intake question

[glnsrpr]

I have a crazy question. I have an engine from a british TVR. Its a 2.8 ford v6. It had a bosch mechanical fuel injection system on it, so I got an intake from an 83 ranger. The ports on the intake are staggered as normal, but upon removing the intake from the 83 2.8, I found that the ports are equally spaced. What, if any, for intake will work, or do I have to replace the heads with ranger heads? I am installing the engine in a 73 mg midget, but don't want fuel injection. Can anyone help me? I know that as ranger enthusiasts, some of you would know better than anyone what would work. Thank you for your time.

 

[JoshT]

You'd be better off asking in one of the other forums. This forum is for new member introductions, people don't usually look at tech questions in here. That said I'll help you as much as I can.

First let me make sure that I understood right.
TVR 2.8L = Staggered intake port spacing
83 Ranger 2.8L = Equally spaced intake ports

If I understood right then something's wrong here.

All American 2.8Ls should have the staggered port spacing. The 2.6L that was run in a couple cars back in the 60s and 70s had equally spaced ports, but they ain't as common as the 2.8L. The next American Cologne engine to use that configuration was the 2.9L, it wasn't available with a carburetor, the parts aren't backwards compatible with the 2.8L, and there's no aftermarket carbureted intake available for it (in the US).

My understanding is that non-US 2.8Ls continued to use the 2.6L cylinder heads. IIRC I've heard that the 2.6L top end can be swapped onto a US 2.8L as long as the other requisite parts are swapped (IE: intake manifold, exhaust manifold), so maybe that's what happened or the original motor died and they had a 2.6L available.

Did I possibly misunderstand you and it is the TVR that has the equal port spacing?

 

[kimcrwbr1]

Actually I woud like to learn about this fuel injection for the 2.8. If it indeed is the cologne engine I would consider converting to FI if the parts are readily available?

 

[glnsrpr]

The tvr engine is the one with the equal spaced intake, the ranger intake is the staggered one. The main reason I am using the tvr engine is that the car was never sold when new, so the engine has only 2400 miles on it.

 

[JoshT]

Actually I woud like to learn about this fuel injection for the 2.8. If it indeed is the cologne engine I would consider converting to FI if the parts are readily available?

Both of the engines he is talking about are Cologne engines, one is North American (NA) version the other is European version. The FI was only on the European version, never on NA version. It won't work on a NA 2.8L, due to the port spacing issue being discussed.

The tvr engine is the one with the equal spaced intake, the ranger intake is the staggered one. The main reason I am using the tvr engine is that the car was never sold when new, so the engine has only 2400 miles on it.

Thanks for the clarification, glad I was mistaken. That makes it a lot easier. I see two possibilities, I can't guarantee that either will work, but it's worth a shot.

First, more involved option. Swap the heads from the Ranger 2.8L as well. I do not know if the blocks are close enough to the same for this to work.

Second, easier, but harder to find option. Find a 2.6L intake manifold. The European 2.8L heads were supposedly a carry-over from the 2.6L. As far as my sources (wikipedia) can confirm the 72-73 Mercury Capri was the only vehicle with a 2.6L sold in the US. There were a few different vehicles in the European market that had it available, but I can't help you find them.

There was also an Offenhauser aftermarket intake available for the 2.6L, but I'm not sure about availability these days. Part number for the 2bbl version was 6115-DP and for the 4bbl version was 6116-DP. I've seen two places that these were listed, Exeter Auto Supply and Phethean Racing Products. I've also seen a 3xWeber manifold on an european performance parts page, ran across it checking out other options for my 2.8L. It would work for the Euro version, but not the NA version.

 

[glnsrpr]

I will try to find the offy intakes. From what I understand, anything that offy ever made is still available. Time to test that theory. If I need to put on us ranger heads, I have no problem with that. I just hope the block is the same.

 

[JoshT]

They are still in business, just don't know if they still make the parts for almost obsolete engines like this with no real fan base. I included links in my last post to the two places that I found, I just edited the post and underlined them to be more visible.

Have you put any thought into what transmission you will use for your swap?

anything that offy ever made is still available

I've heard that as well, and need to check into it myself. They made both 2bbl and 4bbl intakes for the NA 2.8L as well. I have the 4bbl version on my 2.8L, and would like a 2bbl version but never seen them sold new and very, very rarely see them used. They used to offer the upper half separate, and if I could just buy that piece it would be perfect.

I'm in sort of a similar boat with my 2.8L. I rebuilt the thing a few years ago and put less than 5000 miles on it before totaling the truck it was in. I picked up a replacement Ranger that I was going to swap it into, but then found a 5.0L Explorer donor before I got started so plans changed a little. Now I got this low mile 2.8L sitting here that I am trying to find a new home for. I'm going to find a car to swap it into, but there's not many small ones I fit in. If I don't find a car then I think I'll get an adapter to bolt it to a VW bus trans-axle, and build a buggy around it. I've also tossed around the idea of a home built trike based on it. While thinking about all those possibilities I've let that V8 swap drag out for years, so I really gotta put those on the back burner for now.

 

[glnsrpr]

I looked up the offy intakes. The 2 and 4bbl intakes are still available for 490 plus dollars each. Ouch. I'm going to call the junk yard and see about a pair of heads from a ranger to do a price comparison. We'll see what happens. As far as a trans is concerned, I am using the trans that came out of the tvr which is a 4speed from some british ford, I can't remember what they used. It also only has 2400 miles on it. I junked the tvr because its a fiberglass car and you can imagine what it looked like after sitting outside in the az desert for 30 years. I got the mg free without and engine or trans (rusty car) and did a bit of "modifying" to make it fit. If anyone has a two or four bbl intake for the even spaced runners, let me know. I am interested

 

[JoshT]

You could try contacting this guy Offenhauser 2.9 intake manifold(<<link).

He thought it was an offy intake for a 2.9, but they never made an intake for that motor. We're pretty sure from his descriptions that what he has is a 2.6L intake.

Reason I asked about the transmission, is that I'm almost positive that the later model mustangs have a Tremec T5 that will bolt up to the 2.8L. All Cologne V6 engines in the states had the same bell housing pattern, including the 4.0L SOHC. The 2005-2010 mustangs came with the 4.0L SOHC for a little while, and I'm pretty sure that would be the best bolt-on 5 speed available for these engines.