Ebay ad, does this belong to a member?

[Dom]

Hi All,

 

Been a while lol.

 

Just wondered if this belongs to a member? I don't mean to pooh pooh the ad I'm just dubious of the engine specs.

 

Look at this on eBay http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/252943845728

 

Peace out!

[YellowTaxi]

I saw that.

3.5 ltr V6 ...?

[eeb43]

cosworst crank! if it was stroked that much it would need loads skimmed off of the pistons!

[Dom]

I'm no engineer but I thought the 2.9 had a 72mm stroke over the 68.5 of the 2.8, making it just over 2.9. To get to 3.5 without boring it would need to be 86mm. Also I wouldn't have thought the standard injection and exhaust systems would support all that.

[JP.]

As far as I know its a bore & stroke thing and in Germany they use the Cossy BOA/BOB crank for the 2.8 engine to get it to 3.4 & 3.5 capacity. Bore is out of range Ford specifies.

Have seen them go to 3800cc.... but imo to risky

[eeb43]

As far as I know its a bore & stroke thing and in Germany they use the Cossy BOA/BOB crank for the 2.8 engine to get it to 3.4 & 3.5 capacity. Bore is out of range Ford specifies.

Have seen them go to 3800cc.... but imo to risky

how much would need taking off the piston crowns? they must be nearly see through

[JP.]

Well, if you chouse the correct pistons (pistonheight on the conrod ) theres nothing needed to take off.

With alternative conrods its also no issue. With stroking an engine ( ofset regrind of the crank ) you'll need new conrods anyway.

 

For example, You can bore and stroke an Essex 3.0 to 3.4 by regrinding the crank, using old BMW conrods and VW 94mm pistons and Nissan conrod bearings.

The BMW conrodfs have double squirters and the Nissan bearings have two holes to accomodate that.

 

Don't know the excact specs of used parts but I do know this is the way to do it instead of going the South African 3.4 route.

[Dom]

But also begs the question, why?

[katana]

Why use a 2.8 over a 2.0L ?

 

Cubes and stroke = torque

[Dom]

No I mean why a 2.8, surely starting with a 24v BOA/BOB would yield far better results?

[eeb43]

Why use a 2.8 over a 2.0L ?

 

Cubes and stroke = torque

start at the right place then 500ci cadillac 500 pounds of torque and between 225 and 500 bhp depending on what it was originally fitted in

[JP.]

No I mean why a 2.8, surely starting with a 24v BOA/BOB would yield far better results?

​Why ?? simple Old Skool before the BOA BOB mishaps happen.

​Why do you think all BOA / BOB engines came factory fitted with an auto transmission?? Indeed no torque  at all low down. An auto transmission multiplyes torque times 3 at the lower revs ( had an auto transmmision skooling  a few years back ). Thats what a Torque Converted does.

​Ford made a design fault with the BOA and BOB engine they solved with an auto transmission. Everybody who did the swap from the 2.9 12V EFI to the 2.9 24V knows it.

​BOA & BOB have bhp in high revs. Issue is they where not suitbale for high revs. Run it constandly 7000 rpm and it will break.

[eeb43]

​Why ?? simple Old Skool before the BOA BOB mishaps happen.

​Why do you think all BOA / BOB engines came factory fitted with an auto transmission?? Indeed no torque  at all low down. An auto transmission multiplyes torque times 3 at the lower revs ( had an auto transmmision skooling  a few years back ). Thats what a Torque Converted does.

​Ford made a design fault with the BOA and BOB engine they solved with an auto transmission. Everybody who did the swap from the 2.9 12V EFI to the 2.9 24V knows it.

​BOA & BOB have bhp in high revs. Issue is they where not suitbale for high revs. Run it constandly 7000 rpm and it will break.

plenty of boa and bob engines around to practice on

[Dom]

​Why ?? simple Old Skool before the BOA BOB mishaps happen.

​Why do you think all BOA / BOB engines came factory fitted with an auto transmission?? Indeed no torque  at all low down. An auto transmission multiplyes torque times 3 at the lower revs ( had an auto transmmision skooling  a few years back ). Thats what a Torque Converted does.

​Ford made a design fault with the BOA and BOB engine they solved with an auto transmission. Everybody who did the swap from the 2.9 12V EFI to the 2.9 24V knows it.

​BOA & BOB have bhp in high revs. Issue is they where not suitbale for high revs. Run it constandly 7000 rpm and it will break.

So you're saying Ford never fitted a manual gearbox because of an inherent fault made by Ford/Cosworth that prevents them from making low down torque? What is this fault you speak of? What would you class as low torque and I'd like to see power graphs comparing the two.