What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Physically small V-8?

ive heard of a few people put the northstars in an s10. its got the 60* bellhousing, but i doubt any 2.8 s10 tranny will hold up to it.
 
Hmmm...I didn't know you could get 205hp from a 4.3....Interesting. I was really leaning towards the 5.0. Found a few locally in a running vehicles....for decent $$$. Hmmm
 
what kinda front sheet metal you running? the v6 will allow for a bigger radiator and fan set up to cut down on under hood temps.

the plus side to the ford motors is the dist. is up front so you can shove the motor back and they are narrower which makes headers less of a headache.
 
55Willy said:
what kinda front sheet metal you running? the v6 will allow for a bigger radiator and fan set up to cut down on under hood temps.

the plus side to the ford motors is the dist. is up front so you can shove the motor back and they are narrower which makes headers less of a headache.
Click to expand...

Why not run a rear radiator to have better a better view of whats ahead? It is gonna be a truggy type buggy, correct?
 
If I remember right the "W" code engine was 195hp, and was merely a different computer program. They are also fairly rare. The common one is the "X" VIN that was rated at 185hp. I think that both engines put out the same lb ft though (240).
 
Ford 4.6 OHC engines and aurora and northstar engines are not physically small engines. They are very wide engines that stuffing into a little mazda would prove to be the 5 pounds of crap in a 1 pound bag situation. actual size and engine displacement are two different things. You can have a 267" small block and it's the same size on the outside as a 400. If you can't fit the small block in, it really don't matter how much displacement it has.

A 4.3 would be a good choice for the small engine bay. The only V8 I can think of that is smaller than a SBC or small block ford would be the buick/rover V8. They were used in early 60's Buicks and then gm sold the tooling to Rover and they were used in Land Rovers up to a couple of years ago. Just not a whole lot of aftermarket support for them.
 
What about one of the old Ford I-6 motors out of the older F-150's?

That should take care of the width issue I would think.
 
I know the 4.1 is universally maligned as a POS (not sure why, but probably well founded lol)
Click to expand...

The 4.1 and the 4.5 are aluminum block iron head and are the biggest POS ever made. Nothing but troubles with those engines. Kind of hard to want one when the dealer will replace the complete engine if anything is needed for warranty work as far as heads or block are concerned.
 
how about a Ford 302? according to that web site its over 4" narrower than a SBC... and blingy parts for 302s are hella common. Dunno jack about ford manual trannys, but they gotta have some that are worth a ****, right? :grin:

Ford 300-6 is a good engine too. My dad has had 2 rigs with 'em and loves that motor.

j
 
I think the 302 is the way to go. they are fairly compact. other than that if you want a v-8 look into foreign cars. I don't really know if the engines are small or not but their engine bays sure are.
 
hunterguy86 said:
What about one of the old Ford I-6 motors out of the older F-150's?

That should take care of the width issue I would think.
Click to expand...

There are length issues to consider, too. That would be two cylinders longer than either the stock I-4 or any V8. I seriously doubt it would fit without major surgery to the firewall.
 
Geez...lol, never thought this would be so popular. lol


Anyways, there are a couple 5.0's on Pirate.

This one is in a Toy-
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=558074

This one is in an '86 marquis-
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=552789

The second one is in my town even. The engine compartment in this mazda is close to the same size of the toy compartment....So I don't see a problem makin it fit. I'm a dummy when it comes to ford trannys/tcases....but I figured a C6? (i want an auto) and what ever t-case/doubler setup I can come up with cheap. Can you mount a passenger drop t-case to the back of a ford trans?:dunno:
 
The 5.0 and the 4.3 put out the same hp..220...I believe he 4.3 has more low end torque, food for thought...I was never impressed by a 5.0 unless it was really modded, stock for stock I say the 4.3 is better. and its gm, so there you go. hah
 
If I remember right the "W" code engine was 195hp, and was merely a different computer program. They are also fairly rare. The common one is the "X" VIN that was rated at 185hp. I think that both engines put out the same lb ft though (240).
Click to expand...

the "w" code was for the L35, rated at 195/260. i've only seen it on a 92 s10 blazer. the computer (program anyway) was different because the injection was different. it used central multiport injection instead of tbi. because the whole intake setup is different, and rare, parts are harder to find and more expensive than on an LB4 (code Z).

the LB4 was 160-165 and 230-240tq, depending on application. there was a rare 200hp/260tq version available on fullsize trucks in 94 and 95 but wasn't very publicized, afaik. i don't know if it was an option or just gm playing around before the release of the 96+ model. unlike previous 4.3s, it used the same diameter exhaust as the v8s. not sure of internal or intake changes. just for looks, they had "vortec v6" valve covers instead of the plain ones.

the LU3 (code x) was the 190-200hp 250-260tq version introduced in 96. good engine but obd2 is a pain, imo, so it wouldn't be my choice. also, instead of stamped steel timing covers and cast iron or aluminum intake manifolds, they went to composites. i've seen some nasty stuff happen to them.
 
Pvt. Maggot said:
The 5.0 and the 4.3 put out the same hp..220...I believe he 4.3 has more low end torque, food for thought...I was never impressed by a 5.0 unless it was really modded, stock for stock I say the 4.3 is better. and its gm, so there you go. hah
Click to expand...

I think they're talking about 5.0 Furds (aka 302), not 5.0 Chebbies (aka smog dog).
There are tons of easy mods and aftermarket support for SBF engines. They've been around *almost* as long as the SBC. :D
 
Pvt. Maggot said:
The 5.0 and the 4.3 put out the same hp..220...I believe he 4.3 has more low end torque, food for thought...I was never impressed by a 5.0 unless it was really modded, stock for stock I say the 4.3 is better. and its gm, so there you go. hah
Click to expand...

Hmmm.............. Another post from GM fantasy land.:rolleyes: ..4.3 with 220 HP:haha:
More torque than a 5.0????........................... Come on get real.

5.0s in Mustangs =225 hp 300 lbs torque. Please show me a stock NAd GM 4.3 that makes those kind of numbers. I would love to see one.


As far as the engine swap for the Mazda goes I would go with a 5.0 Ho from a stang. They make swap kits. Many people have done it to Rangers and Mazdas. The parts, tec, and info is out there. IIRC there is even a book on how to do it right. It is the easyst way to go.
 
never heard of a stock naturally aspirated 4.3 above the 200hp area. 280 from the cyclone/typhoon, but they were turbocharged.

the 5.0 could be a good choice. keep it in the family (mazda/ford). and, the '86+ 5.0 was fuel injected and made its torque at decently low rpms. might be a decent wheeling motor.
 
Right on....Good information in this post. Thanks for all the replies.:bow:

Does anyone know anything about ford trans/t-cases?
 
I never thought about that but I bet a 5.0 swap would be way easy considering the mazda and ford are the same. As far as autos go tons of C6s came in Fords with 205s problem here is finding one with a small block pattern. Try early 80s Broncos for a C-6 and a 208 (Ford 208s are fixed yoke) And for even more power in your 302 do what we do to small blocks STROKE ME, STROKE ME, 347s are awesome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom