1950 Ford 3.0 V6? - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Hotrodding Basics
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2006, 08:45 PM
CrashFarmer2's Avatar
Freezing in arctic Iowa
 
Last wiki edit: Pre-1980 VIN decoding
Last journal entry: 1978 Chevy pickup battery tray repair
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Iowa
Age: 57
Posts: 528
Wiki Edits: 409

Thanks: 54
Thanked 53 Times in 47 Posts
1950 Ford 3.0 V6?

I have a 1950 Ford with a flathead V8 and a three-speed overdrive transmission. When I originally purchased the car I had planned on putting in a more modern V8 and it has not moved out of the planning stage.

But lately considering the high price of gas I have been thinking about going a different direction with it. I have a 1989 Ford Aerostar van with a 3.0 V6 and a 5-speed transmission, the body is trashed on this van but the engine runs great.

I have been thinking about putting the 3.0 and the 5-speed in the 50. I think it should have adequate power since the 3.0 is rated at around 145 horsepower and the original V8 was rated at around 100 horses.

I am thinking that the end result should be a nice driver that is fairly easy on gas, what do you think?

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2006, 11:57 AM
farna's Avatar
Member
 
Last wiki edit: AMC V-8s Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Batesburg-Leesville, SC
Age: 53
Posts: 1,641
Wiki Edits: 14

Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 15 Posts
It's a great idea! The 3.0L probably puts out more torque than the original flat head V-8 too. A lot of people on here will say "go with a V-8", but if you're buidign it to drive and want to enjoy driving it, put the V-6 in. It won't quite be a hot rod, but it will be much better than the original V-8. HP really doesn't mean all that much, the torque does. The 50 weighs less than the Aerostar, so it should perform better than it did. I'd use the Aerostar rear end also, or gear the 50 rear close to the same. Within 0.5 of the ratio (+ or -) should be fine.

I built my last car as a driver and went with a hopped up six vs. a V-8 and I don't regret it one bit! I stroked the six from 244 to 282 inches, and sometimes wish I hadn't though! Gave up a couple mpg, but not enough performance added to notice without a stop watch. I don't regret doing it, but if I were going to build another I'd leave the engine stock except for exhaust and maybe a cam change (I have a mild cam also). The stroking is done a lot by Jeepers (it's the Jeep 4.0L, stroked to 4.6L) because it gives a big boost in low speed torque. There's a HP gain also, but it's higher in the rpm range than you normally use. The extra low speed torque isn't really needed in a street car, the stock 4.0L engine has plenty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2006, 12:50 PM
CrashFarmer2's Avatar
Freezing in arctic Iowa
 
Last wiki edit: Pre-1980 VIN decoding
Last journal entry: 1978 Chevy pickup battery tray repair
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Iowa
Age: 57
Posts: 528
Wiki Edits: 409

Thanks: 54
Thanked 53 Times in 47 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by farna
It's a great idea! The 3.0L probably puts out more torque than the original flat head V-8 too. A lot of people on here will say "go with a V-8", but if you're buidign it to drive and want to enjoy driving it, put the V-6 in. It won't quite be a hot rod, but it will be much better than the original V-8. HP really doesn't mean all that much, the torque does. The 50 weighs less than the Aerostar, so it should perform better than it did. I'd use the Aerostar rear end also, or gear the 50 rear close to the same. Within 0.5 of the ratio (+ or -) should be fine.

I built my last car as a driver and went with a hopped up six vs. a V-8 and I don't regret it one bit! I stroked the six from 244 to 282 inches, and sometimes wish I hadn't though! Gave up a couple mpg, but not enough performance added to notice without a stop watch. I don't regret doing it, but if I were going to build another I'd leave the engine stock except for exhaust and maybe a cam change (I have a mild cam also). The stroking is done a lot by Jeepers (it's the Jeep 4.0L, stroked to 4.6L) because it gives a big boost in low speed torque. There's a HP gain also, but it's higher in the rpm range than you normally use. The extra low speed torque isn't really needed in a street car, the stock 4.0L engine has plenty.
That is good to hear, I have been wondering lately if I am not getting old crazy and needed slapped silly. Not that I wasn't a little crazy to start with. Going from a V8 to a V6 would have sounded like insanity to me twenty years ago but gas was cheap and I wanted to go fast. I have went from a 6 to to a V8 so now might be the time to try this new thing.

I checked out your gallery pictures and that wagon looks good. What kind of mileage are you getting with the Jeep engine? My Cherokee has the 4.0 and is getting from 15 to 19 mpg (it gets around 19 if I drive it and 15-16 if my wife or kid drive it).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-05-2006, 09:42 AM
Member
 

Last journal entry: JB's 37 Pickup
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Smoky Mountains
Age: 76
Posts: 2,358
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Crash, My Bud and I replace the flathead in his 51 Business coupe with a 302 with 2 barrel. An old style Bronco oil pan was required to clear the cross member (still had to modify the cross member slightly to get the motor as low as we wanted) and we used a late model 3 speed with overdrive tranny. We kept the original rear end. He now gets almost 20 MPG on the open road and 17 daily driving. He can't help putting his foot in it since it is a fun car to drive. Big increase in performance as well as fuel economy. Even though the Astro Van and shoe box is probably close to equal in weight, the smaller 3 Liter may be laboring a bit vice the 302 (5 Liter). Regardless of which way you go, make sure you have EFI and you will increase fuel mileage and performance over the carbed units. I vote for the 5.0 from an early 90s Mark VII or Towncar, or Mercury. They are common as dirt and you can find the Air Bagged cars with low mileage cheap. But you already know that.

Trees
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2006, 09:38 AM
farna's Avatar
Member
 
Last wiki edit: AMC V-8s Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Batesburg-Leesville, SC
Age: 53
Posts: 1,641
Wiki Edits: 14

Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 15 Posts
Crash, I average 18-19 mpg, get 20-22 on the road depending on how I'm driving. I got closer to 24 mpg with the stock 4.0L, and could barely tell a difference in performance.

Don't think the 50s cars are as heavy as later ones because they are near the same bulkiness (apparent size)!! The 50s cars didn't have as many layers of metal nor things like 20# crash bars in the doors. The shoebox weighed around 2700 pounds (http://www.uship.com/listing.aspx?packageID=35809), the Aerostar closer to 4000 (http://cgi.liquidation.com/auction/view?id=795205). These weights aren't exact, but there is still around an 800-1200 pound difference in the 50's favor! Even if you use the smaller number, that's enough to make a noticeable performance difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2006, 10:58 AM
CrashFarmer2's Avatar
Freezing in arctic Iowa
 
Last wiki edit: Pre-1980 VIN decoding
Last journal entry: 1978 Chevy pickup battery tray repair
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Iowa
Age: 57
Posts: 528
Wiki Edits: 409

Thanks: 54
Thanked 53 Times in 47 Posts
The original flathead was rated at 100 horsepower but it had 180 ft-lbs of torque. The 3.0 was rated at 145 hp and 165 ft-lbs of torque. I wonder how much difference would be noticed while driving?

On the other hand, I do have a rear-sump 302 out of a wrecked 1989 Econoline and I have a 4-speed overdrive transmission out of another Econoline.and I still have the 89 van so I could pull the wiring and computer out of it. The V8 would sound better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2006, 07:32 AM
Member
 

Last journal entry: JB's 37 Pickup
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Smoky Mountains
Age: 76
Posts: 2,358
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thats where I would spend my enegry. The 302 with overdrive will be loafing with several extra ponies if you want them. Also, the mild engine will let your original rear end live a long life. Couple this with EFI and you will have your economy car!!!

When you get the car on the road, why don't you run it across the scales to see what it weighs. I think it will push 3000+#s.

Trees
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2006, 10:06 AM
farna's Avatar
Member
 
Last wiki edit: AMC V-8s Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Batesburg-Leesville, SC
Age: 53
Posts: 1,641
Wiki Edits: 14

Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 15 Posts
Crash, I posted about this in another thread somewhere! The flat head is rated at gross HP and TQ -- the 3.0L rated at net HP and TQ. Subtract 30% from the flat head ratings to get a near equivalent to the 3.0L. That makes the flat head 70 hp and 126 ft/lb. The rating method changed after 1971. Anything built 71 and earlier is rated with the gross method, 72 and later net. Usingthe raw numbers is like comparing apples and oranges. The 3.0L is a good bit more powerful. Some people just won't give up on a V-8 just for the sake of having one! The only drawback to the 3.0L is that you have to use the EFI computer system. I don't see it as areal drawback, not if you havethe entire donor vehicle. It's not that hard to wire it in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-18-2006, 04:05 PM
xntrik's Avatar
Save a horse, Ride a Cowboy.
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,131
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
If you drive it 10,000 miles a year, how many dollars will you save on gas compared to a 5.0 fuelie?

Will you be satisfied with what you have to drive?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-21-2006, 07:45 PM
BillyShope's Avatar
Philippines Cowboy
 

Last journal entry: THE TRACTION DYNO
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Age: 78
Posts: 875
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 7 Posts
Crash, you've got a private message. (My son lives in Greenfield.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Hotrodding Basics posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ford Flathead to Ford automatic c4-kit? bigjim Engine 4 01-05-2005 03:11 PM
AOD into mustang Stangman196700 Transmission - Rearend 3 12-16-2004 09:51 PM
Henry Ford in Heaven schnitz Hotrodders' Lounge 9 10-19-2004 11:09 AM
ford v6 torque Bob Ruth Engine 9 06-26-2003 01:05 AM
1950 Ford Anitfreeze leak ebiosca Engine 0 04-06-2003 05:05 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.