PINTO CAR CLUB of AMERICA
Welcome to FordPinto.com, The home of the PCCA => General Help- Ask the Experts... => Topic started by: dianne on April 16, 2014, 08:04:29 AM
-
I'm thinking as most my cars will be pretty mechanically finished and on to more bodywork and paint, that the Pinto really needs something more than a 2000. The car has hardly any pickup and go to be honest, not like a 1.6 or 1.7 in a BMW. I seem to find a bunch of 2.8 V6 bronco motors on Craigslist locally and at junk yards.
My Mustang II Ghia Sport Coupe has a 2.8 V6 and it's pretty darn peppy. My mechanic told me it's the same motor in the Bronco and something else that I forgot. The Pinto is really one of my favs and I even let the Maverick go over it. The only problem is how slow the thing is. It probably has a lot of miles left on the engine in there since Dave rebuilt the top, but it's not a very strong engine.
The only issue I have with a V6 is the tapping sound. I hear it around old broncos, on my Mustang, on many cars using that old Ford V6.
I know it's a decent engine. Did the Pinto have a V6 option back then in 1973? Would it be better off if I got another rollerblock 302 and put it in the Pinto? I kind of like having some power when I step on the gas. The V6 would work, but I friggin hate the tapping noise. Not like a Boss with solid lifers you know!
What's the deal with the lifters? Is a 302 just as easy to put in there?
-
Early 2.8 V-6 engines are also solid lifter engines. So the tapping you hear is just like the boss 302, the lifters.
-
THE LIFTER NOISE IS JUST A PART OR CHARATER OF THE ENGINE - BUT YOU CAN ADJUST VALVE SPRINGS AND GET THEM TO BE PRETTY QUIET! MY 75 HATCH WAS LIKE A DIESEL WHEN RUNNING! BUT A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE EX FORD TECH FROM THE 70'-90'S TOOK IT IN HIS SHOP AND MAN IT RUNS LIKE A TOP!!! AND IS VERY QUIET!! MY 2.3 IS LOUDER NOW!!
ONLY REAL ISSUE I HAVE SEEN WITH THE 2.8 IN A PINTO/BOBCAT IS KEEPING THEM COOL! GOOD LUCK
-
Oh, I didn't know. I heard they were German engines.
So does this engine just fit in there!
-
IT FITS BUT WITH A SHOE HORN!! LOL if a v8 fits then the v6 has to fit but is not a lot of fun to work on - not much room- even more so with factory a/c! but does have more pep then my 2.3 - but for reliability and gas mileage my 2.3t will smoke my 2.8 all day long! plus parts availability are tough for the 2.8 been its a German motor and old motor - most have been scraped - the 2.3 there are a ton of them and parts are super easy to find and can build one to out run the v6 pretty easily!
-
I don't see any 2.3 engines, other than Hondas, on Craigslist here. Plenty of 2.8 V6 engines. They sold a lot of 2.8 engines, so you don't think the 2.8 has a lot of parts available? I have one in my Mustang II Ghia though.
I guess I'll forget the 302 in there...
-
THE OTHER THING WITH THE 2.8 THEY WHERE KNOWN FOR BLOWING HEAD GASKETS - MY 75 HAD A BLOWN HEAD GASKET WITH 28,000 ORIGINAL MILES!! AND AS FAR AS PARTS GO IN TALKING ANY PERFORMANCE PARTS! THEY ARE NON EXSISTANT! THE 2.3 IS EVERY WHERE!! PLUS YOU CAN GET BETTER TRANSMISSION OPTIONS WITH A 2.3!
JUST MY 2 CENTS
-
I have to think about it. I could find headers for the 2.8 and other rebuild kits. But what about the 4.0 V6, is that the same size?
-
The 2.8 is a fine motor but like bbobcat said, hop up parts are pretty tough to come by. The last I checked, I couldn't even find a cam for one.
At best you'll find an old Offy 4 barrel intake, maybe a cam and perhaps some headers.
As parts are readily available, you can build a 2.3 any day to have a LOT more power than a 2.8 and core engines for 2.3's are a dime a dozen.
Like the 2.3, the 2.8 is pretty heavy but it's become a truly oddball engine.
Also, I think the Broncos had 2.9's. I believe it's the same block but different heads. 2.8's were earlier engines (I'll estimate the 2.8's were pre-1980?)
I believe the Taurus / Tempo 3.0 litre 60* V-6's were the same basic Cologne {Germany} block but you're getting into a world of fuel injection and computers with them and in stock form they were only good for like 140 hp. A stock 2.8 with a carb from a late 70's Mustang would be around 95 horse and 140 torque.
I think you're better off to build a 2.3, swap in a 2.3 Turbo from a TurboCoupe or go with a V8.
I love the 2.8, have one in my Triumph. It's coupled to a 5 speed from an '87 Ranger and have driven it 100% trouble free to both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
(http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac9/Surfnut74/PHTO0394_zpsb17d7f1a.jpg) (http://s880.photobucket.com/user/Surfnut74/media/PHTO0394_zpsb17d7f1a.jpg.html)
It is a great engine, gets me good mileage but is heavy, obsolete and not as powerful (in stock form) as it should be. Plain and simple, if you're going to go through all the hassle, you might as well go big instead of doing a ton of work to realize a 25-ish horsepower gain.
Dave
-
I'm thinking as most my cars will be pretty mechanically finished and on to more bodywork and paint, that the Pinto really needs something more than a 2000. The car has hardly any pickup and go to be honest, not like a 1.6 or 1.7 in a BMW. I seem to find a bunch of 2.8 V6 bronco motors on Craigslist locally and at junk yards.
My Mustang II Ghia Sport Coupe has a 2.8 V6 and it's pretty darn peppy. My mechanic told me it's the same motor in the Bronco and something else that I forgot. The Pinto is really one of my favs and I even let the Maverick go over it. The only problem is how slow the thing is. It probably has a lot of miles left on the engine in there since Dave rebuilt the top, but it's not a very strong engine.
The only issue I have with a V6 is the tapping sound. I hear it around old broncos, on my Mustang, on many cars using that old Ford V6.
I know it's a decent engine. Did the Pinto have a V6 option back then in 1973? Would it be better off if I got another rollerblock 302 and put it in the Pinto? I kind of like having some power when I step on the gas. The V6 would work, but I friggin hate the tapping noise. Not like a Boss with solid lifers you know!
What's the deal with the lifters? Is a 302 just as easy to put in there?
Diane,
When you say the 2.0L has little pickup, I have to ask "compared to what?" My Pinto stock engine back in 1985 had little power , even with a hooker header, I tried multiple tweaks on many types of progressive Holley/Autolite/ Weber 32/36 carbs. I even removed the Choke shaft and Butterflies and radiused the Air horns. Then I "massaged" the extra intake manifold I had and tried that, but little improvement except a slight increase in throttle response. Then I tried the Weber 38/38 DGAS that bolted to the manifold, fabbed a cable bracket , and went with a manual cable choke ...and BAM ! Wheelspin from first though 2nd and a chirp in third. All this with a Limited slip and 3:40 gears, and 9-1/2" wide tires. A slight jetting adjustment for a stumble just off idle and we were off to the races. This motor is starved for fuel with a emissions jetted carb. If you have no smog check , than you have your answer. Unless you're like me and secretly wish to open the hood and see 6 velocity stacks and make Ferrari noises when you wing it! ;D
How unique shall you expression of Pinto be? Time will tell!
I'm sure Dave is smiling right now!
Hmm , We just keep grinning and ask for more!
Pintosopher
-
DAVE-CHOPCHOP
THE EARLY BRONCO II HAD A 2.8 1980-1985 86 IS WHEN THE 2.9 CAME INTO PRODUCTION!
JUST FOUND A INTAKE AND CAM SET UP POSTED IT IN THE FORUMS FOR ANYONE LOOKING FOR PERFORMANCE PARTS!!
NOT MY PARTS! BUT A GOOD DEAL FOR!
-
Shootin myself in the foot here since I will have one for sale soon.
I have never like the Cologne engines. That's the 2.8 family. They FINALLY got it right with the 4.0. I have seen more problems with the 2.8, 2.9 than I care to remember. A lot of them problems from some sort of oil pressure woes. I have worked on a lot of them, because they were used a good bit for fleet service back in the mid to late 80s. That's what most cable, plumbing, electrical and contractor companies ran, was the little Rangers with those engines. Yes, I admit they were usually overloaded by about ten times, but nonetheless, those engines made a negative impact on me. I think they are pieces of crap I wouldn't own one.
-
In the mostly motorcycle world I came from 100 cc. is 10 hp. The 2.3 comes closer to fulfilling the extra 300 cc. (30 hp.) than the 2.8 does the extra 800 (80 hp.) over the 2.0. The six just is not a performance engine without a lot of work. There for a while was an excellent hi-perf book out that was called "Hot Rodding the Ford V-6" or something close, it went into all the details of the evolution from 2.8 to 4.0 and the exploitable differences between them, an excellent book. Mine got stolen though a good while back. Hard to find.
I'd go 2.3 before 2.8, there's just so much stuff out there for them and not hard to get a relatively stock 2.3 to make about as much USEABLE power as a 2.8 and not stressed hard at all. Turbo even better. The six is just not well laid out like sixes today are, being an early idea that needed much more development. The power suffers as a result. Heck. the 2.3 is the same way, with the most mis-designed head on the planet, but at least there's a few options to help remedy that.
-
Dianne don't get me wrong I love my 75 bobcat with the factory v6 but not practical for driving on highway or for a long distance - car has a bad set up from the factory v6 -c3- with 3.55 rear gears, takes off from a light like a bat out of hell but max speed is about 65 -69 (not a highway car) and motor is screaming at about 3000-4000 rpm - no tach to know for sure! but doesn't sound happy!! but love the power off the line and sounds good at a light - but my little 2.3 with the turbo is way cheaper and easier to build and hate to say takes off pretty good and cruises at 80mph like its nothing!!!
do yourself the easy cheap way and stick a 4banger in it!! the v8s are cool but most guys hack and cut and hammer it to fit!! which in my eyes kills the car! anyone can smash a can with a hammer! but to make it fit like it was factory is a talent and I can respect and appreciate that!!
take care
-
WOW, thanks I have NO clue what to do now ahahahahaha
Dave is probably laughing at me, he was going to stop by my office the other day but he had to change the muffler on his Pinto. Hopefully he'll get there before I paint it and after :)
I still can't believe I was going to keep the Maverick over my Pinto, but I want a Pinto. My mechanic's dad, also a mechanic, said he chopped a 390 into a Pinto back in the 80s. I have no clue how that would even fit in there or even a 302 for that matter. People talk crap sometimes, but I believe him.
So what will happen to the Pinto engine compartment? I've read everything and it seems different people like different engines, I have a 2.8 in my Mustang II Ghia Sport Coupe, pic of it attached (got the car detailed today to see how much work I have to do). The 2.8 isn't bad for driving around town, it's a neat engine. My Pinto has factory air and I want to keep air in the car (not there now, but will be again).
So now I need to read more of your comments, read the ones you all already posted, and decide what the heck to do. Working on the 2.0 could be an option like Pintosopher talked about. Honestly, compared to a lot of cars Pintosopher, a 1.7 BMW rips butt compared to this, or my 2.8 in the Mustang, or my 351 in my Galaxie, or even the 200 in my ex-Maverick. I kind of have a heavy foot and when I step on the gas I want something to react.
I picture my car when done, and if I'm ever finished working on it with huge tires in the back jacked up and pulling 12 or 11 second on the 1/4 mile LOL But honestly, don't know if I'll do it, I kind of like it stock and it's a cool looking car. I just gotta decide what I need to do!
(http://www.misfitfords.com/DianneImages/Wash3.jpg)
(http://www.misfitfords.com/DianneImages/Wash4.jpg)
-
The 2.8 is a fine motor but like bbobcat said, hop up parts are pretty tough to come by. The last I checked, I couldn't even find a cam for one.
At best you'll find an old Offy 4 barrel intake, maybe a cam and perhaps some headers...
Dave
Is that a GT6? I had a Spitfire way long ago, always wanted a larger motor and non-Lucas wiring :-) Why don't the Britt's make refrigerators? Because Lucas would do the wiring ahahahaha
Nice, post full pics :)
-
WOW, I have NO clue what to do now.
After reading all this I think it's pretty simple, "2.3".. ;) :D :D
-
07 ^ Ford Ranger drive line, rad to diff.
With the 4 LT and 4 speed trans & the 4:88s in the diff, you would have a very snappy car, good mileage, fun to drive.
I rally wanted to do this with my parts car, when the wife wrote her 07 Ranger off this winter.
Insurance co. wouldn't let me buy back the truck >:(
-
07 Ranger drive line? What size engine?
-
After reading all this I think it's pretty simple, "2.3".. ;) :D :D
Maybe, if it has a turbo... I want some power. Maybe I'll end up leaving the 2.0. I have other cars that are gonna be faster, this could be my slug car, but love the car and it needs a tad more power. I'll ask my mechanic and see what he says about pepping up the 2.0 :)
-
Maybe, if it has a turbo... I want some power. Maybe I'll end up leaving the 2.0. I have other cars that are gonna be faster, this could be my slug car, but love the car and it needs a tad more power. I'll ask my mechanic and see what he says about pepping up the 2.0 :)
From what I been reading the Turbo deal is the way to go, they're readily available and it bolts in..
-
Yeah on a 2.3. Maybe I'll keep looking for one :)
-
I rebuilt my 2.8 last summer and had problems finding main bearings and water pumps. I researched the 2.9 for some time before staying w/2.8. The main difference with the 2.9 is it is injected only! You would need to wire in a fuel injection computer. The heads are different also as Ford changed the cam drive to a chain instead of gears. So the cam turns the other direction. Also the valve sequence across the head is different (2.9=IEIEIE, 2.8=IEEIEI). I believe the cam journals are larger on the 2.9 as well. The cranks and rods are interchangeabl e with slightly different stroke. Bellhousing is the same. The 2.8 out of the Pinto and Mustang had different main bearing set than the trucks. If you decide to do a 2.8, go with the 83-85 out of the Ranger and Bronco II, more engine parts still available. Manifolds are not interchangeabl e.
-
After reading Scott's post on the 2.0 or 2000, I'm sticking with the 2000 in the Pinto. I'll just need to start looking for parts.
I will want the 2.8 in the Mustang II Ghia. So I need to start looking for those next also I guess.
-
07 Ranger drive line? What size engine?
4 LT.
Can get lot-o-parts & even hot rod it.
But, I'm a V8 guy ;D
-
4 LT.
Can get lot-o-parts & even hot rod it.
But, I'm a V8 guy ;D
I still have a hopped up 302 in my King Cobra and a 351W in my Galaxie :D
-
To pickup where I left off, the cam journals are indeed larger on the both the truck 2.8 and the 2.9. The 2.9 and 4.0 have hydraulic lifters.
I solved the hot running by removing the belt driven 16 inch fan and replacing it with a electric 16 inch fan. Because the 2.8's are geared short, the fan runs fast also and creates an air dam that the air can't flow through the radiator. I have a fan controller to switch on at between 195 and 200 degrees. In town the fan will cycle, on the highway there is enough air flow to keep the temp about 180-190. I have a manual switch to turn the fan on when I'm climbing a pass.
I also looked at the push rod 4.0. The block is much taller than the others to accommodate the longer stroke. With taller intake manifolds, you may have hood clearance problems.
Check out the Ranger Station.com. They have an engine tech section that will give all the information needed for your project.
Enzo.
-
Thanks, the Pinto will remain a 2.0 now after seeing Scott's posts.
But my Mustang II Ghia has a 2.8 and I want to keep it original. I really don't have to do much yet, but I plan on a rebuild, so storing everything for it would be good I think.
Thanks for the link on the 2.8 :-D