4.0L Cologne / 5R55 swap

[yottabit]

Here's an interesting read:
http://www.supersixmotorsports.com/pdf/40SOHCTech.pdf

[DPDISXR4Ti]

Here's an interesting read:
http://www.supersixmotorsports.com/pdf/40SOHCTech.pdf

Indeed, a good technical summary. Boy, I guess they wanted to get some coolant flow around the cylinders and into that head.

It's quite telling to me that Ford elected to switch from the Essex 3.8 to the Cologne 4.0 for the Mustang, knowing full well it was a ~4 year stop-gap measure (with the Duratec 3.5 already slated as the V6 of the future for the Mustang). Having this engine in a Mustang sets up a good scenario for someone looking to do a swap, given the millions of Rangers and Explorers built with it over the last 8 years. Now you'll have some appropriate stock Mustang parts (flywheel perhaps), as well as after-market suppliers (Supercharger anyone?) with more of a performance focus.

[yottabit]

Actually, there's a nice M90 S/C kit from the ranger folk. $1500 bucks isn't that bad when it comes with everything you need... apparently a M112 kit is in the works too. Apparently they run it just fine with a couple psi without tuning on the stock pistons. One guy on ranger forums put almost 100k miles on his running 5 psi I believe.

But at any rate, I'd rather focus on getting the engine in there first before I worry about making power. But its nice to know options exist. Supersix makes nice 8.8 C/R turbo pistons for that...

I'm glad the rods are forged. Did you happen to see the balance pads on them? They say you can grind them off and save 21 grams... that seems a little ridiculous to me!!!

Yeah, a plus side is I think no matter how much power you make, you won't have to worry about the head warping with that many coolant passages...

I'm kind of doing a cost/benefit analysis between this and the 4.6 and 5.0 now. The pro's of the 4.0 swap are LOW MILEAGE engines are available for cheap, they (should) be plenty powerful, seem to last forever as long as the timing chains are maintained, and there is a decent performance following. Not sure about the weight of the 4.0 vs an all-Al 2v 4.6, but I think all said and done the 4.0 should be at least a little bit lighter than the 2.3t, and should shift the weight a little further back too. Plus being a 60 deg, it should be a little more spacious and easy to work on (this is all speculation, my theory lol).

I like the idea of the 4.0 because I'm NOT looking for extreme torque at idle. I don't like that in the XR. I think a revvy, smooth engine fits it better. Seeing the type of traction most of us can't seem to get, I think a revvy low torque engine makes more sense. At least that's just what I'm looking for.

I like the 4.0 V6 so far because it should give me plenty of power stock, and plus a couple bolt ons to keep me satisfied for a while. And if I still wanted more down the line I don't see any reason why it couldn't easily make ~400 whp with some forged pistons, good headgaskets, a single turbo, and tuning. Plus, it'd just be cool to say, "I put that engine in there!"

[DPDISXR4Ti]

I'm kind of doing a cost/benefit analysis between this and the 4.6 and 5.0 now. The pro's of the 4.0 swap are LOW MILEAGE engines are available for cheap, they (should) be plenty powerful, seem to last forever as long as the timing chains are maintained, and there is a decent performance following. Not sure about the weight of the 4.0 vs an all-Al 2v 4.6, but I think all said and done the 4.0 should be at least a little bit lighter than the 2.3t, and should shift the weight a little further back too. Plus being a 60 deg, it should be a little more spacious and easy to work on (this is all speculation, my theory lol).

I think you'll find that all of the 2v 4.6 engines have an iron block. I recall once considering building an all-AL 2V 4.6, as it would be the "lightweight king". I think the three engines you mention above, in factory trim, are all within about 40 lbs of each other, so I'd call it a non-factor.

I'd venture to say that the 4.0 would be the easiest install overall, with the least amount of custom parts required. Remember, if you're going 4.6, the brake booster needs to hit the trash bin. The 4.0 should be the most serviceable going forward as well.

[CV12Steve]

All 2-valves ('91+) are iron.
Of the 3-valves ('05+), block material varies between the aluminum block used in the 2005+ Ford Mustang and 2006+ Ford Explorer and the iron block used in the 2004+ Ford F-Series, though aluminum heads are used in all applications.
Of the 4-valves ('03+), '03-'04 Ford Mustang SVT Cobras were equipped with the iron-block. All others since introduction in the 1993 Lincoln Mark VIII were aluminum. The '99 and earlier engines featured a block cast in Italy by Fiat subsidiary Teksid S.p.A. The engine was revised for '99 with new cylinder heads featuring tumble-style intake ports, new camshaft profiles, and an improved, fixed runner length intake manifold. These changes resulted in more power, torque and a broader powerband.

Until 1999, all car engines were produced at the Romeo plant . In 1999 and 2000, Mustang engines were produced in Windsor. Production was moved back to Romeo in 2001. Most truck engines are from the Windsor plant, however there are many later model trucks with Romeo engines. All aluminum-blocked engines were produced at Romeo (except early Italian-made block).

In keeping with traditional Ford practice, as engine design is revised over time compatibility with previous versions is considered low priority, so that parts from a modular engine made in one model year are not necessarily likely to fit an engine made in another; and parts from an engine manufactured in Romeo are unlikely to fit an engine made in Windsor. The Romeo and Windsor plants have different designs for main bearings, heads (cam caps), camshaft gears (press-on vs. bolt on), valve covers (number of bolts), crankshaft (number of flywheel bolts), and cross bolt fasteners for main bearing caps.

As accurate as a publicly edited encyclopedia can be.

[yottabit]

So from my understanding the common method for fitting a T5 behind a cologne V6 is to use a Mustang II 2.8 bellhousing. This requires a pilot bushing to be machined and requires finding a mix of lots of different parts to get it to work. The T9 is a little more direct, but lets just forget about that.

HERE is a link describing:
http://www.socalcapriclub.com/files/Fiv ... gine-2.pdf

So the T5's we are used to are an option, although one source I read about says you should use a T5 from a 3.8 V6 because you need the longer input shaft. I don't know much about this, I'm sure the scorpio guys know more about it. The good thing is that (correct me if I'm wrong) we don't have to worry about the shifter position as much as they do.

I think its more likely for this 4.0 sohc swap to happen in a scorp than an XR.

I thought I'd look into the Tremec T5 that's mated to the 4.0 SOHC in the mustangs. Does this bellhousing look like it would bolt up to our T5s?

http://www.2005stang.com/gallery/albums ... 5speed.pdf

Note- not sure if that schematic is for the V6 or V8 flavor, or what the differences are.

I've still been unable to determine whether ford changed anything on the SOHC 4.0 compared to the older cologne blocks. Everyone SAYS they didn't, but I'd love some cold hard proof.

I'm not sure if there's a difference between the 2.9 and 4.0 block, but if there isnt it could be possible to use scorpio motor mount arms to mount the thing.
It does seem like the easiest way for engine management would be to use 4.0 EEC-IV ECU and harness and splice it into the 4.0 SOHC setup. I'm not sure what this entails exactly, but its been done in an explorer with good success, so its surely repeatable. All I know for sure that is different is the injectors need a different connector, not sure if they are even the same impendance. I also don't know how the Cologne V6 (like in the scoprio) fuel system varies from the 2.3T. And if the new 4.0 SOHC varies from that. As far as I can tell all 4.0 SOHC except in the Mustang are good old fashioned drive-by-cable so that shouldn't be an issue. Of course there will probably be some creative work needed on the XR or Scorp cable.

I also have no clue how the coolant system works on the 4.0 SOHC, and what changes will need to be made to accomodate that.

There's a lot of maybes and ifs right now, and at this point I'm quite sure I won't be the one to try this swap because I won't have the resources. But its fun to try and collect data.

Edit: Also I'm not sure how much extra crap the scorpio wiring harness has built into it, but I can imagine it might be a nice harness to use since it will have aproximately the right wire lenghts for the important stuff

[DPDISXR4Ti]

So the T5's we are used to are an option, although one source I read about says you should use a T5 from a 3.8 V6 because you need the longer input shaft. I don't know much about this, I'm sure the scorpio guys know more about it.

I know I've suggested the use of the '94 - '97 3.8 Mustang T-5 because of the .44" longer input shaft (as compared to the 2.3 spec T-5). Surprisingly, I still don't know of a confirmed fitment of one in a XR or Scorpio. I think it would be the ideal box to use behind your 4.0 swap - no turning down of the shaft required, and the shifter gets pushed back, as sorely needed.

I thought I'd look into the Tremec T5 that's mated to the 4.0 SOHC in the mustangs. Does this bellhousing look like it would bolt up to our T5s?
Note- not sure if that schematic is for the V6 or V8 flavor, or what the differences are.

All T-5's have a common bell pattern, so there should be no issues mounting that bell to any T-5. Bear in mind of course, it's a hydraulic clutch, which could be good or bad, depending on what you want to do.

Good find on that drawing. I knew I had seen it once before, and my recollection was correct that the tail is vastly shorter than the one used on the earlier generations of Mustangs. I wouldn't try to use it at all. That "remote" shifter setup can't possibly work right in our cars as-is.

Note that only the V6 cars got the T-5 in the 2005+ Mustang. The V8 cars get a TR3650.

Again, for half a dozen reasons, I'd suggest the '94 - '97 3.8 Mustang T-5 as the gearbox you want. I bought a used one a couple years ago, complete with bell and clutch fork, for $130 on eBay.

[yottabit]

Cool. I'd guess that it is easier to get the 05+ mustang bellhousing than the Mustang II 2.8 bellhousing, and as time goes on this will only become more true. Would the 05+ mustang clutch/pressure plate work too? Or the 3.8 clutch?

I'm confused as to what dictates what clutch (as in disc + pressure plate) you can use and what clutch you can't. I know the flywheel needs to be the right size and type. And the clutch disc needs to match the splines on the input shaft, right? Other than that as long as it fits in the bellhousing is it fair game? Or do bellhousings somehow dictate which you can use?

I like this better than using a "stock mustang II clutch" because I'm sure there are awesome heavy duty clutches out there for either the 3.8 or new mustang.

I don't mind a hydraulic clutch at all personally, and it shouldn't be too hard to set up

I think the easiest (but also somewhat expensive) thing then would be to use the 05+ mustang starter/flywheel/clutch/bellhousing, with a 3.8 tranny, if thats possible...

[DPDISXR4Ti]

Opps, bit of a momentary brain-fade here - I had been thinking that the Mustang 3.8 engine is a Cologne, which clearly it is not. I still think that the '94 - '97 3.8 Mustang T-5 is a good choice however - you just can't use it with the 3.8 bell going to a 4.0.

Probably the best bet then would be to source the bell, flywheel, clutch, fork, and slave cylinder from the 4.0 Mustang. Whoa, just took another look at that drawing, and the bearing retainer is totally funky with the 4.0 spec T-5 - there's no shaft at all! Best bet would be to just source the complete setup from a wrecker and figure it out - checking car-parts.com I see 2005 T-5's going for as little as $250 already.

[Freejack]

That "remote" shifter setup can't possibly work right in our cars as-is.

Ah, but it looks like to would be easy enough to modify, and for the Scorpio, which has fitment problems where the shifter is concerned, it could be ideal way to get the shifter correctly located.

Jake

[DPDISXR4Ti]

That "remote" shifter setup can't possibly work right in our cars as-is.

Ah, but it looks like to would be easy enough to modify, and for the Scorpio, which has fitment problems where the shifter is concerned, it could be ideal way to get the shifter correctly located.

Okay, fair enough. I suppose that's one more reason to just get the whole assembly from a wrecker and figure out what you can use.

[yottabit]

Ergh.. looking at my car the other day I realized I've parted out most of the engine components, but the drivetrain and suspension and interior are still intact. Makes me want to do this swap even more but again brings back the question of where the heck would I store it/work on it. My college is trying to start up a car program but I think this is a little large scale as far as storage requirements and this would probably take a year or two or three for me to finish. Plus the fact that I don't have the money.

Has anyone else done any other research on this swap yet?

Do you think if it was actually completed and well documented and <$1500 people would do it?

Personally I think a 200+ np reliable n/a engine for cheap with loads of tq and an aftermarket is great

[DPDISXR4Ti]

Good to see you haven't forgotten about this one Ryan. Here's an idea for you that might be a little easier and cheaper.... Go with a Scorpio engine and A4LD. Nearby there's a guy looking to dump two Scorpios and/or parts cheap. Not sure if either of the gearboxs are good, but I know at least one of the engines is in good running shape.

Down the road you could always upgrade to the 4.0 and 5R55.

[yottabit]

Not a big fan of the 2.9, was considering swapping a 4.0 OHV in though and upping it to the sohc someday. But in reality it would probably take me two years or so of saving up and research to be able to do this, and I don't have anywhere to keep the car for 2 years right now.

It'd be more practical for me to get rid of the car, and buy a new shell when I have the means to do the swap.

I don't think I'll ever "forget" about the swap. Just knowing that it could bolt right in there is driving me nuts, haha

[yottabit]

I really want to get my hands on a ranger shop manual or an actual 2001+ ranger 5 speed tranny and see if its even close to fitting in the xr.

I bet it wouldn't exactly shift like silk but I bet I could make it fit...

Then I could just get the engine/tranny/wiring harness ecu all from a 2001+ ranger 5 speed and call it a day. It'd certainly be a lot cheaper than 05 mustang parts too

Ranger tranny actually has decent ratios too:
Mazda M50D-R1HD J 2001 & Up 4.0L SOHC Ranger
1997-2001 Up 4.0L SOHC Explorer
5-Speed 3.40 / 2.05 / 1.31 / 1.00 / 0.79

Taken from http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_li ... ssion.html

This is similar to what some people have in their T5s except the gears are a little wider which is exactly what I'd want with all that midrange tq.