4.2L v-6

Old Jul 29, 2008 | 04:02 PM
  #1  
pennystockart's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
4.2L v-6

will a 4.2L v-6 out of a 2002 f-150 fit into my 1997 4.2L f-150 ? saw on efor sale and it did not list mine as compatable. thank you for your replys in advance.
 
Reply
Old Jul 29, 2008 | 05:14 PM
  #2  
dirtyd88's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2
From: Burleson, TX
i would think it would. it might require new electronics/computer, and it might mount alittle differently...

but i would think it should work.
 
Reply
Old Jul 29, 2008 | 07:14 PM
  #3  
lowflyingbird's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
From: NewYork
check into

The intake manifold and other gaskets online with Autozone. This might tell you if anything changed. Ford did do some different heads on the 3.8 and 4.2. If the heads did not change then everything else should be easy after that. You might need to re use your intake or EGR setup too.
Lowflyingbird
 
Reply
Old Jul 29, 2008 | 07:47 PM
  #4  
dirtyd88's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2
From: Burleson, TX
Originally Posted by lowflyingbird
Ford did do some different heads on the 3.8 and 4.2.
Ford has never put a 3.8 in a F150...unless yo uare talking about taking heads from a V6 mustang and putting them on the 4.2....
 
Reply
Old Aug 9, 2008 | 03:23 PM
  #5  
AlfredB18's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 500
Likes: 1
From: La Porte, TX
Originally Posted by dirtyd88
Ford has never put a 3.8 in a F150...unless yo uare talking about taking heads from a V6 mustang and putting them on the 4.2....
The only real difference between a 3.8L and 4.2L of the same vintage is the crank and some bore.

They are the same engine for the most part. Even the heads, I bet.
 
Reply
Old Aug 9, 2008 | 04:41 PM
  #6  
dirtyd88's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2
From: Burleson, TX
i think they are built using the same core block, but im not sure about everything else. i think VMP tuning talks about it some on their site. maybe it needs to be googled...
 
Reply
Old Aug 9, 2008 | 05:06 PM
  #7  
Raptor05121's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,610
Likes: 7
From: Live Oak, FL
The 4.2L is a bored 3.8L with a different upper head. The difference between the 1997 and 2002 4.2L is that between those years Ford switched to a aluminum intake manifold. Mounting is 100% the same as the 97. I know this because my 1998 engine blew out in 2002, and was replaced with a 2002 engine with alum manifolds. (haha dirtyd, mine are alum and not plastic )
 
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Aug 9, 2008 | 11:50 PM
  #8  
dirtyd88's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2
From: Burleson, TX
yea...you suck! lol
 
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2008 | 05:40 PM
  #9  
glc's Avatar
glc
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Veteran: Navy
Veteran: Reserves
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,538
Likes: 817
From: Joplin MO
Ford has never put a 3.8 in a F150
Technically incorrect - they DID in 1982 and 1983.
 
Reply
Old Aug 28, 2008 | 07:17 PM
  #10  
timmypstyle's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,553
Likes: 1
From: CO
Originally Posted by Raptor05121
The 4.2L is a bored 3.8L with a different upper head. The difference between the 1997 and 2002 4.2L is that between those years Ford switched to a aluminum intake manifold. Mounting is 100% the same as the 97. I know this because my 1998 engine blew out in 2002, and was replaced with a 2002 engine with alum manifolds. (haha dirtyd, mine are alum and not plastic )
the 3.8 and the 4.2 have a bore difference of .01. the 3.8 is 3.80 and the 4.2 is 3.81. the bigger difference is the stroke.
 
Reply
Old Aug 28, 2008 | 11:25 PM
  #11  
Fifty150's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 28
From: The Barbary Coast
Originally Posted by glc
Technically incorrect - they DID in 1982 and 1983.
1982 & 1983?

Dude, I wasn't even born yet.
 
Reply
Old Aug 28, 2008 | 11:38 PM
  #12  
timmypstyle's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,553
Likes: 1
From: CO
Originally Posted by Fifty150
1982 & 1983?

Dude, I wasn't even born yet.
dude, thats rude! aww hell either was I lol
 
Reply
Old Aug 29, 2008 | 11:50 AM
  #13  
glc's Avatar
glc
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Veteran: Navy
Veteran: Reserves
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,538
Likes: 817
From: Joplin MO
That shows how long the basic design has been around. If an engine family has a 25+ year run, that generally speaks well for the reliability.
 
Reply
Old Aug 29, 2008 | 07:34 PM
  #14  
timmypstyle's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,553
Likes: 1
From: CO
Originally Posted by glc
That shows how long the basic design has been around. If an engine family has a 25+ year run, that generally speaks well for the reliability.
usually but also usually they are kinda crappy when they start out but they tweak them or whatever and the become amazing engines. ive heard the 2.3L I4 in the rangers and mustang II's and other cars was crap when it first started but they made them a lot better, i could be wrong, its just hear-say.
 
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 AM.