[BFix] replacing 170 with a 200? 4.0??

[robert goodrich]

my 91 explorer with 4.0 auto gets 25mpg or better on long trips


From: q.dusenberry at comcast.netTo: mail at broncofix.comSubject: RE: [BFix] replacing 170 with a 200? 4.0??Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:19:16 -0700CC: 






I don’t think it would be much more economical the a 5.0L. My 97 Explorer with a 4.0L got just over 14 mpg on a recent freeway trip. Pretty disappointing.
 




From: bfix-bounces at broncofix.com [mailto:bfix-bounces at broncofix.com] On Behalf Of robert goodrichSent: Friday, May 02, 2008 6:27 AMTo: TJ Essenmacher; BFixSubject: [BFix] replacing 170 with a 200? 4.0??
 
why not go 4.0 explorer motor? I heard it's the SBF bolt pattern so it should be the same as a 5.0 conversion but a lot lighter and a lot more economical! I thought of it before I built the 302!



From: tessen at btc-bci.comTo: mail at broncofix.comDate: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:39:16 -0500CC: Subject: [BFix] replacing 170 with a 200?

I have been told that a 200 is a decent improvement from the 170. I have the opportunity to buy one cheap, my question is was will it take to  convert? the 200 is an auto ant the 170 is 3spd. I'm stil gathering parts for the 351 upgrade but if this is quik and cheap enough it'll work until my daughter gets out of college.

 

Thanks,

 

Tim
 



Get Free (PRODUCT) RED™ Emoticons, Winks and Display Pics Check it out!
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_052008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.broncofix.com/pipermail/bfix/attachments/20080502/35ed11cd/attachment.html