Why aren't people doing a 2.9 V6 swap?

[DanR]

Dan, what do you mean "With the contour of the Alpine hood it's right t 2"?" Two inches of clearance or lacks 2"? Have you placed the orange hood on the car?
Bill

Bill, I reworded the post to clarify: The Stock 4.0 FI sticks out about 2".

What I did was notch the crossmember so I could lower the engine. Not sure if it was enough yet. Will sit your hood on as s00n as I reinstall the V6.

 

[DanR]

Here's what the Headers look like on the 4.0 OHV V6. They are in the rough....

 

[260Alpine]

The 2.9 stock intake is very tall also.

Look how short the 2.8 Capri intake is:

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, have you compared the 2.9/4.0 oil pumps with the 2.8? I wonder if the 2.8 oil pump can be made to work on the 2.9/4.0? Can the 2.8 hex drive be milled between the points to work in the 2.9/4.0 oil pump? I know the 2.9 Torx drive can be welded and ground to fit the 2.8 distributor.

 

[260Alpine]

Here is what you need for the 2.9. Looks like they opened up a stock 2 barrel intake and welded a 4 barrel top on. This intake is a Swaymor from Australia. This is actually for a 3.0 Essex V6. You could do the same with an early Capri 2.6 or Euro 2.8 intake.

 

[Bill Blue]

Jim, how about using the S&S Super "E" carbs to fuel the 4.0? They are side darfts, only about 4" high and long. I'm thinking a flange to mount on the lower intake and tubular pipes from the intake to the carbs. How many carbs would largely dictate the design of the layout. They are rated at 210 cfm each. The carbs are only fifty bucks apiece, so it would be a very economical system if most of the work was done at home. If I was to do it, the parts cost for a three carb setup would probably total $300 and would not have any outside building costs. Hard to beat that cost for a new carb set up.
Bill

 

[DanR]

Have not compared the 2.9/4.0 oil pumps with the 2.8?

I undertand the drive gear from the 4.0 and be adopted to the 2.8 shaft. The 2.8 distributor will require a shim or bearing to work in the 4.0 block.

 

[260Alpine]

Bill, You may be onto something. Two of them would be perfect mounted to a small plenum box either to the side or in front. Definitely inexpensive. Side draft will be a lot lower profile. With three you could run off the center carb with progressive linkage like a tri-power setup.

 

[Bill Blue]

Jim, with two I was thinking of using flat, three into one exhaust collectors. The plan would utilize them attached directly to the carbs, no other plenum. I particularly like the three carb idea with progressive linkage. The S&S carbs lend themselves to the concept as the accelerator pump fuel delivery is easily adjusted from zero to max with the twist of a screwdriver. It is all a very traditional British sports car concept and fits into the Alpine era. I believe the concept is exciting and I don't even own a 4.0, or a V6 of any configuration and am basically an EFI man. I'd sure like to see someone take the idea and run with it

Bill

 

[Aladin Sane]

The 2.9 stock intake is very tall also. View attachment 24668

Look how short the 2.8 Capri intake is: View attachment 24669

I had that intake on the 2.9l in my 1987 Bronco II. I liked the engine in that little SUV.

 

[canuck pride]

Keep up the good work dan,,, looks awesome.

 

[Reg from Canada]

Dan looks assume. keep going we are cheering for you.

 

[Barry]

It seems to me that the 800 lb. gorilla in the 4.0 room is not the height of the intake system, but rather the location of the crankshaft & water pump pulleys. The Ford 2.8 V6 fits in the Series Alpine engine bay without surgery, but the pictures in post #'s 18 & 21 suggest that the 4.0 requires a huge (about 4" long x 8" wide x 2" deep ???) notch in the front suspension crossmember and pretty much eliminating the radiator core support to make room for the front of the engine.

Either the 4.0 is a lot longer than the 2.8 or the 4.0 in Dan's car is mounted considerably further forward than a typical 2.8 installation (or possibly some combination of the two).

 

[260Alpine]

Barry, This old thread on Brian's 4.0 shows the engine way back as he used rack and pinion steering.

Brian's 4.0 V6 Alpine | SAOCA Forum (sunbeamalpine.org)

 

[Barry]

Barry, This old thread on Brian's 4.0 shows the engine way back as he used rack and pinion steering.

Brian's 4.0 V6 Alpine | SAOCA Forum (sunbeamalpine.org)

Interesting, but it has nothing to do with why the 4.0 in Dan's car requires a huge notch in the front suspension crossmember and pretty much eliminating the radiator core support to make room for the front of the 4.0 engine.

 

[260Alpine]

Barry, I think it does. Brian's engine is set back against the firewall while Dan's is more forward to clear the Alpine steering. If you look at Dan's picture of the large damper pulley, that is the reason for the notched crossmember. Brian's is behind the crossmember.

 

[Barry]

I don't remember Dan R posting that he moved the 4.0 engine forward compared to the 2.8 location to get the exhaust headers to clear the Series Alpine steering system. Can you direct me to where Dan posted that info?

 

[260Alpine]

It may be in the same position as a 2.8 but the pulleys are further forward.

 

[Dillon65]

Actually the ford v6 family of 2.6 to 4.0 engines have an internally balanced crankshaft. The large 4.0 pulley can be replaced by the 2.8 single pulley. Then you would need to fix the alignment of the pulley, water pump, and alternator. If you turn in the rotating assy. to get balanced, the front crank pulley and the flywheel get balanced separately for neutral balance.

 

[260Alpine]

Yeah, I thought about using the 2.8 crank damper pulley. You could slice open a 4.0 water pump to see how far you can press on the pully to match. I think the 4.0 is reverse flow though due to the serpentine belt. I f you went to V belt maybe you could use the 2.9 impellor?