Model A Ford with 2.0l Pinto engine

So I'm putting a '71 SOHC 2.0 in my '31 frame. I want to use an AA bellhousing so I can keep stock pedals and look . . but also run a 4 speed. So I have searched here, but found nothing specific to engine mounts. Anyone have technical info, pictures, measurements etc as to where and how the engine is mounted?

 

Made our own engine mounts and used SBC rubber. Line up the crank with the front cross member. This is the Courier/Mazda 1800 cc OHC with a pair of Weber 40 DCOE carbs. The steering box is an F-100 modified to fit the A frame. Also go to fordbarn.com and do a search as there is lots of info on Pinto/Model A conversions

 

I searched at Ford Barn, didn't find what I was looking for though. See, I'm not building a "rod" per se. I want it to look mostly stock. That's why the AA bell, so the pedal ***embly is stock. I have the frame now getting it prepped and wanted to start setting the engine, making mounts, whatever. But without all the pieces on hand now, I don't know where to set the engine. Was hopping to find one here that's done that can lead me in the right direction.

 

We called them RestoRods. Do a Google search for Pinto Engine in a Model A. There seem to be quite a few entries along with related conevrsions.

 

Yeah I have looked at all those links. Nothing gets technical. I need to find someone that has done it, not just written about it or talked about it. I guess I need to get some more parts so there is less mystery on my part. Was just hoping . . . . .

 

You might go back over to the Ford Barn and look at this thread:

http://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11569&showall=1

In post #15 **** Sparks name and phone number are mentioned. **** did one of these conversions several years ago. I talked to him and he said that the 2.0 swap was fairly easy, the 2.3 swap was a lot more difficult.

 

I did see that post . . not one to "bother" someone like that. Maybe I can PM.

 

Try the fort worth Texas model a club. They had a bunch years ago. I did one and used a 32 trans with sycro!s Worked like a champ. Car is sti
L going in South Texas.

 

I just asked a question like that at the Barn. I asked about another trans that would allow easier fitment and such, would allow use of stock bell to keep pedals, but have syncros. Cool. So what did you have to do to make it work?

 

If you go back to the Ford Barn, and check the last time that **** was there it was quite a while ago. http://www.fordbarn.com/forum/member.php?u=6968

I was thinking about a similar swap and called ****, he had some good information. If you are using a stock style rear end, you might consider the adapter that "crazydaddo" makes to mate a T-5 to the stock style rear end. That way you would have a modern engine and transmission.

 

325w . . do you have install info you could share?? That sounds like a combo I would like.

 

bump bump

 

Trying to save the stock trans just to save the pedals is not worth the effort. Do a yoke conversion on the rear end and then you can do just about anything you want. There are plenty of pedal options out there.

 

No where have I said I wanted to run the stock trans. I do want the pedals to hang as stock, but I'm not looking to use the stock trans at all.

 

Just go buy a replica Shay Model "A". They even have a Pinto frame along with the engine.

 

Do you have a trans in mind? Some creative fab will produce brackets to hang the pedals. There are kits for some transmissions avaliable. I am doing the car in post #2 and I used the ZF that came with the motor and installed new pedals from Willwood.

 

Hey Sturgs . . you don't get it I spose??????????

Now for the rest of you, thanks for your time.

Red . no I don't have a trans in mind. I am willing to get any, just depends on what would work best for me, cheapest too.

 

I have a 30 coupe with the 2.0 and stock Mdl A trans (previous owner conversion). The original bell housing is mated to the 2.0 block and a mdl A flywheel is mounted to the 2.0 crank (heard this was a common swap in the 80's). No synchros is a bit of a pain and the gearing isn't the best for the higher revving 2.0. 3rd gear in town lugs the 2.0 - also using the stock rear end. Future plans are to install a 39 trans for the 2/3 syncros.

 

What other drive line pieces are you thinking about running? You mention 4-speed, why not run a Pinto 4-speed? My Model A is running the stock pedals; which aren't mounted to the Model B transmission in the car. So adapting the stock pedals, isn't that big of deal.

 

Thanks guys. I would love to get some info from you about your 2.0 Model A. Maybe some pics?? Engine mount info??

As for the Pinto 4 speed, yeah I've thought about it, but I would have to loose the driveshaft tube.I know many do this, just thought I'd like to have it. Buyt in the end, it could be the best option.

 

As ford cragar above said, you don't have to mount the pedals to the stock bell housing to use them. A typical frame mounted Hot rod style pedal ***embly can be modded or fabbed to take the stock pedals for apearance sake. A couple guys mentioned above (crazydaddio) do conversions of S-10 5 speed T5 trans that allow for the use of the torque tube. Might not be too hard to set up the later 2300cc bell housing and t-5 with the S-10 tailshaft and 4WD components that unlock the possibility of torque tube deal. It would take a bit of screwing around to make it all happen, but it wouldn't be visible from the out side of the car, which is what I think your after. If you don't already have the 2000cc pinto engine, you might skip to the chase and go with the later 2300 right out of the box, 'cause even here in the land of well stocked wrecking yards the 2000cc are a bit thin on the ground.

 

I have a 2.0 already built, ready to slip between the frame. That's why I'm after a plan here, so I can figure placement and mounting of the 2.0.

 

Cool! Good little engine. Just thought if you were needin' it might be easier to go later. I believe the bell housing pattern and such are the same for both, so what I said above as far as drivetrain would still go, and you would net a car that would be allot of fun to drive and even somewhat practical in todays traffic.

 

I always thought that you could use a 2.3 bellhousing on a 2.0, but I was thinking back to the conversation that I had with **** Sparks and told me the 2.3 didn't adapt very well to the Pinto because of the starter location; which leads me to believe that they are different. I'm about 1000 miles away from home, but when I get back, I'll check the fit between the two.

 

You might be right on that. I have owned both, but not at the same time so I could very well be wrong.

 

I have both at home and will check, unless someone else knows if they will fit. I always thought I could bolt a 2.3 bellhousing up to the 2.0 block to put a T5 behind it.

 

Bellhouse pattern of the 2.0 and the 2.3 are the same.

The boltpattern of the flywheels are different, but I think the rest of the dimensions are the same ( I have a Tilton 3 disk clutch that is drilled for both )

Bellhouse patterrns for the Crossflow and pre-Crossflow are the same to, as well as the CVH and the Zetec.

But again, with differences in the flywheels.

 

The bellhousing bolt pattern is slightly different, but you can make it work. So 2.3 will work, with some mod. The 2.0 that was used in the early Ranger is the same as the 2.3, exactly. But the English 2.0 from the Pinto is slightly different.

 

I did not know that.

I have a German 2.0 here, and ( based on the oilpan shape) one out of a Pinto or Bobcat.

And a 2.3 out of a Turbocoupe, as well as a CVH and several Crossflows and pre-Crossflows.

I'll have to do some checking...



( I tried the CVH on a Crossflow bellhousing, and that fit.

I tried a German 2.0 on a Crossflow bell and that fit.

And I tried a Crossflow on a pre-Crossflow bell and that fit too.

The Pinto or Bobcat 2.0 is in a car,. but I can check it when I swap it out for the 2.3 turbo.

And compare adapterplates, while I'm at it...)


Now that I think about it... I believe the Ranger 2.0 is a small bore or small stroke 2.3.
So all I'd have to check is the 2.3 bellhouse pattern against a Crossflow...

 

The Ranger 2.0 is a shorter stroke 2.3. Everything else basically interchanges. the distributor is in the smae place for each but different from the German 2.0.