Mild 200hp street build 2.8

[Mummert]

Progress report

 

[bobbywalter]

there is nothing mild about a 200 hp 2.8.

 

[Mummert]

I doesn't seem wild to me. Its not 13.0:1 compression, race gas , roller cam, .550" lift , or titanium valves, or anything that constitutes exotic that I can see.
Its a pump gas weekend cruiser .

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I doesn't seem wild to me. Its not 13.0:1 compression, race gas , roller cam, .550" lift , or titanium valves, or anything that constitutes exotic that I can see.
Its a pump gas weekend cruiser .

It is like a 900hp Coyote, its double OE horsepower...

 

[Mummert]

Thats an interesting perspective. I think Ford might be trying a little harder on the Coyotes.
A 2.8l or 171ci making 200hp is a milder engine than a 302ci Coyote making 375hp.
Ford might have been giving people a Banana in the tail pipe in the 70's.
Sometimes you have to shoot for more than nothing.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Thats an interesting perspective. I think Ford might be trying a little harder on the Coyotes.
A 2.8l or 171ci making 200hp is a milder engine than a 302ci Coyote making 375hp.
Ford might have been giving people a Banana in the tail pipe in the 70's.
Sometimes you have to shoot for more than nothing.

Just sayin', doubling the HP output of a Coyote NA is noteworthy and it has a lot more stuff going for it. Doing the same percent increase with 1/4 as many cams and half as many valves is pretty impressive. The 2.8 doesn't even have hydraulic lifters let alone roller and forget about all the variable valve stuff.

 

[Mummert]

Engine design comes down to velocities, pressures, loading interfaces, and realistic goals set for a design. At 1.15 hp per cube were aiming pretty low.
Never confuse complication for anything more than the manufacturer trying to scare you away from working on your own vehicle.
Hydraulic valve lifters are for old people.

 

[bobbywalter]

Engine design comes down to velocities, pressures, loading interfaces, and realistic goals set for a design. At 1.15 hp per cube were aiming pretty low.
Never confuse complication for anything more than the manufacturer trying to scare you away from working on your own vehicle.
Hydraulic valve lifters are for old people.

yeah. i have built lots of engines. i understand what is needed. nothing easy about doing it with that platform.

years and years ago my 5.0 ranger extended cab got the shit whooped out of it by a 2.8 powered stadium truck of late 80s vintage with 90's build technology.

to get the heads to flow over or near 200 hp reliably took many sets and thousands of dollars of work because they kept cracking. of course it was a light weight racing machine and not a streetable vehicle, but very very impressive for pump gas captain cave pig v6 tech.

i have seen 200hp plus mustang 2 and pintos but the sunbeam guys in detroit had the best stuff. there was a guy here, maybe you that built a hellacious 2.8 a few years ago.

the drag guys in the 90s with 4.0s were playing hell cracking 250 hp n/a...

if 200 hp was a thing with 2.8s....no one would have been doing 302 swaps.

 

[Mummert]

The heads dont need that much material removed in the right places. Back in the day most guys were working to hard for little return. The ports are big. The guide boss seems to he the hinge point, fix that first take less out of the port.
I think we'll be fine. One of the biggest issues I see right now is fuel distribution issues with the OFFY manifold. 1&6 run pretty lean with that manifold. Fixing that will help reliability for sure.

 

[bobbywalter]

exactly....head cracking bastards with the offy intakes. less ended up being more. but at the height of competition you have to break the eggs in development. the 2.9 changed the world....the 4.0 may as well have been a 426 hemi....the 2.8 was left to where it was.

getting 200 streetable hp out of a 2.8 is a remarkable thing. in a capri...sure. but a 4x4 extended cab ranger...a 200 hp 2.8 will be useless compared to a 160 hp 4.0.

torque is where it is at.


the technology you are sharing to find the way is awesome. we appreciate the data. seeing the port molds is extraordinarily informative...and a bit disheartening. there are certain realities i see that just stop me for piuckup truck use. . i would use a 4.0 every time.

in a sunbeam though....the 2.8 is great.


i would never waste time or money in porting. i would just put a turbo right to it.

 

[Mummert]

This is going in an Mgb. The 2.8 guys might want to follow along in the 2.8 section.

 

[bobbywalter]

This is going in an Mgb. The 2.8 guys might want to follow along in the 2.8 section.

well there ya go...hell yeah...it may as well be a big block in that critter.

the sun beams were hauling ass pretty good, keeping up with the hondas even. there are alot of miata guys too doing the ecoboosts. but those old n/a engines running with the hondas was surprising. s2000s are quick. i have not been home so i dont know if that crew is still around.