cross forum help?
Thread Starter
|
Postmaster
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,319
Likes: 4
From: Elk City, OK
cross forum help?
hey guys. im a idi forum guy lookin for some help on a 71 bronco. i know you guys are bronco 2 guys.... lookin to buy a cheap bronco 2 with a v6 and swap the engine, tranny and tc into the 71. how do you v6 guys do on power, fuel, reliability? anything i should stay away from? look for? thanks for the help
Post Fiend
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 23,620
Likes: 2
From: Coeur d alene, Id
well i would say honestly that the 2.9 v6 which comes in the b2's may be underpowered for your application...they are realiable but they dont hav much gumption in b2's...if i were you grab a 300-6 and throw it in...they will give you about 20mpgs maybe more.. and they are limitless on torque...just my thought..
Lead Driver
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,208
Likes: 8
From: Wichita, KS
Bronco II's had the 2.8 and 2.9 v-6's. The 2.8 was carbed and has been said to be a higher rpm engine. The 2.9 is fuel injected and has more torque. Transmissions had problems in both. The A4LD does well in stock form with a good auxl cooler but I have not had any luck with rebuilds. They just seem to last the 12 month waranity and are bad again. The c-5 in the early 2.8 has trouble with off the shelf converters. If you do a search on this site and other BII sites you will find threads where folks try to adapt a v-8 converter. I am running a c-5 and doubler(second low range box) in my 88 behind a 2.9 and was able to get a good converther from a converter builder after problems with two off the shelf parts house converters.
Are you looking for a carb application? If not I would think the 4.0 would be a better choice than the old 2.9.
Are you looking for a carb application? If not I would think the 4.0 would be a better choice than the old 2.9.
Thread Starter
|
Postmaster
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,319
Likes: 4
From: Elk City, OK
thanks for the info. since the guts are for a 71 standard bronco maybe ill just try to find a wrecked full size 78+ or pickup and rob it of its goods. its just hard to pass up how cheap the bronco II's are. thanks agian
Super Moderator
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,512
Likes: 2,824
A '71 Bronco = 302. Millions served, many flavors available.
I know many are fans of the 200 six, but those are so anemic without major work imo.
2.hate and 2.9, forget it. I had an '86 Ranger with a 2.9--it was ok, but my new 4 cylinder brand x would run away from it.
4.0, might as well go 302 as they are not fuel sippers and you'd be down on power and torque by comparison.
jmo, ymmv.
Rob your goodies from something in the late '90s. '70s stuff is still smogged poorly with low compression. Get a roller motor.
I know many are fans of the 200 six, but those are so anemic without major work imo.
2.hate and 2.9, forget it. I had an '86 Ranger with a 2.9--it was ok, but my new 4 cylinder brand x would run away from it.
4.0, might as well go 302 as they are not fuel sippers and you'd be down on power and torque by comparison.
jmo, ymmv.
Rob your goodies from something in the late '90s. '70s stuff is still smogged poorly with low compression. Get a roller motor.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cpetersen
Pre-Power Stroke Diesel (7.3L IDI & 6.9L)
21
Oct 12, 2010 04:10 PM
gquinn8516
1966 - 1977 Early Broncos
5
Apr 29, 2008 10:10 PM
the only Qualk
Supercharger, Turbocharger, Nitrous Oxide & Water/Methanol Injection
7
Apr 17, 2006 01:17 PM
