spitfirebill said:
John Brown (Forum Supporter) said:
If it matters at all I would choose the LS if you are running an automatic and a 5.0 if you are running a stick.
The T5 will hold up to a 5.0 in the truck very well. I punished mine with 11.70 runs for three years on a 4.10 gear driving like an idiot AS LONG AS THE GOOD QUALITY AFTERMARKET SHIFTER HAS BEEN ADJUSTED PROPERLY.
The LS can just have a properly built 4L60/80e.
Personally, I don't like towing a trailer with a stick shift. I certainly wouldn't want to be trying to pull a 3500lb rig out of the water on a wet ramp with one.
I prefer it hands down. Low range on the transfer case makes it a complete non-issue. After years of running transmission repair shops, I firmly renewed my love of manual transmissions. Seeing the damage done by just light towing in most automatics is enough to make me steer clear. I can replace a clutch in an afternoon for $200. An automatic? Try a week at a shop and $2000.
I love the idea that (once the clutch is engaged) you have a physical, steel-to-steel connection between the input and output. No valve body, no hydraulic circuits, no paper clutches, no torque converter to heat up the fluid, no paper clutches to burn up consumable parts, just hardened steel bathing in oil.
Into the third page [edit: fourth page], and there's no one extolling the wonders of a Jaguar V12!
What a relief.
Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:
spitfirebill said:
John Brown (Forum Supporter) said:
If it matters at all I would choose the LS if you are running an automatic and a 5.0 if you are running a stick.
The T5 will hold up to a 5.0 in the truck very well. I punished mine with 11.70 runs for three years on a 4.10 gear driving like an idiot AS LONG AS THE GOOD QUALITY AFTERMARKET SHIFTER HAS BEEN ADJUSTED PROPERLY.
The LS can just have a properly built 4L60/80e.
Personally, I don't like towing a trailer with a stick shift. I certainly wouldn't want to be trying to pull a 3500lb rig out of the water on a wet ramp with one.
I've done that multiple times without any difficulty (pulling a heavy boat out of the water with a stick shift) with my first gen Tacoma. The answer was having it in 4 low, and I'm sure that the low RPM torque of the TRD supercharger didn't hurt. I don't think I ever had to lock the rear diff.
It was it was actually kind of fun. It had the hand operated parking brake so you could give a touch of throttle, get the clutch almost engaged, and release the brake while rolling into the throttle and easing out the clutch all at the same time. Sounds complicated, but was really easy, and the rig would just pop out of the water and up the ramp.
My wife did it perfectly on her first try on a wet and steep ramp.
On mine, I have manual hubs so I have the option of 2-lo which is what I use on concrete ramps. It's low enough that I just hold the regular brake and let the clutch out. When it engages I ease off the brake. No throttle needed.
Plus, I refuse to give up my stick for the other 365 days in the year just because I am launching a boat on a dozen of those days.
Here's a way out there idea:
I'll give you a 5.0 if you come pull it from my Cougar.
Then I'll just need someone to donate a 351 stroker motor to me to replace it. 
I'm going to rule out the LS. Not that it isn't a good suggestion, but no one makes an oil pan that would fit and the accessories will be all up in the crossmember. That would be a sweet swap, but there would be tons of customization.
3.8L: Good option to consider. Also possible to get a supercharged version if I want to pony up for the 93 octane. Downside: That has the Lima bolt pattern, right? That limits me to M5R1 and T5.
4.2L: I'll look into it. One of the downsides to the 4.2L is that it is much like the 4.0L... not much aftermarket and they are kinda wheezy lumps. But that does make me think. M5R2 would bolt up to both the engine and the BW t-case. Downside is that they offer about the same torque, power, and MPG as my next thought which is....
4.6L? I don't think anyone has mentioned the Mod motor. They run forever. Not a ton of power, but plenty of potential. Ridiculously wide though. M5R2 would bolt in.
I see some other great suggestions. At this point I'll take whatever you give, but I should mention that there is an emphasis on simplicity and (of course) cost. Sometimes you can get an adapter kit for $300 to put engine A with trans B... other times they are $1300. If at all possible, I would like to do this with something that matches... if for no other reason than parts availability. If I break down on a trip I don't want to have to call up Novak and have it take a week to get their proprietary CNC machined pilot bushing for $50. I'd like to stop at NAPA and get a stock part for $5.
I recently bought a Passat with one of the 2.0 TDIs... doesn't really seem like a good towing motor. And I'm not a fan of boosted motors for towing - they tend to build up too much heat if you keep them on boost for a long time. So I'm thinking gas powered V8 swap here.
The 5.0 seems like the easy button - grab an Explorer 5.0 donor, move over everything. As appealing as an LS swap is, the single donor with everything solved would make a 5.0 swap the simple choice.
Or if you're a glutton for punishment, how about a 460? 
matthewmcl (Forum Supporter) said:
The NSG370 never went into the Cherokee from the factory, but it is an easy/awesome mod. The Liberty NSG370 only works with the Liberty motor, something about the input shaft being too short to work with an adapter. You would need a NSG370 from a Wrangler Unlimited early enough to still have a 4.0. Could be getting rare. It is an integrated bellhousing, so it gets a little bit picky.
I'll have to dig into this more. I see they come with the late Daimler pattern, a Mopar pattern, and an AMC pattern. If I can maybe find a Benz diesel that would bolt to it, that might be the ticket.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
I used to do a fair amount of towing with a 4.2 in my Econoline. It actually did a pretty good job at it. It would cruise down the road with 4000 pounds behind it and not complain.
The 4.6 is a wide lump but it came in the Explorer so it should fit. It may be more common and cheaper than the 4.2.
MadScientistMatt said:
I recently bought a Passat with one of the 2.0 TDIs... doesn't really seem like a good towing motor. And I'm not a fan of boosted motors for towing - they tend to build up too much heat if you keep them on boost for a long time. So I'm thinking gas powered V8 swap here.
The 5.0 seems like the easy button - grab an Explorer 5.0 donor, move over everything. As appealing as an LS swap is, the single donor with everything solved would make a 5.0 swap the simple choice.
Or if you're a glutton for punishment, how about a 460?
Heck, make it a Caddy 500 :)
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:
Heck, make it a Caddy 500 :)
There are some known 460 Ranger swaps out there to copy, though. Not sure anyone's put a Caddy 500 in one. But that would definitely not have a shortage of torque.
I suppose some have had bad experiences with the SOHC 4.0 but I have to report that my 97 Explorer went 215,000 miles on one spark plug change and the motor was fine when my brother nuked the transmission. It still ran like a top when the tow company dragged it into the junkyard. By modern standards it's 205 hp is pretty anemic but compared to my 94 Ranger with the OHV 4.0 it was a true rocketship. It towed fine for me as well.
But if you remain hellbent against them, just do the 5.0 Cheap and common and easy to hop-up as you feel the need.
3.8/4.2 use typical SBF bell pattern. Lots of effort for minimal gain, if any.
Modular has been done. You will find all kinds of interference between the exhaust path and the frame rails.
gumby (Forum Supporter) said:
Modular has been done. You will find all kinds of interference between the exhaust path and the frame rails.
Fortunately, most Mod motors vent exhaust gasses between the manifold and gasket
KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) said:
I suppose some have had bad experiences with the SOHC 4.0 but I have to report that my 97 Explorer went 215,000 miles on one spark plug change and the motor was fine when my brother nuked the transmission. It still ran like a top when the tow company dragged it into the junkyard. By modern standards it's 205 hp is pretty anemic but compared to my 94 Ranger with the OHV 4.0 it was a true rocketship. It towed fine for me as well.
But if you remain hellbent against them, just do the 5.0 Cheap and common and easy to hop-up as you feel the need.
I get jaded from working repair shops for so long. It's not that they're terrible, its just that I don't want to enter into ownership of something that has a known potential for a crappy repair issue. With my luck I'd buy one and have rattling chains in three months.
It's one of the reasons I really like the OM606. They have been known to go 500k, then get modded to heck and make 500 hp, and they go another 200k on a stock bottom end.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:
re: bellhousings: I think the 617 and 606 have the same pattern, but the Vee engines used a different pattern. So the Benz pattern that might be behind the Daimler CRD in the LIberty is likely different than the 606/617 pattern. If that were the case, I'd be all over an OM606/NSG swap.
The CRD Liberty has a VM 2.8L liter which is it's own rabbit hole but there exists somewhere an NSG370 that bolts up to it.
The OM61x uses the old MB inline bellhousing pattern shared with some gas engines like the M123 and M115.
The OM60x uses the new MB inline pattern shared with the M102/3/4.
The later V6 pattern is different as well as a few different V8 patterns such as the M100 pattern on the older engines and the M113 pattern on newer V8s.
As the proud owner of a modular 4.6 with 307k on it, I think the 5.0 will be much easier in this application. As many before me have expressed much better than I can, the Explorer 302 is the easy button. You know it fits, tons of aftermarket, plenty of torque down low, etc.
4.8l LS is you're feeling adventurous.
You seem to want to do a Mercedes diesel, but isn't om606 a little long to fit in the Branger engine compartment. The om617 is smaller, but it is an older design. What about the om602? It replaced om617, and it was used until the early 2000s. It used a mechanical pump, so there is less hassle doing a swap. It also came backed by a manual, and it was installed in some 4x4 applications. You could turn up the the pump or possibly use the one off a om603, if I remember correctly.
In reply to Chesterfield :
A 606 would "probably" fit in a Branger engine bay, thought maybe not with a fan. They're ~32" IIRC. The OM602 is a great choice but factory they're pretty weak. The factory pump can be rebuilt up to some pretty healthy numbers but it's limited by head flow. The nice thing about the 602 is that it doesn't suffer the head casting issues of the 603, however they're kinda rare in the US.
The 606 will fit (by some preliminary measurements) if I do a little bit of core support surgery and move the radiator forward a couple inches. But you're right... a 606 is about 10" longer than the 4.0 in there now. My original hope was to go 606 to an NSG370. The NSG is a few inches shorter than the M5OD so I was hoping to set it back to meet a t-case that kept the stock driveshafts, but I have since learned that the NSG won't fit the 606.
The other Merc diesels listed are fine, but the 606 is the king. 500hp on a stock assembly is easy and takes tons of abuse. Not that I would do 500 hp, but 250hp/400tq would be really sweet.
I think if I could get 275 hp/300tq from something, I'd be happy as lumberjack with a new chainsaw, and a 302 would get me there pretty easily.
Although... the main reason for wanting diesel (aside from the mountains of torque) was that the 302 can get me enough oomph, but it will do it at 14 mpg empty/10 mpg towing. The OM606 could do it at 25 mpg empty/ 16 mpg towing. (that's an educated guess)
The original plan was to find a turbo diesel in the 3-4 liter range that was somewhere around 170-200 hp in stock form and do the standard tune mods (advance injection timing, add a little more fuel) to get in the 250-275 range without black clouds. That isn't as easy as one would think. Americans seem to like their tiny diesels (VW TDI) and their monster diesels (Cummins 6.7), but it has only been recently (the DPF years) that mid-size diesels are really making their debut, and most are complex and expensive. (EcoDiesel, etc)
Strizzo
PowerDork
7/21/20 9:51 p.m.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:
I think if I could get 275 hp/300tq from something, I'd be happy as lumberjack with a new chainsaw, and a 302 would get me there pretty easily.
Ford sells a crate motor that they claim makes 340hp with forged crank, pistons, and rods, aluminum heads (could probably find something aftermarket for cheaper), e303 cam , and rpm air gap intake with a 9:1 compression ratio.
you could probably stick with gt40p heads to build a 347 inch motor and get there with more torque for less $$$
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:
I think if I could get 275 hp/300tq from something, I'd be happy as lumberjack with a new chainsaw, and a 302 would get me there pretty easily.
Although... the main reason for wanting diesel (aside from the mountains of torque) was that the 302 can get me enough oomph, but it will do it at 14 mpg empty/10 mpg towing. The OM606 could do it at 25 mpg empty/ 16 mpg towing. (that's an educated guess)
So do the math. How much would it cost to build a 302 Branger that will achieve your power requirements? How much to get a OM606 to do that? My WAG is the 302 will be far cheaper - and that's before factoring in the price difference between RUG and diesel. Will the fuel mileage advantage really be worth it?
I love a crazy project as much as anyone. But if the main goal is a reliable DD in the least amount of time, I say the KISS principle applies.
I'm surprised at the low mileage estimates for the 302. I've always liked the idea of a 302 ranger, but I figured that it would be capable of at least 18 to even the low to mid 20 range MPG with a manual with overdrive.
Now, this wasn't a jaguar, but I'll still relate it to my own experience with some small block fords in my panther platform 79 LTD. It weighed about 3700, I'm assuming that to be more than the Branger.
Overview: I had a couple of different 302 short blocks, with a couple of different holly vacuum secondary 600 carbs (the 650 double pumper we'll ignore for this discussion), a performer 289, ported and decked E7 heads and a flat tappet Competition cams Extreme Energy 260H. Short tube Hedman headers, cats with dual 2 1/4 exhaust and (of course), three chamber flowmasters. So, pretty basic mild build.
I doubt I had enough cam to reach your goal of 275/300, but I would expect at least 250/275, with more weight, fewer gears (wide ratio gear set in the C4), and a 2.26:1 rear end. 2000 RPM at 60 MPH.
Would a presumably lighter, fuel injected, roller cam, more efficient GT40p heads, overdrive manual transmission truck really get 3-5 MPG worse? That would really be a disappointment to me.
Stock HO E7 headed 302's made 300ft/lbs.
Most moderate can swaps net 250hp/320tq.
In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
I tend to agree. The 5.0 EFI in my 1990 E-150 could manage mid-teens in daily driving and occasional high teens on the hwy, although that was back in the 55-65 MPH speed limit era. It would have buried the 85 MPH speedometer at today's common hwy speeds (literally - I had my CC set at 83 this afternoon and I was getting passed regularly on the PATP).
Simply because it hasn't been said yet: Grab a BMW M57 diesel engine, get the AWD transmission out of an AWD BMW and go with that.
Wow, when it's written like that, without mentioning all the electronic controls to make the AWD work, it seems so simple.
