• Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.

    If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.

    Enjoy.

2.8l Build Thread, may be different than what you're used to! But hopefully educational.

I agree that the Ford manifold looked to be flowing more efficiently. Maybe not a total surprise, given the Offy's dual plane design - got to be more convoluted than the Ford you optimized.
 
Last edited:
The fact that a Ford backed race team decided to modify the stock part kind of says something to me. Its fun to test things when you sort of already have the answer. All he says is it was better than anything else available. I wish he would of said by how much, but the plan is to dyno them both. So I geuss we get to solve a 40 year old mystery.
I think the OFFY has room for improvement if there is time I would like to try and run the OFFY stock and modified.
 
If you go back and look at the history of the Offy it was primarily designed for fuel efficiency rather than performance...the fact that many of the V6 conversions use them is because it's the only game in town for a bolt-on 4 BBL intake. For my SI V6 conversion, we took the same approach and modified the stock intake as it was pretty clear it could flow as well if not better than the Offy
 
Luckily 30 years ago the supply chain for parts was much better. Many of the companies that made parts were still family owned and were making replacement parts with the same equipment that they made it on when they had the contracts with the OEM companies. Nowadays we are in a very different world. Old tooling is long gone, companies have been consumed and liquidated. Newer engines are getting the attention.
Building older engines is still very doable and fun, but we have to look at things closer.
 
Last edited:
Geoff, I think they are. They are getting scarce to find and the 2.9 and 4.0 are more common. The unique exhaust configuration allowed it to fit around the Alpine steering. Dan R, before he passed made headers that worked for the 2.9 and 4.0. The 2.8 is still a proven fit and John's Cars used to do a 2.8 kit for the MGB. What compression would you have without the bump and just flat top piston? Curious what the Dyno results on your build will be?
 
The 3.0L would probably be my choice. Availability and upgrades through its 20 year lifespan are enormous. Dimensionally smaller than Cologne engines as well. The 4.0l is interesting from a displacement point of view.
I like the 2.9 from back when I was teenager, learned to drive in 2.9 Rangers, only being made for 5 years I find them the hardest to find parts for.

The compression on the 2.8 was 9.85:1. Basically 0 deck, flat top, and the small displacement increase from the crank.

The 2.8 is a has me puzzled. I've built and dynoed many engines. By the numbers and trends from passed builds it seems like 200hp should be an exercise in how mild it can be . Listening to others struggles trying get there makes me wonder. My geuss is not enough intake port work and bad manifolds

From my testing it's the induction side of the engine that has serious issues. That are solvable. The exhaust port looks bad. Don't get me wrong, it isn't good, but its comes around really quick.

Time will tell, dynoing the engine is the plan. I'd like to test both intake manifolds. The fuel distribution on the Offy looks bad enough I almost don't want to run it.
 
Last edited:
Historically I think the focus has been on the exhaust side. Perhaps we have been misguided! It has been challenging to surpass 150hp. Can’t wait to see your results
 
Are you referring to the Vulcan 3.0 pushrod V6? Interesting choice. It seems to have a great reputation for reliability but isn't at the top of anyone's "sexy" engine list. Have you ever given one your "treatment" to see what you could get out of it?
 
Me too! 3.0 was never carb or even TBI. Morana has an expensive carb intake but doesn't list a distributor. May be able to figure a hybrid drive with cam sensor lower and distributor upper? 80's had a distributor but no advance/computer control. My grandson just picked up a 99 Ranger with the 3.0 V6. It has cooling issues and I hope it is the water pump and not headgaskets.
 
Last edited:
Earlier 3.0l models had distributors much like a 2.9 internally, they came out the same year. We have used locked out distributor with a crank trigger and and msd box to control timing.

The 2.8 is simple. Just fix the problems and go down the road. Thats how I got to where we are now. Making Horsepower is more fun than electrical wiring anyday.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top