4.0L Cologne / 5R55 swap

[DPDISXR4Ti]

I'm with John. Taking a lot of things into consideration, I think it's a good idea. A couple of the positives include....

1) Readily available for cheap junkyard money
2) Multiple transmission choices available
3) Engine mounting should be plug-n-play using Scorpio stuff
4) No clearance challenges unlike a V8

[yottabit]

Another two things to add to that list:
5) Weight: it is potentially quite a bit lighter than the 2.3t (not sure about that yet though), and should also shift the center of gravity back a little bit.

EDIT: Weighs 367 lbs dry with full accessories. Is this a weight savings?
It's also about 26.5" long. How long is a 2.3t?

6) Potential Fuel Economy:
By the "old" EPA rating system it gets 19 mpg city and 28 mpg highway in the 05 mustang, and with good tuning these numbers could definitely go up do the XR's weight advantage and smaller frontal area

[CV12Steve]

I doubt an XR has a much different frontal area than a Mustang, though it probably has a lower Cd and is most assuredly lighter.

[DPDISXR4Ti]

5) Weight: Weighs 367 lbs dry with full accessories. Is this a weight savings? It's also about 26.5" long. How long is a 2.3t?

I've come to distrust a lot of the quoted weights for engines - there's just so many variables and things get mis-quoted over time and passed along as fact. That said, a 2.3T with all accessories (including flywheel, clutch, starter, etc) is 475 lbs, so that 4.0 sounds lighter (although I'd bet it's less than 100 lbs lighter, comparing apples-to-apples). Length of the 2.3 is 24.5" including pulleys. The Cologne has pretty wide bore spacing, but I still wouldn't have expected it to be 2" longer.

6) Potential Fuel Economy:
By the "old" EPA rating system it gets 19 mpg city and 28 mpg highway in the 05 mustang, and with good tuning these numbers could definitely go up do the XR's weight advantage and smaller frontal area

There may have been some tweaks to the later Mustang engine and tune to get those numbers vs. the earlier version in the Explorer. As you suggest though, the lighter Merkur might equal those number just running the Explorer setup as-is.

[Freejack]

Brad, on the length of the 2.9, it doesn't surprise me that its a bit long. Given that its a 60 degree engine, look at the offset between the cylinder banks.

Jake

[yottabit]

Thought I'd send an email to Tom Yentzer over at supersixmotorsports to see what they had about this. I had a few specific questions about differences between explorer/ranger and mustang 4.0 sohc, the bolt pattern of the 4.0 sohc vs ohv, and what people are doing for tuning.

They responded to me less than hour later!

Since you guys seem to have extensive knowledge of the 4.0 SOHC ( I enjoyed reading your tech articles!!) I wanted to ask you a couple questions:

1) What are the major differences between the 4.0 SOHC in the 01+ Explorer and Ranger, and the 05+ Mustang? I know the Mustang has an electronic throttle but I was wondering if there were any other differences (mostly in part interchangeability and emissions) I should know of.

The major differences are the intake manifolds. The heads, cams, blocks are interchangeable. Some truck blocks have an internal balance shaft and some Mustang blocks have an internal balance shaft.

2) Is the 4.0 SOHC bellhousing bolt pattern the same as a 4.0 OHV? I've been considering swapping a 4.0 SOHC into a Merkur XR4Ti with a manual transmission. From the research I've done it seems like a Mustang Tremec T5 would probably be my best option as I could redo the remote shifter linkage to get the proper shifter location...

I've also heard of people using a T5 5 speed and adapting a bellhousing from a Mustang II, or something that like that, in order to bolt it up to a cologne V6.

Was wondering if you knew anything I didn't on that topic

The bellhousing bolt pattern is the same. Use an 05-up 4.0 Mustang bellhousing and T-5, thats hsould be easy to do.

I'm sure you could use the Mustang II or the funky Bronco II C-5 bellhousing and then modify it to adapt a T-5 if you wanted to.

3) What kind of tuning do people use for the 4.0 SOHC? Do you know anyone who's running megasquirt? I'd definitely be interested in picking up a set of your heads if I go through with this and was just curious what people do for tuning

Tuning? SCT ot DiabloSport have tuning solutions for the 4.0 cammer, its pretty easy.

Nice of the guy to respond and so fast! Most places don't give two craps when you send an "I'm thinking about swapping this motor in" email. Haha.

Also on a side note their Stage II heads, though pricey, yielded 19 peak WHP gain UNTUNED on an 05 mustang v6, and even bigger gains across the whole powerband. So there is definitely potential in that motor for some fun and they definitely seem to know what they are doing!

[DPDISXR4Ti]

The major differences are the intake manifolds. The heads, cams, blocks are interchangeable. Some truck blocks have an internal balance shaft and some Mustang blocks have an internal balance shaft.

All things considered, it sounds like a '01+ Explorer or Ranger would be the best bet for a donor. It's not like '05+ Mustangs are littering the junkyards quite yet, so there'd be a premium for that engine.

Interesting that some of these engines used a balance shaft and others did not. I *think* it's the cam location from the old OHV engine that is used for a balance shaft, but was that only added after the 2005 Mustang launch? If you do a car-part.com search, the 2005 Mustang engine does get broken out seperately from the 2006+ cars.

[John Brennan]

Interesting that some of these engines used a balance shaft and others did not. I *think* it's the cam location from the old OHV engine that is used for a balance shaft, but was that only added after the 2005 Mustang launch? If you do a car-part.com search, the 2005 Mustang engine does get broken out seperately from the 2006+ cars.

If that's correct, then my '02 Explorer probably does not. As smooth as the engine is, I can't see why you'd want/need one, especially in an application designed to maximize performance, which a balance shaft would work against.

[pyropete125]

ill add some more fuel to the fire>>>>>

what about a 4.0/5 speed 4wd?

im 95% sure tim roman said he used 99 ranger/exploder axles in to stock cossie hubs in the front.

so now we have a "bolt in" motor/tranny/transfercase/ front dirveshaft/ front diff and axles.

so basically you would be stuck on a steering rack, efi, tranny mount, driveshaft clearance and rear driveshaft.


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[DPDISXR4Ti]

so now we have a "bolt in" motor/tranny/transfercase/ front dirveshaft/ front diff and axles.

So you're suggesting to use all the 4WD stuff (transfer case, axles, transmission) from the Explorer or Ranger? Interesting thought, and clearly a more involved project. One problem right off, the shifter would be under the dash. Also, I imagine some sheet metal clearancing would be required, just as Tim had to do when using the Chevy Astro(?) transfer case with his conversion.

[pyropete125]

yes he used astro/safari T/C, drishaft and front diff.

you would need to position the motor/front diff axle centerline correctly and work from there - which may position it into the firewall anyways.

pete

[pyropete125]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ENGINE-T ... .m20.l1116

hmmm

[pyropete125]

http://www.mustangsplus.com/xcart/produ ... t=0&page=2

something like this could be fabbed about the shifter under the dash.

pete

[DPDISXR4Ti]

Uh-oh, Pete's already thinking about his next project...

[pyropete125]

well i have aquired already a 4x4 crossmember and hubs.

i figure ill make my TCA's and mod a rack to fit.

i just dont know what motor/tranny/TC and diff yet.

I just dont know if a 4.0 is worth it when a 5.0[+] will be just as much of work.

pete