Anyone Have An I-6 Mustang?

[Mustang5L5]

Anyone have an early Fox with the 3.3L Inline 6?

I'm just curious to what that engine bay looks like. I've never seen one and can't find anything on the net

 

[stykthyn]

http://mustangattitude.com/mustang/1981/1981_00009_07.jpg

 

[Boosted92LX]

Anyone have an early Fox with the 3.3L Inline 6?

I'm just curious to what that engine bay looks like. I've never seen one and can't find anything on the net

A buddy of mine had one about 25 years ago. It was a 79 model. Nothing special.. It looked a like a little I6 in a fox.

 

[Boosted92LX]

Come to think of it, I had a girlfriend that had a Capri RS that had one too... No pics of it either.

 

[Boosted92LX]

@stykthyn That's the one...

 

[stykthyn]

@stykthyn That's the one...

Kill it. Kill it with fire.

 

[CarMichael Angelo]

What in the hell is going on here?.. I-6 in a fox?

The best thing to do to that is swap in a 5.0 and throw on a HCI upgrade, and never look back.

 

[Davedacarpainter]

Like Mike said, who in the hell of right mind would put any sort of I6 in a fox chassis.

 

[Boosted92LX]

2jz swap?

 

[stykthyn]

2jz swap?

 

[Boosted92LX]

That's it!

With nawz!

 

[Mustang5L5]

Like Mike said, who in the hell of right mind would put any sort of I6 in a fox chassis.

Well Ford did.



I'm just curious though as to why Ford made that an option. The 2.3L and the 3.3L I-6 were both rated for 88HP, so why choose one over the other? Anyone have TQ numbers on the I-6?

 

[Boosted92LX]

Well Ford did.



I'm just curious though as to why Ford made that an option. The 2.3L and the 3.3L I-6 were both rated for 88HP, so why choose one over the other? Anyone have TQ numbers on the I-6?

If i had to guess... I'd say because Ford.

I love my Fords, but they haven't always done things in the most logical fashion.

 

[LILCBRA]

Well Ford did.



I'm just curious though as to why Ford made that an option. The 2.3L and the 3.3L I-6 were both rated for 88HP, so why choose one over the other? Anyone have TQ numbers on the I-6?

Straight from the "reliable" pages of wikipedia:

"When Ford launched the third-generation Fox body Mustang in 1979, the original engine lineup included the Cologne V6. The same engine was also offered in the hugely successful Ford of Europe Capri Mk II. The 2.8 L V6 engine was a popular option for the US Mustang and the European Capri MkII and as a result the Cologne engine plant could not meet the demand for engines for both continents.

So, the Cologne 2.8 L V6 was dropped from the engine lineup in the middle of the 1979 production year and replaced with the 200cid Falcon inline six, which was now referred to as the 3.3L engine. The engine and front suspension K-member was transferred from the Fairmont model which helped reduce costs instead of having to redesign the Mustang for a different engine."

Ford and one of their "better" ideas. It is a little harder to just swap a 302 into an I6 car as the K-member is totally different as I'm sure you know or now realize. Easy enough fix though, just get a hold of any 4-V6-V8 K-member and you're off to the races! Now, in their defense, the I6 is generally a very dependable powerplant. We have a 200 in our 67 and the 300 that was used in trucks is a stout engine. In a Fox Mustang, they are just so oddball that it doesn't make a lot of sense nowadays. Imagine building one with a turbo like madmike is attempting. The old 280Zs had an I6 turbo setup and they scooted right along! It would definitely be different and something you wouldn't see every day.

 

[Davedacarpainter]

Well Ford did.



I'm just curious though as to why Ford made that an option. The 2.3L and the 3.3L I-6 were both rated for 88HP, so why choose one over the other? Anyone have TQ numbers on the I-6?

I was just tweaking Mike.
They are dependable engines and I guess having gone through the seventies, it wasn't as much as a dog seemingly as it would be now.

 

[Davedacarpainter]

Straight from the "reliable" pages of wikipedia:

"When Ford launched the third-generation Fox body Mustang in 1979, the original engine lineup included the Cologne V6. The same engine was also offered in the hugely successful Ford of Europe Capri Mk II. The 2.8 L V6 engine was a popular option for the US Mustang and the European Capri MkII and as a result the Cologne engine plant could not meet the demand for engines for both continents.

So, the Cologne 2.8 L V6 was dropped from the engine lineup in the middle of the 1979 production year and replaced with the 200cid Falcon inline six, which was now referred to as the 3.3L engine. The engine and front suspension K-member was transferred from the Fairmont model which helped reduce costs instead of having to redesign the Mustang for a different engine."

Ford and one of their "better" ideas. It is a little harder to just swap a 302 into an I6 car as the K-member is totally different as I'm sure you know or now realize. Easy enough fix though, just get a hold of any 4-V6-V8 K-member and you're off to the races! Now, in their defense, the I6 is generally a very dependable powerplant. We have a 200 in our 67 and the 300 that was used in trucks is a stout engine. In a Fox Mustang, they are just so oddball that it doesn't make a lot of sense nowadays. Imagine building one with a turbo like madmike is attempting. The old 280Zs had an I6 turbo setup and they scooted right along! It would definitely be different and something you wouldn't see every day.

Good write up.

 

[89oem]

My first car was a 70 Maverick with an i6 and it could easily run with base v8's of the day, here are the specs... and why I bought my Mustang years later...

\The 250 cu. in. I-6 engine option was offered in 1969 in the Mustang, and 1970 in compact Ford cars (Maverick). The 250 was a stroked 200, made by changing the stroke from 3.126" to 3.91". Output was 155 hp (115 kW) in the Mustang, and became the base engine in 1971. Power was re-evaluated at 98 hp (73 kW) for 1972 (due to power rating changes) and 88 hp (66 kW) the next year. The last year of production for the 250 was 1980. This engine had seven main bearings, and can be identified by the five freeze (core) plugs on the side of the block. The block uses a low-mount starter and six bellhousing bolts, sharing its bellhousing with the Windsor V-8s 302-351W, late (1965–68) 289,early 4.6, and the 240-300 CID Ford Six.

 

[CarMichael Angelo]

My first car was a 70 Maverick with an i6 and it could easily run with base v8's of the day, here are the specs... and why I bought my Mustang years later...

\The 250 cu. in. I-6 engine option was offered in 1969 in the Mustang, and 1970 in compact Ford cars (Maverick). The 250 was a stroked 200, made by changing the stroke from 3.126" to 3.91". Output was 155 hp (115 kW) in the Mustang, and became the base engine in 1971. Power was re-evaluated at 98 hp (73 kW) for 1972 (due to power rating changes) and 88 hp (66 kW) the next year. The last year of production for the 250 was 1980. This engine had seven main bearings, and can be identified by the five freeze (core) plugs on the side of the block. The block uses a low-mount starter and six bellhousing bolts, sharing its bellhousing with the Windsor V-8s 302-351W, late (1965–68) 289,early 4.6, and the 240-300 CID Ford Six.

**Just an added point...

A 250 is an entirely different block than a 200. wider, and taller, the only thing it shares with the 200 is length. It really can't be called a stroked version of a 200.

A 302 can be called a stroked version of a 289, a 428 can be called a stroked version of a 390, which could be called a stroked version of a 352. But on it's best day, even if you wanted to ......a 200 could never be stroked to make 250 c.i..