...hit me....
I really want to know if swapping out the 2.3L for a V6 really gains me anything. Knowing some of the history of the fabled 2.3, and the wide range of equipment and mods available, I am inclined to keep the 2.3 (and option it accordingly), but I still would like to hear from anyone who can say "yea" or "nay", and why. Thanks!
Chris
PS - this would be going in my wagon....current setup is 2.3L with 4 speed....
I've never been a fan of the 2.8 because of the thermostat being on the bottom side of the engine. At least on the early Rangers they were, the later ones had them moved to the top.
its got its perks but as another stated the thermostat is in the worst place, and even with regular maint you might run inot Plugged oil galleys or low oiling up top. you dont realyl get much of an upgrade for Hp either.
Bump - c'mon guys, please ante up.
Chris
you could Just up the Ante a bit and go with the 3.0 Ive heard its got similar mounts to the 2.8 but thats all ive heard.
My only experience with the 2.8 is th one I stuffed into the engine bay of a '74 Ford Courier agter I fried the stock 4 banger on a return trip from the salt flats in Utah with my wife. I had to build a set of headers for it and I swapped the 4 spd trans that came with the motor (out of a Capri)at the same time.
That being said; the motor seemed to lack the top end that I was used to in all the other cars that I owned up to that point. The headers were a beeatch!
I would have much rather preferred the 2.6 and a turbo at that time.
I have also heard there aren't as many options to modding the 2.8 V6. I'm not even too sure there was that much of a performance gain from the factory when comparing the two engines...
One good thing is that atleast it ain't a computer controlled car, where you would have to fab up a wiring harness to get it to go.
Quote from: popbumper on April 19, 2009, 10:13:19 PM
Knowing some of the history of the fabled 2.3, and the wide range of equipment and mods available
i think you summed it up in that statment. id keep the 2.3, back it with a t5 for overdrive, change the exhaust, intake, carb and possably throw a roller cam in it. at least thats what id do if i didnt like fuel injection ;D
bob
Thanks all, you have pretty much made my decision against the swap, and I appreciate the inputs.
Chris
PintoPower has a 2.8 in a wagon as well.... might PM him a question.
FrankBoss
PopBumper,
GAA Cosworth answers all the questions. But how big is your wallet? Seriously, there's bunch of power available in a 2.8-3.0L Cologne V6.
Lack of Bucks? Kick your Gov't harder ;D
Pintosopher, not quite (in the) stable ,but Stabil is a great way to save your gas...
My 2.8 is out of a 75 mustang and will burn the tires off, but the heads are new plus have been worked.
In a test of the then new 79 Mustangs by the little old blue haired ladies at Consumer reports, the 2.3/4-speed was a whopping two full seconds faster to 60 than the 2.8/Auto combination. So no, without modifications you won't gain any extra performance. Plus you'll have to adjust the valves every so often. Plus from the factory the 2.8 were only sold with Auto's. They were afraid of the lighter Pinto out accelerating the Mustang II with a four speed.
My 78 Crusising Wagon has the 2.8 V6 in it.It is not a lot faster that the 2.3 but is a lot smoother. There is a lot different feel when driving it as opposed the the 4 cyl.Also at cruse it maintains speed better when going up hills.You should drive one to see if you like it or not . The thermostat is not all that hard to change after youve done it a few times.But really how often do you change it? I have never had my heads off , I am the orignal owner,with 123 k .It does have a few oil leaks, but it has deen sitting 18 yrs.About the only thing ive done is change the timing gears.The original nylon one bit the dust early , I replaced it with steel gears.I have adjusted the lifters a few times its not too bad a job and does not need it that often.I dont know of many performance parts for the 2.8 so if thats what your looking for id be inclined to stick with the 2.3.
Here is my .02 , I own 6 Pintos 3 runabouts 3 wagons 2-2.0, 3-2.3 and a 2.8 in one wagon. It seems the V6 has more torque, better pull through the canyons,up hills etc. You drive them differently you spin the 4cyls and lug the V6 (not as much as a V8)but it rolls the freeway at 70-75 real nice. I am going to replace the timing gears this winter along with valve stem seals and all gaskets,I have no oil leaks and have about 40-45psi at idle, ;D 72k on the clock, Yep the V6 works well...Go for it
Ok ive read about all there is to read on the cologne v6... The 3.0 isnt one for starters its a vulcan. Not even similar way more refined and different bellhousings. Tom Morano is about the only performance parts in the U.S. 2.8,2.9, and 4.0L are cologne engines the 2.8 has an offy. intake manifold available. I "built" the 2.9 in my bronco 2 not worth the money but it does burnout and does alright it would raise hell in a pinto. Use hollow pushrods to help the top end oiling and a high volume oil pump. The europeans have a broad aftermarket for these engines since they got more of them and they were built there. I have been looking at all my options for my pinto and have pretty much come to the same conclusion as everyone else 2.3 all the way cheap parts lots of them. If you have the cash stroke it to a 2.8 :-)
There are 2.8 cams, aluminum intakes, and headers out there if you look hard enough. Schneider cams used to and maybe still carries a few performance cams. Many years ago my friend had a 70s 2.8 Capri with a 4-speed. Had headers, big solid cam, intake and ported heads. He had 4.10 gears and when racing shifted at 7500 RPM. Says the car was awesome fast and really fun to drive. Good part was out running a mid 80s Z-28 Camaro. Bad part was getting 70s V-8 gas mileage from a 2.8 :(
That being said I'd do a 2.3. I don't think they have made any new upgrade parts for the 2.8 in 20 years.