Engine HP ratings
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 1
From: waco
Engine HP ratings
I'm toying with the idea of swapping about a 94 model V6 from an Aerostar in to my 55 F100. Does anyone know the torque and horse power ratings of this engine? I am also curious to know what bell housing patern this engine has? Last but not least....I'm curious as to what rear gear ratios were available in the early 90's in Aerostars.
I'm not looking for a big fast hot rod, just a good dependable fuel efficient daily driver. You guys know as well as any one that these were pretty good vehicles. Thanks for any help.
Doc
I'm not looking for a big fast hot rod, just a good dependable fuel efficient daily driver. You guys know as well as any one that these were pretty good vehicles. Thanks for any help.
Doc
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,529
Likes: 35
From: Kansas
Originally Posted by docholiday72tx
I'm toying with the idea of swapping about a 94 model V6 from an Aerostar in to my 55 F100.
Doc
Doc
However, if you are determined to add the V6 and are good at the wiring that you will need, go for it. (Just my $.03 worth. Yes, that's $.03 because I've got a '55 F100 with a 429/C6)
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 1
From: waco
Thanks for the reply Kruse. I'm not 100% set on any option at the moment. I already have a 73 SWB F-100 that I put a 460 and C6 in. It was a fairly straight forward instalation and is a load of fun to drive. So that me be an option also. I don't paticularly care for the 289/ 302 option based on the fact that I had a 302 in my 73 for a short time and it was a huge disapointment in the torque department. What is your opinion of a 351W or 351C swap?
Doc
Doc
Lead Driver
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 7,013
Likes: 204
From: SoCal
Doc,
If you were disappointed in the torque of the 289/302, you would be positively aghast at the 4L v6 from the Aerostar. I thinks it's rated at 155 HP and 215 lbs-ft, all at very low rpms. That engine is really too small for any full sized truck.
Short of another 429 or a 460, I think you will be happier with a 351. A 351 Windsor is much easier to find parts for these days. A truck 4 speed OD transmission would not be a bad idea if you want decent mileage.
good luck
If you were disappointed in the torque of the 289/302, you would be positively aghast at the 4L v6 from the Aerostar. I thinks it's rated at 155 HP and 215 lbs-ft, all at very low rpms. That engine is really too small for any full sized truck.
Short of another 429 or a 460, I think you will be happier with a 351. A 351 Windsor is much easier to find parts for these days. A truck 4 speed OD transmission would not be a bad idea if you want decent mileage.
good luck
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 996
Likes: 0
I am reminded of a motor home that was built on a toyota chassis, rotten performance, rotten fuel mileage. I would go the small v-8 myself. Properly installed, geared and driven, 20 mpg should be achieved. 4.0 aeros don't get much better.
Ken
Ken
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,416
Likes: 1
From: Mitchell, SD
I would go with a 351 windsor and tranny out of a 90s F series, or maybe a Power Stroke Diesel. Pick up a donor truck and pull the tranny and electronics. Then you would have a modern '55 F100 
The 4.0L I don't think will do it for you if you think a 302 is a wimp.
The 4.0L I don't think will do it for you if you think a 302 is a wimp.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
phern47
Explorer, Sport Trac, Mountaineer & Aviator
2
Mar 14, 2007 05:46 PM
