Register now to get rid of these ads!

74 Ford 2.8 v6 in a Model A

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by fourspd2quad, Sep 27, 2011.

  1. fourspd2quad
    Joined: Jul 6, 2006
    Posts: 908

    fourspd2quad
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I have tried searching the forums without much luck so I guess I will ask. Is anyone running this engine in their model A? I have a chance to buy a good running 2.8 v6 with only 60k on it with an automatic tranny. Is this a good choice for non v8 power? I imagine it would move a roadster pretty well. At this stage I don't have a frame yet so mounting/clearance issues can be adressed easier I hope. Any reasons not to go with this engine?
     
  2. See how hard parts are going to be, what's that out of a Capri or something?

    There's umpteen you pick junkyards in upstate NY where you can buy a motor for $100-$150 a shot all day long, 30 day guarantee, so there's no reason to just use the first thing that comes along.
     
  3. walls
    Joined: Oct 6, 2005
    Posts: 635

    walls
    Member

    I would say hold off on that motor and consider what it will look like in a Model A.
    Resale is something else you may want to consider.
    Just say you get the car done, drive it around for a couple years and then want something else.
    You'll have a tough time selling a model A if it doesn't have a banger, flathead, SBC, or some other vintage mill.
    Don't get me wrong, do what fits in your budget and what makes you happy. But, it's the same amount of work so, it's worth considering.

    Why not spend the money on a frame? You won't have a place to put that engine anyway;).
     
  4. fourspd2quad
    Joined: Jul 6, 2006
    Posts: 908

    fourspd2quad
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Thanks for the reply. It is out of a mustang 2. I should have mentioned that I want a carbuerated ford v6 and was just wondering if this is a good choice or not.
     

  5. tinmann
    Joined: Nov 11, 2005
    Posts: 1,588

    tinmann
    Member

    Are you ready for the answer that you didn't want to hear? I put that same engine into my '34 pickup over 20 years ago. My thoughts were..... great gas mileage, different from a SBC or SBF, and it would easily fit. Well the truth is the gas mileage wasn't so great. My buddy in a 283 powered '35 truck would spent a couple bucks more on each fill. Different? yeah, but who cares? Fits well? Yes, but so will anything else you care to name. Truth is, the performance sucks. I remember pulling out to pass a semi one time, having plenty of space to do so in any sort of conventional ride.... but the 2.8 V6 just about had me browning my shorts by the time I got past the big truck.

    My advice..... forget the 2.8. It's not worth the effort.
     
  6. Years ago I swapped one into a Mazda rotary pickup. The only thing I changed was the carb. Went to a Holly 2 barrel. It was a great motor and I drove it forever. It is a nicely sized package and should fit just fine in a Model A. The one I had was German built and came out of a 74 Mustang II (as I recall). The Mazda simply rotted away around it. I did the swap in Albuquerque and junked it all in Miami years later.

    The little Ford V6 was never an engine swapping staple and it is certainly not a traditional hot rodding option. That said, hard core hot rodding is about the road less frequently traveled. If that is the way you want to go then break out the wrenches.
     
  7. metalshapes
    Joined: Nov 18, 2002
    Posts: 11,138

    metalshapes
    Member

    I have a couple of cars that came with those V6 engines.

    Some people like them, I didnt...

    I got rid of them and swapped V8's into the cars.
     
  8. PhilJohnson
    Joined: Oct 13, 2009
    Posts: 906

    PhilJohnson
    Member

    Not a big fan, no torque, crappy fuel economy for such a little engine. Had one in a Ranger, it got 22 mpg. Had a 300 six in a full sized pickup with a carb, got the same mileage.
     
  9. fourspd2quad
    Joined: Jul 6, 2006
    Posts: 908

    fourspd2quad
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I'm not really concerned with gas mileage since it won't be an everyday driver. My other toy is a dual quad 409 be lair so 20 mpg is wonderful considering. I don't mind that it's different and non traditional. I want this to be a budget build so resale isn't a big consideration either. I like that is smaller and I won't have v8 fitting issues. Its basically free compared to building a traditional engine also. Been there with the 409. Thanks for all the honest replies.
     
  10. flacoman
    Joined: Oct 5, 2006
    Posts: 75

    flacoman
    Member
    from Sunrise FL

    Gear -driven cam IIRC ; replace the phenolic gear with aluminum before you run it.
     
  11. Just a suggestion here, you might get more of a positive feedback here with the 4 cylinder Pinto engine. You might get slightly better mileage, almost the same power, easier install, and if you search on the forum, you'll see alot of folks dig the little OHC 4 banger, Check out the Esslinger web site too, you'll see what I mean, Best of luck, TR
     
  12. There's also a few good turbo versions of this engines that are real fire breathers.
     
  13. Ride-on Bomb, if there were two equal Model A's side by side for sale, one with the OHC 4 and the other with a V6, not a second thought on which one I would pick. TR
     
  14. Iceberg460
    Joined: Jun 6, 2007
    Posts: 880

    Iceberg460
    Member

    Had one in a '79 Mustang years ago (first car), not a bad engine but its hard to find go-fast parts for. Racer Walsh seems to be the only one who has anything for 'em. Also, IIRC, the are a solid lifter engine from the factory, and they like to rev.
     
  15. The 2.8 is a great little motor. I have had a bunch of them - European Carpi's and Ford Pinto plus the 2.9 version in Ranger's. They have plenty of power if geared right. My Ranger's with the 5 speed and 3.73 gears smoked a lot of junk on the street. The plastic timing gears on the early ones were problematic but there are aluminum ones available. Offy makes (or made) four barrel manifolds for them and I have also run 40mm Weber carbs on them. want to get exotic, there were three 2 barrel manifolds in Europe for them. The motor is the same as the 4.0 that came in Rangers for a number of years as well. The 2.9 was a variant, but did have cylinder head problems, cured with the 4.0 which was in production until 2000, when it was replaced by the SOHC version (which debuted in the Explorer in 97) that was developed from the same motor.
    In 1988 a standard cab Ranger with a 2.9, 5 speed and 3.73 Limited Slip was magazine tested in the 1/4 at 15.5, the 88 mustang GT - 15.0 and the 88 IROC 15.3
     
  16. mtkawboy
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Posts: 1,213

    mtkawboy
    Member

    What they said about the timing gears. If you ever build one put the lifters in before you put the heads on or you will be taking the heads back off to do it. I was a ford dealership mechanic when they first came out, I couldnt count the number of shredded timing gears I replaced. The very first ones were pressed soybean top gears. I never repalced the bottom ones, just a new cam gear & roll it. I wouldnt have one myself.
     
  17. chrisntx
    Joined: Jan 20, 2006
    Posts: 1,799

    chrisntx
    Member
    from Texas .

    Traditionally speaking :) Streetrodders tried these in the 70s and learned they are not suitable.
     
  18. I can think of a lot of reasons not to go with that motor but you won't like any of them. Suffice to say there are a lot of better choices out there some of them are even traditional.
     
  19. If I looked under the hood of a Model A top of the list of what I would like to see is a correctly restored original engine (ok, I know I belong on fordbarn). An original engine with some speed equipment would be almost as good. A flathead V8 always looks good. A late Model 4 cylinder would be ok (Chevy II, Iron Duke or Pinto but not foreign). One of the V8's from the sixties would be ok (Cad, Chrysler, Chevy, Y-Block, Buick). The message is that there are a lot of engines that I would like to see but the important thing is I didn't mention the V6 because it is one of the few things I would not like to see under the hood of a Model A. You will probably find out that it is not something that goes well under the hood of a Model A if you ever try to sell the car. On the plus side it would probably be an easy installation.

    Charlie Stephens
     
  20. Funny how the Pinto SOHC motor is accepted (even though it doesn't look "Vintage" at all) but the Ford V6 isn't. (and I'm building a Pinto powered car right now)
    Just an observation.
     
  21. My next door neighbor has a 31 Ford P/U with a 4.3 Chevy V6 he put in. That's the engine that's basically a SBC with 2 cylinders cut off. He had as much a hard time as anyone putting in a Chevy V8 engine, and I hate to say it, but it sounds like a import with a fart muffler. What a shame, it was a beautiful truck, TR
     
  22. metalshapes
    Joined: Nov 18, 2002
    Posts: 11,138

    metalshapes
    Member

    For me, that is because the Cologne and the Essex V6's are really crappy engines.

    And the V4 version of them was even worse ( had one of those too...)

    Apart from the reliabillity problems, unimpressive horsepower, way too heavy for what they are, they are ugly to look at, and go faster goodies are expensive for them.

    The OG poster said the one he is thinking about is basically free.
    That is about the right price for one...



    The ones I had were free too.
    I gave them away.

    To a buddy.
    But I hope he will come to his senses before he does the swap, and sticks a V8 in it...
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2011
  23. Even the reproduction Model A roadsters in the 70's used the 2.3L four banger in them.
     
  24. dorksrock
    Joined: May 25, 2006
    Posts: 416

    dorksrock
    Member

    Run hood sides! Problem solved... actually, I was looking at this jeep chassis at a local swap last weekend that had the old Dauntless Buick odd-fire V6 in it and thought it might be great for a fun little model t or model a... they sound kinda cool...
     
  25. i don't know - I don't think this Cologne V6 looks bad at all
    [​IMG]

    And of course this Essex, as used in the TVR looks pretty cool [​IMG][​IMG]

    and Come On the Ford V4 is the Cutest little thing, ask any SAAB Sonnet driver
    [​IMG]
     
  26. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    I ran a couple of 2.8's with 4 speed transmissions, one had a 350 Holley 2bbl on it in a MGB gt with 4.11 gears, got 26 mpg. The other one I swapped in my 72 Pinto Runabout with a Air Research TO4 turbo with the wastegate set at "only" 5 psi of boost, it was a lot of fun to drive, and plenty reliable, you just have to know how to tune them (and I put the aluminum cam gears in them before I ran them, that's a no brainer if you want to run a 2.8).
    If you want to run a 2.3 Ford OHC 4 cylinder see the link in my signature for all the info you could ask for.
     
  27. metalshapes
    Joined: Nov 18, 2002
    Posts: 11,138

    metalshapes
    Member

    No thanks...

    Never again.
     
  28. Ha Ha Ha - That little V4 powered many a fork lift as well. :eek:
    As for the V6, I think you are just trying to justify the heresy of putting an SBC in your poor little Capri :D
     
  29. metalshapes
    Joined: Nov 18, 2002
    Posts: 11,138

    metalshapes
    Member

    True...:D


    But to go back to why the Pinto is accepted and the V6 isnt, you are right.
    That is kinda strange.

    The Pinto was introduced in '70, so the Cologne ( '68) was older.
    And its derived from that horrible V4 that was introduced in the early '60s.


    The Essex was introduced in '66 but we shouldnt count that one.

    Even the Brits know its garbage...
     
  30. model.A.keith
    Joined: Mar 19, 2007
    Posts: 6,279

    model.A.keith
    Member

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.