Dan R 4.0 questions

[260Alpine]

Dan, Have you compared 2.8 and 4.0 valve cover, head and intake gaskets? Does the 4.0 have the head cooling holes like the 2.8? Can the headers be modified with the extra bolts like you do with the 2.8? Just curious.

 

[DanR]

Jim, As you know the 2.8, 2.9 and the 4.0 OHV V6's are of the same family. Early 2.8's had the Siamese Exhaust ports. Later 2.8's had a different water pump and timing cover.

2.9 and 4.0 both have the staggered exhaust ports (unlike the 2.8 Siamese). The 2.9 and the 4.0 have different timing covers from the 2.8 and different from each other and also they have different the water pumps.

The 4.0 OHV has a deeper block than the 2.8 by about 3/4" due to the stroke.

The length and width of the blocks are the same as far as I can tell. Difference is in the snouts of the water pumps, being a bit longer.

It has been stated by prior V6 Experts that the 2.9 and 4.0 would not fit in the Alpine without extensive modifications, some of which would be the possible steering replacement, tunnel and firewall extraction and rebuild.

With the 2.8 Siamese exhaust ports designed the way they are it is said to be a perfect match for the Cologne 2.8 V6. It does "fit" well without any extensive modifications.

Removal of the stock Alpine engine mounts which is an easy piece of work and then the "cut" along side of the transmission tunnel and "pushing" the left side (Driver in the US) over about 1 to 1 &1/2" is the tried an proven method for most Conversions.

I have an early SIV Alpine GT BW35 that really did not need the tunnel modified as best I can tell. It was so rusty however, I did replace it along with the floor pans front and rear.

I have experimented with a V6 installed in the GT and mated to a FORD Automatic A4LD as well as the late model Mustang T5.

I plan to provide some additional info and pictures shortly. Maybe I can answer more of your questions too!

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, I was curious if it was possible to adapt the earlier valve covers to the 4.0 heads and if the intake port spacing and bolt pattern was the same, adapt the earlier 2.8 stock or Offy intake with spacers to the 4.0 block. Can you use the notched flange and extra bolts on the 4.0 headers?

 

[DanR]

Can the headers be modified with the extra bolts like you do with the 2.8? Just curious.

Jim, The 4.0 OHV header bolt pattern is entirely different from the 2.8.

The way it is designed is very simple and similar to lots of other engines. Nothing needs to be done in regards to modifying header bolt pattern.

The 4.0 does not have the emission port holes in the exhaust (head) like the 2.8 does. Nor does it need the added bolts at the bottom because the arrangement of the exhaust ports and their respective bolt pattern is uniform and in alignment with the ports.

What I am trying to say is the 4.0 has a much better design head. Jose said it was best not to tighten the upper bolts to spec on the 2.8 headers because the bottom would be pulled away causing a leak! Wondered why for a while then doing some porting &polishing I spotted with a ruler the off center alignment of the bolt arrangement of the exhaust ports. Take a look at the 2.8 and draw a straight line across the center on the exhaust port holes and you will see the holes that are designed to secure the header/manifold is out of proportion with the ports. The 2.8 holes (10mm 1.5) run more to the upper side of the port leaving the bottom prone to leakage.

When I read what he said and then discovered the out-of-alignment I knew that something had to be done to rectify that flaw in the design. So, after a bit of trial and error I had my machine Guy drill the emission ports, plug then tap for the metric header bolts.
No you know the rest of the story

A PIC is worth a thousand words.....

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, Thanks!

 

[DanR]

Jim, Here is a picture of an OFY 4bbl top piece for a V6 Chevy engine.

It has the staggered exhaust and intake ports that are similar to the 4.0 V6 FORD that I am working with.

In the picture you will notice I have attempted to "color" the possible connections between the Chevy V6 and the FORD 4.0 V6.

Believing it possible to build an intake utilizing the chevy OFY top piece and the FORD injection bottom piece.

What do you think?

If I am not clear in my ideas or drawings I perhaps upload a few more.

 

[DanR]

earlier valve covers to the 4.0 heads and if the intake port spacing and bolt pattern

Jim, Here are a few PIC's that may answer your questions....

The heads are a great deal different along the bottom edge where the heads bolt to the block closest to the exhaust . The 4.0 has a straight edge and the 2.8 has a concave edge. The water jacket ports can't be covered if either the heads or gaskets are swapped.

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, Interesting!

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, one more 4.0 question. Have you tried the 2.8 valve covers on the 4.0? The internet says it fits but is missing one bolt hole.

 

[DanR]

I'll get back on the valve covers soon! Been very busy

 

[DanR]

Jim, Here are a few PIC's to compare the 2.8 Valve Covers with the 4.0 Head.
It may be a bit difficult to modify the 2.8 Valve cover to mate to the 4.0.

See no real purpose in swapping them?

I read Sven's Book on the Cologne V6 and found nothing to suggest a mate of the heads.

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, Looks like just drilling one hole there. Flange is up on the 4.0. I'm thinking the better looking "Irish" valve covers or Euro covers. What does the top intake bolts look like?

 

[DanR]

I'm sure John Redmond jrcast.com will make me covers for the 4.0 to dress it up

Here is a comparison of the 2.8 Valve cover and the 4.0 head bolt patterns on the intake manifold side. Fit perfectly.

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, looks like the 2.9 and 4.0 use the extra hole. Probably not needed. Look at the spot where the hole goes on these Euro valve covers. I think it is possible to use the 2.8 jrcast.com covers on the 2.9 and 4.0. Your 4.0 headers may even work with the 2.9 too.

 

[DanR]

The 2.9 Engine I have has the same bolt pattern in the valve covers as the 4.0.

And you asked about the exhaust ports and headers as whether they are the same between the 2.9 and 4.0? Well here is a PIC with my 4.0 headers on a 2.9 engine. Perfect fit

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, Thanks. This thread may be useful for those who want to use a 2.9 or 4.0 motor. I have some ideas for a carb intake and distributor for both. Pushrod oiling also.

 

[Bill Blue]

Dan, you have installed a 4.0 in an Alpine and showed that the 4.0 headers will fit a 2.9, does that mean the 2.9 will install in an Alpine? Oops, maybe not, forgot block height difference, which changes the vertical location of the exhaust port. A quarter inch = 1 ft when doing Alpine engine swaps.

Bill

 

[DanR]

I believe the basic difference between the 2.9 and 4.0 is the harmonic balancer and the height of the blocks. The 2.9 height is even less than the 4.0 by about 3/4" as I figure. Any body know otherwise?

This thread may be useful for those who want to use a 2.9 or 4.0 Motor.

Jim, so far all of my 2.8 components work for the 4.0 except the 2.8 headers (Siamese) will not and the top engine mount Right hand side I had to modify slightly. Another tid bit is with the 4.0 headers I have to utilize an internal hyd release setup.

I have a 2.9 fully dressed that a gent gave me and it has the A4LD attached. Probably attempt to set it in the GT soon to see how it fits.

Then of course the Fuel System is questionable?? Radiator & fan spacing? Will an electric fan be the trick, whether a pusher or puller?

 

[Barry]

I believe the basic difference between the 2.9 and 4.0 is the harmonic balancer and the height of the blocks. The 2.9 height is even less than the 4.0 by about 3/4" as I figure. Any body know otherwise?

The nominal deck height for the Ford 2.8 is 8.084" versus 8.858" for the 2.9 and 4.0. A difference of 0.774" which is pretty close to 3/4".

FWIW, the nominal deck height for all (2.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9) of the GM 60 degree V6 engines is 224 mm versus 225 mm for the "tall deck" Ford 2.9 / 4.0 V6. To paraphrase the Chesterfield ad, "Just a silly millimeter longer." Hmmm.

 

[260Alpine]

Barry, Very interesting. I assumed the deck height of the 2.9 would be the same as the 2.8 not the 4.0. Dan's headers are the key to fitting the 2.9 or 4.0 in the Alpine. I plan to get a Bronco II with a 2.9 and swap in a 4.0. My idea is a adapter plate similar to what Morana did and cast a top piece that would fit either the 2.9 or 4.0. For the 2.9 distributor converted to magnetic pickup and Marine Delco HEI module with built in advance. Pic of Morana cast top intakes, 2 barrel for Fitech or Holley Sniper: