Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

[Bench Racer]

I was looking in the guide and found a 1978 pinto wagon with the 2.8 V6 2bbl. it is rated at 120hp, factory weight of 2645# and is on a 22.04 weight break (V-stock). Has anyone ever ran one of these? I think it was rated about 6 hp more than the 2300, but has .5 less compression, and smaller valves and cam. Does this engine have any potential? Don Jackson

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Bench Racer

I was looking in the guide and found a 1978 pinto wagon with the 2.8 V6 2bbl. it is rated at 120hp, factory weight of 2645# and is on a 22.04 weight break (V-stock). Has anyone ever ran one of these? I think it was rated about 6 hp more than the 2300, but has .5 less compression, and smaller valves and cam. Does this engine have any potential? Don Jackson

Where would you even find one? Yac has probably looked at it!

[Joe Toller]

Grab the old book "V6 Performance" from Pat Ganahl, there is some cool info in there. As for the car, I can find them relatively easily in Montana, they were my nemesis in my compact demolition derby days...guys around here hoard the wagons.

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

Where would you even find one? Yac has probably looked at it!

I think Yac had one at the USCN race and asked me what I thought of it. I told him I thought it looked like a cylinder head.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

I think Yac had one at the USCN race and asked me what I thought of it. I told him I thought it looked like a cylinder head.

Actually ,Dwight, that was a 3.8 (a whole 'nother story)

I never paid much attention to the 60 deg. V6..but knowing what we know now, it might be worth a second look.
Near as I can tell ,it's a 2150 with a 1.08 venturi...Same as the 77 302!
A little more cam lift, and about the same compression..
The short stroke hurts the low end torque ,but it should rev pretty high with that carb on a small c.i. engine.
Cam cores might be a problem.
It seems that there WAS a C4 offered with the Taunus bell housing pattern, which you'll need...(not a C3)
There are some minor differences in the various years. I haven't looked that close
Your job!
I see it as an easy .5 under deal, if you can find .030 over OEM pistons.
More than that, if you want to invest in a 7" converter.

[mtkawboy]

Heres a tip on the clever engine design. Lifters must go in before heads go on or they wont go in at all. Yes, Im serious ! A lot of people learned that one the hard way

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Bench Racer

I was looking in the guide and found a 1978 pinto wagon with the 2.8 V6 2bbl. it is rated at 120hp, factory weight of 2645# and is on a 22.04 weight break (V-stock). Has anyone ever ran one of these? I think it was rated about 6 hp more than the 2300, but has .5 less compression, and smaller valves and cam. Does this engine have any potential? Don Jackson

I just had to look that one up! That was the one that had a regular Motorcraft carb adapted to the intake and looked like it was wider than the motor. As I recall, they had nice looking heads and the solid cam is a plus but were real light on torque. I would want to see how big the carb is because Motorcraft made some really small 2V carbs.

[Bench Racer]

Billy, I done a little digging and it looks like the stick has the 2150 motorcraft and the auto has the variable ventura 2700. Cant find a ventura size anywhere. Did find a CFM chart
.98=190cfm, 1.01=240cfm, 1.02=245cfm, 1.08=287cfm, 1.14=300cfm, 1.21=351cfm, 1.21=351cfm, 1.23=356cfm, 1.33=424cfm, for the 2100 and 2150 carbs. I am ASSumimg the variable ventura is only one size, can't find much on it other than it came on engines from 171ci to 351ci. it might be pretty big if the engine will pull enough to open the vents fully. Don Jackson

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Bench Racer

I was looking in the guide and found a 1978 pinto wagon with the 2.8 V6 2bbl. it is rated at 120hp, factory weight of 2645# and is on a 22.04 weight break (V-stock). Has anyone ever ran one of these? I think it was rated about 6 hp more than the 2300, but has .5 less compression, and smaller valves and cam. Does this engine have any potential? Don Jackson

Okay, you want a 77, 78...10 less hp with less compression. Not enough to worry about ,with 220 less pounds less weight though.
You don't need a Pinto wagon though..In fact, you don't even need a Pinto.
Mustang II is the way to go. If all else fails, go with a 302.
*Actually, you can use a Fox body 79 too..Still with 2150 1.08 carb

[Mark Yacavone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcraft_2150_carburetor