serious, those 2.3L turbos are easily upgraded into V8 killers. They are also known to be extremely reliable. They are designed to take boost, you get a 300 rwhp 2.3L Turbo motor that spools up quickly, it will easily outrun V6 and V8 regardless of their torque. Just to give an example, a stock 4.0L, which has a lot of torque produces a peak troque of 220 ft.lbs at 3800 RPM. A 300 hp 2.3L will produce about 305 ft.lbs at about the same RPM.
Considering how much space you would get under the hood with the 4cylinder turbo and the fact that you cut your engine weight so dramatically. I'm serious, those 2.3L turbos are easily upgraded into V8 killers. They are also known to be extremely reliable. They are designed to take boost, you get a 300 rwhp 2.3L Turbo motor that spools up quickly, it will easily outrun V6 and V8 regardless of their torque. Just to give an example, a stock 4.0L, which has a lot of torque produces a peak troque of 220 ft.lbs at 3800 RPM. A 300 hp 2.3L will produce about 305 ft.lbs at about the same RPM.
0.5-1 sec of delay in mud is critical! You wanna ride on terrain. so you need engine with low end torq. You need something about 5.0 OHV ore diesel from small truck.
Pay attention on Isudzu Elf engine. 4.3 Turbo, four cyl in line, OHV, with 5 st tranny! both EDC and Injection pump versions were available (with Denso inj, pump). Easy to find on Japanese used parts sites.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Manton,MI
You would think, now that the 4.0L is in the Mustang (SOHC version) that there would be a stoker kit and bigger pistons and hot cam's and all that jaz. I've got 2 spare 4.0L's and if there were kits like that I'd just build one up.
Postmaster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 7
Yeah, take a look at the Morena engine stuff, lots of 4.0L parts. Just so you know, the 4.0L in the 'Stang is not the same 4.0L thats in an Aerostar.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
302flareside1992
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
21
May 4, 2020 05:38 PM
HIO Silver
1967 - 1972 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
7
Nov 7, 2015 05:36 PM
Decon460
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
18
Jun 23, 2015 11:46 PM
red_rocket
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
1
Apr 7, 2003 10:12 PM
