to start off with bro I read through entire posts before posting just to get that out there.2nd I'm going by whats familiar and I believe it was the explorer/etc./etc. forum where I mention these V6s are uncharted territory for me ANYway lol with an FE V8 a 4.5 Stroker kit would be a 4.5" Stroke crank I agree 4.5" is a lot of stroke but not knowing this series of engines I was open to the possibility that they could take it. For the record I've openly admitted I don't know awhole lot about this series other than the Stock HP ratings for both inblock and overhead cam versions. now interestingly If you apply the same displacement increases from that kit to the 4.0L the difference is 1.4L going from 2.9L to 4.3L or 1.6L going from 2.9L to 4.5L so with the 4.0L application you would end up with either a 5.4L or 5.6L V6 cause if the original post meant 4.3L out of a 2.9L block the equivelant increase for the 4.0L would be 5.4L and the same logic applies to the potential for the 5.6L either way I'm not arguing or not trying to start a fight it's just interesting to me is all I never knew these V6s had so much potential I figured from a performance standpoint they'd be fairly limited.and agreed on a SOHC Variant modified the same way would out perform the inblock cam variant thats a given...............and your right about that original post I quoted I misread it half asleep lol

 

Fair enough. The 4.0, OHV or SOHC, started life 30+ years ago as a 2.6, with siamesed exhaust ports. It has been likened to the sbc, in that the sbc started at 265 cid, and was taken to 400. You can do a few tricks to make it over that, just as you can do a few tricks to the just about maxed out 4.0 to make it go 4.3. I have to admit even though I "knew" there was no way to fit a 4.5 stroker in that block, it took some looking to figure out why there was a reference to "4.5" in the previous post.

No one died and no animals were harmed in any of these posts, so there is but one thing left to do:

 

Heh. These engines started out as smaller displacement than that, as a V-4 I've gotten info from Morana (and others), and uh, yeah... didn't want to spend that kind of money on a kit or shortblock - and not saying I am going to bore and stroke a 2.8, 2.9, or 4.0, but it's possible one day, who knows. I know as far as the 2.8/2.9, though, you may get as much as 3.5L out of it, but don't expect it to be rebuildable when the thing wears out or the block cracks. There's probably a lot you can do and still keep it/them a short-stroking, small-displacement, fuel-efficient somewhat-better-than-stock powerplant. I agree, though... it's beer time!

 

Agreed

 

For any stroker, the blocks have to at least have the same bore spacing (like all the windsor and clevelands are the same, including the M/400's) after that, the main journals must be at least close. Somewhere around this mess I have an SVO catalog with all those specs-----

 

for kernal-panic
http://www.fordracingparts.com/download/charts/217.pdf

check that out...should help with the home brew, JY pieced stroker parts.
One thing to remember is the actual con rod thickness as well as pin bore

 

I already have that document - thanks, though, pud! I have already done quite a bit of research on the measurements and calculations, etc. The 3.3L Mopar dished and flat-top pistons will work with some 'massaging' (reaming of the wrist pin bore) and/or use of the SBF con rods and some less 'massaging'. IIRC, I believe with a .030 overbore and a 4.0 crank, you can get around 3.4L out of the 2.8 or 2.9. Could be .040 overbore, I don't have the numbers in front of me right now. I don't recall the con rod thicknesses or if there are differences between them on the 2.8/2.9/4.0/SBF. That would be the main factor on what con rods could be used, as well as deck clearances.

 

Just as a comment,
The largest stroker crank to be fitted in a 4.0 is 3.625

 

So I know this is a very old thread but did anyone build one of these ?

if so what ended up working?

 

just swap in a 4.0 you wont regret it man

 

I've got a Mustang II 2.8, a Ranger 2.8 and a 4.0. The pans interchange, so I don't yet see a reason that the 4.0 crank won't fit into the 2.8 block.

The stack-up of 4.0 stroke, stock rods, and Mopar 3.7 pistons works just right. The wrist pin diameters are also very close - Mopar - .9455", Ford - .945"

So far everything works, practically a bolt-together. I'll have to remember to post again when I know more.

And the reason why - Ford 2.8 engines fit very nicely into Sunbeam Alpines. The 2.9 and 4.0 don't fit as well. So, you'd have a Sunbeam with a Ford 3.5 liter engine. Sound familiar? It gets better. The Fox V6 Mustang T5 will bolt to the Mustang II V6 bellhousing with a modification to the bearing retainer. That's something even Tiger owners don't easily get, a nice bolt-in 5 speed.

 

I guess you can't wedge a 5.0 liter v8 into a Sunbeam Alpine, like they did in a Tiger?

 

To put the 260 into the Sunbeam Alpine, they;

1) Cut out the firewall and made a new firewall
2) Moved the pedals
3) Re-shaped the trans tunnel
4) Butchered the steering by installing a MGB R&P

There are a few other mods, but you get the picture. Contrast that with only needing to reshape the trans tunnel to fit up the Cologne V6 and T5 combo.

The Alpine has a 1725cc 4 cylinder. The Tiger has a 4300cc 8 cylinder. We're aiming to make a 2800cc 6 into a 3500, hopefully with just a crank and pistons. That's double the Alpine's engine and without the weight of the V8.

 

Well, the first Tiger prototype (not the one that Shelby built that was the model used for production) was actually much simpler but didn't have a very good F/R weight distribution as they simply plopped the Ford engine into the engine as best as it would fit without hacking sheetmetal, so it came out much further forward than in the Shelby prototype and the production model, so they were able to retain the stock Alpine steering. However, the handling was...let's say, less than stellar. The car was really more of a proof of concept vehicle thrown together over a weekend while they waited for the Shelby prototype to be built. I've even seen an Alpine with a Dodge 340 stuck in it (with everything hacked out of the engine compartment to make room.)

There even used to be a kit available to swap the Ford 2.8 into the Alpine. I built a 2.8 for my '67 S.V Alpine a number of years ago that should be somewhere around 160 hp, never got around to swapping it in though. It's still sitting in the corner of my shop, the Alpine still has the 1725 in it, though more recently I've been toying with the idea of swapping in a Taurus SHO motor.

 

I'm curious to hear what sort of tweaks you did to your 2.8. Valves? Porting? Cam?