Mustang 4.0L in a 1940 Ford

Has anybody tried to put a Mustang 4.0L V6 into an early Ford frame? With the price of gas going the way it is, I have been thinking about putting a V6 into my 1940 Ford pickup. It is a sweet motor, puts out 210 HP & 254 ft/lbs of torque in stock form. I would love to have some feedback about potential problems.

 

In my opinion, a V6 looks like shit in an old car. They just don't fit the period. They also make me think the guy is trying to fool somebody into thinking it's a V8, like the guys who weld their back doors shut and call it a 2 door. If you want a 6, go straight, MUCH cooler. JMHO

 

i can't say its a bad idea,
but is it fuel injected?
would you make it carb'd or leave it?
TP

 

I would leave it fuel injected, maybe put a supercharger on it.

 

early ones had heads/head gaskets that barely stood up to stock power and YOU want a blower?!?!?!

it would't be MY 1st choice

i see a lot of 'em because of rangers/exploders...

 

I'm not saying the motor doesn't matter but I'm under the impresion that engine RPM is a hugh factor in fuel mileage. What I'm saying is don't overlook final drive ratios just because you have a V6.

 

A 4.0 V6? Really? Like...really really? Besides it being ugly and sounding like shit, you might want to consider how much you'd be hacking up your 40 pickup thus devaluing it, and all the time and money you'd spend trying to wire the thing up just to save a few bucks at the pump.

 

Wrong board for that kind of engine.

But the 4.0 V6 is mostly trouble free. If you have to go outand accuire the powerplant, you will spend less using a V8 and if built right probably get close to the same kind of fuel economy.

 

I have seen a 40 coupe locally with that motor. Certainly not my choice but it fit well, looks like crap, but seemed to fit ok.

 

Resale value aside, a properly tuned v8 will not have to work as hard to move you along, and get the same mileage with a broader power curve. An overdrive transmission with a 302 would be better, imho.

 

...and it kind of defeats your whole "gas mileage" theory by also stating that you're going to throw a supercharger on it. Do mileage or do horsepower, one or the other IMHO.

 

Cars that are enjoyed as a hobby ride,"not driven every day" Who cares what the fucking milage is! Put a engine in it that is right and belongs there! Just cause something else will fit does not mean do it?

If you want milage why not make it a fucking hybrid with a electric assisted Briggs&Straton engine. Gas is not going to go down in price ,face it. I just suck it up and pay the couple dollars extra at the pump when I fill so I can enjoy the ride and power I get from a Hot Rod. If you want gas milage than get one of those toyotas that get a 100 miles to a gallon. A V-6 DOES NOT BELONG IN ANY PERIOD HOT ROD AT ALL!

 

I see a good amount of people putting in v6's, they did the same in the seventies and early eighties too, after that people didn't want those cars and the owners couldn't sell them for anything other than a project car needing a drivetrain. I am all for saving gas but there are better options, inliners are way more acceptable by most people even if it is a four cylinder and many of those are turbo nowadays so you would still have the power but with better gas mileage.

 

In case you were unaware, the v6 in question is a new version starting with the 2005 Mustang. It is small and compact. I don't think it shares any parts from the Ranger versions.

 

Gas just jumped up $.20 today, and I still wouldn't put a V6 in a 40 Ford! There's a guy here that has a 37 Plymouth coupe with a V6. Great LOOKING car, but when he drove by and I heard that V6, the first thing I thought was "What the F was that?". The sound didn't fit the look of the car.

 

It won't get any better mileage than a V8 with a 5-Speed or better yet 6-speed behind it and it will still be worth something if you ever decided to sell it.

 

Some of the externals are different, but the basic engine is the same 4.0L OHC as used in 2001-up Rangers and 97-up Explorers. It is an outgrowth of the old 2.6 and 2.8 pushrod V6 engines from Ford of Europe that we first saw in the 70s Capris.

Because they are in Mustangs now, there are some performance pieces available. But as several people have said, it's probably not the way to go in a 40 Ford. Over the years I've had several 4.0L OHC Rangers as demos here at the dealership, and the fuel mileage on them really isn't much better than the 5.4L V8 F-150 I'm driving now. IMO a good running 302 V8 with EFI would suit your needs better, and not sound like ass when you drive by.


cheers
Ed N.

 

I would go with a 5L V8 and overdrive trans. They are better on gas than the 4L V6. My exploder had a 4L and never got good milage. My old F150 with a 5L 5spd was better.

 

I put a V6 in my hot rod for various reasons; its light, compact, cheap, and has plenty of power for my car. It happened to be the first thing I came across and it was dirt cheap so I bought it. 99% of the people on this board will say I am an idiot for using it, but the truth is its my car. As it not being traditional, I guess I see where they are coming from, but an engine is an engine so I really wouldn't call it non traditional, besides I like to be different anyway. How many flatheads or SBCs can one person stand. Mine will be covered with a hood and sides so no one will notice it anyway. In your case you may spend enough money on the swap to buy gas for the next ten years, if it was me I would just leave it. It is your decision, so don't let anyone sway it too much.

 

drove from nj to miami fl in my coupe, 302, t-5 and 4.30 gears and averaged 20-25 mpg and never went the speed limit tuning is a neccesity the trouble and headache is not worth the money your gonna spend to save money... that and it will sound like shit no matter what you do

 

If you want to use a V6 might I reccomend the first production v6's from Buick. Mine has over 100,000 miles and still gets 17 mpg with a 2 barrel. I imagine you could get more if you tuned it better. It is a baby nailhead with 198" of decent power. The trans is a 2 speed but I imagine you could get some adapter and throw something else behind it.

I might have an extra one of there motors lying around if you are interested and not too far.

Bob

 

Thanks for the comments although I was really looking for comments about the difficulties I might encounter with the installation. As for the other comments, that's what hotrodding is all about and that's why there are so many variations out there. As for the performance, I have a 2007 Mustang with a V6 and I regularly get 28-30 MPG, it is very quick and it sounds fine if you put the right exhaust on it. As for cost, it will be helluva lot cheaper than $10,000 for a flathead. I know, I can built a flathead cheaper, but I would want one that I could depend on with no cracks or flaws. I just get tired of seeing a SBC everytime I look under the hood.

 

Unless you plan to sell it someday. Now is the time to think hard and make the right decision. There's a lot of info here, weigh it wisely.

 

I think the engine/tranny combo is the easy part.
(just crossmember mods, eng mounts, wiring, long shifter? etc.)

The tricky part is making the rearend ratio and tire size match what the mustang has,
(not adding the weight difference...)
so you have similar power and mileage.
Putting 16's with 7.00s will make the mustang drive way differently!
I don't know how much fuel injected systems like those ratio changes.

As to the resale or looks,
if the truck has the hood on it doesn't really matter,
as long as its your driver and it can go and stop with the newer cars!

TP

 

v6: no good in a hotrod

flatheads are EVERYWHERE, they were in cars from 1932-1953! how hard could they be to find? especially when alot of people pull them out for the same small block chevy's that you are tired of seeing.


there shouldnt be any reason to sacrifice looks, sound, power in a traditional hot rod.

 

Blah, blah, blah. Hotrodding is about doing your own thing, not being a lemming. Now, if you have made a choice for yourself, I say go ahead. The 4.0 SOHC is a modular motor, completely different that the old 2.8-2.9 series Cologne motors. It is basically a 5.4 with 2 cylinders chopped off at foundry. Get it with a 5 speed and all associated electronic harness and just graft it to your truck. Gear ratios may be altered as needed, but I wouldn't go lower than 3.73 or higher than 3.08 just to get full use of the 5 speed. Motor mounts are easy and the cooling system doesn't require a ton of heat exchange because the fuelie motors like to run warm. The modular motors have been around long enough that there should be plenty of parts out there...like Hylands, etc..
I would like to see something different for a change.

 

While my current Studebaker will be Stude V8 powered, the next Stude gets a Chevy 4.3L V6. I like to drive the cars, and you can drive further on gallon of gas with a 6 than an 8. If the hoods down, few will know the difference.

As mentioned, mounts will be the hard part. The rest is accessory. I'd check out an 8.8" out of a Ranger or Explorer as well. Plenty out there with/without rear discs. Actually, you might want to look for a totaled 2WD Explorer or Ranger for the whole driveline. You'll get an alternator, power steering pump, A/C compressor, etc., all in one package.

 

If gas prices are your only real reason for the swap, I'd recommend that you calculate how many years/miles it will take to pay it self off.

Here in Oz, Petrol is $1.52 per Litre. ( 4 L per Gal ). Heaps of people are selling their large moderns for losses into the mid $20k range, to buy a compact that the price has jumped on due to the price of fuel.

To me, loosing $20K on a car, to save on gas is plain stupid. Thats 13000 litres of fuel.

How far do you drive it each year?

 

Not sure how you figure that ... it's a 60 degree bank angle engine, not 90 degree like the modular V8. A bunch of the parts in the lower end are the same as the 80s 2.8 and 2.9L. It is an outgrowth of the old Cologne engine. Crank bearing part numbers start with D2RY ... that means 1972 Capri.


cheers
Ed N.

 

A lot of inline 6's have great gas mileage. I have a tried milemaker 223 inline 6, and after I spent some time tuning it, it got close to 28-30 mpg in the city. To do it I had to drive like a pussy.