| LocostUSA.com http://www.locostusa.com/forums/ |
|
| Ford OHV V6? http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3273 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | gtivr4 [ February 1, 2008, 2:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Ford OHV V6? |
Seems like a lot of people like the Chevy 60º V6 for swaps, but what about Ford's Pushrod V6 offerings? Are they as compact as the GM units? |
|
| Author: | Miatav8,MstrASE,A&P,F [ February 1, 2008, 7:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Ford Cologne v6 would be close in size for similar displacement. The most recent version is the 4.0L in the ranger. I had a 2.8L version in a 1984 ranger that came with solid lifters. I think it was basically a 70s ford capri engine. It should be easier and cheaper to find a rwd with a manual trans from a small truck. http://www.answers.com/topic/ford-cologne-v6-engine I think Phillipe was originally going to use a Aerostar 3.0L v6-60 ohv. |
|
| Author: | Philippe [ February 1, 2008, 9:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think Phillipe was originally going to use a Aerostar 3.0L v6-60 ohv.[/quote] Yes, my Ford V6 3.0 L was lined up for a reman when I decided to go biodiesel instead. My Ford came from a 1993 Aerostar it was very compact. Shorter than a Ford inline 4 , or so it seemed. The engine was called Vulcan (for all steel including the heads) it was a pushrod system capable of delivering 145 hp @ 4800 rpm stock. My expectation was 160 hp after redesigning the headers and buying a performance chip. In my opinion I still think this is an excellent engine, the most successful (commercially)Ford engine in North America. The Ford Duratec V6 engine, his successor is a much better deal, capable of producing around 200 bhp stock, but more expensive to rebuild because of its sophisticated heads. As an illustration I could get my Vulcan remaned for $1400, wereas a Duractec would cost me 2400$. More on Ford V6s:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Vulcan_engine In hindsight, If someone is going to go for a V engine something a small V8 prreferably Chevy I think is a better idea. For the same kind of money aftermarket performance parts are easy to find which is not the case with a Ford V6. For instance I could not find a source for aluminum heads for my Vulcan...a vital factor in reducing weight... Why did I abandon the Vulcan? In my case, I switched instead to a VW diesel for two reasons: concerns for our dependency on foreign oil supply (i.e. biodiesel can be grown home) , environmental emisssions...and weight. By switching to a VW engine +Suzuki transmission I shaved over 200 lbs. My build which is on the heavy side of the LoCost family could use this new diet. Philippe |
|
| Author: | gtivr4 [ February 1, 2008, 10:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting... What about the 90º Essex motor that came in the Thunderbird, Taurus, Mustang etc? Would that be too physically large? I'm guessing there is some aftermarket for it, given that it was in the Mutang, and Ford had a supercharged version in the Thunderbird. |
|
| Author: | chetcpo [ February 1, 2008, 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
FWIW I've heard that the V6 in the Lincoln LS is a beast but being a twin OHC engine it might not fit and is likely pretty heavy. |
|
| Author: | gtivr4 [ February 1, 2008, 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I found a 3.8L V6 from a Ford Windstar... 200hp, 230lbs-ft and from what I can tell, it weighs in around 350lbs. Just need to find dimensions... |
|
| Author: | Dave [ February 1, 2008, 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The 2.8L V6 from the 80s is not a great motor. Heads crack easily. I'd avoid those. I think someone used a 3.0L V6 from a Taurus a while back. |
|
| Author: | Philippe [ February 1, 2008, 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gtivr4 wrote: I found a 3.8L V6 from a Ford Windstar... 200hp, 230lbs-ft and from what I can tell, it weighs in around 350lbs. Just need to find dimensions...
Coming from a Windstar this engine is unlikely to weigh 350 lbs. You may want to check. My guess is 430 to 450 lbs. On the + side the bolt pattern will probably meet the 5 speed Mazda-Ford front engine RWD transmission. If this is the case your powertrain's weight will be around 525 lbs dry without radiator & power steering pump. Philippe |
|
| Author: | raceral [ February 1, 2008, 11:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dave wrote: The 2.8L V6 from the 80s is not a great motor. Heads crack easily. I'd avoid those. I think someone used a 3.0L V6 from a Taurus a while back.
Perhaps, but the 2.8 I bought new in 1982 went 458,000km before I sold it to some kids who beat on it for a year then wrote it off in a smashup, the engine had never been apart. Personally I think the 2.8 gets a bit of a bad rap. Al |
|
| Author: | Dave [ February 1, 2008, 11:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
raceral wrote: Dave wrote: The 2.8L V6 from the 80s is not a great motor. Heads crack easily. I'd avoid those. I think someone used a 3.0L V6 from a Taurus a while back. Perhaps, but the 2.8 I bought new in 1982 went 458,000km before I sold it to some kids who beat on it for a year then wrote it off in a smashup, the engine had never been apart. Personally I think the 2.8 gets a bit of a bad rap. Al I had a Bronco II that cracked its heads so I'm not particularly fond the motor. It does seem to be a weak spot with them. Great that yours lasted so long - impressive for any motor. |
|
| Author: | Miatav8,MstrASE,A&P,F [ February 2, 2008, 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't remember how many miles my 1984 ranger had before I pulled it for a 5.0L v8. I never had any trouble with it. It used a feedback version of a holley 2 barrel. Offenhauser makes intakes for these. These engines were also in some TVRs. I've heard bad things about the 2.9L v6 but I never had any experience with those. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ February 2, 2008, 5:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ah sorry it was indeed a 2.9L one I had and has the head cracking issues. Sorry about that. |
|
| Author: | erturbo [ February 2, 2008, 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My dad used to own a 1998.5 Ford Contour SVT, with the 2.5 liter Duratec V6. To this day, it's one of the better sounding V6's I've driven. It had a rev limiter around 7K, but felt like it wanted to rev to 10K! It had an Extrude Honed intake manifold, Mustang V8 throttle body, conical air filter, etc all stock. What a great motor! Though, I've heard they weren't built to last more than 100-150K miles, just rumors I've heard. They only made 195 HP stock, but it felt like much more, and had a very linear power band, great low-end torque and excellent top-end horsepower. If I were building a V6 middy, this would be my engine of choice. Awesome motor. |
|
| Author: | Miatav8,MstrASE,A&P,F [ February 2, 2008, 6:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Before I bought the tbird, I bid on a wrecked Contour SVT with a manual, but I didn't win. It was hit in the rear so it would have been perfect. |
|
| Author: | erturbo [ February 2, 2008, 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think the SVT came in anything BUT a manual?.?.?. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|