302 vs 4.2 v6 bell houseing

[stegomon]

does the 3.8/4.9/5.0/5.8 share the same bell houseing as the new 4.2l v6? :shrug:

[YT90SC]

The 4.2 is a larger displacement 3.8.

[Mister.Roboto]

Yes it does. As was said above, it's an overbored 3.8L. It should also be avoided since the basic engine design was not intended for truck service and you will experience very early failure (many times in 80 - 100K).

 

Although by your post I assume you are looking to replace a 4.2 with a more conventional engine.

[iteched]

Ah - yes - I was not overjoyed to find out my 4.2 wasn't a TRUCK engine, however, mine has lasted 122,000 miles so far and only quit once (bad MAF sensor).

 

Otherwise its been a great truck and I've pulled lots of trailers near or at the trucks tow limit.

 

When it finally quits, however, I won't buy another engine not deemed TRUCK rated.

 

Based on all the bad press on the 4.2, the 97 leak debacle, and its general dislike in the community I consider mine to be an anomaly.

 

:happy feet:

[YT90SC]

I hope that is sarcasm. Don't take this wrong and I don't mean to start a flame war or be disrespectful, but this is what kills me about the 4.2 and the 'press', particularly the internet. By your own admittance, you have had one problem in 122k. But since a very vocal MINORITY have had problems, it must be crap? What qualifies as a 'truck' engine? Remeber the modular engine was originally designed as a car engine too (some say a FWD at that!)..... Short and wide to fit under low car hoods. The only real difference was the intakes and cams between 'truck' and 'non truck'. Even the v-10 is a modular. Granted, I would consider the Windsors to be heavier duty, but there have been plenty of 4.6 Romeos in F-series. So what is wrong with the 4.2 as a base truck engine? And the 97 problems were that, mostly 97MY problems.

[iteched]

Yes - some sarcasm - and no offense taken. These forums are all about debates.

 

However, I wouldn't be surprised if my 4.2 has lasted much longer than average.

 

I've never thought of the engine as crappy - but I'll bet it will never be considered a great truck powerplant by anyone.

 

Any "base" engine should be every bit as good as other available engines - not just a medium to an inexpensive way to get buyers on the lot.

 

IMHO "Built Ford Tough" means every engine, transmission, body, frame, and every other part that comprises the vehicle - no matter what model - is the best it can be under all rated loads.

 

Ford suffers from the vocal minority - so very true.

 

My next truck will be another Ford - but I'll definitely research the powerplants before choosing.

 

[YT90SC]

iteched,

All great points, and truth be told, I am a bit old school in that I like my six holes in a line. (the 300 was a torque GOD and the last 'true' truck engine) The thing is that I really feel that yours is NOT an anomoly. I see hardcore work trucks with high milage all the time with the 4.2, not to mention the highway pounders with higher mileage yet. But I understand that it is hard to deny its lineage. Anyone with a 94/95 3.8 would have been turned off Essex-es permanantly.

 

My only counterpoint is that if the base engine (any maker) was as good as the others at everything, what would drive anyone to upgrade?