Fitting in a 3.8

[Guest]

I saw an add for a late model V6 w/ manual tranny for sale local and was curious about it. Could an SDS EFI system control a 3.8? I know that I'd either have to make a front sump oil pan or do an MII conversion to get a front rack at the very least.

It might be a fun swap, but it's one I'll never do.

Al

 

[MustangSix]

The 3.8 could be made to fit, but it makes so little power in stock form that it's not worth the effort. If it were the SC version, it would be neat, though.

 

[Guest]

I recently read an article about a stroker kit for the 3.8. In typical magazine form, they mentioned absolutely nothing about % power increase, nor did they even mention stock numbers.

Al

 

[MustangSix]

The "stroker kit" is pretty much just adding the truck 4.2 crank, rods, and pistons to a 3.8 from what I've seen.

 

[Anonymous]

what year is the motor, stock 95 mustang 3.8 only had 140HP

 

[Guest]

Don't remember the year and actually don't really care.

If I were to consider a bent-6 swap, the SHO motor would be top on the list. The problem is that you can't get parts for them. Typical Ford BS.

My father used to have an '80 Ford Courier p-up. The head gasket blew and he went to Ford for parts. They said it was a Mazda so they didn't carry parts. The guy at the Mazda counter walked out and pointed to the tailgate of the truck and said "That says Ford, not Mazda, you need to go to Ford for parts"

Al

 

[rbohm]

8) the 3.8 can make some serious power. in fact there is a guy who regularly beats V8 mustangs when racing. i think he has his in the 12's now. i will try to find the website for you. oh and if you want sho parts check out the ads at www.shoforum.com also read the forums they have alot of good info on them.

 

[MustangSix]

Problem is, it takes serious work to make that kind of serious power.

If I were going to all the effort of swapping a bent motor into a Falcon/Mustang, it wouldn't be a 3.8. It can be done, it just doesn't grab me as the best motor for a swap.

 

[xctasy]

The 90 DEG even fire V-six is a super, super light engine. Once you've sorted the cranks tendancy for breakage under high loads, cylinder head gasket failures, and allowed for the weakness in the open valley cover block, you have an 315 pound engine which kicks butt. (A 3.9 EA SOHC Falcon engine weighs in at 520 pounds. Thats a 205 pound difference!) And later V6 ones had a balance shaft, I think. Don't know what you do with that.

If the 3.8 was a good as it could have been, all Aussie Falcons would have them. Bill Dix in 1983 decided that the next 1988 Falcon would have either the US 4.0 lier Cologne V6, or the 232 V6. But they bailed at the last for an OHC conversion of the cross-flow.

Its just the expense that puts me off the 3800/4200. There light weight appeals, not the service issues of the crank, block and heads!

 

[rbohm]

8) check out www.3.8mustang.com

 

[ricksmol]

I would definitely try it with a 3.0 or 3.2 Yamaha V6 from a SHO . Should be a real screamer with a 5 speed trans.

I talk from experience. I have the SHO I have the Mustang... I don't have the mechanical background to do it. i don't have problems getting SHO parts.

I read you can use the bellhousing from an Aerostar to hook up a T5 to a SHO block. The problem was that some mods had to be made to the clutch itself. The intake manifold on the Yamaha can be reversed so that the air intake is up front .

http://www.shotimes.com/php-bin/mod...e=article&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&sid=176



Rick

 

[Guest]

It was just a random thought. The only way I'm going is a 200. Either that or just sell everything along with my G20 and go buy a new G35 or Audi A4. I'm kind of getting sick of playing with this stuff

Then I can get back into flying model airplanes again.

Al

 

[Anonymous]

I've always thought a cologne v6 (2.8, 2.9, 4.0 Explorer etc.) would be interesting. They have power potential (explorer has 210 hp stock) and fit into a small package, since it's a 60 degree engine. They're actually a tiny engine, I've got one in a 79 mustang, and I can actually stand in the engine bay in front of it. The v4 version must be really small.

 

[DaGr8Tim]

If I were to consider a bent-6 swap, the SHO motor would be top on the list. The problem is that you can't get parts for them. Typical Ford BS.

Al

I agree. But if your gonna play with a SHO bent 6. Get the 3.2L instead of the 3.0L. I guess the later SHO's with an auto got the 3.2 while the manual SHO's got the 3.0. You can also mate an MTX4 tranny to the 3.2.

A guy in Tempo land has swapped a 3.0 into his 94 Topaz. The wiring and computer took the most amount of time. I think he said it had like 320HP out of the box. He's done some mods and with his 75 shot, he's making 300+ and expects to be able to atleast hit 13's.

 

[Anlushac11]

I've always thought a cologne v6 (2.8, 2.9, 4.0 Explorer etc.) would be interesting. They have power potential (explorer has 210 hp stock) and fit into a small package, since it's a 60 degree engine. They're actually a tiny engine, I've got one in a 79 mustang, and I can actually stand in the engine bay in front of it. The v4 version must be really small.

The Cologne V-6 is a hot little motor. I ahve an old amgazine article from early 80's where a guy in Germany built up one for racing in a Cpari II.

The heads weer ported and polished, big valves, worked rods, fored pistons, Offenhauser 4bbl intake, Holley 4bbl, headers, and a solid lifter cam. Engine dynoed at like 312hp and 329 ft plbs of torque.

Also it is my understanding that the Cologne 2.8L V6 and the Ranger 2.9L V6 are two different engines. I had a 88 Ranger 2.9 V6 and I thought I could use the hop up goodies from the Cologne V6 and was quickly told no by all the Ranger sites.

 

[ricksmol]

Actually the original 3.0 was always considered the racier engine. Though the 3.2 had more torque to be able to handle the automatic, the 3.0 came with a much lighter flywheel and would rev up better.
The best acceleration time I have sen on the Sho's came from the '89 model. 0-60 in 6.4 seconds.
Rick

 

[twentyover]

Anlushac

Actually the 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, & 4.0 motors are the same design, as far as Ford is concerned.

All have the same bore & bearing spacing, common block architecture so they are built off the same tooling

The 2.6 & 2.8 use a gear drive cam and share deck height with the 2.9. The 2.9 and 4.0 use a chain drive cam and the 4.0 has a raised deck height. Like other Fords, except for that they're exactly the same.

Each engine uses a different cam to address:
common exhaust ports on the 2.6
Split exhaust ports on the 2.8
Hydraulic lifters and different port order on the 2.9
hydrulic rollers lifters on the 4.0.

each size has different head castings.

Obviously a raft of detail deifferences. No two diplacements (US availability) were availble during overlapping years. Head designs doffered between the US and Europe.

As I said exactly the same.

 

[J.R.]

Some more re. the Cologne V6: SOHC 4.0 in U.S. since'97, Cosworth DOHC 2.9 in Europe from about '87-96. Bore & stroke max is ~270c.i./4.4L. Paxton, Vortech, & Kenne-Bell have offered superchargers for them. Several turbo kits have been offered, also. They're 60-degree engines, ie. significantly narrower than the 3.8/4.2 V6 Fords. Weight would depend on intake/exhaust systems, as well as whether iron(2.6/2.8/2.9) or aluminum(some 4.0) heads, but 2.9 is about 370lbs. 'Truck' Cologne V6s use a lower-revving cam than the cars. The stock '88 Scorpio 2.9EFI motor doesn't sound like an '88 Ranger 2.9EFI, at idle or on the road. The stock truck engine is not happy or smooth above 4000rpm, while the Scorpio is still purring at the factory redline of 5800rpm. My Scorpio has a little over 350K miles on it; heads have never been off; runs smooth as silk. OTOH our 3.8 T-Bird's heads were warped by 85Kmi, radiator needed replacement, water pump out 3 months later, etc. Experience with the 2 V6s has lead to a certain amount of predjudice on my part.

Hey, this is a straight 6 site; I'll shut up now!

J.R.