Discussion
What about improvements short of changing the entire engine out?
Does anyone have experience with more bolt on improvements? I see various firms that sell tuning upgrades for the 2800 Capri and other cars that used the Cologne engine (Ric Woods, Ferriday, etc.).
BTW - There doesn't seem to be many US aftermarket parts - I guess because the 2.8 had had such limited exposure (Capri) or were used in such bad cars (Mustang II).
Does anyone have experience with more bolt on improvements? I see various firms that sell tuning upgrades for the 2800 Capri and other cars that used the Cologne engine (Ric Woods, Ferriday, etc.).
BTW - There doesn't seem to be many US aftermarket parts - I guess because the 2.8 had had such limited exposure (Capri) or were used in such bad cars (Mustang II).
How about a turbo conversion? depending on specification you would be in the the region of 220-250BHP and 230-250lb/ft torque 
. Have a look at this link http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2423083863&category=9844 I think he's maybe a little optimistic with the 175MPH!!! However it has had it's compresion ratio lowered and runs 11psi boost so it will be quite lively, alot of the turbo conversions of the era ran basicly a totaly standard engine and low boost pressures typicaly 5-8 psi. The 2.8 engine was a regular Turbo Technics conversion, they do appear on Ebay regularly.
. Have a look at this link http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2423083863&category=9844 I think he's maybe a little optimistic with the 175MPH!!! However it has had it's compresion ratio lowered and runs 11psi boost so it will be quite lively, alot of the turbo conversions of the era ran basicly a totaly standard engine and low boost pressures typicaly 5-8 psi. The 2.8 engine was a regular Turbo Technics conversion, they do appear on Ebay regularly.Steve - I knew you would add that caveat.
Actually, I was thinking much less money for 25-35 more hp - a bolt-on stage 1 or 1.5 upgrade. I would think any turbo option is going to require a great deal of consequential engine work.
And for the seller's sake, I hope a XR4i is worth more that 1.2K. Otherwise it sounds like a good deal if you want a fast but very unsexy car.
Actually, I was thinking much less money for 25-35 more hp - a bolt-on stage 1 or 1.5 upgrade. I would think any turbo option is going to require a great deal of consequential engine work.
And for the seller's sake, I hope a XR4i is worth more that 1.2K. Otherwise it sounds like a good deal if you want a fast but very unsexy car.
What about the aforementioned junking the injection and replacing with carbs? Will they fit under the bonnet and will they supply more power?
Also, I understand the gearbox is only good for 160hp.
Anybody tried a blower? Less hassle than a turbo....
A local company that develops small ford (not V8s) engines for racing told me not to even consider a different cam. They tried it with very bad results, can't remember what exactly.
Last but not least the wierd 6cyl but only 4 exhaust outlet is a limiting factor. An exhaust expert told me that he could give the power output a big lift if only it had the conventional setup.
Agree that another 20hp or so would be nice but we'd probably eat uni joints even faster with any more, plus axle tramping etc etc....
BTW, I wonder if a Ford 289 would fit....no, perish the thought. New gearbox etc....
Also, I understand the gearbox is only good for 160hp.
Anybody tried a blower? Less hassle than a turbo....
A local company that develops small ford (not V8s) engines for racing told me not to even consider a different cam. They tried it with very bad results, can't remember what exactly.
Last but not least the wierd 6cyl but only 4 exhaust outlet is a limiting factor. An exhaust expert told me that he could give the power output a big lift if only it had the conventional setup.
Agree that another 20hp or so would be nice but we'd probably eat uni joints even faster with any more, plus axle tramping etc etc....
BTW, I wonder if a Ford 289 would fit....no, perish the thought. New gearbox etc....
I know a 289 V8 would fit because a 302V8 has been used in a number of conversions of 280is here in the States. I also know of a several that switched to a carburettor setup in lieu of the fuel injection and there was no clearance problem with the bonnet(providing you don't use some kind of radical high rise manifold setup).
I rebuilt a 289ci ford engine once out of a 1967 Fairlane. They weight a lot, and are only good for 190 bhp, so you'd never get the performance of a light alloy v8 like the rover 350. Now how about the new Ford 302 32 valve alloy engine? I think they call it a 5.0litre now (been a while since I was stateside) anyone weighed one ?) Aparently a few kitcar makers in the UK are planning on putting them in, as they have superior power to weight ratio, and are emmission legal for the USA market.
-Jim, (UK)
-Jim, (UK)
But if you put in a detroit cast iron 289 the car's mass will increase to more than 1200kg (perhaps more). This means you will need 20% more power just to get the same performance of the V6 (i.e 32hp). The beauty of the alloy rover v8 is that it is almost the same weight as the v6 unit and +32hp. (ok maybe a half dozen kilos more -ed? )
If you're in Australia, surely you can find a nice HSV engine to stick in?
or maybe one of those darling 4.2 V8 engines out of an old commodore VB ? Anyone knw how much those things weigh exactly ?
-jim
If you're in Australia, surely you can find a nice HSV engine to stick in?
or maybe one of those darling 4.2 V8 engines out of an old commodore VB ? Anyone knw how much those things weigh exactly ? -jim
HSV (Holden Special vehicles)motor would have too much power for the rest of the car. I sold a 2001 SS Commodore 5.7ltr inj with 225Kw to buy the wedge. Too many computer bits and bobs to stuff around with also.
You're right about the weight of the ford V8. Great until you want to turn.
Prior to the chev 5.7, Holden used the 253 and 308 (4.2L and 5.0L respectively. The argument was always that the smaller one has almost the same thirst but a lot less power so why bother. Probably have the same weithg issue but at least there would be no shortage of mechanics to do the job. They used to rip out Jag V12 and 6s from XJs and replace with the holden donk. Seen as sacrilege here now ( and probably everywhere else too...) but I don't think the ford V6 would get the same defence. Solve the parts problem anyway...
Better stop now, I'm actually beginning to think about this...(if the gearbox keeps making strange noises I'll be up for God know how much anyway).
You're right about the weight of the ford V8. Great until you want to turn.
Prior to the chev 5.7, Holden used the 253 and 308 (4.2L and 5.0L respectively. The argument was always that the smaller one has almost the same thirst but a lot less power so why bother. Probably have the same weithg issue but at least there would be no shortage of mechanics to do the job. They used to rip out Jag V12 and 6s from XJs and replace with the holden donk. Seen as sacrilege here now ( and probably everywhere else too...) but I don't think the ford V6 would get the same defence. Solve the parts problem anyway...
Better stop now, I'm actually beginning to think about this...(if the gearbox keeps making strange noises I'll be up for God know how much anyway).
There's another message thread, on piston heads, entitled ENGINES, with some engine weights, I'm very surprised by the Rover V8 weighing in at 145kg ! and the 289(ford 4.7) 225kg, so only +80kg There must be loads of scoobys out in the outback, a nice flat six in the wedge would give awesome cornering. I had my 5.0 holden VB stolen in Darwin...I have a very carefully installed immobiliser in my wedge now.
-jim
-jim
well i cant resist....
with alum heads and custom cut and balanced rotating assembly and efi 300-350 hp on 87 octane is easy with a 302 that weighs in @370 pounds...dont know what that is in kilos.
if you put a good stroker crank in the mix with an arao or dominion 32 valve head your pushing 500 hp easy on 92 oct pump gas. and it would be well behaved.
and in a 3400 pound mustang it gets 25 mpg hiway and if you can keep your footoff the floor and tires from smoking, 17 in town.
but i am here to learn about 2.8's.
>> Edited by bobby walter on Saturday 13th March 07:43
with alum heads and custom cut and balanced rotating assembly and efi 300-350 hp on 87 octane is easy with a 302 that weighs in @370 pounds...dont know what that is in kilos.
if you put a good stroker crank in the mix with an arao or dominion 32 valve head your pushing 500 hp easy on 92 oct pump gas. and it would be well behaved.
and in a 3400 pound mustang it gets 25 mpg hiway and if you can keep your footoff the floor and tires from smoking, 17 in town.
but i am here to learn about 2.8's.
>> Edited by bobby walter on Saturday 13th March 07:43
Gassing Station | Wedges | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff