PDA

View Full Version : 2.8 and 2.9 engine


Ugly
05-28-2006, 07:37 PM
i've got a 2.8 litre carburated.. my buddy has a 2.9 fuel injected... Mine stalls out at the slightest of hills... his i'm fairly certain would run upside down....
Would the fuel injection system work on the 2.8? am i gonna have to switch out the whole intake manifold and anything else i should know? Anybody got one?

Toy_Runner
05-28-2006, 07:53 PM
you proubly have to switch out the intake, but i think the blocks are diffrent for sensors, but just look at his block and yours. it might work try it

Blue coyote
05-28-2006, 09:49 PM
From what I've read, its not really feasible. The cylinder arrangement is different (so the intakes don't even remotely line up).

Take a look through the tech sections at broncoii.org or (shudder) therangerstation.com for some ideas if you want to EFI a 2.8....

Cwheeler
05-28-2006, 09:55 PM
Both engines are different entirely, you cant swap very meny parts if any. I read someware about using a 3.8L TBI injection system on a 2.8L with the 2.9 comp, but It doesnt seem worth it to me. ill try and find the artical later

I would duraspark it if I were you I durasparked mine with parts I found on an old murcury bobcat with a 2.8L. and got rid of all the wiring and vacume nightmare and caped the EGR right off. Also I havent had any issues with aircare either with this setup

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/2_8Duraspark.html this is wher I found out all the general info.

Ill dig up some pics etc and post em

230
05-28-2006, 09:56 PM
tick tick tick tick

In The Zone
05-31-2006, 10:51 PM
wont work better to pull the 2.8 all together and put a fresh 85 2.9 in it being that they only had the 58mm throttle body that year

and when built right can produce respectable numbers in the torque and Hp on bottom end

regardless both engines float at high rpms anything over 4500

but you are talking cam heads intake all machined and ported as well as new crank oil pump injectors computer ecm. ect....

is it worth it wel thats up to u how much do u want to throw at it..

Blue coyote
05-31-2006, 11:19 PM
wont work better to pull the 2.8 all together and put a fresh 85 2.9 in it being that they only had the 58mm throttle body that year

Wrong. First year of the 2.9 was 86. 86 & 87 2.9's had the larger throttlebody, along with an EGR system and a more agressive timing curve. Then there's the issues with converting from a mechanical fuel pump converting to the EFI tank and pump...

and when built right can produce respectable numbers in the torque and Hp on bottom end

Its actually easier (crazy but true) to pull extra ponies out of the 2.8 (as witnessed by a few people over at BC4x4, where "Broncenstein" was fairly well-known) On the 2.8 the reliable limit without extensive block mods is about 200 horsepower.

regardless both engines float at high rpms anything over 4500

You been into my special stash? The 2.8 has solid lifters and a gear driven cam. The valvetrain on a stock one is good up to at least 7K. The valves on my 87 2.9 would start floating at about 6250, though...

but you are talking cam heads intake all machined and ported as well as new crank oil pump injectors computer ecm. ect....

Partially correct. A replacement crank isn't something I've heard of with either engine, and the high volume oil pump isn't really a requirement.

On the 2.8 in a Bronco II or Ranger, the best mod to start with is ditching the whole TFI/EEC-IV and simplify things with a Duraspark conversion....

is it worth it wel thats up to u how much do u want to throw at it..

THIS I agree with completely

In The Zone
06-01-2006, 06:34 AM
i believe u are wrong in your info i have a 85 Bii with a stock 2.9 with the 58mm tb manufactured nov 85......

u have never checked replaced the crank on a rebuild ?



as for revving your 2.8 to 6250 have at her the engine does not produce significant power at that level so why have the rpm's

fill your boots

as for the porting well the castings are the shits to begin with and can use much machining to increase flow
on both sides exhaust and intake...

now there is the restrictive air box as well but that is common knowledge

and yes Broncenstien on bc 4x4 is well Know SOOOOOOO


as for a hi volume oil pump why not?

these engines are know for their low oil psi why not improve on it and protect the vitals u spent your $$$$ on?


injectors are needed to boost fuel delivery when the new cam is in as well as a mas conversion
as for your dura spark u can have it....



personnally i would not throw a lot of money on this engine unless the parts were free...
there are much better power plants to use ....

Blue coyote
06-01-2006, 06:51 PM
I've had an 84 (Broncenstein) and two 85's (an Eddie Bauer and an XLT) My Ranger is an 87.

The only crossover year that doesn't match is the Aerostar. The 2.8 was an option in Aerostars in 86 ONLY.

I've never had to touch the bottom end on a 2.8 or 2.9 I tend to grenade head gaskets.

On a stock one, there isn't much point in hitting 6k+, although sometimes it happens anyway, and it won't hurt it. The 2.8 I ran in Broncenstein got its peak torque at around 6500, but as I stated, a 2.8 does NOT "float at high rpms anything over 4500" even in stock form (unless maybe there are serious ignition issues)

You ARE aware that an MSD6A or AL is a direct plug in replacement for the Duraspark 2 box, right? It helps to do the conversion, because it will get rid of the TFI/EEC-IV bastardization that Ford choked the 2.8 in the Ranger/BII/Aerostar. It also allows use of an Offy intake, which throws open a plethora of carb options. The only "Duraspark" part you really need when doing the upgrade is the vacuum-advance distributor. The rest is open to aftermarket options to suit your desires.

The 2.8 came stock with an "airbox" no more restrictive than any 70's 302, and as for the 2.9 airbox, I wouldn't know...mine has a K&N on the throttlebody (on there when I bought the truck).

I brought up Broncenstein as a clear example of some of the potential available for the 2.8. 200 hp and a 7400 redline with 32's and 4.10 gears with enough torque to lift the front wheels in 2lo on dry pavement. I miss the truck, but the engine is waiting to find its new home in a Mustang II.

No reason NOT to put in a HV oil pump if you're replacing it anyway, but if the engine is kept clean (I run synthetic oil only) there's no real gain. I'd rather fix the maintenance issue rather than mask it, and with an accurate gauge I've never had cause to complain about pressure loss with the stock pump.

I never disagreed about porting. Use the '74 heads for the highest flow potential. I wouldn't bother porting a stock early 2.9 head though (since they are noted for cracking anyway)

I haven't done much to the 2.9 in my Ranger, so I couldn't say a lot about cam/injecter stuff. I do know there's a lot more build options for the 2.8 than the 2.9 though.

Toyquad
06-01-2006, 08:05 PM
a nov. 85 build date is classified as a 86...... 86 first year on EFI.

once i put durapsark and a non feed back carb on my 83 ranger... never had any problems at all... even got better gas mileage!

In The Zone
06-01-2006, 08:53 PM
i guess what im trying to say is i dont give a rats ass bout the 2.8 as i have the 2.9 with the 58mm tb and it says nov 85 so as far a i am concerned it is a 85 it is registered as a 85 according to the vin

230
06-01-2006, 09:33 PM
so,who ended up pissing farther?

In The Zone
06-01-2006, 09:47 PM
dont matter none any how

it is not like we are talkin bout highperformance shit here just some old 60 degree v 6 crap

given the choice i would stick a 300 6 in

230
06-01-2006, 09:57 PM
that would make my tick go away.How would i now if it was running or not.

In The Zone
06-01-2006, 09:58 PM
lots of torque u will know..

Ugly
06-01-2006, 10:22 PM
uh... i just wanted to know if it was possible?, and now i know....




































That your all a bunch of Quacks :)

In The Zone
06-02-2006, 06:48 AM
Quack Quack

Blue coyote
06-02-2006, 04:33 PM
so,who ended up pissing farther?

This wouldn't count as a pissing match even over at the "other" site....I just take exception when people who dont give a rats ass bout the 2.8 and yet think they are experts on their performance....

And FWIW, a 300 would fit....as long as you don't mind relocating the firewall back about 3 inches from the dashboard face. Gouky over at RRORC tried it a few years ago but lost motivation if I recall correctly

In The Zone
06-02-2006, 04:36 PM
who u call ing a expert....

Blue coyote
06-02-2006, 04:48 PM
who u call ing a expert....

wont work better to pull the 2.8 all together and put a fresh 85 2.9 in it being that they only had the 58mm throttle body that year

and when built right can produce respectable numbers in the torque and Hp on bottom end

regardless both engines float at high rpms anything over 4500

but you are talking cam heads intake all machined and ported as well as new crank oil pump injectors computer ecm. ect....

is it worth it wel thats up to u how much do u want to throw at it..

Yer sounding like a PhD in that post....

And no, its not personal...I'm just havin' FuninBC

Ugly
06-03-2006, 12:00 AM
anyways.... [f] [35]

BigBadB2
06-07-2006, 10:08 PM
I myself have built a 2.9 with 4L intake valves with a 30 degree back cut 5 angle seats fully ported and flow tested by Zoltans flow bench gasket mached intake manifolds Colt cam 58mm throtle body 020 piston protution and yes headers. She went like a raped ape. The only reason why I could do all this is because I am an automotive machinist. If some one wanted to do the same thing it's not worth it. If i were to do it all again I would small block it. Just my 2 cents [cheers]

jeeper
06-07-2006, 10:11 PM
your still going to end up with a b2 no matter what you do :)






Are we havin fun yet?

Ugly
06-08-2006, 05:01 PM
its a capable b2!!! B2's can too flex!!!