Close



Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 114
  1. #26
    FEP Supporter
    82GTforME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    4,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 82GTforME View Post
    there is a chapter in the head section that talks about doing a three angle valve job (intake and exhaust), porting the valve bowls (after choosing valves) and porting the valve boss in the intake ports all for increased performance.

    Would recommendations have me get a machine shop to do the three angle job or can anyone do it? What kind of cost would be average? I'm trying to get a list together for machining work and potential costs.
    So I contacted the engine builder/machine shop who rebuilt my 302 20 years ago. The co-owner I dealt with back then sold out eight years ago and the other bought it and is still there.

    I told him about the V6 and about doing a three angle valve job. He started talking about tanking, magnafluxing, bronze guides, valves and assembly and threw out a $600 price.

    We talked about honing $60, crank polish $60, cam bearings $140.

    It all sounds expensive to me. I wonder if he was thinking of an OHC engine and not this beauty. Am I unrealistic? I think I could most of it myself. I'm willing to try.

    Does anyone have any recent machining prices? Bear in mind I'm in Canada and things are usually more up here regardless.

  2. #27
    FEP Supporter
    82GTforME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    4,855

    Default Carb rebuild kits

    We have this to rebuild and put back on the car: D9YE-DA = Motorcraft F2-2150

    Not too familiar with rebuilding carbs. Is it advisable for a rookie to do this?

    I found this site. They sell kits, parts and manuals. http://carbkitsource.com/carbs/catalog/Ford/Ford6.htm

    Is there anything else I should know?

  3. #28

    Default

    $600 is not unrealistic to rebuild a set of heads. V8 heads would likely not be much more expensive because most of the labor cost is in setting up the machines for each procedure.

    Carb rebuilds are not cosmic, but it would be advisable for you to have someone else show you the 1st time. When I would do one in front of a friend, they see how easy it can be. They they have no issues digging into one themselves.
    Black 1985 GT: 408w, in the 6's in the 1/8 mile
    Bimini Blue 1988 LX 5.0 Coupe 5-speed, Hellion turbo, zero options
    Grabber Yellow 1973 Mustang Mach 1: 351c, toploader
    Black 2012 5.0 GT, 6-speed, Brembo brakes, 3.73's
    Wimbledon White 1966 F-100 Shortbed Styleside, 390, Tremec 3550, FiTech EFI

  4. #29
    FEP Super Member Travis T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    China Grove, North Carolina
    Posts
    5,267

    Default

    I think you need to shop around a bit, I would expect less than half of that in my area.

    Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk
    1984 Mustang GT owned since 1991 (first car). Mercury Mountaineer GT-40P engine, some suspension mods, currently undergoing a five lug SN95 brake upgrade and more suspension mods. Some minor body and interior mods have been done as well.

    2004 GT convertible, 2001 Taurus LX, 1994 F150, 1950 F-1 Ford Pickup

  5. #30
    FEP Supporter
    82GTforME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    4,855

    Default Camshaft questions.

    So it looks like the stock valvetrain is in very good shape including the camshaft. I have the opportunity to put a new cam in this 2.8 but I wasn't sure which. From what I have heard the stock cam is decent but it looks like the CompCam offerings may be money well spent. Can anyone comment on whether this would be a good investment; performance without sacrificing fuel economy?

    Stock pistons, compression, ported heads and valve job (not 100% on sizes yet) with stock lifters, push rods and the CompCam springs. All while keeping the two barrel.

    If I had to choose I am thinking between the:

    High Energy™, 252S
    Economy w/ Performance, Smooth Idle or;

    High Energy™, 264S
    Strong in Mid-Range RPM, Noticeable Idle

    http://www.compperformancegroupstore...66Cams26002800

    Any opinions?? Thanks.

  6. #31
    FEP Power Member Ethyl Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Lebanon, IL
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Not anything near EASY, but this thread got me thinking what I would do if I were to build one of these engines on a realtively tight $$ budget. Sooo, after about 5 hrs of research tonight(hard to find info on these things) this is what I have. Maybe someone will be interested maybe not.

    1. Bore to 3.680 and install Ford 255(4.2L) v8 pistons. You have to bore the pin bores out to fit the .945 pin but you gain something valuable.
    a. From what I can find the 2.8 piston is .060 in the hole creating a ground pounding 8.7:1 compression ratio. Piston compression height is 1.535. The 4.2 piston has a compression height of 1.585, placing the top a mere .009" from the deck. This raises compression to 9.5:1. Yah!

    2. Next I would source some Toyota 3TC intake valves to gain a little cross section to spin about 6500 rpm size= 1.615". most likely would run 22r retainers and locks.
    The exhaust looks to be a 4.0 v-6 ford piece 1.358" in diameter and will run stock locks and retainers. Valve springs for both applications are very similar with the 22r spring getting the nod(better pressures at the same installed heights) if the Ford head will accept a slightly smaller spring ID. Otherwise I'm sure there are drop in performance springs for both.

    3. After the valve job, port work would be performed to increase airflow.

    4. Contrary to popular belief, I would run headers, but of my own design, keeping primary pipes small and relatively long (30+inches) with a 2.125-2.250" collector

    5.Flow numbers are really hard to come by for these engines (so far) so a cam is tricky right now.Preliminary thoughts are 270/280 230/230 .472/.450 net lift 110lsa 102 ICL STICK SHIFT ONLY. This cam will not work too well without a stall converter in your C3. Automatics would get a different profile.

    This cam has better low rpm cylinder pressure potential than the larger of the 3 comps and more exh seat to seat due to the TERRIBLE exhaust ports
    55 degrees overlap should be ok for power brakes (close).

    My intake lobe seems bigger than the biggest of the Comps until you see that the advertised duration is at .020" valve lift. This one is at .006"

    6. Not sure about induction. I have never seen an intake yet. My first instinct would be a 500 Holley 2bbl though.

    Well there it is, my hypothetical 2.8 engine. Doesn't it sound nice? I am sure it will make 250hp here on the internet!

    The numbers add up , but I have never built one of these engines. ( I would though!!)

    Also OP there are some pretty good grinds for your engine at http://catalog.elginind.com/app/Engi...gh+Performance

    They can be had for less than the Comp stuff as well.

    Now I can sleep!

    Steve
    Last edited by Ethyl Cat; 02-12-2014 at 10:05 PM.
    BBD PERFORMANCE
    HIGH PERFORMANCE PARTS
    CUSTOM ENGINE BUILDS
    CUSTOM CAM DESIGNS
    1983 CRIMSON CAT OWNER

  7. #32
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    The book V6 Performance by Pat Ganahl Buick Ford chev 90/60 degree by S-A design books ISBN 0-931472-13-X has all the answers. So does How to Build and Modify Ford 60 Degree V-6 Engines (ISBN 0-87938-914-1) by Steve Pruett. So does this link http://myplace.frontier.com/~capricl...o/Cologne.html

    See also http://www.mgexp.com/phorum/read.php?40,2164713 and http://www.shoptalkforums.com/viewto...?f=19&t=143332

    Compared to the 1973 D port Essex 3.0 V6, in both 5 port (2 exhaust) and 6 port (three exhaust) the Cologne heads are worse as standard so they really do benefit from the gasflow and big valve treatment. Compared to early Windsor heads and 2v 250 Falcon heads with 165 to 156cfm at 500 thou lift, respectively...they are very bad with less than 110 cfm flow at 500 thou, which is less than a Fox body log head at 124 cfm. Even like this, though, the Cologne heads give a good account of themselves because of its peripherals, well up on the 85 to 92 hp of a 78-83 Fox 3.3 six.

    Any Cologne US 2.8 has good induction, exhaust headers and cam package, with a good intake manifold and great carburation and port to port flow efficiency.. The rated differences in the European 2.8 and British 3.0 was just 3 hp less, 135 verses 138. Torque was about 157 ft-lbs verses 173 lb-ft, when they both had the same carb, ignition and compression ratio. You lost, depending on rating, anything from 45 to 17% of the European power rating, with 93, 104, 109 and 115 quoted for the US 2.8 depending on carb, state and year.

    For Cylinder Head Flow Data at 28 Inches of Water from the 3.0 Essex to the modified versions of the Explorer/Ranger 4.0 OHV, see





    This from Stan Weiss excellent copyrighted cfm log at http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm#Ford


    As I've said repeatedly, the early pre 1985 Cologne V6 in Europe never ran triple port exhausts, and there is nothing at all wrong with exhaust flow, with it easy to make them flow over 65% of the intake. Power Pack 2.3 or 2.0 Lima or Pinto valves are all you need, and the changes Ford US specified were done especially so the 2.8 would suit the Bosch/Ford Duraspark and 2150 2-bbl and VV 2-bbl carbs.

    Car Magazine in 1985 discussed the retro fit of the Cologne plant to replace the 2.0/2.3/2.8 engines with 2.4 and 2.9's, and how there were US export engines, and European engines, with a bunch of revisions, which showed what Ford US and Europe decided were weak points. At some stage, I'm not sure it it was the 1983 Bronco II/Ranger and Aerostar, or the 2.9 versions in those vehciles, but they revised the timing gear as it is suspect under load, and that is why Ford US went to a reversed cam rotation and chain drive, so in cold and hot climates, the timing gear wouldn't strip. The V6 is not a low rev 300 Ford, and the timing gear set was designed for a vibration ridden V4, and to keep the cam quiet Ford's engineers made it a fiber resin gear attached to a steel center, which had a habit of disintegrating with age and load. It also happens any time you go to a more aggressive cam with stronger springs is used, without replacing it. The steel timing gear was the US solution, but its noisy and is a particulate risk. So Ford US requested the common Cloyes roller chain. I'd just use the steel TRW timing gear, not the 2.6 item...there are two part numbers, as Ford made some changes to the front and back spacers on the swap from 2.6 to 2.8.

    The US exhausts and general flow rates of the three port exhaust head are lower flow than 2600 and European 2800 heads, but they also scavenge better. Flow is not everything. Lots of people say the 2300 and 2600 and Euro 2800's are better than the US 2800's but the US engine is a full emissions engine, designed for heavier American cars. With a few modifications, you get back the performance.

    Intake to intake port flow efficiency was a problem with the 2600, so the US 2800 had revised porting compared to the early European 2300 and 2600, but the post 1978 TF Cortina /Taunus/Capri/Granada 2300 and 2800 European engines different to the US ones, so nothing swaps. When you use European heads on the US market 2.8, you then have lots of options. Ford used the DGAS 38 on European Granada, but the Solex 32/34/35 or 38 on 2300 and 2800's, or the CIS Bosch K Jetronic. USA used the 90 degree spin adapter/5200 Holley Weber, on 2.6, which fits the 2.8; and 2150 Motorcraft or VV carb, but the Rochester 2CG 2-bbl or or 2-bbl Holley 350 or 500 and the old 2100 Autolites are easy swaps.

    When Poms rework a 2.8 5 port, they use the Kent V6T21, as it is an excellent cam, it's a brilliant sports road profile. But Schneider can grind one for you at a tenth the price.

  8. #33
    FEP Power Member Ethyl Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Lebanon, IL
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    "The book V6 Performance by Pat Ganahl Buick Ford chev 90/60 degree by S-A design books ISBN 0-931472-13-X has all the answers. So does How to Build and Modify Ford 60 Degree V-6 Engines (ISBN 0-87938-914-1) by Steve Pruett. So does this link http://myplace.frontier.com/~capricl...o/Cologne.html"

    No book has all the answers. Books perpetuate a status quo. I am not here to follow. I am not saying that I am the 2.8 god sent here to save humanity, but someone(not me) that has never been involved with a certain topic might be exactly what is needed to push something forward, out of that box shaped book of info.

    "Any Cologne US 2.8 has good induction, exhaust headers and cam package, with a good intake manifold and great carburation and port to port flow efficiency.."

    I am a good looking guy when I have Brad Pitts hair, face, body and money too..

    NONE of those heads are 2.8v6 on Stans site

    "The US exhausts and general flow rates of the three port exhaust head are lower flow than 2600 and European 2800 heads, but they also scavenge better. Flow is not everything. Lots of people say the 2300 and 2600 and Euro 2800's are better than the US 2800's but the US engine is a full emissions engine, designed for heavier American cars. With a few modifications, you get back the performance."

    This statement contradicts itself.

    Steve
    BBD PERFORMANCE
    HIGH PERFORMANCE PARTS
    CUSTOM ENGINE BUILDS
    CUSTOM CAM DESIGNS
    1983 CRIMSON CAT OWNER

  9. #34
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    The US 2.8 has emissions equipment and ignition, camshaft retard and lower compression than the European 2.8, but it has better exhausts conducive to better flow with the headers on that the European version. When the compression, ignition, and air fuel ratio are adjusted, you get around 26 more hp if a Fox 2.8 has 109 hp. The better dual exhausts and induction of the Bosch K Jetronic 2.8i makes another 25 hp with the same air flow figures as the 109 hp US version. Its not the heads that are holding the V6 back as much as the lack of ignition , cam, compression and carburation, and the injection in a 160 hp car is actually holding the Cologne back. The 188 hp turbo had very little boost, yet used the same low flow numbers that the US heads would give.


    At the moment, your missing the years of info I've gleaned from Pat G's book....every time I read it, I seam to find another layer of info that answers my questions. Its the only US book that puts the Cologne V6 in context with American performance needs. It's clear that despite my years of miles with my European 2.3 Cologne, that my words are not enough of a testimony to the true brilliance of the US 2.8. I saw first hand from 1988 when my parts dealer put a 2.8 Mustang engine in his Cortina what a very special, high performing and sweet little engine the US 2.8 was. The US 2.8 isn't a dog, its a very, very competent engine, even at 109 hp when my little 2.3 made 114. The Essex 183 cube engine wasn't always such a good engine, it was only a 123 hp power plant in its early days. I'm attempting hard to prove everything I've said, and 110 cfm at 500 thou for the Essex 90 is an indicative figures for the 2.8 Cologne as well.


    The both books noted are great starts, and will get you where you want to go. I have a copy of that first one mentioned, and its indispensable to me.


    The facts are that others have measured the Cologne V6 air flow, I think I may have some flow figures from a certain other English book I have down stairs. I wouldn't say anything I couldn't co-o berate. The absolute truth is that Stan's site covers the later Essex 60 degree V6 intake flow rates, and other anecdotal info says that it flow less than the Essex 60. But a 2% drop in power with the 2.8 Cologne at 135 hp verses 138 with the same DGAS 38 carb on an engine 7% smaller than the 2994 cc Essex 60 proves that total air flow is about the same between engines

    The three port heads cfm flow might be less, but there is no cylinder to cylinder influence with a three port exhaust, and the exhaust phases would favor a three outlet rather than a two out let.

    Its flow efficiency in % of each other cylinder with the manifold on , not total bare head air flow that governs power. A lot of very smart people miss this point, and Fords US Cologne engine had its intake porting totally changed in 1974 to improve its performance with a 2-bbl carb.

  10. #35
    FEP Supporter
    82GTforME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    4,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethyl Cat View Post
    Not anything near EASY, but this thread got me thinking what I would do if I were to build one of these engines on a realtively tight $$ budget. Sooo, after about 5 hrs of research tonight(hard to find info on these things) this is what I have. Maybe someone will be interested maybe not.
    Well there it is, my hypothetical 2.8 engine. Doesn't it sound nice? I am sure it will make 250hp here on the internet!
    The numbers add up , but I have never built one of these engines. ( I would though!!)

    Also OP there are some pretty good grinds for your engine at http://catalog.elginind.com/app/Engi...gh+Performance
    They can be had for less than the Comp stuff as well.
    Wow Steve that's an impressive list. I would like to see what your difference would be for not "on a tight budget"! That may have to be something for another phase in it's life though. I'll check out the cam link you left!

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    How to Build and Modify Ford 60 Degree V-6 Engines (ISBN 0-87938-914-1) by Steve Pruett. So does this link http://myplace.frontier.com/~capricl...o/Cologne.html
    That's the book I've been reading in depth and has brought up my questions. I appreciate all of the input and the link.

    My son and I have come to the realization that we are not going to blow the budget on this. As much as I would love to drift off the beaten path and pursue even an Offy intake and four barrel it isn't going to happen this time around. I am comfortable putting the stock cam back in this, doing the valves, porting, rebuilding the carb etc. along with running a dual exhaust.

    I was thinking by getting a camshaft with the other subtle machining and rebuild stuff we could squeak a little more out of this engine. So much to consider when you are on a budget!

  11. #36
    FEP Power Member Ethyl Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Lebanon, IL
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    [QUOTE=82GTforME;1623640]Wow Steve that's an impressive list. I would like to see what your difference would be for not "on a tight budget"! That may have to be something for another phase in it's life though. I'll check out the cam link you left!/QUOTE]

    Thanks! It is kind what I love to do. Take a pile of parts from different engines and make one that has the right stuff from all of them.

    Xctasy, I do not think I am missing all that much. That engine has some good points, but I just can't help but think that there was two design teams at work creating this engine and they did not talk to each other... EVER!

    The cylinder head designers were working to get a nice little street head for low rpm torque and efficiency and the short block designers were building a little race engine for a little race car. Maybe the short block folks were exchanging ideas with Cosworth, but not the ones building the heads it got .

    That engine is WAY oversquare. Ford is using that bore size now with the 2013 5.8L engine with a 4.2" stroke.

    There is a reason that Ford only increased valve diameter by 7% and increased stroke by 20% in future evolutions. Modern 2v engines have an intake valve approx. 50% of bore diameter and proper stroke to get the air speed up. The original 2.8 with a 2.7" stroke just did not get the job done. That is why it has an intake valve that is 40% of the bore, to get air speed up so they could get a shred of torque at low speeds.

    3.2x 3.5 or so is where that engine should be for that valve size. Look what Ford did with the 3.0 Vulcan, .150" less bore and .450" more stroke with nearly the same valve size. Almost 1/2 inch more stroke! In 1987 that engine made 35 more HP and 25 more lb/ft torque than the 2.8

    "Its flow efficiency in % of each other cylinder with the manifold on , not total bare head air flow that governs power. A lot of very smart people miss this point, and Fords US Cologne engine had its intake porting totally changed in 1974 to improve its performance with a 2-bbl carb."

    I am well aware of this, I have been porting and flow testing heads for 20 years. when a head is no good, the intake is not going to bring it up.
    Example: Working on a NMRA pure street combination with a killer set of TFS heads ported by a good friend of mine. Owner wanted to run a Box R intake so we tested it on the heads. Heads flowed 290cfm and .500" w/o the intake at 25" and 247cfm with it. This is supposed to be the "best" intake for efi and it looses 40 cfm! That is potentially 88HP!!

    Can we fix it? yes, most of it at least, but it has too many turns in it.

    All in all, there is a lot to learn with every new engine you tear down. Many times you can use what you learned on one in a different engine to great benefit. Another one of the wonderful things that come from this hobby of ours!

    Steve
    BBD PERFORMANCE
    HIGH PERFORMANCE PARTS
    CUSTOM ENGINE BUILDS
    CUSTOM CAM DESIGNS
    1983 CRIMSON CAT OWNER

  12. #37
    FEP Supporter
    82GTforME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    4,855

    Default Valve springs and balancing?

    Well, we have decided to keep the stock cam, lifter and pushrods. We will get new springs though. I read somewhere not to use factory replacements. Any recommendations for a stock application?

    What are your thoughts on having these engines balanced? Are they decently balanced from the factory? The shop said $400 but couldn't guarantee not damaging pistons while taking the pins out. He said we might see a night and day difference if we were to do it. What are recommended redline for the 2.8?

    Thanks.

  13. #38

    Default

    RPM would be limited by the airflow ability and camshaft design. Just because you balance the engine, doesn't mean the redline will increase.

    I would have valve springs tested and just shim if necessary to keep in specs.

    You cal likely find a better camshaft if you look in the European UK parts bin for 2.8L Capri's. They were pretty good runners over there because they did not have much if any emissions to worry about.
    Black 1985 GT: 408w, in the 6's in the 1/8 mile
    Bimini Blue 1988 LX 5.0 Coupe 5-speed, Hellion turbo, zero options
    Grabber Yellow 1973 Mustang Mach 1: 351c, toploader
    Black 2012 5.0 GT, 6-speed, Brembo brakes, 3.73's
    Wimbledon White 1966 F-100 Shortbed Styleside, 390, Tremec 3550, FiTech EFI

  14. #39
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    I love this section of the Fox forum best, because that little German engine is the most underrated Ford engine ever made anywhere! Its like packing an Uzzi, until you open up your vest, people just think your a paper tiger. 1962 Ford Taunus P4, so called Cardinal engine is a landmark of conversavtive, built down to a rpice engineering that should have died in the 70's, but it was just too good as a V6 do do anything else but sell than pants off. Little wonder its late 79 demise caused such a hole in US V6 engine production, the Essex 90 and Vulcan and SHO couldn't fill it or eclipse it.


    The Cologne V6 was totally integrated into Ford Dearborn's plans since about 1957 when the old 2 stroke Ford owned plant was getting refitted for the Cardinal (Taunus P4) engine. It came out as a V4 first, and then Saab used it to its fullest for years in the 96. Ford US via Ford of Europe signed off on two different V4's in 1961 and 1966, due to uncertainties between Cold War politics, they were probably worried about the production capacity being at risk in West Germany in the 60's, even transferring some production to Genk, in Belgian Limburg. The V4 and V6 Essex 60 was made in Dagnham till 1980 and V6 2.5 and 3.0's South Africa till 1990s. The Vulcan is an Essex 60 knock off in metric for the Taurus and Tempo. In 1966, they both became V6's in the German 17M (P7) and English Zephr Zodaic Mk4. Two the same but different engines which lasted for years!

    It was to be the next Mustang engine and Cardinal base, but in 1962, the Falcon and other small Ford reduced imports in the US from 610000 to 375000 in Five years, and the little V4 no longer figured in the needs. http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=5993,717012

    The strength of the Falcon pushed the engine out of US manufacture in 1962, and the Mustang became the stunning 64.5 car it was always destined to be. Dearborn and Cologne worked the engine out since 1957 until its 2012 model year demise in 75000 Ford Rangers 4.0's. 25% of the US V6 Ranger and later S197 V6 Mustangs were German made in Cologne.

    The German engineers and Dearborn always worked closely together on the Cologne V6, its a perfectly balanced, brilliant engine, and the 1974 US design changes were phased into the 1988 revisions by the Cologne engineers, but they came from the ETCC wining 1972 Cologne Capris racing cylinder heads. The US inspired changes did not make the US 2.8 a dog...it was about as powerful as the 2.8 Chevy X car engine in 1979 despite being based on an 18 year old V4 , and it complied with emissions, and when European and US major upgrade in 1986 with EFI, it used the variation on the earlier US heads, and unified the design, then going forward, with the long-stroke big bore 4.0 block and the Cosworth designed DOHC and SOHC heads. I don't know of an engine that does better with a 110 cfm at 500 thou intake flow than the 2.8...dragging over 205 hp out of a stock 49/54 and 64 hp 1961 1.2 and 1.5 liter V4 exhaust headers that the Euro 2.8 used from 1974 to 1985 fairly well proves it for me.

    And the US information is there, and it needs just a little tweeking to make it a Windsor 5.0 eater. Weslake were making alloy versions of the Iron 2.8 heads make 320 hp at 7600 rpm in 1972...that says it all for potential. Its potential is probably better than the ancient 3.3 log head engines, and because its got a heap or iron in the block, its probably stronger than any stock production 289 or 302 this side of a Tunnel Port or Boss Mustang block.

  15. #40
    FEP Power Member Ethyl Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Lebanon, IL
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    "I love this section of the Fox forum best, "

    It is pretty interesting

    " 1962 Ford Taunus P4, so called Cardinal engine is a landmark of conversavtive, built down to a rpice engineering that should have died in the 70's, but it was just too good as a V6 do do anything else but sell than pants off. "

    ??????????????


    "The US inspired changes did not make the US 2.8 a dog...it was about as powerful as the 2.8 Chevy X car engine in 1979 despite being based on an 18 year old V4 "

    That's like saying a slug is about as fast as a snail

    "..dragging over 205 hp out of a stock 1961 V4 exhaust head that the Euro 2.8 used from 1974 to 1985 fairly well proves it for me."

    Not without a turbo it didn't, not that I can find any way. Please give examples

    "Weslake were making alloy versions of the Iron 2.8 heads make 320 hp at 7600 rpm in 1972...that says it all for potential. "

    Not alloy versions, alloy redesigns. They barely look like the originals. They are still being made today, by the way. Very expensive!
    Name:  Ford_2.9_head_.jpg
Views: 3634
Size:  134.3 KBName:  v6_cylinder_head.jpg
Views: 3591
Size:  25.0 KB

    Xctasy, I truly admire your passion for this stuff and thank you for challenging me to do the research on this engine. It has been a real history lesson about an engine that many people do not know or understand it's impact worldwide. I doubt that many have a grasp of it as you do. It has turned out to be very fun.

    We will most likely have to disagree on a few things about this engine, but I have gained quite a bit more respect for it though this thread.

    By the way, the lady that lived behind me is from New Zealand. She drives a twin turbo Supra. LOVES cars and knows cars.

    Do all you Kiwis have the need for speed?

    Steve
    BBD PERFORMANCE
    HIGH PERFORMANCE PARTS
    CUSTOM ENGINE BUILDS
    CUSTOM CAM DESIGNS
    1983 CRIMSON CAT OWNER

  16. #41
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    All Kiwis are speed nutters. We grow up in forestry clear felling roads, which were basically bullock tracks put in the 18 and 19 th century English surveyors with Maori scouts, then made into unsealed and sealed roads. So everything's got curves in it, and we race around on two lane black top getting mega pi$$ed if anyone is behind, in front, or 600 years away. That's why so many Kiwi rallye and race car drivers are dead...we push the envelope a lot more than the typical American. We are goats, sheep and cattle that want to push. But talk to them and they seam polite and quiet, but get them watching rugby football, V8 Brutes, Bathurst, AVESCO or NZV8 Supercars, and even the mild mannered women start looking like that Walt Disney Goofy character who became Mr Wheeler after being mild mannered Mr Walker

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZAZ_xu0DCg

    We have to learn some pretty hard lessons when coping with US traffic flows. You guys hang on to your horn and trust your horse. Kiwis thrust our cars and to heck with the horn. And Rove McManus said New Zealander's 6 figure large font number plates make us look like we all have Turrets shouting ticks. ITZOLD, XCTASY, TOKE1, http://www.worldlicenseplates.com/world/PA_NZEA.html


    what I said, in a five minute period before rushing off to my resthome job was
    " 1962 Ford Taunus P4, so called Cardinal engine is a landmark of conversavtive, built down to a rpice engineering that should have died in the 70's, but it was just too good as a V6 do do anything else but sell than pants off. "

    What I should have said was
    " 1962 Ford Taunus P4, so called Cardinal engine is a landmark of conservative, built down to a price engineering that should have died in the 70's, but it was just too good as a V6 do do anything else but sell than pants off. "

    I can't remember the exact production figures, but its huge, probably 7 million at about 160 000 per year for 45 years from 1967 to 2012. The engineering that went into it was far from pedestrian, and to bring an engine from 109 hp to 160 hp was just cam, compression and induction.


    Name:  Ford_2.9_head_.jpg
Views: 3634
Size:  134.3 KBName:  v6_cylinder_head.jpg
Views: 3591
Size:  25.0 KB

    One is the intake side, the other the exhaust, but basically the same head.

    The US head was the first of the productionized 6 ports.

    Why would Ford ever force a change, unless it was either cheaper to make, or resulted in better performance?

  17. #42
    FEP Supporter
    82GTforME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    4,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zap's 85 GT View Post
    RPM would be limited by the airflow ability and camshaft design. Just because you balance the engine, doesn't mean the redline will increase.
    That really wasn't the gist of my question. I should have had the question: "What are recommended redline for the 2.8?" on a separate line. That portion of the question was due to the fact there is no physical "Red" line on the tach (because its an auto?). The question was more with regards to usable power bands and cams.

    Name:  IMG_4645.jpg
Views: 3604
Size:  115.1 KB

    The question about balancing was whether there would actually be a modest, slightly noticeable, or negligible difference in power or (for lack of a better term) smoothness while running at higher PRM's. Also whether the $400 to do it would be money well spent? The engine shop seems to think so. The Sven Pruet book I am reading also speaks of balancing to be critical for performance.

    To xstasy and Ethyl Cat: I'm glad there are still those out there that are passionate about these powerplants. It is very easy for someone to just say "put a V8 in it". While most of what you are talking about is far over my head right now; the history lesson is somewhat interesting (not that I get a lot of it). Can either of you answer my basic questions above though?

  18. #43
    FEP Power Member Ethyl Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Lebanon, IL
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    How does it run now? Is it unacceptable?

    I am a big fan of balancing rotating assemblies myself. I have never balanced one of these assemblies, but my experience is usually the older the assembly is the more the factory let get out the door "close enough".

    Also, in the case of the amount of cylinders an engine has it changes the time between power pulses. Formula= 720/#cylinders. So in your case it is 120* between power pulses.
    Without a balance shaft this can cause some vibration. Natural I know, but the point is it wants to vibrate already, why not make sure it does not have anything helping the cause.

    On the flip side $400 could very well be 1/2 of the budget you have to get this thing back together, I do not know. Can you afford to have it done?

    I would put down on paper what you are comfortable with spending on this engine and start prioritizing things. HAVE to haves and NICE to haves. Check off the first list and see how much you have left. If it fits into the budget definitely do it, if not leave it alone.

    Hope this helps

    Steve
    BBD PERFORMANCE
    HIGH PERFORMANCE PARTS
    CUSTOM ENGINE BUILDS
    CUSTOM CAM DESIGNS
    1983 CRIMSON CAT OWNER

  19. #44
    FEP Supporter
    82GTforME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    4,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethyl Cat View Post
    How does it run now? Is it unacceptable?
    I am a big fan of balancing rotating assemblies myself. I have never balanced one of these assemblies, but my experience is usually the older the assembly is the more the factory let get out the door "close enough".
    Also, in the case of the amount of cylinders an engine has it changes the time between power pulses. Formula= 720/#cylinders. So in your case it is 120* between power pulses.
    Without a balance shaft this can cause some vibration. Natural I know, but the point is it wants to vibrate already, why not make sure it does not have anything helping the cause.
    On the flip side $400 could very well be 1/2 of the budget you have to get this thing back together, I do not know. Can you afford to have it done?
    I would put down on paper what you are comfortable with spending on this engine and start prioritizing things. HAVE to haves and NICE to haves. Check off the first list and see how much you have left. If it fits into the budget definitely do it, if not leave it alone.
    Hope this helps
    Steve
    Thanks Steve. Good points all. Too bad we didnt get a chance to really drive it, wind it up etc. due to being in the shape it was in and not wanting have it insurance inspected yet.

    The guy at the head shop would have thought the German's may ave done a better job balancing at that time versus North America. It's not really about the money. Maybe bang for the buck instead. I was more worried about damaging pistons removing the wrist pins and then needing to buy those.

    I think this will be money well spent.

  20. #45
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    You'll have to get an 8 grand tach....

    The Saab V4 guys say
    Just rev one up until it goes "BANG" then make it 200 r/min less than

    Some of the later Cologne 4.0's weren't spectacular for rod strength,. but the early 2.0/2.3/2.6 and 2.8/2.9's were pretty good.

    Ford of Europe made the red line 6600 rpm. The piston speed with a 2.7" stroke at 6600 rpm is so low, 30% lower than a 351 or 350, 11% lower than a 302, and 6% less than the 289. You won't brake anything except the fiber/composite timing gear, or, under long term high revs, the rod bolts. Long term, the internals have a short stroke, good pistons, rods are good, but bolts are standard plasticine Ford, a problem with all Fords, but the engine will take bursts up to the level easily. My Bosch electronic 2300 would zip to 7600 rpm easily, 1000 rpm over the red line, but still perfectly safe.

    The rod ratio is 1.9, the (93.03mm 3.66" Bore, 68.5mm 2.70" Stroke).bore to stroke ratio is 1.36:1. It has a fully jacketed 4.78" bore spacing, a big block bore spacing, which makes the engine well cooled. If it were a V8, it would be like a Buick 215, only able to rev faster, harder, and with less chance of splitting a bore or over heating because the Cologne has the worlds better oiling systems.


    The valve springs, a steel timing gear and prepped rods with some kind of better quality US con-rods bolts will make it an 8000 rpm engine like the old European touring cars.


    I'd go back to a great cam, timing gear, high compression, better 2 or 4-bbl carb, stock headers, bigger 2.9 or 2.0/2.3 OHC valves, the right springs, and check that the oil pump is is good condition, not scored, so it will make good pressure without frothing the oil up. I've found a good alcohol based Anti Detonation Ijection system allows you to run a higher compression ratio, and the right ignition curve.

    See http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...-8-Build/page2

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    Your engine just needs tweeking.

    My little 9.2:1 compression, 2-bbl 114 hp 2.3 Cologne V6 in my 1982 TF Cortina could do 118 mph after a big single exhast and cherry bomb resonator. Unlike your stock 2.8 US exhast system with its HEAPS better 3 out header, my stock V4 headers were inferior in every way to yours, yet it sounded so good. It started off with a C3 auto, ended up C4 Mustang 2.8, and got an IHI turbo and Impco carb for LPG.

    I got rid of it due to new job, family pressures and a new house.

    A 390 Vac sec 4-bbl and the exhaust mods you made are the only changes to kick start it. Then have your Duraspark re-curved to suit.

    I'd take the heads off, have them resurfaced or welded up to get 11:1 compression , and then go for Pinto 2000 power pack valves and a 280 degree Schnider cam. Then look at a certain kind of water injection.

    The Pinto guys (led by David Vizard with the Pinto SOHC 2.0), found total compression Ford engines can handle is huge if an anti detonation fluid is added. Early systems were above carb venturi Edlebrock Varijection, or above carb venturi washer bottle with two brass 16 thou holes or washer squirters with four failsafe systems.

    One simpler New Zealand devised system eliminates four fail safe systems by a restricted up draft water injection system (it needs no starter solenoid, no hobs valve, no manifold pressure sensor, and it allows static advance to be wound right up. I'm running 12.7:1 compression with 87 AKI fuel on my Mustang with one of these kits from http://www.dave-cushman.net/misc/mannject.html

    )

    The Offy 4-bbl with all the above mods will be a stout day to day driver, and the extra power will mean the Porsche 930 Turbo style gearing will be endowed with Mustang GT power. You'll easily get over 190 hp with the following BEIGHT modifications.
    Breathing (4-bbl carb and Offy intake, better cam, better compression),
    Exhast,
    Ignition (Fat spark from the Duraspark II is ideal),
    Gearing (stock SROD wide ratio is fine when you start to get the engine past 5.0 2V GT power levels)
    Heads,
    Timing (Recurved ignition Static 20 - 22 degrees, full advance 32 deg at 3500, with anti detonation via Robert Mann Water/Methonal injection)

  21. #46
    FEP Supporter
    82GTforME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    4,855

    Default

    Porting is ongoing. Check out the latest: http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...=1#post1629600

    I think we should see some improvements there!

    I have a question about piston rings. The guy who is doing some of the head work for this engine says I need to get "cast" rings (standard size). I don't know much about them. What are the advantages or disadvantages of these versus others?

  22. #47
    FEP Power Member Ethyl Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Lebanon, IL
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 82GTforME View Post
    Porting is ongoing. Check out the latest: http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...=1#post1629600

    I think we should see some improvements there!

    I have a question about piston rings. The guy who is doing some of the head work for this engine says I need to get "cast" rings (standard size). I don't know much about them. What are the advantages or disadvantages of these versus others?
    They are the cheapest and also the easiest for him to hone the block and have them seal. Moly is more work for him.

    Depending on clearance, you may want to get a .005" over set and file fit them to ensure good seal.

    Steve
    BBD PERFORMANCE
    HIGH PERFORMANCE PARTS
    CUSTOM ENGINE BUILDS
    CUSTOM CAM DESIGNS
    1983 CRIMSON CAT OWNER

  23. #48
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    There is a tendency for engine builders to shy away from chrome rings, because they require very careful bedding in. That's your choice.

    The the stock 1977-1985 135 hp V6 in the German, English and non US export markets, such as this Turkish Granada, has dual out let, 5 port heads and a specific intake manifold with a Bosch electronic ignition.



    Your US 2.8 engine is better in every way, ignition, exhaust, head design, and carburation.

    The Weber DGAS 38 gave carb Granada a huge amount of top end power. The US 2.8 with its US 2150 2-BBL probably could have out shined a 302 2-BBL if Ford USA weren't careful

    Your 2150 Motorcraft 2-bbl will eclipse it in every way with a few simple mods.

  24. #49
    FEP Supporter
    82GTforME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    4,855

    Default

    This engine was black from the factory. Any particular kind? Flat I would guess.

  25. #50

    Default

    more like semi gloss iirc.
    64 falcon
    66 mustang
    05 grand marquis

    dont just believe in miracles, rely on them!

    fordsix.com admin

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •