Hot Rods 3.0 in a 29 pickup

It doesn't exactly fit your specifications since it's low torque and takes premium, but I've always thought the hi-po engine in Vibes and Matrices would be neat for an old car. Unfortunately, converting it to RWD, if you even could, would probably eat up a ton of its power. It's also a Jap engine, although one could argue that it's OK since it's in a Pontiac. On the plus side, though, it revs to 9000 and easily makes 200 hp.

 

You could run a MerCruiser 3.7 litre Marine engine. Uses a big block Ford 460 head. It's a 224 cubic inch engine. Don't know how it'd be on gas though.

 

When we gonna try this? We've got a few 3.7's kicking around the shop now......

 

One of the best motors built at that time. Nearly bullet proof. I've got a friend with 7 SHOs. He bought my old '89 when I was done with it at 225K miles. He and his two teenage sons drove that car for many years after I sold it to them. Last I heard the car was nearly rotted in two but the motor still ran mint at 300K+ miles.

As Tim pointed out the 3.0 was a Yama-Ford adventure. When you get into the modern era motors as alternative power you'd be suprised at how many power platforms are joint ventures between automakers. Lots a Honda-GM's, Ford-Porsche stuff running around out there...and many more bastard children like them.

-Bigchief.

 

The SHO engine was built on the 3.0 "Vulcan" block architecture. As I understand it, Yamaha was responsible for the top end, which incidently they did an awsome job on. Ford did the bottom end. The block and heads are cast by Ford in the U.S. (I believe using the Cosworth process) then sent to Japan for machining and assembly. I was told by a reputible Yamaha marine dealer here in Florida that Ford still does some casting work for Yamaha outboard engines. For an interesting sidenote, the famous Ford- Cosworth V8 that became the most successful Formula 1 race engine of all time, was designed of course by Cosworth but the block and heads were cast right in Ford's Dagenham engine plant in Dagenham England. The exquisite casting processis used on the SHO engine were worked out in the `60's by Ford's racing programs.

 

I have an 89 Aerostar with a 3.0 5-speed and I was toying with the idea of putting it all into my 50 Ford but everyone I talked to thought it was a bad idea. I'm going to do something with it, the engine runs great.

 

seems like they ran ok in the taurus'/sable platform (ran as good as the 3.8's imo) but the rangers were pigs for some reason.
btw. all (and there's been a lot) THE 3.0'S I'VE WORKED ON HAD/HAVE ALUMINUM HEADS(oops, sorry bout the caps...)
btw, early ones had head gasket problems, do 'em while the motors out...
early ones had distributors, too.
later ones have a cam sensor that gets to squeeking and you'll think the w/p is on it's way out....
not a bad motor,though....
i'd take one over a 3.8.....

4.0's are a different matter, i've never drove one that could pull a fat girl off a tricycle.
of course they were all in areostars and exploders....and a few ranger/b4000 mazdas....

 

All (or nearl all) of the 3.8's had aluminum heads. All Duratec 3.0 DOHC V6's had aluminum heads (big ones) and aluminum blocks. ALL 3.0 Vulcan V6's (the 12 valve engine) had iron heads. I believe you are confusing traits of the 3.0 and the 3.8. The early 3.8 had head gasket troubles. The 3.0 was about as bulletproof and engine as was ever made. No major problem right from day one. Late 3.0's with cam sensors did have problems with those cam sensors.

 

The 5 speed from the 3.0 Ranger should bolt right on to the SHO.

 

Of the little 60deg v-6s being suggested, which might have the best mpg, be easily adapted to an OD automatic and have the easiest EFI to work on / understand. Or at least some good (NASCAR?) intakes available for standard carbs. Light weight is good, too!

I don't need more than 200 hp but will take all the torque I can get.

Gary

 

I don't think any one them meet all those points. The SHO makes the best power and is most easily adapted to RWD. The Vulcan 3.0 (12-valve) is second and will make better towque at lower rpm's, but will give at best mid 20's mpg's.

The very common 3.0 DOHC Duratec engine is not easily switched to RWD yet, so it's out.

The 3.8 is a 90 degree V6 and comes with the trans pattern of the small block Ford unless is out of a FWD car or Windstar van. I've never heard of, or personally seen a 3.8 break 25mpg.

The nice thing about Ford EFI is it's pretty simple.

 

Man... so much for the V-6 Fords... Down to I-4s then. Gary

 

the 4.0 has a very poor service record compared to the 3.0

i wouldn't sell one to my worst enemy...

 

We had a 91 Thunderbird with a 3.8 and 25mpg was about what it would do for gas mileage.

Both of my Mom's 3.0 Tauruses, a 93 and a 99, did right in the 30 mpg range.

My wife's 97 Taurus wagon with the 3.0 DOHC has got as high as 26mpg but usually ranges in the 23mpg range, she keeps track of it religiously. The wagon would kick my Mom's 99 Taurus in the butt as far as power, I drive them both.

We had a 90 Sable sedan with the 3.0 that consistently got 28mpg.

 

I speak Vulcan. I have a 3.0 in an off topic race car and it is hard to break. It sounds pretty damn good to me. If I were to build one I'd start with the 4.0 (pushrod). World makes new heads that are ripe for porting.

 

Yes they did/do well in those very aerodynamic cars. But GNichols is looking to run a Model A type pickup and they are about as good as a brick in the wind.