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 05-15-2007, 02:55 PM
Skinsfan6's Avatar
Skinsfan6 Skinsfan6 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mathews, VA
Posts: 560
Skinsfan6 has a very good reputation on FTE.Skinsfan6 has a very good reputation on FTE.Skinsfan6 has a very good reputation on FTE.Skinsfan6 has a very good reputation on FTE.
Perhaps the longer stroke of the 2.9 was the cause of the dished piston head...this would give enough clearance between the piston and an open valve at TDC. Are you sure a Flat top piston would not hit an open valve. I'm pretty sure a dished piston is designed to maintain a certain stroke with enough clearance for valves when they are open, such as on the exhaust stroke.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-15-2007, 04:22 PM
rusty70f100 rusty70f100 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Iowa
Posts: 8,600
rusty70f100 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.rusty70f100 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
This is a legitimate concern which would have to be adressed by the engine builder.

Lets take a look at some things here:

The link shows the stroke and deck height to be different between the 2.8L and 2.9L. Lets figure up deck clearance:

Deck clearance = deck height - (.5 * stroke) - rod length - compression height

2.8L deck clearance = 8.084-1.35-5.14-1.539 = .055"
2.9L deck clearance = 8.084-1.4175-5.14-1.461 = .0655"

Now then, a 2.9L with 2.8L pistons:
Deck clearance = 8.084-1.4175-5.14-1.539 = -.0125

So you'd be .012" above deck with 2.8L pistons. Which would probably be alright with a thick head gasket. Or, you could have the pistons shaved about 13 thousandths and have zero deck.

Then you could check valve clearance as has been done for years. Preassemble the motor and check! If you need valve reliefs, a machine shop can do it cheap. People do it all the time. I really doubt they'd be needed though. For one, the 2.9L cam probably doesn't lift all that much, and is nowhere near full lift when the piston is at TDC. Next, and the big factor, these are not wedge heads. The valves in these motors are at a 90 degree angle to the deck. Any valve relief would have to be a perfectly circular plunge cut. Really though, I dont think the valves at full lift would even contact the pistons at TDC. I dont think there's any interference there to begin with!

Also note that they have the 2.9L deck height wrong. It should be 8.084", not the 8.858" like the 4.0L block uses.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-15-2007, 06:54 PM
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty70f100
This is a legitimate concern which would have to be adressed by the engine builder.

Lets take a look at some things here:

The link shows the stroke and deck height to be different between the 2.8L and 2.9L. Lets figure up deck clearance:

Deck clearance = deck height - (.5 * stroke) - rod length - compression height

2.8L deck clearance = 8.084-1.35-5.14-1.539 = .055"
2.9L deck clearance = 8.084-1.4175-5.14-1.461 = .0655"

Now then, a 2.9L with 2.8L pistons:
Deck clearance = 8.084-1.4175-5.14-1.539 = -.0125

So you'd be .012" above deck with 2.8L pistons. Which would probably be alright with a thick head gasket. Or, you could have the pistons shaved about 13 thousandths and have zero deck.

Then you could check valve clearance as has been done for years. Preassemble the motor and check! If you need valve reliefs, a machine shop can do it cheap. People do it all the time. I really doubt they'd be needed though. For one, the 2.9L cam probably doesn't lift all that much, and is nowhere near full lift when the piston is at TDC. Next, and the big factor, these are not wedge heads. The valves in these motors are at a 90 degree angle to the deck. Any valve relief would have to be a perfectly circular plunge cut. Really though, I dont think the valves at full lift would even contact the pistons at TDC. I dont think there's any interference there to begin with!

Also note that they have the 2.9L deck height wrong. It should be 8.084", not the 8.858" like the 4.0L block uses.
110% i agree, and I thought I mentioned the 2.9L block height being off.
__________________
1987 muteg GT T-Tops
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-15-2007, 09:09 PM
rusty70f100 rusty70f100 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Iowa
Posts: 8,600
rusty70f100 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.rusty70f100 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Indeed you did!

However, I thought it would be good to mention it again just in case someone missed it the first time.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-16-2007, 01:45 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.
good idea, thats the only thing wrong Ive found on that page so far.
__________________
1987 muteg GT T-Tops
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-17-2007, 10:53 PM
RacinNdrummin's Avatar
RacinNdrummin RacinNdrummin is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maple Valley, WA
Posts: 2,342
RacinNdrummin is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
The 2.9 deck height is the same as the 2.8, its nearly the same block.
__________________
Smogie- 88 F250- 6.9---->*** Under the knife again*** ...Snow W/M 20gph, ZF5, Valair Ceramic, DNE2 OD, D60 SAS, 4" lift, Bro-wheeled, T-bar'd...

2013 F150 4x4 3.5 Ecoboost CC 6.5'bed
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-10-2007, 10:48 AM
390428cjt 390428cjt is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: G.R. MICH. 49505
Posts: 325
390428cjt is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty70f100
This is a legitimate concern which would have to be adressed by the engine builder.

Lets take a look at some things here:

The link shows the stroke and deck height to be different between the 2.8L and 2.9L. Lets figure up deck clearance:

Deck clearance = deck height - (.5 * stroke) - rod length - compression height

2.8L deck clearance = 8.084-1.35-5.14-1.539 = .055"
2.9L deck clearance = 8.084-1.4175-5.14-1.461 = .0655"

Now then, a 2.9L with 2.8L pistons:
Deck clearance = 8.084-1.4175-5.14-1.539 = -.0125

So you'd be .012" above deck with 2.8L pistons. Which would probably be alright with a thick head gasket. Or, you could have the pistons shaved about 13 thousandths and have zero deck.

Then you could check valve clearance as has been done for years. Preassemble the motor and check! If you need valve reliefs, a machine shop can do it cheap. People do it all the time. I really doubt they'd be needed though. For one, the 2.9L cam probably doesn't lift all that much, and is nowhere near full lift when the piston is at TDC. Next, and the big factor, these are not wedge heads. The valves in these motors are at a 90 degree angle to the deck. Any valve relief would have to be a perfectly circular plunge cut. Really though, I dont think the valves at full lift would even contact the pistons at TDC. I dont think there's any interference there to begin with!

Also note that they have the 2.9L deck height wrong. It should be 8.084", not the 8.858" like the 4.0L block uses.
heres another idea to check valve clearance at top of piston some have used alittle clay on top of piston rotate the assy on on cylinder and see what marks if any are left into top of piston by the valves kinda the same principal as checking bearing clearance.
__________________
390428cjt
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-11-2009, 12:36 AM
eureka24 eureka24 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3
eureka24 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I don't have the numbers on the top of my head but 2.8l pistons will work.

i recently built a flat top pistoned 2.9l. the numbers work out for the clearance and the compression is somewhere just north of 9:1.

Quick question.

why won't a 2.8L camshaft work in a 2.9L?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-11-2009, 11:07 PM
Old93junk's Avatar
Old93junk Old93junk is offline
Old, tired and grouchy
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: McKenzie River
Posts: 20,700
Old93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputationOld93junk has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by eureka24 View Post
I don't have the numbers on the top of my head but 2.8l pistons will work.

i recently built a flat top pistoned 2.9l. the numbers work out for the clearance and the compression is somewhere just north of 9:1.

Quick question.

why won't a 2.8L camshaft work in a 2.9L?
Because the 2.8 has timing gears, and the 2.9 is chain driven.
__________________
93 F-250HD SC 460 E4OD
96 Explorer Limited 4.0 V-6 OHV
93 Ranger Splash 2.3 5spd electric blue
84 Ranger 4x4 2.8 V-6 5spd......492,000 miles!
Dave
Oregon Assistant Chapter leader: To join the Oregon Chapter, click HERE
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-25-2009, 03:05 PM
Arctic Wolf's Avatar
Arctic Wolf Arctic Wolf is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Surrey B.C. Canada
Posts: 434
Arctic Wolf is starting off with a positive reputation.
I know this is fairly old. And I dont know if anybody will answer but here goes. It was said that this idea works which is great. Ill be rebuilding a 2.9 in very near future and would like a lil more power out of it. Am I right to assume in doing this it would be my answer to getting the most I can get outa my 2.9? Ive never really built a hi po motor before so I really dont know of how things are done. If I could get a lil bit of a guide line into what parts I would need to build this Ill do it. Thanks
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-09-2009, 07:43 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.
If you have the money, Morana Racing (Canada) sells a 3.5L stroker kit for the 2.9. Otherwise, from my best guess, the only way to make this work is to use the 2.8 pistons and 2.9 rods. I have been doing some research on stroking both the 2.8 and 2.9. My main focus now is figuring out the rod lengths and deck heights (kind of stumbled upon this thread poking around) to see what may or may not work without a whole lot of machining involved, other than what is absolutely necessary. There are other threads in this part of the forum and one in the Bronco II forum related to this. The chart in a previous post doesn't take into consideration the BII / Ranger 2.8, which IS an identical bore size from everything I have found.
__________________
-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
  #27  
Old 02-09-2009, 08:52 AM
Arctic Wolf's Avatar
Arctic Wolf Arctic Wolf is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Surrey B.C. Canada
Posts: 434
Arctic Wolf is starting off with a positive reputation.
Geez.. Talk about a fair chunk of change... 2500 U.S. dollars. Convert that over to Canadian dollars thats like 3051.50 And then add taxes onto that and shipping and what not. By the time your done. Your spending close to if not more than $5000. 0 Bucks on the motor alone.. And what for? So a guy with a slightly done up 5.0 can pound the crap outa ya? seems hardly worth it.
Thanks for the insight there Kernal. And as for answering my other post about the suspension as well thank you.
Could I be so bold as to ask you a few more QWuestions about our trucks? If I may.. Could you e-mail me and we'll take it off board.
Thanks.

Wolf_Pack-316@hotmail.com
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-10-2009, 12:55 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.
Yeah, buying the parts, kits, etc. to do it with a 'pre-built' kit or short block is crazy expensive - which is why I have been looking into 'compatibility' using 'stock' Ford parts. Even with a slight bore and stroke, it's still not going to be cheap - but I personally am not after a street sleeper, just looking for a little bump in power for on the trails. I know, I know... why don't I just swap in a 4.0, right? I don't feel like snatching the motor and other pieces and parts only to rebuild an engine anyway before putting it in as I have noted issues from Explorer owners that have had their OEM heads crack, and really do not feel like doing all of the extra wiring work, etc. Not that I am not open to the 4.0 swap at this point, but I dare to be different sometimes
__________________
-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
  #29  
Old 02-10-2009, 01:25 AM
Arctic Wolf's Avatar
Arctic Wolf Arctic Wolf is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Surrey B.C. Canada
Posts: 434
Arctic Wolf is starting off with a positive reputation.
Actually I was talking to a guy that I know. And he says that a 4.0 l swap is a big waste of time. Its a huge headache that really isnt worth it. Just keep the stock motor and maybe boost its power up a bit like what you want to do. I think your onto a good idea.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-10-2009, 07:37 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.
the only thing that ever stops me from building a 2.9L is the fact that I would spend the money stroking it to come in under 4.0L. When I can buy a complete junked explorer for $500 and rebuild the engine and have everything I need to swap plus a more powerful engine and a better fuel management system.
__________________
1987 muteg GT T-Tops
Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 07:37 AM
 
 
 
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
28l, 29, 29l, bronco, compression, deck, ford, height, ii, liter, motor, oversized, piston, pistons, replace, specs

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
compression ratio talk 390 pistons dylansf23 Ford Inline Six, 200, 250, 4.9L / 300 18 04-26-2014 09:51 PM
stroking 2.9 with 4.0 crank, mopar 3.3l pistons need info shovelhead1 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 4.0 & SOHC 4.0 V6 51 02-21-2014 10:28 AM
1986 Ford Aerostar with 2.9 V6? FordMan1981 Aerostar 0 08-19-2013 03:46 AM
2.9l v6, is it modified? jimbojbcj Ranger & B-Series 5 04-22-2013 10:03 AM
Built Performance 2.9L fast_farmboy 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 4.0 & SOHC 4.0 V6 10 10-09-2012 03:29 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 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