Ford Vulcan engine?

banjopicker66 · Post by **banjopicker66** » August 18, 2009, 11:07 am

I seem to remember reading about a Ford Vulcan engine, and that it would make a good transplant.
I have the chance to get my hands on a '97 Aerostar with a 3.0 Vulcan - possibly free, no less. Although I don't have (another!) Slick yet, my daughter wants one when she learns to drive in 2 years.
What electronic issues would I face, such as transmission, fuel injection, sensors and the like?
Can it be converted to use a carburator easily?
Any comments?

BarnieTrk · Post by **BarnieTrk** » August 18, 2009, 11:15 am

I don't know about it being a good transplant engine for a Slick or not, but I do know that the V6 Vulcan is what is in my wife's 2002 Taurus. I can say it's now at 160K miles and has been a good engine thus far....... It's obviously set in with a front wheel drive trans and only 182 cu.in., is that what you'd want?

Here are some stats for it:

3.0L, 182-cu.in., EFI, 12-valve V-6 OHV 12-valve ”Vulcan” engine.
Rated at 155HP@4900rpms, 185ft#@3950rpms.
Required fuel: min. 87 octane
Firing order: 1-4-2-5-4-6
Ignition system: EDIS
Compression Ratio: 9.7:1
BarnieTrk

3ontree66 · Post by **3ontree66** » August 18, 2009, 11:38 am

I'm not sure a Vulcan engine would be wise Captain. The moment you try to go to warp speed Jim, you would experience total, complete and utter annialation.
Perhaps a Klingon motor.

BIGTRIP · Post by **BIGTRIP** » August 18, 2009, 12:12 pm

BarnieTrk wrote: Here are some stats for it:

3.0L, 182-cu.in., EFI, 12-valve V-6 OHV 12-valve ”Vulcan” engine.
Rated at 155HP@4900rpms, 185ft#@3950rpms.
Required fuel: min. 87 octane
Firing order: 1-4-2-5-4-6
Ignition system: EDIS
Compression Ratio: 9.7:1
BarnieTrk

no doubt its not making any power... look at the firing order! they skipped 3 and hit 4 twice!!

Obsa · Post by **Obsa** » August 18, 2009, 12:26 pm

Banjopicker66,
like BarnieTrk posted I would think that the FWD configuration would be the first hurdle. however if that could be resolved on could posibally use the half shafts to power 4x4 drives. As for as the output of the engine the posted 155hp is more that what was listed for the 65 240 six. Interesting concept to say the least!

bluebolt · Post by **bluebolt** » August 18, 2009, 1:26 pm

It's out of a Aerostar so it's already RWD, same engine used in Rangers.

Obsa · Post by **Obsa** » August 18, 2009, 1:38 pm

I stand corrected, can you believe this the first time I have been wrong since noon today

Hawkrod · Post by **Hawkrod** » August 18, 2009, 1:43 pm

Yeah, the RWD conversion is easy, lost of rodders use an Aerostar type trans and a Taurus SHO engine. Hawkrod

Post by **Casey 65** » August 18, 2009, 3:36 pm

Just make certain that you have a large supply of dialithium crystals and you should be able to maintain warp speed...

I know Spock, "it's illogical".... SLOL...

Supercab65 · Post by **Supercab65** » August 18, 2009, 8:16 pm

I have the 3.0L in my '98 Ranger. It does pretty well in that platform; a heavier truck, maybe not so much. My truck has 4.10 gears and 31" BFG all terrains; no problem spinning the rears on pavement. It's fine all around, but I wouldn't say that it's much of a fuel saver over the other Ranger V6, the 4.0L.

It is a very easy engine to work on! I sucked water in mine at 75,000 miles. That bent the #6 connecting rod and caused the piston skirt to (very loudly) contact the crankshaft on each downstroke. No damage to the cylinder head, crankshaft, valves or anything else. Swapped out the piston assembly and all was well.

The 3.0L can be built up like the ones in the Taurus SHO. There's not too much aftermarket for them though. The bellhousing is also unique to the 3.0L.

If I were looking for a small V6, I would go with the 4.0L. Plentiful due to it being in Rangers, Explorers and Mustangs. Lots of aftermarket support and performance parts. Bellhousing is the same on the 4.0L, 2.9L and 2.8L. Lots of transmission options! (I'm using a Bronco II bellhousing to put a C4 behind the 4.0L in my Explorer) Makes good power, doesn't use too much gas.

If I ever kill the 3.0 in my Ranger; I'll swap to the 4.0L.

BarnieTrk · Post by **BarnieTrk** » August 18, 2009, 10:18 pm

Good catch, BIGTRIP!

The firing order should have read: 1-4-2-5-3-6.

Here is some more info on the 3.0L Vulcan V6, from over on the Ranger forum:
http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/57815 ... ngine.html

Sounds like a project to me!

Good Luck!

BarnieTrk

fmartin_gila · Post by **fmartin_gila** » August 19, 2009, 8:41 am

I've got a 2005 Ranger with the 4.0 Liter/Auto (don't know rear ratio). Seems OK, no problems, plenty of power, good mileage.

Fred

dotcentral · Post by **dotcentral** » August 19, 2009, 9:34 am

Have you read any of this? Of course I'm not sure wikipedia is 100% accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Aerostar

I wonder if the 3.0 was available with a carb?

Or maybe keeping the EFI to have better starting, mpgs, and such?

banjopicker66 · Post by **banjopicker66** » August 20, 2009, 6:18 am

A thoroughly enjoyable thread, great information coupled with riposte and repartee.
Most of you know I am always searching for that ultimate bolt-up solution, since I do not weld or fabricate.
Since neither dilithium engine mounts nor phaser fuel injection for Vulcanized Slicks are not available in this part of the galaxy, I am making the command decision to pull out of orbit around Vulcan and head back home to the Slick Confederation in standard configuration.
Warp factor 3 Mr. Sulu.

Post by **Casey 65** » August 20, 2009, 8:34 am

Way to go, Banjo!!!!!!

3ontree66 · Post by **3ontree66** » August 21, 2009, 1:20 pm

Logical choice Captain. Don't forget to make a stop at Rigel 7 for a booty call.

However Jim, due to my Vulcan phisiology, I only get horny every 7 years during Pon Far. Therefore, a booty call for me would be illogical, however I wonder what a green woman would look like riding in my Slick.......

motormount1 · Post by **motormount1** » August 21, 2009, 2:48 pm

youve got to realize that our trucks are a lot heavier than most of the cars and trucks made today.if you put in a newr motor atleast make sure it has good power to it. because ive seen people put newr motors in old cars and trucks and some didnt have enough power to get out of their own way.[/code]

Hawkrod · Post by **Hawkrod** » August 21, 2009, 8:16 pm

motormount1 wrote:youve got to realize that our trucks are a lot heavier than most of the cars and trucks made today.if you put in a newr motor atleast make sure it has good power to it. because ive seen people put newr motors in old cars and trucks and some didnt have enough power to get out of their own way.[/code]

I think you would be way off base on that one there. New cars outweigh the old ones and our trucks by a lot. For example, a new Mustang V6 with an auto trans weighs in at about 3500 pounds before major accessories. A 65 Mustang 6 cylinder auto weighed about 2500 pounds. A new F150 weighs about 6500 pounds and a 1965 F100 weighed about 3600 pounds. modern cars definitely outweigh similar size older cars. It is just a fact of out litigeous society. In this case we can look at a Taurus for an example, a 1999 Taurus base car had a curb weight of over 3300 pounds which puts it very close to a Slick. Hawkrod

Post by **Greg D** » August 21, 2009, 8:23 pm

John, Gigi still has that 92 4.0 Explorer you rode in when you were here. Over 400,000 on it now and still hasn't had a valve cover off of it. I happened to be behind her on 72 st a few weeks ago and heard it - still running great and no smoke.

Supercab65 · Post by **Supercab65** » August 22, 2009, 7:53 am

Some more info...

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_li ... mance.html

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_li ... build.html

Ford Vulcan engine?

Ford Vulcan engine?

RWD

motor mount

Re: motor mount