wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:06:33 -0600, Cal Vanize
wrote:

I don't think there's any dispute over the relative cost of engines.
This issue is longevity and whether one wants to fly an airplane with an
engine that might not make it to the next airport.

Cal, the statement I was responding to was from the guy who said that
auto engines end up essentially costing as much as an aircraft engine.
I was posting my actual costs to suggest that the costs are, or can
be, very much lower for the auto engine conversion than for a rebuilt
aircraft engine.

But I chose to do all the work, except for the machining of the engine
parts, myself. If you do not wish to put in that kind of time, or do
not have the knowledge to do so, then the options tend to be a lot
more expensive.

Buying a firewall forward package and simply bolting it in place and
connecting the wires and fuel lines will of course cost a bunch more
than doing everything yourself. Perhaps this is what that gentleman
was talking about.

Is there any good reason to use the Ford instead of the Buick V6?
There are a lot more Buick V6s out there. Also, there is a lot of
support from the aftermarket, hot rod and racing business for the Buick
engine and apparently none at all for the Ford V6.

The other engine to look at in my opinion is the Honda/Acura engine,
because they are readily available cheap from JDM pulls. The Japanese
have laws designed to encourage vehicles to be junked or exported
young, and those that do not get bought by Australians or Brits usually
get scrapped because Japan is a RHD market.

My neighbor's son bought the back half of a Toyota MR2 in absolutely
beautiful shape-and I do mean "the back half", as in "the car was
sliced in half by a colossal bandsaw"-for $1200 when his transaxle
failed. He got a engine, trans, rear brakes, halfshafts, everything.