Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 70

Thread: 3.8/4.2L Split Port Swap into a Fox

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, OHIO
    Posts
    4,876
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    Then late 90's Windstars had Plastic one's. I worked on a 97 that had a plastic intake.
    Three 88's

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Middle Sackville, NS, CANADA
    Posts
    9,827
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DakotaEpic View Post
    Wow, those are all some ugly intakes. Crazy stuff though. Good luck Jeremy. Oh and what's the deal with the V6's in the latest Mustangs?
    I believe that's the same SOHC 4.0 you'll find under the hoods of Rangers and Explorers
    2015 Mustang GT Premium - 5.0, 6-speed, Guard Green - too much awesome for one car

    1988 5.0 Thunderbird SOLD SEPT 11 2010: TC front clip/hood ♣ Body & paint completed Oct 2007 ♣ 3.55 TC rear end and front brakes ♣ TC interior ♣ CHE rear control arms (adjustable lowers) ♣ 2001 Bullitt springs ♣ Energy suspension poly busings ♣ Kenne Brown subframe connectors ♣ CWE engine mounts ♣ Thundercat sequential turn signals ♣ Explorer overhead console (temp/compass display) ♣ 2.25" off-road dual exhaust ♣ T-5 transmission swap completed Jan 2009 ♣

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gap Mills WV 24941
    Posts
    14,259
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FordTruckFreeek View Post
    '88 3.8s had the balance shaft, '87 3.8s didn't...how would this balance shaft affect swapping the 4.2 stuff in?
    its not really the balance shaft that is the issue. Its the whole design of the 3.8 in 1988 that makes it the winner of choice in my opinion. Im no certified or schooled mechanic and i have a lot to learn but this cross road is where i have come to be the most rational approach.

    The 4.2L is a 3.8 block with a stroker kit and a bunch of other wing ding bolt ons.

    The 4.2 crank is a solid tempered steel hunk of metal (this is a good thing since it can be turned more than a cast iron crank that has only tempered journals. If you turn a cast iron crank to much, you get to the soft metal. This is unlike the shorter stroke of the cast iron 3.8 crank and makes the cast iron less desirable compared to the 4.2. Im pretty sure the 88 3.8 crank is also steel and not cast iron.

    My 4.2 crank out in the garage has been drilled along the oil slingers for balance.,,just fyi

    Its not the balance shaft that ist he issue, its just locating like 3.8's with the exact short block configuration so you an put in the 4.2 kit.

    There is a long ass thread of mine in engine swapping on this where i ultimatly ended up at a roadblock due to a bad engine.


    If you just put the 4.2 stuff in an 87 and down engine,, im not really sure how it would run due to the lack of it being balanced the same. I am pretty sure the 3.8 harmonic will not slip on the nipple of the 4,2 crank, so,,, since the 4.2 never came with a harmonic, it stands to reason you would wanna stick with a compareable design.

    Maybe tomorrow ill clear this up ,, ill see if my 87 3.8 harmonic fits the 4.2 crank. If it does fit,, then maybe thats what a guy named Rick on therangerstation.com means when he says "the 4.2L short block internals are a direct swap in the 3.8". If the harmonic fits, then is a tempting upgrade for all 3.8's. I just avoided using my block cause its externally balanced.

    I also feel its a benefit to mention that the 4.2 connecting rods are forged "H" beam in design and much more durable than the earlier 3.8 rods. I can tell they are much more duable than the earlier 3.8's because the rod caps are "broken off" instead of cut. Makes for a real real fool proof system when reassembly comes around because no two rod caps are alike.

    The 4.2 is a floating piston design as well, just fyi.


    Now,, hows this for an idea,, Destroke **any** 3.8 and just use the rods and pistons from the 4.2, keep your crank. That would be a huge rpm range gain due to less Rod Angle / wear and tear / vibration not to mention a longer lasting setup in the HP arena. ANy thoughts on this last comment?????????????
    Last edited by jcassity; 06-04-2007 at 11:08 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    701
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CougarSE View Post
    Then late 90's Windstars had Plastic one's. I worked on a 97 that had a plastic intake.
    Our '01 Windstar has a plastic intake as well.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Middle Sackville, NS, CANADA
    Posts
    9,827
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcassity View Post
    If you just put the 4.2 stuff in an 87 and down engine,, im not really sure how it would run due to the lack of it being balanced the same. I am pretty sure the 3.8 harmonic will not slip on the nipple of the 4,2 crank, so,,, since the 4.2 never came with a harmonic, it stands to reason you would wanna stick with a compareable design.
    As long as you used the 4.2 front pulley (or balancer or whatever it is) and flywheel you should be able to use the 4.2 guts in the 87-and-older blocks. The block itself has nothing to do with balance - it's all in the crank, flywheel and balancer. There would be no need to use the 3.8 balancer - indeed, if the two engines are balanced differently it would actually kill the engine.

    I also feel its a benefit to mention that the 4.2 connecting rods are forged "H" beam in design and much more durable than the earlier 3.8 rods. I can tell they are much more durable than the earlier 3.8's because the rod caps are "broken off" instead of cut. Makes for a real real fool proof system when reassembly comes around because no two rod caps are alike.

    The 4.2 is a floating piston design as well, just fyi.


    Now,, hows this for an idea,, Destroke **any** 3.8 and just use the rods and pistons from the 4.2, keep your crank. That would be a huge rpm range gain due to less Rod Angle / wear and tear / vibration not to mention a longer lasting setup in the HP arena. ANy thoughts on this last comment?????????????
    That might work but would result in a very low compression ratio. The 3.8 crank wouldn't allow the pistons to come all the way up in their bores. The 4.2 rods are slightly longer than the 3.8 (about 0.20") but the compression height of the pistons (distance from top of piston to pin) is about .35" shorter, meaning your piston would now come to TDC about .15" lower in the bore.
    2015 Mustang GT Premium - 5.0, 6-speed, Guard Green - too much awesome for one car

    1988 5.0 Thunderbird SOLD SEPT 11 2010: TC front clip/hood ♣ Body & paint completed Oct 2007 ♣ 3.55 TC rear end and front brakes ♣ TC interior ♣ CHE rear control arms (adjustable lowers) ♣ 2001 Bullitt springs ♣ Energy suspension poly busings ♣ Kenne Brown subframe connectors ♣ CWE engine mounts ♣ Thundercat sequential turn signals ♣ Explorer overhead console (temp/compass display) ♣ 2.25" off-road dual exhaust ♣ T-5 transmission swap completed Jan 2009 ♣

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gap Mills WV 24941
    Posts
    14,259
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)

    Default

    sorry to babble so much here jeremy, Let us know which direction you go.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    9,052
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)

    Default

    Much info here:

    http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/ar90134.htm

    IF I ever get the opportunity to do it:
    83-86 Tbird 3.8 V6 AOD car:

    Add to that:
    Truck 4.2 longblock w/ 97computer for manual transmission. That way I can mount it to an AOD and use a return style fuel system.
    A bigger issue for me will be wiring up the dash and A/C differences. Are ANY of the senders from an EEC-V system compatible with a dash from an EEC-IV system?
    Last edited by V8Demon; 05-20-2010 at 06:16 AM.
    -- 05 Mustang GT-Whipplecharged !! -- 87 5.0 Trick Flow Heads & Intake - Custom Cam - Many other goodies...3100Lbs...Low12's! http://www.fquick.com/V8Demon

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    8,429
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    What I think would be neat to do would be to have the 4.2 internals...in a 3.8SC block...
    But in an '88 Tbird...I mean...we ALL want to be blown AND stroked, right??
    '84 Mustang, work in (sloooooooow) progress...
    '87 Stang notch
    1994 Ford F150 Flareside
    1997 Explorer V8 conversion (in progress)
    1998 Explorer 5.0
    and a couple of tractors. Ford, of course.
    FORD power, for life!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gap Mills WV 24941
    Posts
    14,259
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FordTruckFreeek View Post
    What I think would be neat to do would be to have the 4.2 internals...in a 3.8SC block...
    But in an '88 Tbird...I mean...we ALL want to be blown AND stroked, right??
    holly snitts,, why didnt i think of that!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    8,429
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    lol.
    '84 Mustang, work in (sloooooooow) progress...
    '87 Stang notch
    1994 Ford F150 Flareside
    1997 Explorer V8 conversion (in progress)
    1998 Explorer 5.0
    and a couple of tractors. Ford, of course.
    FORD power, for life!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •