That is the 1.6L Ford Kent engine with the later model crossflow head, it's the same 1.6's that came in english cars like the Cortina, etc, but they didn't have the crossflow head. They also used them in formula Ford racecars. They are good little engines. A friend of mine had swapped one into a 59 Bugeye Sprite, added dual sidedraft 40mm Dellorto's, ported head with bigger valves, and header, that car was a real animal.
I know a guy who used to drag race a Pinto with a 2.0 motor with a turbo, he left the line at 11,000 RPM The car was a national record holder three years. The car has just been restored and will be shown locally.
I've gotta couple of the turbo motors. The CR is lower, so it'd probably be an inefficient dog w/o the turbo. I don't wanna mess with packaging everything, especially the turbo hanging out. I'd like a smaller size engine because I'm hoping for less than half the weight of a Ranger and a lot less frontal area. A lighter engine is also a plus. Thanks, Kurt
2.0 and the 1.6 OHC (Over Head Cam) engines are pretty stout provided that you change the cam oil bar everytime you change the oil filter, Change the cam belt every 10K miles and check the valve clearance every 6K miles (they have a tendency to close up and then wont rev and burn up the exhaust valve) Was a Ford apprentice and spent a lot of time working on these engines. Not sure that the mileage was that good in a Cortina or Capri but in the RS2000 (Escort) they went well and seemed to get good mileage. Came as standard in the RS2000 with a 34/36(?) webber and a sort of tubular manifold. Personally I would go for a newer 2.0 Zetec, my Dad has one in his Focus and it goes like stink and gets 40+mpg. P.
The next-next project in the queue is a Mk1 Cortina, haven't yet decided on a 2-liter Zetec (Focus, Escort ZX2), maybe turboed, or a 4-liter pushrod Cologne V6 (Ranger, Explorer) with triple DCNF-type throttle bodies, both basic motors are readily available junkyard items. Leaning toward the V6 right now. If one wants to roam the junkyards afield of the Ford space the Saab B204/B234 motors are very strong, '95-up versions use the GM Ecotec bolt pattern and should bolt up to an Aisin 5-speed out of a Colorado/Canyon though the gear spacing might be a bit wide, as with the Zetec you'll have to deal with adapting the transverse FWD coolant, intake. etc. plumbing to an RWD layout (various Brit vendors have off-the-shelf bits for the Zetec, it's a very common swap motor over there.) I'm told I may have a good running B234T falling in my lap...not sure yet what I'm going to do with it... Once again this all presupposes use of a modern motor vs '60s (1600 Kent) or '70s (2000 OHC Pinto, 2.3).
Are you sure that the 4.0 litre v6 is a cologne engine. I know that the 3.0 litre V6 in my 03 Ranger is NOT a Cologne but something else (I think they called it Bullett or something like that. I know one thing, if you are going V6 in your Pinno you are doing the right thing. Them 4 cylinder engines with an automatic is got to be the most gutless wonder ever. My brother had one with the 2.3L and the slowest Dynaflow equipped Buick would still tear up those Pinners. Vega, now that is a very long story!!! Most everyone I followed smoked till it started knocking, then siezed up. Another engineering wonder of GM.
The 4.0 is a Cologne V6 and is completely different from that pig known as the 3.0 Vulcan V6. Even though the 4.0 is only used in American market vehicles, it was still made in Cologne, as is the newer SOHC 4.0 V6. The 3.0 Vulcan is a gutless wonder that gets lousy mileage. As for the Pinto 4 bangers, the 2.0 cars went pretty well, they made just over 100 HP.. The 2.3 came out in 74 and was so straddled with smog crap it only made 88 HP (still more than a Flat Head!) and 118 ft lbs TQ, and the cars got heavier with all the 5mph bumpers and other safety mandates. They did make turbo versions that made 190 HP and then SVO Mustang version made 205 HP!
Ha Ha, that Vulcan can probably kick the shit out of most 4 litre colognes. I know mine eats 4.3 v-6 Chevy S-10's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. MPG is 22mpg! You must be thinking of some other POS. My truck has over 100K with 5 speed automatic, and believe me I bought it for the responsive powertrain, so either mine is one of the good ones, or the ones you know of are just plain shot. Most of those Pinnos had automatics that were just plain dead with any engine. Now a 77 Pinno wagon and 5 speed stick would go 60 in first gear alone, had some really tall gears, that made it a bit sensative starting out in 1st.
Ford had a busload of different V6s. The 'Cologne' motors started off as a 1.5-1.7L V4 (German Taunus, Saab 95/96, lots of industrial applications like forklifts and water pumps) and a 2.0 / 2.3L V6 in the mid '60s. Then 2.6, and 2.8. These motors had somewhat odd heads with siamesed ports (3-into-2 on the V6) and even the V6s have the wide asymmetrical pan rail where the V4s had a balance shaft. Then a 2.9 with 3-port heads, a big-time punch-out to 4.0 for the US trucks with new heads and better valvetrain, a Euro-only 2.9 w/Cosworth DOHC heads (a very popular swap engine in the UK but they make no power stock), and the SOHC 4.0 with the funky both-ends-of-the-block cam drive for the trucks and Mustang. The 'Essex' V4/V6 was a UK-built design done in parallel with the 'Cologne'. Nothing special. Supposedly quite heavy. The 'Vulcan' was Ford's version of the Chevy 60-degree V6, I guess Ford decided the Cologne V6 wasn't adaptable enough to FWD or something. The '89-95 Taurus SHO V6 was designed and built by Yamaha, it shared lots of dimensions (bore centers, bearing sizes, etc.) with the Vulcan but didn't share a single nut, bolt, or bearing shell with it. These were all 60-degree engines. Then you have the 3.8/4.2 90-degree US motor cribbed off the Buick 3.8 sometimes called 'Essex' but nothing in common with the UK one and usually cursed at for blown head gaskets, and the 2.5/3.0 'Duratec' 60-degree V6s, and the recent 3.5/3.7 Duratec V6 which shares nothing with the 2.5/3.0. And I'm probably still missing a couple (the Mazda V6 in the Probe comes to mind...) Was the SOHC 4.0 used in some Land Rover models? The 2.0 was a good motor. The whole period from '73 up to probably '82 is best forgotten as far as Detroit motors are concerned. The first turbo 2.3 was a 127HP carbureted thing in the late '70s, remember this was a point where 302s were rated 120ish net and barely making that. The first EFI 2.3 was around '82 in the Thunderbird, 145HP. Then 175 in the Merkur XR4ti and SVO Mustang and 205 in the last SVOs.
The Brits more often than not run them carbed in kit cars e.g. Westfields, but I'm not sure about the conversion details.
I have owned 3 Rangers with 4.0 and one with the 4.0 SOHC. I also owned one with the 3.0. (as well as a 2.9 and 2 2.3 4 bangers) I bought the 3.0 truck new with a 5 speed and it was such a DOG that I took it back 2 weeks later and traded it for a 4.0 5 speed with 3.73 gears. That thing HAULED ASS compared to the 3.0 When I bought my last one, a 2008, I drove them back to back and there was no comparison. The 3.0 made 148 HP and 180 TQ (Hell the 2.3 4 cyl made 143 HP and 154 TQ) and the 4.0 made 207 HP and 238 TQ - I bought the 4.0 with 5 speed auto They dropped the 3.0 after 2008 due to lack luster sales. I was told by more than a few Ford folks that the 3.0 was only offered because they were essentially excess capacity Taurus motors that they had to put somewhere!
I have a stock '72 2.0 Pinto in my modified with a C4. Runs great. Parts a getting hard to come by, a better choice now would be 2.3. Esslinger has a ton of performance parts.
I bought a new pinto in 73 that had the 1600 cc overhead valve cast iron engine. It was a good engine without any problems.
Does the 2.0 or 1.8 have a front or rear sump oil pan in the Capri, Pinto, or any other US models? Thanks, Kurt
The one in my '84 Ford Sierra has a front sump, and I'd guess that the Capri might be the same. They're robust little engines and apparently the later '205' blocks can be punched out to 2.4 litres using Cologne 2.8 V6 slugs and a heck of a lot of decking of the block. That's probably the way we'll go with the little wagon and with a mild street cam should put out some useable power.
I ran oval track with a pinto mini stock race car about 20 years ago. 2.0 motor, block milled, head shaved, cammed, amazingly quick. sent the stock cam out to be reground. Blew a motor when we lightened the rods and didn't shot peen them. 5 quarts of oil coming out of turn 4 spilled on the asphalt track. Caused quite a pileup
The common configuration for the "Pinto" 2.0 is front sump. Some were rear sump, I think they were on the Capri. The 1600 Kent is a nice little engine, light and tough with good power, but might come up a little short on oomph in a heavy project. The 2.0 is a good engine, but heavy. Its short coming is small cam bearings. Add about 50 pounds for the 2.3. Word is the Ford engineers were in a time crunch to get it on the market and had neither the time to engineer the engine on paper nor the computer power to do it the modern way. So they erred on the side of side strength and weight. The Zetec is a good engine but no way your going to run a carb and dizzy without spending big bucks and or hours. An engine worth investigating is the Tempo 2.3. It is not related to any Ford 4 banger, but was derived from the 200 inch six. Don't know about all model years, but the earlier ones used dizzys and either a carb or TBI. They have the same bell pattern as the Pinto 2.0, which means a Ranger 3.0 tranny will work, or any 2.3 "Lima" tranny with some modification. They were all fwd, so motor mounts might be a challenge. Bill
I love Ford's little 2.0 motor, stout, lotsa performance goodies for it, long history (relatively speaking). I also like Mopar's 2.2, although it has great performance, goodies are hard to come by. It was a great motor, short production life unfortunately.
I worked at a chevy dealership during the block problems. We replaced many blocks under warrenty. Replaced blocks and pistons. The word going around then was that the Vega was the 1st car GM built that started rusting before it left the factory. The 1.6 and 2.0 were both good engines. The 2.0 was fast and durable, we had a new Pinto racecar at the Ford dealership I went to. Holley, headers and a cam.The 2.0s were popular with old Jeep owners. The 2.3 Lima is a good engine too.
Here is my 2300 Ford Lima in my Miller race car replica. Actually, this engine and C3 transmission came out of a Mustang but it is the same engine the Pintos used. I made the OFFY exhaust header and the intake manifold for a single side draft Weber carb. Also, check out my 2 litre AlfaRomeo engine in my Watson roadster. OFFY exhaust header and two dual throat side draft Weber carbs. Transmission is an Alfa 5 spd manual. mac miller in INDY
The 2.0 were the best, had one years ago in a sandrail with a VW trans and an adaptor. You should google Racer Walsh for parts, speedway has a ton of parts also, they are very popular around here with the starter class on the dirt modifieds, not super expensive to build.
I hate to be "that guy," but how did a pinto engine thread make it this long? my dad swears by the 2300's and I spent my childhood in a dookie brown pinto wagon but.......
I know nothing about the small Ford engines (I always use the Chevy II /Mercruiser type) but I think I remember hearing that one was preferred due to the location of the starter and steering issues. Charlie Stephens
I raced a 2000cc pinto motor against 2300cc pinto motors and it kicked their butts on 1/3 mile or shorter tracks....the 2300 had more top end on the 1/2 mile tracks.....the 2000 would put out 279 hp....not bad for a motor that.... Started out with 104hp .....cranked that thing at 9700 rpm all day long
Don't hold me to it but I believe the smaller displacement engines are push rod motors. I have owned a couple of 2.0s they are a real stout little engine.
The 1.6 (English) & the 2.0 (German) were both good engines. 2.3, not so much. I recall being impressed on the size of the rod bearings on the 1.6. The 2.0 was an OHC w/mechanical followers to adjust the valve clearance. Only drawback was the oil line on the head that would plug up & wipe the cam out. Replaced more than my share of 2.0 cam under warranty. The 2.3 had more than its share of problems. Anyone remember the piston recall in the 70's? Helped finance my divorce back then.
Plenty of speed parts available from places like Smiley's and Speedway, they use the engines in circle track racers.
The Jalopy Journal
