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
  #1  
Old 01-03-2007, 09:56 AM
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.
High compression 2.9L?

I dont know how many of you guys have looked into this, but I found something interesting while doing some unrelated research. It looks like you could use pistons for a 2.8L V6 in a 2.9L V6 and pick up a lot of compression. See specs here:

http://webpages.charter.net/beckracing/slvpg43.htm

Essentially what you could do here, is replace the stock 2.9L piston, with it's 13cc dish, with a flat top from a 2.8L. I'm not sure what compression ratio this would give you, but I'd think it would be at least 10:1. Is this old news, or has this been done before?

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-09-2007, 01:24 AM
RacinNdrummin's Avatar
RacinNdrummin RacinNdrummin is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maple Valley, WA
Posts: 2,387
RacinNdrummin is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
The 2.8 itself was a lower compression engine than the 2.9. I think all you would gain would be the stroke of the 2.9, and I doubt that would be anything signifigant. Blocks were basically the same.
__________________
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
  #3  
Old 02-09-2007, 10:59 AM
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.
Did you actually look at the piston specs?

You're missing the point. The 2.9L has a dished piston, whereas the 2.8L has flat top pistons. Replacing the stock 2.9L pistons with 2.8L pistons should give a sizable increase in compression.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-09-2007, 11:27 AM
WhiteBroncoII2WD WhiteBroncoII2WD is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 47
WhiteBroncoII2WD is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty70f100
Did you actually look at the piston specs?

You're missing the point. The 2.9L has a dished piston, whereas the 2.8L has flat top pistons. Replacing the stock 2.9L pistons with 2.8L pistons should give a sizable increase in compression.
Sounds like a very interesting possibility, do you think the pistons would fit without any modifcation to the block, as in a direct fit if you ordered the 2.8 liter pistons oversized so as to be perfect size for the 2.9 Liter?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-09-2007, 05:46 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.
Hard telling. Some sources list the 2.8L and 2.9L as the same bore size, the manufacturer of the two pistons I listed does not. See here:

2.8L piston: http://www.kb-silvolite.com/spistons...etails&S_id=88

2.9L piston: http://www.kb-silvolite.com/spistons...tails&S_id=580

Now THEY list the bore as the same size.

Also realize that you may not want to just swap pistons. The bores could have taper or a ridge that could break rings. I would suggest going to the nearest oversize of 2.8L pistons and bore the 2.9L block to fit, along with a complete balance of the bottom end.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-07-2007, 06:18 AM
WhiteBroncoII2WD WhiteBroncoII2WD is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 47
WhiteBroncoII2WD is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty70f100
Hard telling. Some sources list the 2.8L and 2.9L as the same bore size, the manufacturer of the two pistons I listed does not. See here:

2.8L piston: http://www.kb-silvolite.com/spistons.php?action=details&S_id=88

2.9L piston: http://www.kb-silvolite.com/spistons.php?action=details&S_id=580

Now THEY list the bore as the same size.

Also realize that you may not want to just swap pistons. The bores could have taper or a ridge that could break rings. I would suggest going to the nearest oversize of 2.8L pistons and bore the 2.9L block to fit, along with a complete balance of the bottom end.
I know this subject is a little old, but I would like to bring it out just a little more discussion. Rusty, if the bores were in pretty good shape wherein you could simply hone it to clean it up do you still think you would have to bore it to fit a 2.8 liter piston in?fficeffice" />>>
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-07-2007, 11:05 AM
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.
In short, yes. There will be a ridge left on both ends of the ring travel, not just on the top. Plus you'll want to bore it anyway to get the proper piston to cylinder wall clearance with the new pistons.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-07-2007, 12:03 PM
WhiteBroncoII2WD WhiteBroncoII2WD is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 47
WhiteBroncoII2WD is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty70f100
In short, yes. There will be a ridge left on both ends of the ring travel, not just on the top. Plus you'll want to bore it anyway to get the proper piston to cylinder wall clearance with the new pistons.

Do you really think it would give a creditable increase in compression?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-07-2007, 03:11 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.
Yes I do, and it absolutely would increase compression. You're going from a piston with a sizable dish to a flat top. The compression height is actually a bit higher on the 2.8L piston, though IMO not enough to cause problems. That too will give you more compression.

I'll put it this way. The combustion chamber volume of my 4.0L heads was 60cc. The 2.9L heads I have out in the garage have visibly smaller combustion chambers. When you go from a 13cc dish, to a flat top with no dish, how much do you think this would increase compression?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-09-2007, 12:54 AM
RacinNdrummin's Avatar
RacinNdrummin RacinNdrummin is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maple Valley, WA
Posts: 2,387
RacinNdrummin is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Have you looked at the chamber on the 2.8 heads??? Its the same size if not smaller than the 2.9 chamber. The 2.8 was a 8:1 compression engine and the 2.9 was a 9:1 engine. For the 2.8 to have 8:1, it would have had to have a dramatically smaller compression height than the 2.9. The 2.8 has 96-7% the displacement of the 2.9 not 88% which would explain the rise in compression according to stroke. If all things were equal except for stroke, the 2.8 would have 96-7% of the compression ratio of the 2.9, or 8.7:1. Now the kicker is the dish in the 2.9 piston. That means that the compression height of the 2.8 piston is going to be even lower or the chamber cc's is going to be higher (or headgasket thickness, which I doubt is the case). Somebody has their numbers wrong. If you put a 2.8 piston in a 2.9, I doubt you would gain compression, in fact, you might lose it.
__________________
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
  #11  
Old 05-09-2007, 09:40 AM
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.
Well send an email to KB-Silvolite then.

For the record, I've seen two different heads with chambers that looked identical, and one had a much higher combustion chamber volume than the other. The only way to really tell is to CC the heads.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-09-2007, 10:23 PM
RacinNdrummin's Avatar
RacinNdrummin RacinNdrummin is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maple Valley, WA
Posts: 2,387
RacinNdrummin is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
True, but Im talking about a significant difference, At least as much as the dish in the 2.9 piston. For example, You can most definately tell the difference between an early 302 (58cc) and a late 302 (69cc) head chamber size by looking. All I am saying is that you cant just assume a piston is going to have a higher CR just because it is a flat-top design.
__________________
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
  #13  
Old 05-10-2007, 09:26 AM
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.
True, but I can assume that if the compression height of the flat top is slightly higher than the dished piston! Like I've shown, it's listed in two different places. Like I said, an email to KB / Silvolite is about the only way to resolve this IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-11-2007, 12:53 AM
RacinNdrummin's Avatar
RacinNdrummin RacinNdrummin is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maple Valley, WA
Posts: 2,387
RacinNdrummin is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Lol, if you wanna email those guys, be my guest. I dont care enough about the subject to put that much effort into it. Im just going by the factory CR's and displacements.
__________________
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
  #15  
Old 05-15-2007, 11:48 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.
I turn tho this, http://www.fordracingparts.com/download/charts/217.pdf everytime I want to pull an engine measurement, I encourage everyone to bookmark it. It sure makes it handy when trying to scheme up a low budget JY part swap engine build lol.
The only incorrect info I have been able to find is either the 2.9L or 4.0L deck height, they are listed as the same when in fact they arent, the 2.9L deck height isnt correct.

To figure out if there will be a significant increase in compression use this calculator, or we have one in our calculator section (FTE) but I dont know how to get to them lol so here http://kb-silvolite.com/calc.php?action=comp I dont know the head CC volume otherwise I could figure it out.

Notice the FRPP catalog I posted also notes the 0.17" difference in compression height between the two pistons, with the 2.9 being shorter.
__________________
1987 muteg GT T-Tops
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2007, 11:48 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
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
Higher compression / 102 Octane Fuel GermanMike Modular V10 (6.8l) 10 05-30-2012 06:09 AM
2.9 compression pmibach Ranger & B-Series 1 03-25-2011 01:26 PM
Bore and Stroke a 2.9?!?! admiralturbo Bronco II 12 02-10-2009 08:11 AM
2.8 flat tops in a 2.9 admiralturbo 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 4.0 & SOHC 4.0 V6 0 04-19-2005 12:21 AM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 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