Diesel engine swap options?

[CarmeloS]

the 3.0 with the 7 speed would be awesome with all that low rpm torque available

I second that

Sponsored

 

[Schwaggle]

... I still need someone to talk me out of the 6.7 HO lol (it fits if you relocate the oil filter, oil cooler, and cut a power bulge in the hood.)

While swapping the 8"-12" screen on my Basesquatch, Brian at Midway Ford was telling me the '22 HO has different computers (not sure if multiple ECMs or they split into more, independent modules) but due to that, my wife doesn't want me to attempt to steal the programming from some other HO VIN and "convince" the PCM that it's injector timing has been off for the last 60,000 miles.

Maybe settle and drop in a MY '21 6.7L? Where you at? I'll give you a hand with the swap. If I had unlimited funds I'd already be playing that game, since the Bronco is the only daily driver not running a V8 oil burner. Amusingly enough, my '02 7.3L Excursion gets 25mpg, and her 6.7L won't budge at 18

 

[Schwaggle]

Old school Blue Oval, what about a 6.6L/7.8L New Holland drop? If I remember correctly those mated up to an Allison (542 or 545 maybe?), but the engine has a Ford emblem on the valve cover lol

 

[TeocaliMG]

While swapping the 8"-12" screen on my Basesquatch, Brian at Midway Ford was telling me the '22 HO has different computers (not sure if multiple ECMs or they split into more, independent modules) but due to that, my wife doesn't want me to attempt to steal the programming from some other HO VIN and "convince" the PCM that it's injector timing has been off for the last 60,000 miles.

Maybe settle and drop in a MY '21 6.7L? Where you at? I'll give you a hand with the swap. If I had unlimited funds I'd already be playing that game, since the Bronco is the only daily driver not running a V8 oil burner. Amusingly enough, my '02 7.3L Excursion gets 25mpg, and her 6.7L won't budge at 18

I'm in Michigan, as far as where I am at with the swap, nowhere lol. I have a couple big projects lined up, and engine swap will be the later of the two. That said, I agree, the HO is totally unnecessary and more trouble/cost than it's worth. A 20-22 6.7 with the steel pistons and higher pressure fuel system is what I would shoot for if going the 6.7 route.

The elephant in the room (engine bay) is the weight. It would be a huge hit over the 2.3 ecoboost, and that's not insignificant in a performance off-roader that I intend to use to the limit of its capability regularly. Because of that I had more or less talked myself into the 3.0. It has a pretty insignificant weight penalty, about the same power (but much better delivery), and is about as drop in as it gets for a Bronco engine swap.

If I am going for the novelty and drivability of diesel with minimal difficulty to integrate, the 3.0 makes a lot of sense. The problem is sourcing the engine is difficult and has no cost advantage over the 6.7. Additionally the support chain and reputation of the 6.7 is much better. I just spent the better part of this afternoon doing road load calculations and cross referencing the BSFC charts for these engines and it boggles the mind how good the 6.7 is, its just plain better. The BSFC drops off at lower load for the 6.7 than the 3.0! and obviously maintains that low BSFC to an astronomically higher load. The difference is one of the most mediocre diesel engines of this century to arguably one of the best. I think the poor mileage in the superduty despite the 6.7 BSFC stems largely from the trans cal and vehicle size.

Based on my road load calcs, and manual gear ratios I will literally get 8-13% (depending on speed) better fuel economy with the 6.7 than the 3.0. Insane. Unsurprisingly, at cruise load (even with payload) neither diesel approaches the sweet spot drop off for BSFC, but it's crazy that the 6.7 does reach a better BSFC at low load. than the 3.0. I am still kind of baffled. There are only a few very specific conditions where the 3.0 would outperform in BSFC. All that said, most of you don't care about fuel economy, and it's obvious which one of these engines would give a supercharged 5.2 a run for its money from a dig lol.

At this point I am leaning towards 6.7 and all the hassle that entails, including remote oil filter, oil cooler, relocation of batteries and possibly other modules, and necessitating a power bulge hood to fit over the intake manifold. Getting 20+ mpg cruising and 500+hp with a tune, and power delivery to make a lot of fast cars blush... a man can dream. But like I said, I gotta work through another project first.

 

[Schwaggle]

You certainly don't have to remind me about projects! I just work on them in parallel as best as my stalls allow (which of course means that even if my car is, and has been in stall 2 for the last 3 years, wifey's car comes first).

I can't say I know much about the 3.0L, but the Scorpion (the 6.7L project name for those not in-the-know) is another story; almost fairytale-like in its design, building upon the failures of Intertrationals emissions-choked engines. I swear some of those engineers actually read the forums of the aftermarket and found a way to give diesel owners everything... except mileage, which is gearing but whatever. You can get that mileage with gearing. Are the 3.0Ls the new babystrokes then? Pretty sure I just saw a 150 with the Powerstroke badge not too long ago.

Tangent: I have a 2.3L and already I would like to beef up my front springs: I have a DV-8 front bumper and winch, and I use it to move our 28' car hauler around the yard. Boy does the front end squat! Have to use 4H because the rear axle has almost no traction. There are always alternatives to increase spring capacity- coil over shocks, adjustable coil tension struts like QA-1s here in MN, or outright custom coils from the aftermarket. Maybe a 250/350/450 front coil spring would fit (not gonna go measure it, just saying)- maybe even a Silverado 2wd front spring. Point being, if someone wanted it to work, there's always a way.

 

[TeocaliMG]

You certainly don't have to remind me about projects! I just work on them in parallel as best as my stalls allow (which of course means that even if my car is, and has been in stall 2 for the last 3 years, wifey's car comes first).

I can't say I know much about the 3.0L, but the Scorpion (the 6.7L project name for those not in-the-know) is another story; almost fairytale-like in its design, building upon the failures of Intertrationals emissions-choked engines. I swear some of those engineers actually read the forums of the aftermarket and found a way to give diesel owners everything... except mileage, which is gearing but whatever. You can get that mileage with gearing. Are the 3.0Ls the new babystrokes then? Pretty sure I just saw a 150 with the Powerstroke badge not too long ago.

Tangent: I have a 2.3L and already I would like to beef up my front springs: I have a DV-8 front bumper and winch, and I use it to move our 28' car hauler around the yard. Boy does the front end squat! Have to use 4H because the rear axle has almost no traction. There are always alternatives to increase spring capacity- coil over shocks, adjustable coil tension struts like QA-1s here in MN, or outright custom coils from the aftermarket. Maybe a 250/350/450 front coil spring would fit (not gonna go measure it, just saying)- maybe even a Silverado 2wd front spring. Point being, if someone wanted it to work, there's always a way.

The 3.0 is the "new" baby powerstroke, but there's not much new about it, which is why it just underdelivers compared to the 6.7. The architecture is essentially the 3.0 twin turbo diesel used in land rover decades ago. For the F-150 they switched to a single turbo and a new fuel system (lower pressure still than the 6.7). Its good enough, but not great. the 3.0 from GM is actually new, they did their homework and it shows. It was too pricey an option for the F-150 considering the power and mileage and they killed the option after only a couple years, now its popped up over in Australia in the T6 platform with a few more updates, but nothing foundational.

Sadly there is just no investment happening in ICE's anymore, but I would have rather seen Ford develop a modular power cylinder family on the proven 6.7 architecture. a 3.35 liter I-4 based on the powerstroke would basically make the same power and torque as the 3.0 with probably 20-30% better fuel economy. They could have also made a 5.0 liter I-6 as the entry option for superduty (same internals/injectors). Like I said, a man can dream. But i'll figure out how to get the 6.7 to work lol

 

[Schwaggle]

Sadly there is just no investment happening in ICE's anymore...

I disagree! Someone found a way to make the 7.3L run on the wrong fuel... in it's defense, I'm trying to talk my brother into buying the Godzilla + trans "power kit" or whatever it's called, and drop it into his '66 Muskrat. I know of worse reasons to pull out a 289...

One of the office guys at work has a baby-maxx and he asks me questions about it all the time. Me: "I bought a 7-3 so I wouldn't have to work on Duramaxxes anymore." I've owned an LB7 and while amazing on mileage, painfully lacked the outright brutal power you felt on the on-ramp of a 7.3, way back when we had a 6.6L, 5.9L 24v, and 7.3L for options. I've never owned a Cummins, but learned to hate the ISBs during Covid. That horse beaten beyond a pulp, where would we be right now if not for Isuzu and their piezo injectors?

Also, as a huge fan of the 4.9L I-6, ('83 Bronco, "4" speed 300CI with a crank rear glass lol) seeing THAT built into the "right" fuel would have been a sweet swap for these 6Gs, or even anything in the 70's earlier restomod cult. If someone didn't know what they were listening for they might even mistake a newer I-6 diesel for a gas... a man can indeed dream

 

[TeocaliMG]

Alright folks, I have good news, and I have bad news. The bad news it that after doing more checks. Fitting the 6.7 in the Bronco properly takes way more adjustment than I initially thought. Frustratingly the engine actually fits within the struts and engine bay remarkably well. It's the oil pan to axle and frame crossmember that is the issue. (same for the F-150 version of the 3.0 diesel).

This could all be addressed with a diff drop and removal/replacement of the crossmember (common in the large drop kits). But I really am not enthusiastic about a whole cradle drop kit. I can also lift the engine/trans/body all together a couple inches but that alone is not enough. It would require at least a couple inches of body lift (with engine) and a 3+ inch diff drop.

It's all feasible, but I know that with all that work, the unforeseen challenges will multiply rapidly. I may entertain a fully custom billet oil pan, but that would be a huge undertaking.

The good news: When reviewing the BSFC charts to see where the engine speeds and loads would fall at various road loads (for determining MPG and power characteristics). I had a moment of inspiration. I already need a beefy adapter to join the 6.7 to the 7mt. at least an inch thick, probably 2 to clear everything. For minimal additional width penalty, I could include a gear reduction between the engine and trans.

My first target is a 2:1 ratio, this would essentially double the speed and half the torque output of the diesel. It sounds counterintuitive. After-all the whole point of a diesel is the torque, right? Actually no. Power is what matters, people think they like diesel torque but what they really like is enormous power (compared to gassers) at extremely low RPM. High Torque and low speed means the same power but available sooner and more efficiently. So, by up speeding the output by double I effectively force the engine to a lower rpm and higher load for the same road loads while also shielding the transmission to the delivered torque by half!

The 7mt is rated to ~400 lb-ft, so even at 2:1 the reduction the 6.7 well exceeds that, but its close enough that its probably drivable within the safety factor. (bolted directly up, the 6.7 would destroy the 7mt ). Also my analysis of the BSFC chart shows that I could achieve almost 20mpg at 80mph with the engine at 1370RPM/445nm or 1150RPM/534 nm (5th or 6th gear respectively). That is simply insane. At 65mph the 6.7 would be at ~1000RPM/424 nm getting 24mpg. (same chart shows me at ~17 and ~15 respectively with the 2.3, so its dead on)

The 2:1 bellhousing reduction makes it so I could only use the 500hp (2600 RPM) in gears 1-3. 4th gear at 2600RPM is already well over 80MPH! (Usable yes, advisable, no...)

More info, Peak torque comes on at 1600 RPM, and works out to be ~370 HP (remember, you like the 1200 ft-lbs not because its 1200 ft-lbs, but because it means you have 370 HP at 1600 rpm, which is cruising 75MPH in 5th gear at 22MPG. Imagine cruising, getting crossover mileage (with your lifted mud tire brick) but having access to ~370 HP without a downshift, just some tip-in.

TLDR: I fell in love with the perfect solution to integrate a HO diesel in a Bronco, but the work to fit it all in is absolutely more than I initially made it out to be.


If anyone is interested, if I were to do a 3.0 diesel, I would apply a 1.5:1 reduction. Same logic applies, gets steller mileage, but the power available is basically still on par with the 2.3. So way less fun (but way easier to fit). For this I would consider instead a really low final drive ratio and cross my fingers for the 7mt handling the 3.0 torque.

 

[CarGuy]

Alright folks, I have good news, and I have bad news. The bad news it that after doing more checks. Fitting the 6.7 in the Bronco properly takes way more adjustment than I initially thought. Frustratingly the engine actually fits within the struts and engine bay remarkably well. It's the oil pan to axle and frame crossmember that is the issue. (same for the F-150 version of the 3.0 diesel).

This could all be addressed with a diff drop and removal/replacement of the crossmember (common in the large drop kits). But I really am not enthusiastic about a whole cradle drop kit. I can also lift the engine/trans/body all together a couple inches but that alone is not enough. It would require at least a couple inches of body lift (with engine) and a 3+ inch diff drop.

It's all feasible, but I know that with all that work, the unforeseen challenges will multiply rapidly. I may entertain a fully custom billet oil pan, but that would be a huge undertaking.

The good news: When reviewing the BSFC charts to see where the engine speeds and loads would fall at various road loads (for determining MPG and power characteristics). I had a moment of inspiration. I already need a beefy adapter to join the 6.7 to the 7mt. at least an inch thick, probably 2 to clear everything. For minimal additional width penalty, I could include a gear reduction between the engine and trans.

My first target is a 2:1 ratio, this would essentially double the speed and half the torque output of the diesel. It sounds counterintuitive. After-all the whole point of a diesel is the torque, right? Actually no. Power is what matters, people think they like diesel torque but what they really like is enormous power (compared to gassers) at extremely low RPM. High Torque and low speed means the same power but available sooner and more efficiently. So by up speeding the output by double I effectively force the engine to a lower rpm and higher load for the same road loads while also shielding the transmission to the delivered torque by half!

The 7mt is rated to ~400 lb-ft, so even at 2:1 the reduction the 6.7 well exceeds that, but its close enough that its probably drivable within the safety factor. (bolted directly up, the 6.7 would destroy the 7mt ). Also my analysis of the BSFC chart shows that I could achieve almost 20mpg at 80mph (engine at 1400rpm and 426 nm load). That is simply insane. At 65mph the 6.7 would be at 1160RPM and 338 nm getting 24mpg. (same chart shows me at ~17 and ~15 respectively with the 2.3, so its dead on)

The 2:1 bellhousing reduction makes it so I could only use the 500hp (2600 RPM) in gears 1-3. 4th gear at 2600RPM is already well over 80MPH! (usable yes, advisable, no...)

More info, Peak torque comes on at 1600 RPM, and works out to be ~370 HP (remember, you like the 1200 ft-lbs not because its 1200 ft-lbs, but because it means you have 370 HP at 1600 rpm, which is cruising 75MPH in 5th gear at 22MPG. Imagine cruising, getting crossover mileage (with your lifted mud tire brick) but having access to ~370 HP without a downshift, just some tip-in.

TLDR: I fell in love with the perfect solution to integrate a HO diesel in a Bronco, but the work to fit it all in is absolutely more than I initially made it out to be.


If anyone is interested, if I were to do a 3.0 diesel, I would apply a 1.5:1 reduction. Same logic applies, gets steller mileage, but the power available is basically still on par with the 2.3. So way less fun (but way easier to fit). For this I would consider instead a really low final drive ratio and cross my fingers for the 7mt handling the 3.0 torque.

Is it possible to go with a dry sump setup and greatly reduce the size of the oil pan?

 

[TeocaliMG]

Is it possible to go with a dry sump setup and greatly reduce the size of the oil pan?

Probably, thats what I was kind of referring to with a custom billet set up. Whether its dry sump or not theres a lot of things that still need to be integrated. There's the steel oil pan at the very bottom, thats not hard to find a solution for, but then there's the huge cast aluminum sump with a sizable drop down at the back which is causing issues, and it itself has some coolant and oil passages and interfaces which would all need to be properly rerouted. Regardless, that is probably the way to go for the most efficient packaging all around.

 

[Schwaggle]

For the driveline side of things, this'll sound goofy but I know it functionally exists and operates in this dimension: at the big car show, "Back to the 50's," I ran into a guy who used a transfer case/2-speed transmission (been a few years since I've spoken with him regarding his setup) post transmission for cruising the fairgrounds and highway. Take away the proof of concept portion of *roughly* what he did, and it may spark an idea for a torque and/or gear reduction setup.

My worthless rubles regarding the oil pan? Fully custom lower pan and modify the pickup tube. It's not a high-pressure oil fired engine, so why does YOUR pan need a 13qt pan? What's so wrong with 7 or 8qt including a nice sized additional oil cooler? Don't mind me though,yond work on a totally different level and right now, Guinness is on the easiest level of my shop fridge.

Ahh, the forums: where reverse engineers are born nowadays.

 

[67BroncoG1]

The 3.0 is the "new" baby powerstroke, but there's not much new about it, which is why it just underdelivers compared to the 6.7. The architecture is essentially the 3.0 twin turbo diesel used in land rover decades ago. For the F-150 they switched to a single turbo and a new fuel system (lower pressure still than the 6.7). Its good enough, but not great. the 3.0 from GM is actually new, they did their homework and it shows. It was too pricey an option for the F-150 considering the power and mileage and they killed the option after only a couple years, now its popped up over in Australia in the T6 platform with a few more updates, but nothing foundational.

Sadly there is just no investment happening in ICE's anymore, but I would have rather seen Ford develop a modular power cylinder family on the proven 6.7 architecture. a 3.35 liter I-4 based on the powerstroke would basically make the same power and torque as the 3.0 with probably 20-30% better fuel economy. They could have also made a 5.0 liter I-6 as the entry option for superduty (same internals/injectors). Like I said, a man can dream. But i'll figure out how to get the 6.7 to work lol

I had the 3.0 (lion) in my Range Rover and it was a wonderful engine BUT there is a known issue with the oiling of the crank and bearing failures occur around 100,000 miles. This might have been resolved in new generations of the lion used in Ford trucks not Land Rovers.

https://dieseliq.com/the-4-most-common-ford-3-0-powerstroke-diesel-engine-problems/

I'll also add that these are not simple old school diesels and in many ways are more complex than gas engines.

 

[Schwaggle]

In their defense, those issues have plagued every Ford diesel since the 6.0L/VT365 and 6.4L/Maxxforce 7, which means their flaws have been inherited down from the Navistar engines, with the exception of the crank (and, no DPFs on the 6.0's I've ever worked on, so that's a 6.4L deal only). I only personally know of fuel dilution issues causing a great deal of issues on the 6.4Ls which could cause crank issues, but that's every lubricated rotational surface in those engines that're at risk. I personally am not swayed that the 3.0L is a lost cause for a swap; everything made breaks down and will eventually fail, but if someone takes the time and money to make a radical swap like this, they are much more inclined to take care of it... Like warm ups and cool downs, though liquid cooled turbos are helping to curb wear. The worst part is the dividing line on where the OEM ends and "order parts for this engine using XXX's VIN" begins for maintenance.

 

[CarmeloS]

http://www.rsgear.com/products/off-road-truck-transmissions

Not what I remembered, but isn't there an adaptor for tremecs, make them 4wd instead of rwd, so we can use it here

 

[CarmeloS]

Sponsored