• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

Anyone Have An I-6 Mustang?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mustang5L5
  • Start date Start date Mar 16, 2016

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,255
17,938
224
Massachusetts
Mar 16, 2016
#1
  • Mar 16, 2016
  • #1
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

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.
15 Year Member
Jul 6, 2006
5,232
2,652
223
gainesville
Mar 16, 2016
#2
  • Mar 16, 2016
  • #2
http://mustangattitude.com/mustang/1981/1981_00009_07.jpg
 

Boosted92LX

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?
15 Year Member
Dec 19, 2010
5,721
4,244
224
Mar 16, 2016
#3
  • Mar 16, 2016
  • #3
Mustang5L5 said:
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
Click to expand...

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

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?
15 Year Member
Dec 19, 2010
5,721
4,244
224
Mar 16, 2016
#4
  • Mar 16, 2016
  • #4
Come to think of it, I had a girlfriend that had a Capri RS that had one too... No pics of it either.
 
Last edited: Mar 16, 2016

Boosted92LX

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?
15 Year Member
Dec 19, 2010
5,721
4,244
224
Mar 16, 2016
#5
  • Mar 16, 2016
  • #5
@stykthyn That's the one...
 

stykthyn

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.
15 Year Member
Jul 6, 2006
5,232
2,652
223
gainesville
Mar 16, 2016
#6
  • Mar 16, 2016
  • #6
Boosted92LX said:
@stykthyn That's the one...
Click to expand...
Kill it. Kill it with fire.
 
Reactions: Davedacarpainter, A5literMan and Boosted92LX

CarMichael Angelo

my rearend will smell so minty fresh,
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
10,641
8,909
234
Birmingham, al
Mar 16, 2016
#7
  • Mar 16, 2016
  • #7
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.
 
Last edited: Mar 17, 2016
Reactions: elarm1 and Boosted92LX

Davedacarpainter

Chicks can make things hard if they’re inspired...
SN Certified Technician
Nov 28, 2015
11,833
11,633
203
Discordia
Mar 17, 2016
#8
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #8
Like Mike said, who in the hell of right mind would put any sort of I6 in a fox chassis.
 

Boosted92LX

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?
15 Year Member
Dec 19, 2010
5,721
4,244
224
Mar 17, 2016
#9
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #9
2jz swap?

 

stykthyn

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.
15 Year Member
Jul 6, 2006
5,232
2,652
223
gainesville
Mar 17, 2016
#10
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #10
Boosted92LX said:
2jz swap?

Click to expand...
 
Reactions: 90sickfox, mikestang63, smokin joe and 3 others

Boosted92LX

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?
15 Year Member
Dec 19, 2010
5,721
4,244
224
Mar 17, 2016
#11
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #11
stykthyn said:
Click to expand...
That's it!

With nawz!
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,255
17,938
224
Massachusetts
Mar 17, 2016
#12
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #12
Davedacarpainter said:
Like Mike said, who in the hell of right mind would put any sort of I6 in a fox chassis.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Reactions: Davedacarpainter

Boosted92LX

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?
15 Year Member
Dec 19, 2010
5,721
4,244
224
Mar 17, 2016
#13
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #13
Mustang5L5 said:
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?
Click to expand...


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

I wish I didn't have all of these balls in the air
Mod Dude
Dec 6, 2005
6,376
5,359
194
Corn County USA
Mar 17, 2016
#14
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #14
Mustang5L5 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Reactions: Davedacarpainter

Davedacarpainter

Chicks can make things hard if they’re inspired...
SN Certified Technician
Nov 28, 2015
11,833
11,633
203
Discordia
Mar 17, 2016
#15
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #15
Mustang5L5 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

Chicks can make things hard if they’re inspired...
SN Certified Technician
Nov 28, 2015
11,833
11,633
203
Discordia
Mar 17, 2016
#16
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #16
LILCBRA said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good write up.
 

89oem

Mustang Master
Dec 18, 2013
1,456
542
144
Mar 17, 2016
#17
  • Mar 17, 2016
  • #17
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.
 
Reactions: Davedacarpainter

CarMichael Angelo

my rearend will smell so minty fresh,
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
10,641
8,909
234
Birmingham, al
Mar 18, 2016
#18
  • Mar 18, 2016
  • #18
89oem said:
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.
Click to expand...

**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..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electrical/engine bay harness questions
  • djj62478
  • May 29, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
263
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 6, 2026
djj62478
F
Poor factory fit up?
  • fox racer v2
  • Nov 10, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
200
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Nov 10, 2025
KRUISR
How do we feel about first gen fuel caps?
  • Teen'93stang5.0
  • Apr 25, 2026
  • Mustang Sound & Shine All
Replies
4
Views
356
Mustang Sound & Shine All May 3, 2026
General karthief
Light bulb for under hood
  • mustangfiveo198
  • May 5, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
8
Views
218
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 8, 2026
mustangfiveo198
T5 identification
  • 3054tony
  • May 16, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
25
Views
430
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 20, 2026
AeroCoupe
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?