what about a v6(just wondering)

Moderator: Mod Squad

pacman

what about a v6(just wondering)

Post #1 by pacman » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:30 pm

this popped into my head when I was looking for a t5. I realized that the 3.8 v6 had the t5 trans. I also know that 5.0 are often put in classic mustangs. This would be done to another stang, not the 6. Maybe a turbo v6. the same issues for the 5.0 as for the 3.8 would be there. and it would de a real work of art. keep the 4 lug wheels and all. what do yall think. is it possible? These v6's are dirt cheap when wrecked. I could get everything from the donor car. ECU, wiring, etc.
Thanks
Paul

DirtyErnie

Post #2 by DirtyErnie » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:45 pm

uh, if you're talking about using a NA ford 3.8 v6 for the swap, don't bother. there was a wide swath of years that did nothing but blow head gaskets in stock form.

If you're talking about using a ford SC v6 with the 5-speed, then giddyup! these things are quite stout, and I imagine would be even more of a beast. However, SuperCoup blown v-6's aren't
a.) easy to find
or
b.) 'dirt cheap'

Any junkyard that's not totally incompetant will strip that engine out faster than a drunk sorority girl on amateur night.

although, would you expect any less for a setup that will SHREAD tires in almost any gear?

Didn't think so.

Good Luck
Ern

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Post #3 by Asa » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:46 pm

it's been discussed many times
i think that the consensus was that if you were going with a V6, the 3.8L was not the one to go with, it's too much of a dog
but, if i remember correctly, the Duratec's are thought of highly by at least one member here

here's a couple posts discussing it

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... ht=duratec
http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... ht=duratec
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do

Susie - a work in progress
Clyde - ya mule!

User avatar
rbohm
Assistant Admin
Posts: 5685
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:00 am
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Post #4 by rbohm » Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:56 am

8) some 3.8 V6's did indeed have head gasket problems, BUT they were the 3.8's in front drive cars. the rear drive cars didnt have the problem anywhere near as bad. ok, yes you can swap a V6 in place of an I6 if you choose, but like the others said standard 3.8's were not the best way to go, in fact i feel that none of the 90 degree V6's are the best set up for performance. my reason is the offset crank pins tend to weaken the crank imo. the 3.8/4.2 V6's cam make some serious power, and guys have run them into the 11's on pump gas, but the 4.0 V6 from an explorer would be a much better way to go. it is a 60 degree V6, more room to work on the engine when needed, and it has a fair amount of aftermarket support, something the 3.8/4.2 doesnt have.
64 falcon
66 mustang
05 grand marquis

my mind is aglow with whiriling
transient nodes of thought
careening through a cosmic vapor
of invention

GASSED260

Post #5 by GASSED260 » Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:27 am

What about the nissan VG30DETT
Or even a cosworth v6
I don't think ford makes a good v6?

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Post #6 by xctasy » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:08 am

Ford does make great V6's. The stockers are very mild, but the race version based on them were absolute freekin screamers. The FWD 3.8 may have been a dud, but none of the others were. Winning the British F5000 and European Touring car challenge in the 70's with smaller V6's when Chevy had 302's and BMW had 3.5 liter DOHC engines proves it!

Option 1:

The so-called Cologne V6 (the 4.0 60 degree) is very, very heavy, but it is one of the thoughest V6's around. Ohv or SOHC per bank. In Germany and England, 24 valve DOHC Cosworth 3.0 heads went on it. It is based on the RS2600 and 2800 Mustang engine, the 2.9 Bronco/Ranger/Explorer, and has generic links to the 1962 V4 used in the mid engined Mustang II showcar. The block is offset to take a balance shaft, and this is where most of the weight comes from. The rest of the weight comes from the 60 degree configuration which means each crank pin serves only one cylinder. Thats wy 60 degree sixes are longer, heavier than a similar 90 degree V6. The bore spacings are over 4.78" long, which is way more than the 4.375" all SBF and 90 degree 3.8/4.2's run. Ford America has been making these since 1985. They are heavier than a carb 289 or 302.

Option 2:

The so called Essex V6, the 3.8/4.2, is the lightest 90 degree production V6 in the world. It's a fraction of the Colognes weight, and packages better. Its narrower at the sump, and early versions were only 310 pounds with accessories. The Cologne is up well over the 470 pound mark as an OHC. It has the same bore spacings as the 221/255/260/289/302/351/400 series, but the bores are offest between each bank to eliminate offset con-rods. On the V8's, each cylinder is offest half a cylinder on each bank. On the 3.8/4.2, Ford did something really special the Buick never did...the banks were offset more than half a cylinder. For this reason, the 30 degree nodular iron crank is very strong, the conrods have no offset big end.

Since the early 3.8 was designed as an automtic, the 5-speed suffered in applications where engines have had no protection from thrust loads of a manual tranmission. This is possibly why it was reputed to have warranty issues with the Super Charged SC T-birds. (Today, Ford builds V8 engines around the type of transmission. Mach Mustangs get different cranks with a manual than they do with an auto)

Since the centre of gravity is back further, and the engine is much lighter than the stock 170/200 sixes. It's got a lot to recomend it. Any engine which is has a bad reputation is something to look further at. It comes only with an DOA, um AOD or C5 if its carb, tbi, or no SC. The block pattern is SBF, but the need to convert it to a T5 would mean using the SC or 4.2 truck components, or finding out what the unbalance on the flywheel is for 90 V6's. I suspect it is just the 50 oz unbalance, common for most passenger V8's after 1981.

Option 3:

There was a British Essex V6, which was a 60 degree engine. The Cosworth V6 was just the 3.0 liter version, with 100 mm pistons and wild Cosworth DOHC per bank heads. These engines went up to the 470 hp mark, and beat 302 Chevy engines in F5000 open wheelers. These engines are very rare!


Option 4:

The Vulcan 3.0 V6, used for a short time on the Taurus from 1986 to 1988, was reputedly British Essex based, but there is next to no information on it. The bore spacings are the same as the British Essex V6. I suspect this still did duty in the early Areostar too. Its anemic, and isn't a world beater.


Option 5:

The Taurus SHO V6 engine is based on the US 60 degree OHV block (so called Vulcan), which was then totally re-enginered by Yamaha to a quad cam design. I'm not sure what similarities there are between the British Essex Cosworth V6, and the Yamaha SHO V6, but I'd say the hard dimensions of bore spacing and deck height are the same. For a while, SVO sold SHO crate engines...at 10 000 bucks a piece!
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

J.R.
Registered User
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 10:11 pm
Location: SoCal

Post #7 by J.R. » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:15 pm

Dancing lightly through the options again:

#1 The Cologne was based on the V4 from the German Taunus, that also powered several thousand Saab cars (after the Euros could no longer tolerate the smoke & noise of Saab's own 2-stroke engine). The V4 configuration demanded the presence of a balance shaft; the lump for it is still there in the 2.6/2.8/2.9 versions of the V6; 4.0 engines don't have it. Smoothest factory stock 2.9 engine is in the Ford (Merkur in U.S.) Scorpio; Ranger 2.9 sounds/feels like a tractor motor next to it. The differences are balance, cam, and upper EFI intake.

I disagree on weight statement. 2.9EFI is still a bit under Ford 289/302, but not too far off(~30 lbs) if the Windsor smallblock has aluminum heads & intake.

The 4.0 motor can be bored & stroked to 4.05" x 3.5", or 271"/4.4L. It still deserves better balancing & cam than the factory gives it. Planning to build a sneaky one for my own Scorpio someday; the factory 2.9 is still going strong at over 350,000 miles, with the heads never off!

Cosworth engines in Euro Scorpios were 2.9 and only rated @ 205hp, but the heads will easily support 300+hp, naturally aspirated. Cosworth built up some DOHC 4.0L engines too, but Ford has not put them into production. The SOHC we have is also a Cosworth design, and has 2 balance shafts. The SOHC version is very tall for most post-1960 car. hoods.

#2 The 3.8 (aluminum)head problems were due to folks(like me) thinking they didn't have to change out the coolant every year["It ain't in the maint. schedule & the stuff is still green"], but you do. Ford extended the warranty on FWD T-Bird/Cougar V6 head problems back to '94. [didn't do much for my '93 T-Bird] Once the increased maintenance schedule is followed[mine ate a radiator, too!], no further problems.

Windstar 3.8L H.O. option and later 4.2L engines in trucks(and now Mustangs) have the split inake runners, allowing for better performance at both low and higher rpm engine speeds. Will the early split intake fit under a low passenger car's hood? Dunno.

#3 Yes! Very expensive, if you could find one of the DOHC units. Ford Capris also trounced the BMW and Porsche contingent soundly in Group C sedan/coupe racing with those motors. Result: the Euros changed the rules.

#4 Some had bearing problems from the factory, fixed on warranty usually. Lighter than the German Cologne engines, they also came in lots of Ford Ranger/Mazda 3000 trucks, and set up for RWD(4WD trucks got the Cologne 2.9 with its greater torque).

#5 A lot of Taurus SHO models have high miles and are not too expensive. Would that SHO motor accept turbocharged air through its DOHC heads? Hmmm.

#6 Could have been the Ford Duratec DOHC V6, in either 2.5L or 3.0L variety. Probably not a good work truck engine, but lots of potential in a lighter coupe/sedan body. Ford is getting ready to bring out a 3.5L version also, so the factory will be supporting it for years to come. Another good turbo candidate methinks, but an Eaton supercharger like the T-Bird Super Coupe had might kick some serious butt, too.

Damn, us old guys are opinionated!

J.R.
(Turbo BB6, Cologne & Essex V6, C*&^y 6, Windsor & FE V8s & even a 4.6L)

MustangSix
Assistant Admin
Posts: 3766
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:15 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Post #8 by MustangSix » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:26 pm

The 3.8 SC engines never came with T-5 transmissions. The SC t-bird/Cougar was equipped with a Mazda 5spd that has an integral bellhousing.

The SC engine has a zero imbalance, but the NA engine has a balance factor (which I cannot recall). The difference is due to the crank between the two applications. You can use the 5.0 bell to mount a T-5 to a 3.8SC to replace the Mazdog tranny. Any NA 3.8 can use the 94-98 Mustang flywheel to mount a 3.8 bell and a 3.8 T-5 (longer input shaft) or the 5.0 bell/T-5.

A NA 3.8 swap is generally not a good idea for a Mustang. It is more work than a v8 swap becasue it is definitely not a bolt in, requiring a good bit of fabrication.
Jack Collins

User avatar
DaGr8Tim
VIP Member
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 9:30 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Post #9 by DaGr8Tim » Thu Jul 01, 2004 4:09 am

xtaxi wrote:Option 5:

The Taurus SHO V6 engine is based on the US 60 degree OHV block (so called Vulcan), which was then totally re-enginered by Yamaha to a quad cam design. I'm not sure what similarities there are between the British Essex Cosworth V6, and the Yamaha SHO V6, but I'd say the hard dimensions of bore spacing and deck height are the same. For a while, SVO sold SHO crate engines...at 10 000 bucks a piece!


If It can be shoe horned into a topaz, it should have no problems fitting.

However.......They also made a 3.2 version of that engine. In the later years of the SHO's, the 3.0's were mated to a manual, and the 3.2's were mated to auto's. From what I understand, they accepted the same bell housing, so you *should* be able to mate a 3.2 SHO to a manual tranny.

Problem is that it was a FWD engine, and I am not aware of any RWD apps for it. Might be kind of hard to find a tranny for a RWD app that will fit.

I'd stay away from a 3.4 V8 SHO motor if I were going to play with them.
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer

1997 Jeep Cherokee
1975 Jeep CJ5 with a hacked CJ7 tub

User avatar
CobraSix
VIP Member
Posts: 4216
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 7:31 am
Location: Houston, TX (ugg)
Contact:

Post #10 by CobraSix » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:32 am

MustangSix wrote:A NA 3.8 swap is generally not a good idea for a Mustang. It is more work than a Vee-Eight swap becasue it is definitely not a bolt in, requiring a good bit of fabrication.


That's the real point here. It's not worth it. The 3.8, especially in 99+ mustangs is a solid engine, with about 200BHP, so it's pretty peppy.

But, it will require a lot of work, and at that point, just but a V-8 in there.

Slade
Slade
My Website
My How to's
Image

Engine: 200 CI, Oz 250 modified for 4V Holley 390CFM, DS II Ignition, 40kV Flamethrower, MSD Digital 6+
Drivetrain: Cable Clutch, V-8 T5, 8" 5 Lug Rear End, 5-Lug SSBC Front Brakes, 3.40:1 Posi

pacman

Post #11 by pacman » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:48 pm

ok, so the general consensus is that it would be cool but not worth the time, money, etc.?? but what would the easiest swap be, all the choices are possibilities but I need would need a strong stock motor with a manual choice from factory. the duratec 3.0, 4.2 or 3.8 seem to be the best choises. can the computer from just about any of these cars be run by itself? like if all the wiring was taken and ecu, could just the engine be run as a circuit?
But wether practical or not it would be sweet, one-of-a-kind, eye catcher.
Paul

Guest

Post #12 by Guest » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:05 am

I don't see why we're all of a sudden concerned about the cost/effort-power ratios. I mean look at what we're all into now. I've seen so many members here excercise great skill, patience, and creativity for the sake of squeezing a little more power out of an inline. It surprises me to see the same group writing off another kind of engine as, "not worth it."

If you think the fabrication is worth it, the 3.8 bent six is a very good engine. I drive one everyday, and while I'll admit it's not the fastest, it is by no means a dog. I've won a lot of races vs. the other, more stereotypical college students in the Orlando area. Yes, so far there is a low performance ceiling for the 3.8. But unfortunately for us, it's a ceiling our 35-yr old inlines would be lucky to touch.

It all depends on what you want. The aftermarket is a small one. But if our inline aftermarket was anywhere near as big, we'd be in paradise. You have a couple options for heads, cams, and forced induction.

The only thing is that the bent six is nowhere near as much of a head turner as the inline. You'd have to take a long glance at one to know it was "2 cylinders short."

63fairlane

Post #13 by 63fairlane » Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:28 am

A few thoughts...

The Ford V-sixes leave a lot to be desired for several reason. The older 3.8/4.0/4.2 types run a bit rough and are marginal performers. The latemodel 3.8 will haul a Mustang around pretty well, but it wouldn't be my first choice. My fiance has an 03 Mustang convertible with the 3.8 so I speak from experience. You will have to work out your own motor mounts and then there are the wiring issues for the fuel injection. The Duratec would be my choice, but again, you are doing a lot of fabrication and wiring. In addion, the only RWD and manual transmission platform for these engines was the early Lincoln LS. From what I understand, that particular option has been dropped so getting parts for the application will be difficult. The Supercoupe engines are another choice, but they are difficult to come by and most have been driven very hard. Plus, you are still dealing with lots of fabrication.

If you feel the need to go beyond what the I6 offers, then it may be time to look at a V8. A good 302 with aluminum heads is available from FRPP for about $3200US and it pretty much bolts in without any drama, weighs about the same as any of the V6's and has miriad options for fuel injection and carbs.

hucklburry
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:03 am

Re: what about a v6(just wondering)

Post #14 by hucklburry » Mon Jul 11, 2016 2:30 am

If I was to go through the effort, I would put in an ecoboost. I see the effort as similar, although cost would be more for the engines/trans overall.

It wont be long until there are 5.0 coyote and ecoboost engines in the upullit yards. It will be interesting to see how people will be using those turbos.

I love the Ford 6 speed auto for the roughly 200k I've put on them too.

A few coyote swaps are starting in early Bronco's, I don't know of any ecoboosts and haven't researched it, but it is the direction I would look if I had something I wanted to put something unusual in.

I want to keep my 66 Bronco very close to stock, and my 69 has a V8, and feeding 2 of them is keeping me broke.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re:

Post #15 by xctasy » Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:55 pm

63fairlane wrote:A few thoughts...


The Ford V-sixes leave a lot to be desired for several reason. The older 3.8/4.0/4.2 types run a bit rough and are marginal performers. The latemodel 3.8 will haul a Mustang around pretty well, but it wouldn't be my first choice. My fiance has an 03 Mustang convertible with the 3.8 so I speak from experience. You will have to work out your own motor mounts and then there are the wiring issues for the fuel injection. The Duratec would be my choice, but again, you are doing a lot of fabrication and wiring. In addion, the only RWD and manual transmission platform for these engines was the early Lincoln LS. From what I understand, that particular option has been dropped so getting parts for the application will be difficult. The Supercoupe engines are another choice, but they are difficult to come by and most have been driven very hard. Plus, you are still dealing with lots of fabrication.

If you feel the need to go beyond what the I6 offers, then it may be time to look at a V8. A good 302 with aluminum heads is available from FRPP for about $3200US and it pretty much bolts in without any drama, weighs about the same as any of the V6's and has miriad options for fuel injection and carbs.


Everything became complicated when trying to make those old in line sixes servicable and meet econmy and performance targets.


The last years 1980 250 in line six engine bay looked like this, but didn't even get over the 100 hp mark.


Image

Brave enough to service it?


Ford has a very important philosophy of making sure its production lines and people are kept busy screwing together new cars. The market info from 1973 with the Mercury Capri, and the take-up of the last Fox Mustang and Capri V6's showed Ford that those kind of engines would sell well.


V6's (just like I6's) were only ever inventory fillers for when people couldn't ge V8's. So they don't rate as modification prospects nless you do a lot of discussion with others who have.

Ford has bewildering expertise that you only dreamed of.


In 1982 to 1989, they rolled out, from near bankruptcy, five prescriptions to replacing the in line six with V6's...

first, the Essex 90, the worlds lightest V6 for its size. It may have been Fords response to the 1961 215 BOP based evenfire 3.8 Buick V6, but it was totally designed to look after conrod offset, eliminate detonation, and have lightweight, economy, and ease of construction.

Then the Vulcan V6, the engine most reliable (the 5.0 EFI was formerly the lowest warranty claimes engine). Essentially a US repattern of concepts used in the 60 degree Essex United Kingdom V4 and V6 engines.

Then the SHO V6, an engine Ford instigated to get a better deal on economy performance, resulted in the Volvo and 60 degree Ford v8's. Because its basically a Yamaha out board motor.

Then the Supercharged 3800, a heavily reworked EsSEX 90 V-6 with some of the most complicated pipework of any Detriot engine ever made.

In between, the reheated German import Colgne V6 went from a 2.8 liter 109 hp Z code Mustang option to a Ranger, Explorer engine that ended up with 4 liters, and anything from 160 to 205 hp, and became the base Mustang engine for years between 2005 to 2010.

The point is that as long as you stay with whatever base you start with, you can take it from a low hundred or so hp plodder to anything you care to desire.



As you study the 3.8's alone, you then start to learn a lot about why they were built they way they were.

Image


On my work with Fox Fords, other guys have found them to be a great engine, but frustrating in that Ford had to design them fast, and made them with complicated variations and igntion, fuel and control system changes.

ImageImage

When making these engines pass emissions, they had a primary and secondary cat exhaust system, and varied between C5 and AOD automatics.

The fuel delivery system was generally CFI, the least understood fuel delivery system know to man,
with the least understood transmissions, and then, an odd ball engine that ended up being made in millions for the next 20 years.


When looking at the Supercharged and 4.2 liter versions, its a whole new other ball game.

They were the next 221/260/289 Ford engine, but it terms of engine swaps, they are heaps simpler than any Electronic Throttle ODB 2 onwards engine.

But they are still complicated. After you remove the stuff, they no longer pass emissions, so there's lots of issues, but they sure do look good.

Image



To swap a whole Super Charged Coupe engine from an MN12

Image


to a Fox platform like a Mustang, you then have to look at this


Image


You need to know about everything Ford did, plus you need ace fabrication skills and assistance. Thw spagetti lines of wire, and the refabricated parts on this conversion should be a clue to us that Ford really did specifically engineer everything, and its not like just dropping a 289 in a 65.

My advice is that this.


If you don't like the complication of V-6's after 1982, then you might be better off with a triple carbed in line six...like Kevinl1058's, it has flwheel corrected output of 177.05 Bhp net at 5100 rpm and 204.20 lb-ft at 3250 rpm, just with a set of three old Land Rover or Volkswagen spec Weber carbs and a nice cam, headers and a T5 to maximise the output.


Image



Or a turbo, like "66sprint6's Boosted Inline still alive and doin well!" Matt's


Image

/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=70797
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest