While those engines are compact, they have a few features I ran into that make them annoying and I'd never use one. That said, I would look into what has been done in general automotive performance gains in the last 40 years since that article came out! Lighter, stronger valvetrain, better airflow, advanced fuel and timing management. Since this is the OT section, I'd look into more modern engines, either a 4 if size is the limiting factor, or V6s if you want that sound and package. Both are going to be easier to find, have more available parts and start at higher output numbers. For an example, look at what frankenstein motorworks is doing with a 2AR. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytrI5gx_Vss
This article is pretty good. 40 years later we have a few more options available to us. I would not grind .010" off the cam bearing journals. We have had situations where we had .001" ground off of cam journals. I think some of the newer aluminum cam gears have a thicker castings than the ones from 40 years ago. Obviously some important information was left out , cam specs, head flow numbers (in the early 80's flowbenches werent real common). Between the 2.8 and the 2.9 this team one its class in the Baja 1000 4 years in a row 84' 85' 86' and 87'. They had some things figure out. Working on old engines is kind of one of the things we do. Sorting things out is more fun for us than an annoyance. Just depends on your skill set.
Those valve covers leaked as bad or worse than 4 bolt SBCs. The front cover/thermostat housing was 3 parts/ 2 gaskets held together with fine thread bolts going into aluminum. The front seal was not set flush with the outside surface, but the inside surface. That required removing the front cover or if you knew before hand, measuring the depth, the seal thickness and tapping it in while measuring how far it sat. It had no inner shelf, so it can easily be tapped through. All can be dealt with, but all could have been designed better. I won't bother with the stock dist access and the intake/spacer/carb design, since that's not HP stuff. They seemed to dirty up the oil faster than other engines of the day. I seem to vaguely remember something different about the valvetrain, too. I'll just say it had features that were poorly thought out then had all the emissions era stuff slapped on top. It was used for a long time, but I sure didn't think highly of it over a 2.3 4 in Mustangs/Capris or in the mini trucks. Might as well stuff in a V8. Aside from jamming it inside a T hood, it really wasn't something I'd consider useful for rodding in any way. I know each engine has it's fans, and many have detractors. I should have just read it and moved on. I stand by my opinion on this engine though, but admit it's just an opinion. I worked on quite a few back then, most minor service, only a few deeper.
I get it. People will play with anything it you give them a chance. I still look at people putting effort into flatheads and ask myself, why. But something to do is something to do.
Glad to hear, I'd rather buy you a beer and chat than yell across the room! Since it came from Germany and was around so long, I'd check for tips, tricks, and parts in Europe. Audi was kicking rally butt by the 80s, but there had to be some racing that developed the Ford.
Plenty of exotic hot rod stuff in Europe. Weslake heads, weber manifolds, 6 stack injection, 4 valve Cosworth heads and on an on. The Ford V6 has the deepest racing heritage by a long shot. I'm rolling a little more DIY work with what you got hot rodding style.
Saab used the Ford 2.8L in the 70s as well. It was never a good engine for us in the USA but we never got the good stuff. Kind of known for being in the Ranger and not much else.
The Jag AJ-V6 is 3 litres and makes 240hp stock. I like these old engines as much as anyone (I would love to run a Daimler Hemi), but to be realistic about it, it's financial suicide and you end up with less power than a more modern motor.
As far as I know, the only Ford engine Saab ever used was the 1.5l/1.7l Taunus V4, from which the Cologne/Köln V6 was subsequently derived. The 60° V4 was originally developed for the stillborn American-market Cardinal project: Ford introduced the Falcon instead. Ford of Britain developed the similar but completely separate Essex 60° V4, introducing it in 1965, three years after the Taunus V4. That was likewise developed into the Essex V6 — confusingly not the same engine as the later Canadian 90° Essex V6. Saab went on to slant-fours derived from a Triumph design, which iirc also provided some DNA to Lotus fours of the '80s. The (British) Essex V6 is generally thought more agricultural in character than the Cologne V6, but both have their strengths and weaknesses. I did have occasion to 3D-model an Essex V6, because I used two of them in this:
Thinking about it now, the Cologne V6 is a cast iron 2-valve pushrod crossflow oversquare V-format engine, just like any classic American V8. All the usual ways of building a stout but not unrealistic naturally aspirated hot rod engine should yield about 75bhp/litre (1.25bhp/cu.in.). That means 210bhp from a 2.8 is not outside the realm of believability?
I started to put one of these engines in a '69 Corolla years ago before concluding the weight on those tiny front end parts would be a really bad idea. And as time went on, better engine options became available. Interesting that in the article a modified stock intake manifold was used, despite the Offy 4V Dual Port being available (and still is, maybe - priced at $950 USD on the Summit site!). I like the idea of a gear driven camshaft, with good materials it should be a more stable setup than sprockets and a chain. That engine was developed into the infamous 4.0 V6. So the potential to increase displacement is certainly there, but there are major differences that were made so that it isn't a simple operation.
I had one with headers and a bigger carb, in the back of a bug. That car was deadly from stoplight to stoplight.
3.0 Essex V6s were a common swap into VW buses here during the '70s and '80s. (That paved the way for the subsequent Audi 5-cylinder buses from the factory, which made a lot more than the stock Essex's 138bhp.)
I used the stock 1969 beetle transaxle, with a pinto beans adapter, and I beat on that car for 5 years with no issues!
Impressive! And back then transaxles were probably "a dime a dozen" so to speak, in the event of failure.
The Jalopy Journal
