Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Ford V6 > 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 4.0 & SOHC 4.0 V6
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #16  
Old 04-06-2009, 11:14 AM
court1100f court1100f is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Humble,Tx
Posts: 721
court1100f is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.court1100f is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
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
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-06-2009, 04:32 PM
85e150six4mtod 85e150six4mtod is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,162
85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation
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:
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-07-2009, 04:35 AM
kernel-panic's Avatar
kernel-panic kernel-panic is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yokosuka, Honshu, Japan
Posts: 1,915
kernel-panic is starting off with a positive reputation.
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!
__________________
-1987 Bronco II XLT 2.9L V-6 5-Spd 4x4 'xplorer coils & leafs, MT/R 30x9.50s, 2 1/2" cat-back
-1989 Bronco II XLT 2.9L A4LD 4x4
-2004 Toyota Tacoma Xtracab SR5 3.4L V-6 5-Spd 4WD (K&N air, all else is bone stock!)
-1994 Chevy 2500 5.7L 5-speed
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-07-2009, 04:07 PM
court1100f court1100f is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Humble,Tx
Posts: 721
court1100f is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.court1100f is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Agreed
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-07-2009, 05:51 PM
benshere benshere is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Longwood, Fl
Posts: 987
benshere is starting off with a positive reputation.
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-----
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-15-2009, 12:20 AM
pud pud is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Quesnel, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,948
pud is starting off with a positive reputation.
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
__________________
1987 muteg GT T-Tops
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-15-2009, 05:07 AM
kernel-panic's Avatar
kernel-panic kernel-panic is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yokosuka, Honshu, Japan
Posts: 1,915
kernel-panic is starting off with a positive reputation.
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.
__________________
-1987 Bronco II XLT 2.9L V-6 5-Spd 4x4 'xplorer coils & leafs, MT/R 30x9.50s, 2 1/2" cat-back
-1989 Bronco II XLT 2.9L A4LD 4x4
-2004 Toyota Tacoma Xtracab SR5 3.4L V-6 5-Spd 4WD (K&N air, all else is bone stock!)
-1994 Chevy 2500 5.7L 5-speed
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-27-2009, 05:53 PM
hotweyer hotweyer is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2
hotweyer is starting off with a positive reputation.
strokers

Just as a comment,
The largest stroker crank to be fitted in a 4.0 is 3.625
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-19-2011, 01:18 PM
MJSBII MJSBII is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1
MJSBII is starting off with a positive reputation.
So I know this is a very old thread but did anyone build one of these ?

if so what ended up working?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-29-2012, 04:25 PM
mr99ranger's Avatar
mr99ranger mr99ranger is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Near Morgantown, WV
Posts: 34
mr99ranger is starting off with a positive reputation.
just swap in a 4.0 you wont regret it man
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-10-2012, 07:24 PM
pcmenten pcmenten is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,069
pcmenten is starting off with a positive reputation.
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.
__________________
Best regards,

Paul Menten
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-11-2012, 02:26 AM
xlt4wd90 xlt4wd90 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,533
xlt4wd90 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
I guess you can't wedge a 5.0 liter v8 into a Sunbeam Alpine, like they did in a Tiger?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-11-2012, 11:31 AM
pcmenten pcmenten is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,069
pcmenten is starting off with a positive reputation.
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.
__________________
Best regards,

Paul Menten
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-11-2012, 12:16 PM
TigerDan's Avatar
TigerDan TigerDan is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The hills of No. Calif.
Posts: 11,766
TigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputation
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.
__________________
"alot" is not a word...

Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-11-2012, 12:35 PM
pcmenten pcmenten is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,069
pcmenten is starting off with a positive reputation.
I'm curious to hear what sort of tweaks you did to your 2.8. Valves? Porting? Cam?
__________________
Best regards,

Paul Menten
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2012, 12:35 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Ford V6 > 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 4.0 & SOHC 4.0 V6

Tags
29, 33l, 40, 40l, 43, crank, cranks, engine, ford, motor, picture, pistons, stroker, swap, v6

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
engine swap from 2.8 to 2.9 tom3tone Ranger & B-Series 8 05-25-2007 02:00 AM
Eaton M62 on a 2.9L V6 combo NitrousAl Supercharger, Turbocharger, Nitrous Oxide & Water/Methanol Injection 0 04-15-2005 05:50 PM
4.0 crank in 2.8 or 2.9? gt390dk 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 4.0 & SOHC 4.0 V6 1 04-07-2004 04:44 AM
2.8 vs. 2.9 LxMan1 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 4.0 & SOHC 4.0 V6 3 01-27-2004 10:21 PM
2.8 --> 4,0 Conversion Little_E 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 4.0 & SOHC 4.0 V6 15 09-15-2003 06:05 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup