ive been looking at diffrent engine options for my 72 (with the dropped valve) what do people think of n/a carbd 3.8's as just a reliable cruising motor, not for performance really from what i understand theyre basically a 302 but shortened? same bolt pattern, same motor mounts, same configuration on the front of the motor to bolt up accesories. it seems like it would be the same as a 302 swap pretty much? i probably wont go through with it myself but would be curious to hear the details
3.8 L v-6's eat head gaskets.All things being equal It may bolt up but I think you are still going to have exhaust system problems(clearance/outlet location)It would be an interesting swap none the less.But I have to wonder... If it was so easy to drop one in a mav/comet I would think there would be one or two on this board.good luck Tony.
oh, i thought it was only the boosted one that had the head gasket issue im probably not going to do it anyway but i'd still be curious as to whats needed werent there some pre-fox body era Granadas and Monarchs with 3.8's?
I had a 3.8 in my 92 TBird. Had to replace both head gaskets at around 80,000 miles, had the car another 60,000 miles and it still ran fine. It's put together like a 5.0 with two cylinders missing. Didn't look it up but I think the bore and stroke are the same.
The only 3.8 I would put in any car of mine would be the one GM uses in their Buicks and used in their Oldsmobiles. Those engines are virtually trouble free and can go over 300,000 miles with proper maintenance. I know of dozens of folks that have had GM cars with that engine over the last 20 years and have never a major problem. I've never hear of a Ford 3.8 going over 150,000 miles without having head gaskets replaced at least twice. We had a '94 Taurus with the 3.8 and has 165,000 miles. Head gaskest have been replaced twice. I have a friend with a '93 Sable with a 3.0. He has never had a problem. Plus, I don't think there is that much difference in power and his fuel mileage is better. If you want to make a V-6 swap, use a 3.0 or a 4.0 out of a Ranger.
Some people say the 4.0 is no good but I have a 99 Ranger 4x4 that has over 300,000 miles on it and I drive it to work every day. 126 miles round trip.
the GM 3.8 is an OK engine. its a small block buick with the front cylinders chopped off. the turbo ones are really nice but thats actually a diffrent block. the n/a ones have no balls at all. maybe its becaust they were in 3600lb cars bogged down with all kind of emission controlls but a 200ci maverick would have no problem taking a n/a 3.8 bucik down
I wouldn't fool with a n/a V-6 in a Maverick nor would I fool with n/a 2.3 I-4. If you are considering a V-6, go with a newer one and use the EFI.
My 99 Stang w/ a FORD 3.8 liter has 125k miles and no head gasket issues. The older ones do have problem w/ head gaskets. The 99 and up are rated at 190 hp / 210 ft. lbs. Compared to the 98 hp of my 75' Comet, it would be a good swap for me. The 99' and up Stang does not use a return gas line. The 3.8 is basically a 5.0 minus the 2 front cylinders. This would help shift the weight to the rear wheels. The EFI swap would probably require a special fuel tank. Gotta be someone who makes them.
Our 1986 LTD II Wagon has a 3.8 V6 Throttle Body Fuel Injection. Engine was rebuilt around 161,000 Miles. The car now has 225,000 miles.
i still think it would be an intresting swap and make plenty of power for a mild maverick, not to mention the weight. it would still be tight with the towers tho. so some hopefully thers some shorty mustang headers out there but Me myself am probably not going to go thru with it
Earl and I have discussed on and off for a couple of years about taking the EFI 4.0 and 5-speed put of a Ranger and putting it in a Maverick. We would transfer the whole enchilada from the truck to the Mav. But, alas, there are yet other projects that nust come first.
Wasn't Joe going to drop a supercharged 3.8 in his Maverick??? That'd be awesome. Nice power and better weight distribution. I remember Jamie did some testing on the 4.0 , and it didn't fit the way he expected if I'm right.
Yep... just use the newer heads and head gaskets (split port) on the older engines and they are practically bullet proof then. The 3.8's are good engines with good power potential. As far as the fuel tank, you shouldn't have any problems with the original tank. Just get a fuel pump for a '89 F150 and mount it anywhere you want. Depending on how old of an engine you run, you may or may not have to run a fuel return line to the tank. I have never heard of the motor mounts being the same as a 5.0, and the engine is not really related to the 5.0 at all like most seem to think. I tried to drop a 3.8 out of a '96 Mustang into my '73 Maverick, but it wouldn't fit due to the exhaust manifolds. It would require custom headers, at the least, if not full on shaving the shock towers. I did also drop a 3.0/5R55E 5 speed automatic from a 2001 Ranger into the '73. Pictures can be seen here: http://mmb.maverick.to/gallery/showimage.php?i=4739&catid=member&imageuser=2669 It fit very well, and in fact the factory I6 motor mounts could be made to work to mount it up, but the fact that it is impossible to convert the engine to a rear sump oil pan screwed up that plan.
