Yes, the Pinto certainly wasn’t a lightweight engine. You could easily carry a CVH engine (which eventually reached 2.0 litre capacity) on your own; you couldn’t do that with a Pinto!

The CVH had many design features I liked, particularly the ‘efficient’ locations of the oil-pump and distributor, but it had many faults also (especially early on). The more traditional design of the Pinto just seemed to work better.

The in-line four-cylinder is certainly the better bet. I’m not sure I’d have even started building V4 engines, whereas a V6 is a beautifully balanced thing. 🙂

There was an Essex V4 and V6 but, as far as I am aware Cologne only built a V6. Ford Cologne tended to stick with straight 4’s.

That’s what I thought too…..originally Essex 2.0 V4, 2.5 and 3.0 V6…..Cologne 2.0, 2.3 and 2.8 all V6, but apparently the Cologne V4 (in 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.7 versions!) came first, in 1962, followed by the Cologne V6 in 1964.

I’d also assumed (pretty much correctly) that the 2.0 litre ‘Pinto’ replaced the Essex V4 (in the UK) and the Cologne V4 and 2.0 litre V6 (in Europe) but hadn’t realised that the Pinto was a European engine first and then was exported for use in an American ‘subcompact’ car (the Ford Pinto).

The most surprising thing is that Ford produced so many different engines concurrently with similar configurations and overlapping capacities!

I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of days, knowing something didn’t sound right.

The Essex V4 and V6 are Ford from start to finish, the V6 originally being designed for the Transit. Saab fitted the V4, bought from Ford, when their old two-stroke was no longer acceptable.

Yes, now that I think about it, I’m sure you’re right about that…..I think my judgement must have been clouded by the fact that I’ve only ever seen one Ford V4 engine ‘in the flesh’…..and that was in a very old looking Saab.

There is a surprising amount on Wikipedia about Ford engines:

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

Didn’t know there was a Cologne (Taunus) V4 and an Essex V4 (I thought there was only an Essex V4)…..or that the Cologne V6 was developed from the Taunus V4! :confused:

Spent ages reading that last night…brought back many happy memories…

…I’d forgotten all about the Cosworth Cologne V6…only ever fitted with automatic transmission…what were Ford thinking! 😀

My old house went from the low res to high res, the picture was 2.5 years old. I can pinpoint the exact day the picture was done, because we had a pal visiting, and he has a sickly Orange Rolls Royce.

I love looking at aerial photographs but am a relative newcomer on GE. How do I know if it is high or low resolution that I am looking at (other than the obvious fuzziness); is there something ‘numerical’ displayed somewhere?

Also are the images on ‘Google Maps’ always the same as on Google Earth?

Wouldn’t it be simpler just to drain the pond…..or nearly drain it and go in with a net?

As for sticklebacks living in ponds, a friend of mine caught a stickleback in his local stream when he was about eight, brought it home, put it in his garden pond and forgot about it…

…twelve years later when I helped him drain the pond and fill it in we removed the goldfish and last of all…..one stickleback! 😉

…the Cologne V6 was a lovely smooth engine and, for all the fact that it was only a 2 litre, quite powerful for its time.

Couldn’t agree with you more…..my beloved Granada 2.3litre V6 estate had the Cologne engine. 🙂

Didn’t think the 2.0litre V6 Cologne was ever available in the UK.

Both the Essex and the Cologne engines had their faults, in the case of the Cologne it had three exhaust valves per cylinder bank but only two (equal sized) exhaust ports from the cylinder head! An awful bit of design work on an otherwise perfect engine…..finally got fixed on the 2.9litre version which I think Ford still use in the Galaxy.

Happy days! 😀

Victims were seen meandering around aimlessly, muttering “Faaackinell”.

Brilliant! That’s how we got through the Blitz! 😀