74 Ford 2.8 v6 in a Model A

Let's face it hot rodding started when guys wanted to strip down and hop up old cars (mostly Fords) by adding more modern and faster running gear. By and large the gear of choice was a flathead or SBC.

By now you realize that there are a lot of traditionalist on this site who feel that anything else would be heresy. So be it. I got nothing against traditional rods, however those of us who still remember the days also remember the old rule was "build what you got". Today if you built a "T" bucket with a VW double beam frontend you would be hassled yet that's what rodder did not that long ago.

I have to wonder how things would be if there were 2.8 or 4.3 V6's in hot rods back in the '50's. Would they be more acceptable today.

It's your car. Build it your way. That's what old time hot rodders did.

 

You are completely missing the point...

What I was trying to say is,

If you want to go out on a limb, do it with something that is worth while.

And my personal opinion, as a former owner of this engine, it is not...

 

Nothing personal Metalshapes. Your comment on the engines reliability is probably one on the most relevant of any. My comment was a response to fourspd2quad original post. There isn't anything wrong with building what you got.
Truth be told while there is a lot to be said for hot rod tradition and the look of motors like the sainted flathead, but let's face it they ain't exactly the best horse in the barn either....and I'm a flathead guy.

 

Thanks to everyone for their opinions pro or con. That is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to get. Like I said the appeal is that it is dirt cheap, runs well, comes complete with tranny, would be a ford in a ford. I know it is definitely unconventional and nontraditional and maybe a bit underpowered (although better than any stock flathead I guess). There arent a boatload of performance goodies for it but enough available to make perform better than the 115 or so ponies it has. Done right I dont think it would look much different than a 289 (although fit better) minus a couple lungs.

 

It's pretty easy to get these motors up to 140-150 HP. They only weigh 305 lbs so they are about 200 lbs lighter than a Flatty. They also respond very well to turbos. I had a Capri with a Spearco turbo kit that made a little over 200HP and was totally street-able.

 

Where were you yesterday when I was getting my entire build post removed? (for supposedly being "OFF TOPIC" just because I am dropping a 56 F250 body onto a 92 Crown Vic chassis and having 20" wires on it)
I made a point about "traditional" rods being built with what was available to the builder cheap or free and next thing I knew... POOF my whole thread was gone....


AS to the Original Post here...... If you are happy with the engine choice, and feel comfortable with the choice... GO FOR IT!!! you will get flamed by the ones who believe the only way to go is a flattie, but in the end, IT'S YOUR CAR, YOUR CHOICE. If someone doesn't like it, they can move on... but some will wanna give you flack for having a "too new" powertrain... ignore those people, they really don't understand TRUE HOT RODDING...

Just my $0.02... feel free to refund it if you dont like it

 

REALLY? You don't get how a 92 Crown Vic and 20" wires don't belong on the HAMB? Maybe go back and rear this again, you did read it when you joined up right? http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44274
This board isn't about ALL THING HOT ROD, IT is about an Era and general style or feeling about something called Traditional Rodding

And do you really have a Maverick with a 514? Would like to see that posted over here http://www.dogfightmag.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?2-The-DOGFIGHT-Forum the HAMB's sister site

 

I wouldnt be doing it to please anyone other than myself and Im not concerned with resale. Heck I have a hemi air cleaner on my 409 dual quad setup, because I personally like it and it didnt cost a grand like a dual quad factory repo. To me it's also about what is practical, creative,looks good and is cost effective. Its not about pleasing others so much not to offend anyone but i dont mind being different.

 

I've owned a few of these engines and I have to say, if there's any other cheap alternative available that can fit in your cr and make it road legal, don't use the cologne V6. For my 2500lbs OT car which came originally with a 114 hp 2.3 V6 , the stroked 2.9 i'm building is perfect, as it looks just like the original engine, and will produce around 200 hp. Finding a 200 hp small block would have cost me less (but would be heavier, require more modifying of the car, and attract the cops)
It does produce decent torque for it's external size though, and was available in the fall of 1964,(1960 as a v4, and it powered the original mid engined Mustang concept) so it's traditional, in Germany...

 

that v4 is cute, maybe turbo ( or maybe three 1 barrels.. doubt it fit tho ok.. i have no idea how much space there is on the v4 intake.. but hell we can make a tunnel ram type intake to get them up in the air above the distributor, and good to go.. or maybe some vw solex pict 32's.. heh.. i want to see it now damn it.. photoshop ayone?)in a speedster?
i love the 409 valve covers so unique.. anyone bitches about the hemi air cleaner just tell them its a hemi eater
chris.

 

How about the Saab rally dual weber intake for the V4

 

Used to have a rusted 73 Capri 2.6 car that was fast for a small car back then... and was reliable with over 100k miles on it.So when the driver's door rusted off I found a nice 76 Capri 2.8.That dog couldn't get out of it's own way.Besides being a very unreliable car.
My memory of the 2.0-2.3 engines is not good either,everyone I saw just had a cam replaced or needed it done.And if you ran it another 30K miles,time for another cam.................
With the right parts I guess they all are ok........