Why aren't people doing a 2.9 V6 swap?

[Barry]

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.

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

So is Dan's engine "more forward" or "in the same position as a 2.8"?

 

[260Alpine]

Barry, Dan would have to answer that question.

 

[Barry]

Barry, Dan would have to answer that question.

Jim,

I agree, but in post #36 you wrote "Brian's engine is set back against the firewall while Dan's is more forward to clear the Alpine steering." A definitive statement and the reason that I asked where Dan posted that information.

In that same post, you wrote "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." I will bet you $100 (or a cold beer) that the "large damper pulley" was not behind the front suspension crossmember in Brian's car.

 

[260Alpine]

Barry, I should have said probably behind. Maybe a smaller notch? When I said to clear the the Alpine steering I meant the same as the 2.8. If I ever meet up with you I'll buy you a beer!

 

[DanR]

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.

Barry, I am basically utilizing the same engine and transmission mounts as I designed for the 2.8. The two engines are sitting in the exact same position except for me notching the crossmember in order to "lower" the 4.0 hoping I would be able to make use of the stock FI.

I was not aware that I could utilize a 2.8 Harmonic balancer as Dillon65 posted until a recent discussion with him.

So far, with lowering the 4.0 my headers still have adequate clearance.

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, I think the 4.0 water pump is reverse rotation. Maybe you can press the impellor off and turn it over?

 

[DanR]

I lowered the 4.0 to get clearance up top in an attempt to make the Alpine bonnet look appealing not to look like a "Blower" sticking out!

Also, In my haste to get the 4.0 installed (All the while I have had to wait on some folks that have promised me a "MicroSquirt" and a 4BBL intake), I modified the stock radiator mounts.

I mounted the new radiator which is much larger than the stock about the same position as the stock would have been.

Moved the bottom at an angle forward about 4 inches. This allowed for clearance for the use of two 11" puller fans.

It may be possible, now that I know a 2.8 harmonic balancer can be used, to go back to the stock position for the radiator??

A fuel system has been the major stumbling block for my 4.0. Lots of various suggestions have been made and now there are a few more worthy of study.

Thanks Guys for helping to motivate me

 

[DanR]

Dan, I think the 4.0 water pump is reverse rotation. maybe you can press the impellor off and turn it over?

I'll try to remember this tid bit>>>>

 

[Barry]

Barry, I should have said probably behind. Maybe a smaller notch? When I said to clear the the Alpine steering I meant the same as the 2.8. If I ever meet up with you I'll buy you a beer!

No notch at all because Brian's car used a complete Mustang-II front suspension which has a crossmember that runs straight-across under the oil pan.

I will drink the beer if and when, thanks.

 

[260Alpine]

Yes, I forgot about him using another crossmember!

 

[Barry]

Barry, I am basically utilizing the same engine and transmission mounts as I designed for the 2.8. The two engines are sitting in the exact same position except for me notching the crossmember in order to "lower" the 4.0 hoping I would be able to make use of the stock FI.

I was not aware that I could utilize a 2.8 Harmonic balancer as Dillon65 posted until a recent discussion with him.

So far, with lowering the 4.0 my headers still adequate clearance.

Dan,

Noted that you have the 4.0 in the same front-to-back location as the 2.8 and that the extremely long front end on the 4.0 is the result of the long 4.0 damper / pulley.

First I have ever heard about using the 2.8 damper / pulley on the 2.9 or 4.0; live and learn. If I were you, I would be trying that ASAP because I don't think many potential conversion kit customers would want to do major surgery on the front suspension crossmember or the core support. Understood that a shorter damper / pulley is only part of the solution and that you still need to shorten the water pump somehow.

When I first mounted the GM L32 3.4 V6 in my S-V, I centered the transmission tailshaft in the transmission tunnel as recommended by V6 Jose and then aligned the damper / pulley crankshaft bolt with a 3/4" wood dowel inserted through the hand crank holes in the front valence. That positioning put the bottom of the damper / pulley behind the the top of the crossmember bow and about 1/4" above the pinch weld flange. If the 4.0 damper / pulley barely clears the floor of the notch in your front suspension crossmember, it seems likely that the front of your crankshaft is at about the same height as mine. Just for grins, stick a dowel through the hand crank holes in the front valence to see how it lines up with the crank bolt.

 

[Reg from Canada]

I think the extra length is due to the cam cover and water pump. I think that's what Dan had said when I was taking to him. I know he was telling me that the early series 2.8s and later 2.8 had different cam covers and water pumps and that I would need the earlier series in order to have room for fan/rad

 

[Bill Blue]

Barry, you just explained why I spent so much time mounting Ford engines! I cannot get anything to line up when the output shaft is centered in the transmission tunnel. It has to be centered, left to right, but not vertically. Vertically, it has to be as low as possible, meaning about a quarter inch clearance for the U-joint yoke. That puts the center of the crank about 3 1/2 to four inches above the crossmember, which gives clearance for the pulley assembly.

I take it that the 4.0 pulley problems also apply to the 2.9. Is that correct?

Bill

 

[260Alpine]

Bill, The 2.9 looks about the same as the Ranger 2.8. The 4.0 uses a serpentine belt. I think Dan said they were 1 1/2" longer than the Mustang II. It is easier to find 86-92 2.9 parts than 74-79 2.8 parts. I'm wondering if you could cut the 2.9 damper down to 1 pulley and shorten the 2.9 water pump snout.

 

[DanR]

Just for grins, stick a dowel through the hand crank holes in the front valence to see how it lines up with the crank bolt.

Earlier on I did just that (stick a dowel through the hand crank hole) and it centered. When I sit the 4.0 back in the Red GT, I will again do the same.

 

[Barry]

Barry, you just explained why I spent so much time mounting Ford engines! I cannot get anything to line up when the output shaft is centered in the transmission tunnel. It has to be centered, left to right, but not vertically. Vertically, it has to be as low as possible, meaning about a quarter inch clearance for the U-joint yoke. That puts the center of the crank about 3 1/2 to four inches above the crossmember, which gives clearance for the pulley assembly.

I take it that the 4.0 pulley problems also apply to the 2.9. Is that correct?

Bill

Bill,

That is a very good question and I think the answer is a qualified yes.

My understanding is that:

The 2.9 was essentially a slightly bored & stroked 2.8 with different heads, a chain driven (rather than gear driven) camshaft and a longer timing case / front accessory drive.

The 4.0 OHV engine was essentially a "bored & stroked tall deck" version of the 2.9.

The bore spacing is the same for all three engines at 4.76".
​

The pictures that I have found suggest that the timing case / front accessory drive setups are dimensionally similar for the 2.9 and 4.0 engines and that both the 2.9 and 4.0 timing case / accessory drive systems are considerably (???) longer than the 2.8. It would help to have some actual measurements for the three engines (or maybe 4 or 5 engines if there is a difference between early and late car 2.8's or car 2.8's versus truck 2.8's).

The historical conventional wisdom was that the 2.9 / 4.0 exhaust port layout was incompatible with the Series Alpine steering system and it seems to me that the front accessory drive length issue was pretty much ignored. Recent events (i.e.; DanR's prototype 4.0 headers), suggest that the conventional wisdom may have been wrong, but only a car on the road will settle the issue.

 

[DanR]

I'm wondering if you could cut the 2.9 damper down to 1 pulley and shorten the 2.9 water pump snout.

I have two new 2.9 water pumps, one of which is to be modified, if possible to shorten to the 2.8 length.

Of the 2.9's I have seen, most have three pulleys. Easy to eliminate a couple, but you still have the longer snout on their water pumps.

 

[DanR]

there is a difference between early and late 2.8's).

There is a definite difference in the lengths of the water pump shafts. That is why the the early 2.8 timing cover is necessary (to date)

 

[260Alpine]

Dan, With all the parts you have, I'm sure you will figure out a solution.

 

[DanR]

It would help to have some actual measurements for the three engines (or maybe 4 engines if there is a difference between early and late 2.8's).

Barry, I will get these different measurements between the 2.8 early/late, 2.9 and 4.0 this week.