I'm the worst kind of noob. TDI swap if it can make the oomph

I was a member years ago here and then my account went dormant, but I'm back to pick some brains.

This is going to sound odd, but I want to swap a diesel into an old Mazda B-series truck... basically a Ford Ranger with Mazda stickers on it. I researched OM606 since I'm familiar with them and love them, but too much core support surgery, and a lack of compatible manual transmissions. Also looked at VM 2.8, Cummins 2.8, OM617, etc. Everyone keeps telling me to do a 1.9 TDI because there is a cheap kit that adapts it into Rangers. I keep telling them they're too small because I tow 3500 lbs with it.

I thought I'd come straight to the folks who know more. I know I can get decent HP/TQ from a 1.9, but I'm concerned about EGT and "turning it up to eleven" to get what I need. I was thinking a 3.0L diesel that makes somewhere in the 150-175 hp range stock with some minor tweaks to get 250hp/350tq would be ideal since it wouldn't cost a ton and it wouldn't belch black smoke.

Ranger guys will talk about a cranked-up TDI making 275 hp in their truck and tell me it's fine.

Long story short... current 4.0L gas is a wheezy 160hp/235tq. Is it possible to do a TDI (not necessarily a 1.9... maybe some other TDI) that does more like 200-225hp (and whatever resulting torque) that doesn't belch smoke and won't be asking too much of a TDI's integrity in a towing, foot-to-the-floor-up-a-mountain truck application?

Budget isn't determined yet, but the truck is only worth about $3000 so I don't want to go nuts. I want a diesel, but I could also swap in a 302 for $800 so there is a cost/benefit part here. I can go the diesel way and save fuel, or the cheap gas way and get 10mpg. Modifying the current 4.0L is also on the table, but they have uninpsired head designs and it takes significant alteration to really make them breathe, at which point you are moving the torque peak up which is not ideal.

So tell me... good idea? Bad idea? I could take something in the 3-4 liter range and crank it up 20%, or a 1.9L and crank it up 100%. Your thoughts?

Having owned two 4.0L pushrod Rangers, and my Dad still has one, if you think those are "wheezy" then you won't want to consider putting a TDI in there. Go find a full sized truck with a V8. They are cheap, and plentiful. And FWIW, the Toyota and Nissan 4.0L V6s are stronger than the Ford... although the later SOHC Cologne 4.0L Ford V6 is more powerful than the OHV version like you have, they have their own issues with the stupid timing chains, so I'd stay away from those.

I've pulled a 5k+ pound load with my Dad's truck ('99 reg cab long bed 4x4 with a manual) and it had no issues at all.... it pulls with ease. It also drinks gas with equal ease, but it never has had any shortcomings on torque. Maybe yours is sick?

Full size truck isn't something I want or need. I sold an F150 with the 5.4L so I could get this truck. It handles the 3500 lbs beautifully in every way... except the wheezy power.

Having run auto repair shops for many years, I have done enough OHC 4.0Ls to know I don't want one. They aren't awful, and I could do chains and guides before it goes in, but they also don't really offer an appreciable upgrade in torque, and the torque comes in a bit higher. They basically took an OHV, added some breathing, and shifted the torque and HP up a little. Lots of work for not much benefit.

North America isn't known for its selection of mid-size diesels and it's frustrating.

I have given thought to it being sick, but there is no smoking gun. During the quarantine I decided to do valve cover gaskets (which requires removing the upper intake). Since I had time on my hands and parts were so cheap, I did a bunch of stuff; replaced a leaky radiator, belts, hoses, injectors, and I replaced the coil/plugs/wires with OEM since the PO had used some cheap parts store stuff. EEC-IV doesn't like aftermarket stuff. Also did fuel filter, cleaned the TB and MAF. The only thing I can imagine making it "sick" now would be something like a partially clogged cat which is easy enough to test since I need to replace the mid pipe anyway. I can at least say that there was no difference between before and after all the work I did other than a little smoother idle which I assume came from the OEM ignition stuff.

The whole story is that I bought this cherry, low-mileage, zero rust FL truck and it's perfect in every way... except power.

The weight is really not the issue if it's geared right. No big deal if you have to ascend a mountain pass while towing at 55 or 60 mph on the steepest sections. Besides, it's safer. What really matters (for tow vehicle longevity) is:

• Trailer is braked
• You have effective anti sway & load leveling
• Trans cooler (if running auto)
• Increase oil volume (& adds more cooling) with a bypass filtration system.
• Upsize radiator from stock 1.9 if towing in desert southwest or hot climates.
• Add water injection for sustained, high EGT runs. Generally shaves off 100f or more from EGT.

I don't know why you need much power for a mid size truck doing light-medium duty towing. Stock Rangers (B series) had Horsepower: 143 to 207 hp.

I'd target about 175 hp with 365 ft-lbs torque peaking around 2050 rpm's. That's easily achievable with a 1.9 liter ALH or PD motor, a mild turbo upgrade, nozzles, and a good tune. Reliable all day long.

FWIW: I beat the HELL out of a stock VNT-15 turbo and it regularly saw 960C sustained EGT's literally racing up mountain passes against my brother's Golf. Never any problem.

PS: try the link in my signature for 'Road load calculator). It's showing that rolling resistance will be your 'lowest hanging fruit' to improve:
My reccs:

• Upgrade ST rated trailer tires to passenger van tires like Nokian cLine or equivalent.
• Upgrade trailer tire diameter (max it out in fender wells)
• Run highest pressure that makes sense for your trailer tires
• Run your tow vehicle tires at higher pressure when towing (lots of people forget...makes a difference)

nicklockard said:

The weight is really not the issue if it's geared right. No big deal if you have to ascend a mountain pass while towing at 55 or 60 mph on the steepest sections. Besides, it's safer.
.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the reason I'm upgrading. Gearing helps acceleration but doesn't affect how much torque I can put to the wheels while maintaining speed. My problem is maintaining speed. I don't care that it takes a while to get up to speed, the problem is that any mountain or even a decent hill requires an preemptive shift to 4th, an instant loss of speed when I start up the hill, and another downshift to third where I can usually maintain 45-55 depending on the grade. It's one more slow vehicle in the mixture of 18-wheelers jockeying for slow-speed lane changes amidst everyone else going 75. Not what I would call safe. I'm not looking for crazy power to go 150 mph, just enough torque to be able to maintain speed and not be a cork on the flow of the highway.

Gearing is already pretty optimal for the transmission, and it won't help with maintaining speed on hills. Torque multiplication is a function of the input torque times the final drive, not just the rear axle ratio. It doesn't matter if I have 4.10 gears in 4th gear, or 3.08 gears in third gear. The amount of torque making it to the wheels in both of those situations is the same. Torque multiplication is ultimately selectable with my right hand on a stick regardless of the rear ratio.

As far as towing, it's what I did professionally for many years. The truck has all the towing qualities it needs... except adequate torque.

I don't know why you need much power for a mid size truck doing light-medium duty towing. Stock Rangers (B series) had Horsepower: 143 to 207 hp.

Click to expand...

Mine is 160hp/225tq, but it's not just about the numbers at the peaks. 4.0L peak torque at 2400 and then drop it like a lead balloon. It's one of the reasons a turbo diesel is so attractive; wide, flat torque curves and lots of it. While that 160/225 would be great in a Jetta, it's terrible in a GCVW of 7500 lbs in a truck shaped like a brick with a lumber rack, 32" tires, and 12" of ground clearance making all that drag. Since those other factors are a fixed need for me (work as a carpenter, emergency support in snow and ice, access to a camp property through 3 miles of creek crossings, mud, and rock crawling, towing, etc), the answer unfortunately can't be found with smaller tires, lowering the truck, or improving aerodynamics. Or, rather I should say, it COULD be, but I would be neutering it's functionality and likely spending far more money than just upping the oomph.

Roger. I get that you have expertise towing. Not challenging that. Just trying to be helpful with the experience I've earned towing.

"Long story short... current 4.0L gas is a wheezy 160hp/235tq."

The reason 160 hp seems weezy is because of where the torque peak is. It's sufficient power for towing 5000 lbs up a steep grade, although you won't be first up the hill.

i.e. it's the SHAPE of the power curve that matters so much more than peak values. The diesel is ideal for this application. They love being worked hard, and they have usable power 'everywhere off idle'. I really can't see you slowing below 50 mph in the absolute worst case, steepest, heaviest scenarios with a 4 cyl diesel at 175/360 in the right gear. You'll probably rarely dip below 62 mph. The only exception would be if you have a very heavy AND very un-aerodynamic load putting a lot of wind and rolling resistance on your TV.

You must really be driving a different 4.0L than I am used to, LOL. Maybe your brakes are dragging?

nicklockard said:

Roger. I get that you have expertise towing. Not challenging that. Just trying to be helpful with the experience I've earned towing.

"Long story short... current 4.0L gas is a wheezy 160hp/235tq."

The reason 160 hp seems weezy is because of where the torque peak is. It's sufficient power for towing 5000 lbs up a steep grade, although you won't be first up the hill.

i.e. it's the SHAPE of the power curve that matters so much more than peak values. The diesel is ideal for this application. They love being worked hard, and they have usable power 'everywhere off idle'. I really can't see you slowing below 50 mph in the absolute worst case, steepest, heaviest scenarios with a 4 cyl diesel at 175/360 in the right gear. You'll probably rarely dip below 62 mph. The only exception would be if you have a very heavy AND very un-aerodynamic load putting a lot of wind and rolling resistance on your TV.

Click to expand...

Completely agree. A flat 360 lb-ft is a lot better than a peaky 225.

I wasn't thinking you were doubting me, just that (because I'm a noob) you wouldn't have any background about me.

The load is usually a 19' boat. Not as bad aerodynamically as a travel trailer, but not as good as a flatbed.

oilhammer said:

You must really be driving a different 4.0L than I am used to, LOL. Maybe your brakes are dragging?

Click to expand...

Not dragging. After 500 miles towing the boat a few days ago, none of them were hotter than normal.

160hp and a peaky 225tq will never make me happy at 7500 lbs combined weight. When I bought the truck I knew this, but assumed there would be an easier solution. I've done many swaps, but I didn't anticipate the lack of GOOD and APPROPRIATE swaps in this particular truck.

As I may have mentioned, it's possible there is something about this 4.0 that is not healthy, but compression is perfect, it's relatively low mileage, and everything seems to be operating tip top. The one thing I haven't checked yet is the catalyst for clogging.

curtis73 said:

Not dragging. After 500 miles towing the boat a few days ago, none of them were hotter than normal.

160hp and a peaky 225tq will never make me happy at 7500 lbs combined weight. When I bought the truck I knew this, but assumed there would be an easier solution. I've done many swaps, but I didn't anticipate the lack of GOOD and APPROPRIATE swaps in this particular truck.

As I may have mentioned, it's possible there is something about this 4.0 that is not healthy, but compression is perfect, it's relatively low mileage, and everything seems to be operating tip top. The one thing I haven't checked yet is the catalyst for clogging.

Click to expand...

Price a kit to make an ALH make that much power...yeah it's easy to make an ALH make power but it ain't the cheapest way to make power. I love my tuned 2000 but if I had it to do all over again, I'd probably go the 1.8T route...

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

A pd130 with a gtb2260vk kit will easily do what you want. An ALH with race 520 nozzles, a gtb2260vk, 4 bar map sensor and a good clutch will also do 200 Bhp without breaking a sweat. Add a remote oil cooler and some breathing mods and you will easily go past 200 brakes while feeling/driving better than the pd. The VE engine will do power with bolt on mods, the pd will do it with just a remap !

FWIW I towed 4400 lbs with a BMW 335d. It could easily keep up with traffic and merge on freeways. It had 280/400. And I've towed ~3500 lbs with a pretty brick-like Touareg @ 225/400. It merges with ease and accelerates uphill with ease. 225 is about 100 more than needed with the torque a diesel puts out. I'd say a pretty aerodynamic (ish) boat won't be much trouble with 175/360 at all. Not even remotely challenging. Plus, it'll be a reliable daily driver at that modest power level.

It's when you try to push these 1.9L lumps past 200 that things get expensive.

I'd be looking at the cats as a restriction on the 4.0. If you had to do valve cover gaskets, there may be too much exhaust heat wrecking the gaskets. I had a 2.9 Bronco II with valve cover leaks, fixed them just to have leaks a year later. The two stage converter had the first stage honeycomb melted into a lump plugging the inlet to the second stage. A new dual exhaust and the thing had power to spare.

The problem is, say you make it to 200hp with an ALH, you won't have much duty cycle on it like to pull something up a hill, your EGT will be half way to sun before you get up a hill or 3300 pounds up to highway speed

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

There is a thread I follow on here of a member converting his 4x4 Dakota extra cab to TDI(alh) with NV4500. Last I heard 29 MPG and he did haul loads with it.

Jason

EDIT: here is the thread.

There are decent amount of options to go with when using an alh. It’s all on how you build it in the end and what you want out of it. I didn’t go thru this whole thread to get all the info of what’s going on but, hauling with a ranger just slap a 4BT in it. Or build the alh to accommodate the extra weight here and there.

Somebody mentioned a 4BT. If that fits, that is what you want.

Barring that, I think you are asking a bit much from the TDI, reliability wise. You stated that "a flat 360 is better than a peaky 225". Well, that is obvious. What is also better is a flat 250ft/lbs. A flat 250 will pull so much better than a peaky 225. Horsepower is irrelevant here, build for 250-275ft/lbs torque, with a fairly large turbo to keep the EGTs in check, big intercooler. Plenty of power, and much more reliable. Also cheaper to build.

RT

Only reason I'm not jumping on the 4BT bandwagon is I have seen one crammed into a Scout and in its natural home in a White Compact (small semi). It is a big (read HEAVY) engine. I would be leaning more to putting a 4BT in a F150 rather than a Ranger.

FTR - I haven't done this swap (only dreamed...), just watched and witnessed it done.

Jason

I'd do the 302 swap. Cheaper, easier, way more powerful.

SilverGhost said:

Only reason I'm not jumping on the 4BT bandwagon is I have seen one crammed into a Scout and in its natural home in a White Compact (small semi). It is a big (read HEAVY) engine. I would be leaning more to putting a 4BT in a F150 rather than a Ranger.

FTR - I haven't done this swap (only dreamed...), just watched and witnessed it done.

Jason

Click to expand...

I agree. The 4BT is a heavy engine. Stock power levels are low for durability, so the power/weight ratio is terrible. A 4BT can make some crazy power with the right turbo/pump/injectors, but those parts are more of a niche market than the 6BT a la Dodge Ram, so getting a custom turbo or injection pump can be costly.

6.2/6.5 GM is a much better ranger swap if you'll be asking for more than 200hp while towing
bobbywalter has one (google will turn it up)
they're small block chevy sized, so bigger externally than a 302 but a lot smaller than an 7.3 or 4bt

the ALH will hold up to 300hp, in a light car for short durations
in a pickup asking a much greater duty cycle? I'd be running something like an he221 and only asking for 150hp

ETA: also, do not go with a 302, they're easy to dump in but a total deadend that you'll dump huge money into getting them to run better than gutless stock form. 5.3/80e is a very well proven option for very good reason

6.2, 6.5 gm engines are actually closer to BBC Chevy size and weigh the same, quite heavy

jmodge said:

6.2, 6.5 gm engines are actually closer to BBC Chevy size and weigh the same, quite heavy

Click to expand...

dunno man, complete 6.2 seemed to me about the same size as a 454 shortblock (no heads)
and 454 heads are some big mommas

I had k5’s with both a 350 and a 6.2, 6.2 is considerably larger. Was considering a swap, but sold the one with the 6.2. Last year. Different shape from a big block, but weight of the 6.2, BBC, and 4bt are all right around 750 lbs. range. Owned and played with those chevy’s since the 70’s. My big blocks are all gone, but still have a couple small blocks. After working on diesel trucks I morphed into TDI’s, awesome little machines

4BT should be interchangeable with most 12v stuff as they are basically a 6bt less 2 cylinders. They do weigh around 750. Guess it all on what you want to do my friend. Gas, diesel Or whatever, have to do what fits your budget.