Author Topic: 3.8 engine swap (Read 11001 times)

marksm · « **on:** May 09, 2007, 11:10:37 PM »

I just picked up a 72 Cruisin Wagon and I have a near complete Supercoupe drive train sitting around. I've never seen a 3.8 V6 in a Pinto. Has anyone tried it?

thoraxethree · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2007, 12:09:07 AM »

I was going to try until i found a 5.0

mrpinto · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2007, 12:53:32 AM »

I was almost going to do it, then thought to myself, if I'm gonna go to all the work to swap the 6, why not just go for the 8? Of all the 3.8's I owned, I never found them much easier on fuel than a 302, but definitley easier on power!

If you have your heart on a 6, with a doner, the 2.8 would be an easier swap.

77turbopinto · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2007, 08:15:25 AM »

I THOUGHT about doing that swap. After looking at a SC donor that a friend of mine had, and doing a bunch of research, I realized a few things: I don't think it could fit under the hood without a scoop or MAJOR work (this is important to me). There are no oil pans made for that engine that would fit with a front sump, and even if I made one, the V6 is so short there might not be enough room anyway so a 'dry sump' system might be needed (or re-locate the crossmember). Those engines are not to most durable that Ford made. A V8 bell would be needed, most likely the best one to use would be a Mustang II one (I did not get to seeing if the crank bolt patterns are the same).

I am NOT saying that it can't be done. If it were not for my buddy changing his mind about selling the SC, I might have tried it.

Bill

FCANON · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2007, 08:41:34 AM »

Go for it...nothing wrong with straying from the V8 crowd....

Frank

www.PintoWorks .com

High_Horse · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2007, 11:44:36 AM »

Marksm,
Measure the hell out of it and take all into consideration. You don't need to be opening up a can of worms to enjoy a performance pinto. Somebody on this board said you can put anything in anything if you have the money...ergo I am not running a G.E. turbine. You did the right thing by bringing it up.

High_Horse

marksm · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2007, 10:11:26 PM »

I am aware of the oil pan issue. A steel pan from a regular 3.8 will bolt on and be easier to mod than the cast aluminum pan from the SC. A dry sump system may have to be used if I can't get a sump under there.

I like to do things a little differently.

78pinto · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2007, 09:02:58 PM »

this topic has been discussed before. Like i said, if someone puts a 3.8 sc motor in a Pinto....they'll be my hero as that's the engine swap i've always wanted to do! I say go for it!

lmpinto · « **Reply #8 on:** May 14, 2007, 08:03:33 AM »

I think the 3.8 V6 swap is a great idea. The V8 swap make the front of the pinto very heavy (try driving one) you spend a lot of time melting rubber and not going anywhere. Most people love the handling of a pinto, a carb. 3.8 weighs about the same as a 2.3. It is set back in the engine bay and doesn't destroy the balance of the car.
Life changed, I sold my 73 last year. I have a 4bbl intake, and hot cam/lifters of a 3.8 with a carb. I'd sell if your interested? Also I have 2 engines (3.

and a couple of Tran's.

Larry
Email me at -- pinto1973@juno.com

marksm · « **Reply #9 on:** May 15, 2007, 01:25:43 AM »

The fully dressed SC 3.8 weighs about the same as a 302. No weight savings to be had for that engine combo.

RogerLNugent · « **Reply #10 on:** June 20, 2007, 10:07:11 PM »

I have a Pinto, 1975 pony, I have 4 3.8 engines, I would like to know as you go, what problems you encounter putting a V6 in. Maybe we can trade ideas.

The 3.8 engine weighs 490 lbs, the 302 weighs closer to 600 lbs. The engine will set back further than the V8.

The 3.8 has aluminum heads, you can go regular carb or fuel injection. The 3.8 uses less fuel than a v8, and would still move a little car nicely.

Roger Nugent.

marksm · « **Reply #11 on:** June 21, 2007, 12:27:44 AM »

Quote from: RogerLNugent on June 20, 2007, 10:07:11 PM

The 3.8 engine weighs 490 lbs, the 302 weighs closer to 600 lbs. The engine will set back further than the V8.

Roger Nugent.

According to the Build specs for the 1993 Thunderbird:

Dressed engine weights
3.8 - 451 lbs
3.8 SC - 542 lbs
5.0 HO - 543 lbs

Yes, using the standard 3.8 block assembly you would have a lighter engine. The 3.8 Supercharged engine had a beefier block and a nice heavy Supercharger and intercooler assembly attached to it.

302PintoMan · « **Reply #12 on:** June 21, 2007, 09:29:32 AM »

Quote from: FCANON on May 10, 2007, 08:41:34 AM

Go for it...nothing wrong with straying from the V8 crowd....

Frank

www.PintoWorks .com

Whats wrong with us v8 pintos?

marksm · « **Reply #13 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:34:33 PM »

Quote from: 302PintoMan on June 21, 2007, 09:29:32 AM

Whats wrong with us v8 pintos?

Nothin'

I have another idea in my head that I envisioned in 1980 on a weekend road trip. It involved a Boss 429 and a Pantera transaxle. I think the rear axle centerline is too close to the seats for such a mid-engine setup though. Not to mention my fabrication skills are probably not up to such an involved project.

71hotrodpinto · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2007, 08:23:33 PM »

Hmmm i think that the fully dressed weight of a standard carbed 302 with the aluminum manifold is around 450lbs. Everyplace ive looked online has it around that weight. Throw some aluminum heads on it and come close to 400 ready to fire.
The specs that I'm seeing here are probably for a fuel injected 302 with the upper manifold and the full serpentine assembly attached.
The carbed 351 comes close to the 550lbs mark though.
just some thoughts. :smile:

marksm · « **Reply #15 on:** June 26, 2007, 01:03:02 AM »

Quote from: 71hotrodpinto on June 24, 2007, 08:23:33 PM

Hmmm i think that the fully dressed weight of a standard carbed 302 with the aluminum manifold is around 450lbs. Everyplace ive looked online has it around that weight. Throw some aluminum heads on it and come close to 400 ready to fire.
The specs that I'm seeing here are probably for a fuel injected 302 with the upper manifold and the full serpentine assembly attached.
The carbed 351 comes close to the 550lbs mark though.
just some thoughts. :smile:

Yes, those numbers come from a Ford document entitled "Manufacturers Motor Vehicle Specifications". They are for the fully dressed engine with exhaust manifolds, fluids, etc. The 302 is the HO version with Aluminum heads and EFI system.

71hotrodpinto · « **Reply #16 on:** June 26, 2007, 01:52:29 AM »

Quote from: marksm on June 26, 2007, 01:03:02 AM

Yes, those numbers come from a Ford document entitled "Manufacturers Motor Vehicle Specifications". They are for the fully dressed engine with exhaust manifolds, fluids, etc. The 302 is the HO version with Aluminum heads and EFI system.

hmmm are you sure you ment alumminum heads? As im sure you know Ford never had and aluminum headed 5.0 from the factory.

marksm · « **Reply #17 on:** June 26, 2007, 07:54:58 PM »

Quote from: 71hotrodpinto on June 26, 2007, 01:52:29 AM

hmmm are you sure you ment alumminum heads? As im sure you know Ford never had and aluminum headed 5.0 from the factory.

OOPS.. no aluminium in da heads.. The heads on the SC 3.8 are though. Got em mixed.

junkyard dog · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2007, 10:19:06 PM »

3.8 = Crap engine.
You blow head gasket fix that you get bearing noise.
I buy at least 1 a week 3.8 Powered Ford of some kind for our Wrecking yard because the engine;s knocking..
Tim

69GT · « **Reply #19 on:** August 02, 2007, 10:41:09 PM »

I wanted to do a N/A 3.8 roller camed motor with some porting and shorty headders. My roomy has a T-Bird SC project that he has changed and discarded parts from and I was hoping to use some. But it's a pain. Oil pan issues are the main thing. Motor mounts? No Idea. But aluminum heads mean higher compression is possible on pump gas (10-11:1)That a bigger roller cam and some porting would maybe (Big maybe) get the thing to around 1 HP per cubic inch . 230HP would be around 200 at the wheels. In a 2200 LB car with a manual tranny that's about 11/1 LBS per horse. An 07 Mustang is around 13/1 so the Pinto should be faster. In my current Tylenol PM induced state it sounds like fun

I gave up on the 3.8 idea. Looking into a souped up 2.8 Six or 2.3 now. I have a Pissed off Maverick in my drive way next to the Pinto that provides plenty of frightening moments when I get the urge to go fast. Good luck though. And if you pull it off post plenty of pictures and let us know how hard it was... Also if you get the SC motor in there I have two words for you: Subframe Connectors!!!

Sponsored by Tylenol PM :swirl:

PintoSuperCoupe · « **Reply #20 on:** August 07, 2007, 06:08:53 PM »

Done back in 1989 with a 1978 Pinto body. Used a steel oil pan from F100 with 3.8 cut and modified with a 351W oil pan sump. Holds 7 quarts. Used a V8 bell housing and a T-5 from a 83 Mustang. 8 inch from a Mustang II with Maverick axles. Carb intake and distributor setup. Car has been sitting for a while but ran strong. No clearance problems. The next round will be the SC upgrade. Parts are in hand just need the time. Going to use the ECU as well.

77CrzgWgn · « **Reply #21 on:** April 22, 2014, 07:04:15 PM »

Status update?

Pintopowers · « **Reply #22 on:** April 22, 2014, 07:15:17 PM »

Wow.. wish ide known sooner... Had a front sump steel pan off a 3.8 lying around, was thinking the same idea with a leftover 3.8 from a mustang i got rid of.. Smog laws stopped me here in CA.

Always wondered if it could be done also?

SR

txnnny · « **Reply #23 on:** May 17, 2014, 03:56:19 PM »

I'm thinkin 2011 mustang 3.7 & 6 speed for my 72 Runabout. I dreed the wiring the most. Actually I dreed spending the money the most but the reward of a 30+ mpg, 12 second quarter mile, or quicker, daily driver vintage in your face Pinto is irresistible!

News:

Current Classifieds

Author Topic: 3.8 engine swap (Read 11001 times)

RogerLNugent