Hot Rods 3.0 in a 29 pickup

I saw this sitting along the road last week.

 

I have thought about using this engine in a T. They came in about a gazillion Rangers and Madza B3000 pickups. And the FWD Taurus/Sable engine can be a donor real easy. and they make real good power for the displacement. At least 150 hp and 180-200 ft-lbs. They have a narrow 60 degree angle too. Tough as nails and believe it or not they kinda sound decent as well.

 

it looks like they made a plenumn to carb adapter, thats pretty cool. These were a very reliable motor for ford and there are a ton of them out there.

 

TJM, as you probably have noticed I REALLY want to use a small displacement 4 or 6 in my next build. Unlike many of the GM V-6s I like the little Fords because they have evenly spaced exhaust ports. What amazes me is that no one who uses them, like this guy, goes to the trouble to make some really good looking, vintage "flathead" style hot rod pipes for them.

RE the Ranger and Mazda pickups, did any of these come with 4spd or 5 spd OD automatics that you know of?

Thanx, Gary

 

gnichols,
The ranger I drive is a 2003 with V-6 and 5-speed. Also has 4.10 rear end. Find one wrecked or at police auction and your in bidness

 

That's kinda neat, too bad for the ugly valve covers...

But why a 3.0? They're kind of a pig, and it has to sound awful... I'd rather use a late model 4.0.... Much more torquey.

 

The 3.0 might be a good one for you gnichols. Mallory makes a real distributor for them (a unilite). All you need to do is fab up a carb setup. By the way, I believe 2 Holley 94's should be near perfect carburetion for a 3.0 while retaining hot rod appearance. Build a small log type intake that bolts on top of the EFI lower and off you go.

Did Rangers or the Mazda (built on same prodution line) come with 4 or 5 speed O/D's? Hell yeah! At least half of them had 4 speed auto O/D's. I'd suspect that more auto's were sold than sticks. The 3.0 auto Ranger can tow up to about 2600 lbs (all in). I think I once read you want to pull a little teardrop type trailer. That kind of trailer should be well under 2600lbs.

Have you looked into the first generation Ford 4.0? Not the OHC but the cam in block 4.0. They were pretty tough and had around 240 ft-lbs I think. Came with 5 speeds or 4 speed O/D's.

Also the Ford 3.8 is pretty powerful and there is a 4.2 version of it in F150 trucks. The early 3.8's have a reputation for head gasket trouble. The split intake port 3.8 from 99-up solved this problem wiht a slightly different engine block. I believe real distributors are available for both the 4.0 and the 3.8/4.2 series engines but I am not positive. A company in Canada called Morana Racing makes a bolt on carb adapter intake for the split port 3.8 from 99-up Mustangs (190hp/220ft-lbs and of which there are tons out there). The 3.8/4.2 uses the same transmission as the 302/351W engine family. I had a 2000 3.8 V6 Mustang. Got exactly the same fuel economy as my current 1998 4.6 V8 Mustang GT daily and it is much quicker. The Ford 3.8 is said to be a devised as a response to the Buick 3.8 and it's architecture is supposed to be very similar. While the 3.8 is an option, I can not go without saying that it's fuel economy is not nearly better enough than a very mild 302 V8 to really recommend it's consideration.

For very little money you can build an easy 300 hp fuel sipping 302 that could pull anything you might hook to a little truck. I fully believe the 302 might be Ford's greatest engine ever.

 

Yeah they do have VERY ugly valve covers. I've read that early 3.0's have better looking valve covers. But if it's under a hood who'd know the difference?

They aren't really that much of a pig and they actually do sound ok. Under full throttle with a load they sound kinda powerful.

I read someplace that the 3.0 is Ford's most prolific engine. Maybe ever. Ford put this engine in the following vehicles....

Ranger
Aerostar
Probe
Tempo
Topaz (Mercury)
Taurus
Sable
B3000 (Mazda's Ranger)

Most of which sold pretty well. All 3.0's can be either FWD or RWD and need only the appropriate intake and head gaskets for the application.

 

Ranger motors are SWEET. i am at almost 200,000 miles on my 3.0 and its still running strong. nothing wrong with a ranger motor. good gas milage and they are everywhere.

 

TJM and all. Apprecaite the help and data. You can always PM me or email should the traditional police find us out and cut this thread. I've got about a half dozen motor combos / donor cars on the short list for my build.
First up is the TDI VW turbo diesel. So far it sounds hard... but I will work hard at that before giving it up. Next are the 2.4 Ecotecs with autos from the Solstice / Sky, Ponty 3800s in EFI and supercharged, Ford I-4s and V-6s and, most recently and a new candidate to the list, are the current run of Caddy V6's that come in RWD stuff. Mucho power, but I think those are all motors that want premium, eh? I haven't looked into them much but the idea of a Hi-tech Caddy is appealing some how. Might even be easier to install than the Ponty V-6s.
But I'd favor a Ford in a Ford, as is my 37 Fordor with a 5.0, if I can get what I want. Those requirements are a good tow for a small trailer or tear drop, max OD xmsns in auto (some of us have / expect handicaps) or stick and GREAT mileage on REGULAR 87 Octane. I don't think I have much use for more than 180-200 hp or Rice rocket revs, but will take all the torque I can get retaining good mileage. Mileage is VERY important to me. To compensate, my build's goal is 1800 lbs or less. Trying for 30mpg city, 40 or more highway. Building the rod of the future here, at least my future if no others, as it will be my last build no doubt.
The plan is old school outside, and super-high tech inside where no one can see (or it can be hidden easily).
Always welcome any and all suggestions. Keep em coming, boys. Gary

 

As a 20 year Ford parts guy, I'll attest to the 3.0 V6 being a tough bugger. I've seen a ton of old high mile Tauri and Sables still going strong, no issues. Cast iron block and heads, pushrods, no high-tech, but they get the job done.


cheers
Ed N.

 

....and if your patient enough you can source out an old 3.0SHO motor and use an Aerostar bellhousing to swing the motor back into the correct North-South direction. It wouldn't be HAMB friendly but you'd have a very cool looking motor and plenty of HP to move it around while still pulling down some respectable mileage.

-Bigchief.

 

The SHO motor was actually the first choice for my 37, but it was really too hard / costly. I saw a 37 5w coupe in a car mag that had it, made me cry. At one time Ford was going to sell them as crate motors with the wiring kit, but it was like 10K. I called them once about it, they said I was only the second guy to express an interest. No wonder at that price. Gary

Forgot to add, if you go here you can see some of the ideas I have, and pix I've been "liberating" to help me conceptualize things

http://public.fotki.com/kitbashr/new-rod-ideas/

 

The 3.0 is a decent enough motor but the 4.0 definitely smokes it. When I bought my 08 Ranger I drove 3.0 and 4.0's back to back and the 4.0 was noticeably faster. 207 HP vs 148 and 238 Tq. vs 180. I got a loaded supercab with the 5 speed auto and it knocks out 20mpg with the air on, a load in it, and driving the poo out of it.
The old push rod 4.0 was also a great motor, in fact back in about 88 or so a std cab 5 speed short bed 4.0 with the 4.11 gear (or was it 3.73) was the fastest American made production car in America outside of the Vette! Would leave a 5.0 or a Camaro!

 

Uhhh.....I don't think so.

 

What he said, the 3.0 sucks. Good torque but no pep. I drive one in my daily Ranger.

 

Ok kids, looking for torque and mpg. What does the 3.0 get city / hwy? Run on 87 octane?

Isn't the 4.0 a new, modular motor? Doubt it will fit under my 27T hood.

Gary

 

I get 18 city and on a good day 20ish hwy. run 92 Octane

 

I think the biggest issue you will face trying to get 40 mpg on the highway is the aero drag. A roadster doesn't have too much frontal area, but the tires in the open add huge drag at highway speed. Keep us informed; I am very interested in hearing how it works out.

 

Actually it is quite true. It was 1989 and I worked a compnay that built a project truck for the SEMA show. It was a standard cab 4.0 5 speed with a factory posi and the deep gear (again I can't remember whether it was 3.73 or 4.11) the truck weighed 2650 and made 160 HP stock. It ran a corrected 14.70 before we did any changes to it.
1989 Mustangs with the 5.0 made 225 hp, weighed about 3250 and the best gear was a 3.08, 2.73 was standard. Hard running 89's went 14.9 if you could get them off the line without going up in smoke due to the tall gear. Most owners were running low 15's. the best magazine test I saw at the time was 14.8 with a pro driver.
The keys were the lighter weight and stout gears with the 5 speed.

 

i'm checking out some rangers for the drive train, 4 cyl and 5 speed, i will also use the rear, its for a t-sedan, i'm going to close off the rear side windows and make a door at the back.

 

No doubt, but it is a goal. My 27 will be a cab. Bed will have a cover. But it is still an aero brick. The mileage might be achievable with good torque, some high gears or OD. Naturally, don't expect that much really loaded or with a small trailer.

For those reasons, the VW TDI is my first very good choice for a motor, I think. The old epa ratings had jettas and golfs at 51 higway. And they last forever. They only make like 100 horse, but have half again as much torque. The "TDI" tuners sell majic boxes for them that get the hp up to 120 or so and torque to about 200. So... it's worth the trouble to check it out, I think. I know I can get one hooked up to a t-5, but an automatic might not be doable. If that approach fails, then I-4s and V-6s are the obvious fall backs. V-8s aren't totally out of the pix, but they are HEAVY and big. And so are the trannys that usually go with them.

Later, Gary

 

I drive almost completely city in my 3.0 auto ranger and get 17 mpg with a few bolt on mods. Overall it's reliable, but not much power. I wish I had gotten the 4.0, a lot more hp and not much worse mpgs.

 

Rats, none of those numbers is worth a crap. Gary

 

I heard mention of the SHO version of the 3.0 is this thread....SHO was a Yamaha Engine,not a Ford 3.0

 

I thought it was just the "Genesis" heads. Strange coincidence, I also had a Yamaya 700 sport bike at one time, also with Genesis heads, 5 valves just like the SHO. Rode it nearly 24K miles and never even adjusted the valves. GREAT motor. Gary

 

Can't believe no one's whined about this being non-traditional yet.

gnichols, I'm glad you're looking at different engines. Good luck.

 

Yes and no. It was a joint development deal. The blocks were very similar. All the magic is in the heads and intake.

 

I hope not. I think I'm going to get a LOT out of this thread. I like old bangers, especially like old vintage race motors and new I-4s are just like them to me. Didn't someone run a diesel at Indy once?

I supect the trad guys are out counting acorn nuts on their flatheads or something and haven't noticed us yet. Gary

 

SHO's were 4 valve heads, not 5 valve.