I bought a 52 Prefect (English Ford),and it came with a v-6 Ford,automatic,and some kind of Ford rear end (square back cover)..must be a 8" .. Anyway,it hasn't run for awhile.. Are these little motors worth messing with? Were looking at the economy side,not setting land speed records.. Thanks; Rick
Some of the later year V6 Ford 4.0 Liter engines were rather *****y,....Which one came with your Prefect ? 4TTRUK
The "Cologne" European Ford V6's were pretty good little engines both in my experience and observation. I drove several of the V6 Mercury Capri's equipped with the 2.6L (2600) V6 in the early 70's and they ran very well. I think these engines drived from a V4 (1.5), used by Saab and European Ford models, and were produced as 6 cyl models in displacments from about 2 litres on up to the 4.0 mentioned in an above post. Ray
was told it's out of a 77 Mustang...but then again,was told a lot of this car...LOL I have all chevy stuff here..so my option is a SBC.. Rick =============================================
That's entirely possible.......I forgot they were used in Mustang II, maybe even later Pintos & Bobcats........ Ray
Ah yes, the Mustang II, what a pig. Ford was trying to build a 'smaller' Mustang but they hadn't figured out how to take weight out of parts at that point. Just like the porky Monza that begat the third-gen Camaro. The Cologne V6 originated as a 2-liter, there was also a V4 version that started off as 1.2 or 1.4 liters IIRC. The V4 achieved more fame and a fair bit of rally success in 1.7-liter form in the Saab 96 from '67-72 than it ever did in a Ford. Ford also sold lots and lots of the Cologne V4s as industrial engines. The V6 still had the offset pan rail where the V4 had a balance shaft. There was also a British-built V6 called the Es***, it more or less mimiced the Cologne family history (early '60s V4 variant, eventual displacement growth up to 3 liters) but never got to the US and I think it was gone by the '80s. In stock form the '77 Mustang II Cologne V6 was rated at something like a whole 104HP SAE net, which sounds hideous but the 302 V8 with 2bbl carb, single cat and more smog and vacuum hoses than you can shake an EPA administrator at made a whole 10HP or so more. That engine family got really funny after that, the 2.9 had some internal changes (chain instead of gear cam drive, aluminum heads) and though they were all built in Germany there was a Euro car version and a US truck version with lots of differences, the truck 2.9 was renowned for head cracking. Then came the pushrod 4.0 with taller deck height and a couple different kinds of heads through its life, the SOHC 4.0 in so many zillion Explorers (cam chains at both ends of the block, each driving one head), the Cosworth DOHC-headed 2.9 that never got to the US. etc. You gotta love Ford, I think at one point around '92 they were building the 2.9 and 4.0 pushrod Cologne, the 2.9 DOHC Cologne, the 3.0 Vulcan for the Taurus (sort of an updated Cologne but never really got decent heads), the 90-degree 3.8 Buick copy, and the 3.0 and 3.2 DOHC SHO V6 (which shared every major dimension with the Vulcan but not one single part.) And a couple badge-engineered Mazdas with Mazda V6s.
That's a 2.8L 60 degree V6. I had a couple of those engines (one of them I turbocharged), and they ran great, and dusted many V8 powered cars with them.
Get rid of the fiber timing gear {top gear} and they arent a bad motor. If you ever have one apart just remember the lifters must go in before the heads go on.
X2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A aluminum cam gear is available to replace the fiber gear which is easy to do (this engine doesn't use a timing chain, just 2 gears). Some tech info for you. 2.8L tech
There have been a couple V-6s made in England and/or Europe that I can't tell you anything about. I do know something about the ones described below. The 60 degree 3.0L Taurus(Vulcan) V-6 is a reliable engine with decent performance, and it's reasonably light. But, it's not a good choice for a performance application. The 90 degree 3.8L/3.9L/4.2L Es*** V-6 has been upgraded numerous times over the years. It is a light engine, especially the earlier versions, but that came at a price. Due to marginal stiffness, there was a tendency for early engines to have sealing problems and other flex related problems. Supercoupe, truck, and later engines were better. The heads are not very good for performance, and the earlier engines can't tolerate much more power than stock. At one time Ford offered race blocks and heads, but those haven't been available for many years. If I was doing a swap this engine would be fairly far down on my list of possibilities. The 60 degree German Cologne V-6 was made in many different displacements. 4.0L was the biggest. The engine is durable and compact, and it can tolerate hard use and increases in power without self-destructing. The trade-off gfor that is; the engine is heavy for its displacement than some of the other good options. At least some of the 4.0L engines had overhead cams. That makes them bulkier, so for some swaps that could be a problem. There are other Ford V-6 engines like the SHO V-6 and ***orted Duratec V-6s, but it doesn't sound like you are asking about those.
The 77 Mustang II version will be the 2.8 V6. A good little motor but tough to find much in the way of performance stuff for these days. Offy used to offer 4 barrel manifolds and they worked good with a 390 Holley. Don't know if they still make them. Mallory offered distributors also.
I got a 3 litre Vulcan V6 out of a Ranger and was wanting any opinions and info on these but had my thread closed. So if anybody out there got any knowledge it sounds like this thread may find them.
I have a 2.8 60 degree V6 from a Mercury Bobcat. I think 74 was the only year they made a 2.8 with a points distributor. 73 was a 2.6 and 75 had electronic ignition. Mine is going in my Bantam. C4 bolts to it with the correct bellhousing. I bought the Offy manifold off the Bay for a lot of money but they are about $430 new. Seems like a OK motor. The nylon cam gear had died. New aluminum gear set easy to find.
Go read up over at www.therangerstation.com There is a little aftermarket, not a lot. Good engine that like HIGH RPMS. I just turned 240K with mine.
They are great motors with lots of potential, ran in UK/Australian Ford Capri's which was like the Mercury Capri. Used in race cars and hipo factory cars of the early 70's like RS2600 & RS3000. Cosworth made a quad cam set up for them for racing is Europe - one of my fav OT cars I think they take a 350 Holley as an easy swap
That rearend is a 6 3/4" Ford (very common in Pinto's, and Mustang II's with 4, and 6 bangers in them), it should be ok with a automatic in front of it (they are not very strong).
Dropped a 2.8 from 74 Capri into a 74 Courier years ago. Courier had automatic originally, so I swapped transmission with a C4. Other than the lousy oil pressure (was told the early 2.8 had a loose bottom end), the truck was strong. Interesting engine in that it is an offset V, with the offset toward the drivers side, which allowed the engine to sit toward the p***enger side, enough to clear the steering, etc. One thing that 2.9 V6 up had was the thermostat in the intake manifold, which made changing the coolant a snap. Before that the thermostat was at the water pump intake, which made priming the pump much more difficult. I have a 3.0 Vulcan in my 03 Ranger and find that engine to be a very strong unit too. Fast truck and does well against other small trucks. Reliable too.
I *think* (and I know a guy who knows all this, and he's got all the bits, but I can't claim to know what he does) that the four-cam Cosworth race motor that ran in the Capris against the BMW CSLs in FIA touring-car racing was based on the British Es*** 3-liter V6. The RS2600 had Weslake pushrod heads. A slight bit of confusion here in that there were two Ford V6s referred to as 'Es***'. There was the British V4s and V6s, and that horrible knockoff of the 90-degree Buick 3.8 that Ford did in the '80s. In its initial form it had embarr***ingly bad heads, made 140HP and blew head gaskets faster than Ford could make them. They eventually turned it into a pretty good engine for the later Windstar and some Mustangs, better heads, much better intake, almost double the original HP, and a balance shaft to get rid of the 90-degree-V6 shake.
My sisters Mustang II would do 100 mph @ 6000 rpm. Like the others have said, fix the timing gear. I remember the night her's slipped a couple of teeth on the way home from school.
Moser Engineering doesn't build axles for these rears , so they say.. Rick ================================================
The V-6 SHO Taurus engine was originally intended to be the 3.0L Vulcan with DOHC heads. That didn't happen because the engine proved to be lacking in various ways that were more expensive to fix than it was to just do a completely new and different block from scratch. While the engine was fine when used as designed, it was designed and engineered to do what was originally intended with little excess capability. That's not a criticism of the engine, it's pointing out what a good job was done of making the engine adequate without including unnecessary cost, complication, or weight. A billet crank and aftermarket rods and pistons would improve things considerably. Adding stiffness to the flexy block is expensive and will add a lot of weight. All things being equal, getting more power with a blower a is easier(except for piston and valve heat) on internals than increasing RPMs, but with more than a few pounds boost head sealing problems are likely with a blower. I can give you no reason not to use one of these engines stock. If you want more power, per what Ford already knows, there are better options than modifying this engine.
You can find 8" rearends in some Mustang II's to replace the 6 3/4". The 8" uses the same size 28 spline axles as a 9".
The Jalopy Journal
