What's the lifespan of a cologne 2.9 V6?
Discussion
I've had a couple of not-at-all looked after 2.9 Sierra's which faultlessly rattled well past 150,000 miles despite a complete disregard for their health. Maybe I've just been lucky but they seem almost bulletproof to me. A colleague has run a number of 2.9 Granada's and suggests 200,000 miles is comfortably achievable with decent maintenance.
Sounds about right...
I've since spoken to a colleague who worked on them and apparently they did very well in the durability tests. A close variant is still used for trucks in the states (which tells you something about the longevity) and there's a 4litre V6, which is basically an overbored version in the base spec Mustang apparently.
Think I've answered my own question - in a lighter car with regular oil changes it should be good for quite high mileages.
I've since spoken to a colleague who worked on them and apparently they did very well in the durability tests. A close variant is still used for trucks in the states (which tells you something about the longevity) and there's a 4litre V6, which is basically an overbored version in the base spec Mustang apparently.
Think I've answered my own question - in a lighter car with regular oil changes it should be good for quite high mileages.
Currently running a 24v cologne and its just coming up to 140k, to be honest in a ford i'd say the engines are likely to out last the bodywork. I take it you're looking at a TVR S? I also run a wedge with the MFI 2.8 & although the car is 27 yearrs old the engine has only done 96k but is still going strong and has cost literally nothing over normal maintenance costs.
FHCNICK said:
I take it you're looking at a TVR S? I also run a wedge with the MFI 2.8 & although the car is 27 yearrs old the engine has only done 96k but is still going strong and has cost literally nothing over normal maintenance costs.
Hi Nick. I am indeed.For some reason they do seem to go through engines a little quicker than other applications, but in theory it sounds like they're good for 150,000+ miles.
Certainly in the case of the S it sounds like the chassis is likely to need major attention first and I guess an entire new recon-engine on exchange is cheaper than a body-off job on S-Series outriggers!
Chris71 said:
Hi Nick. I am indeed.
For some reason they do seem to go through engines a little quicker than other applications, but in theory it sounds like they're good for 150,000+ miles.
Certainly in the case of the S it sounds like the chassis is likely to need major attention first and I guess an entire new recon-engine on exchange is cheaper than a body-off job on S-Series outriggers!
Can't see any reason why they would have an adverse effect on engine durability For some reason they do seem to go through engines a little quicker than other applications, but in theory it sounds like they're good for 150,000+ miles.
Certainly in the case of the S it sounds like the chassis is likely to need major attention first and I guess an entire new recon-engine on exchange is cheaper than a body-off job on S-Series outriggers!
unless there's a cooling issue? don't know anything about the S series but on a wedge you don't necessarily have to take the body off to replace outriggers. was also a bit surprised that you said you'd noticed a big difference between the performance of an S1 2.8 and a later 2.9 from personal experience i would have said it was marginal but hey ho you live & learn. Good luck with the car search 
It may have been a lack lustre 2.8 or a particularly good 2.9 or a combination of the two. May also be an element of 'placebo effect', but it felt quicker to me.
A lot of S-Series TVRs do seem to have uprated radiators or new waterpumps, nobody has mentioned an overheating issue, but it is sort of implied they might not cool quite as well as the Ford application.
A lot of S-Series TVRs do seem to have uprated radiators or new waterpumps, nobody has mentioned an overheating issue, but it is sort of implied they might not cool quite as well as the Ford application.
just had another thought, I nearly bought another 280i a few years back but it was a 5 speed and although it was an excellent exapmle and I really wanted to love it I didn't find the performance as exciting as my older 4 speed 280i. not sure what the gear ratio's are but the 4 speed just seems to be 'on song' for longer, speeds in gears are - 1st 44mph, 2nd 72, 3rd 96 although when you upshift even at these speeds it feels like you are momentarily out of the power band. A 4 speed 280i will accelerate from 50 to 70 in just 2/10ths of a second less than a 350i because you are in the power band in 2nd gear.
on the cooling side my early '81 280i hasn't even got a header tank, if it gets hot it discharges directly from a pipe on the rad (only had this happen once when as a young lad I vmaxxed for about 40 miles on the M5 on an early morning 180 mile totatl run).
on the cooling side my early '81 280i hasn't even got a header tank, if it gets hot it discharges directly from a pipe on the rad (only had this happen once when as a young lad I vmaxxed for about 40 miles on the M5 on an early morning 180 mile totatl run).
Chris71 said:
A lot of S-Series TVRs do seem to have uprated radiators or new waterpumps, nobody has mentioned an overheating issue, but it is sort of implied they might not cool quite as well as the Ford application.
They are at the age (and have been for ages) where radiators and water pumps fail. When I had mine I replaced both. The standard radiator you get in an S3 is easily up to the task of cooling a 2.9 in an S3. A lot of S3s sit around for long periods, the radiators silt up and go rusty and this can adversely effect the cooling... a new rad sorts this out. The rad was roughly 100 quid 5 years ago and the water pump wasn't much money at all.Gassing Station | Ford | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff