221 Stroked 200 - Myth or Reality

[chad]

"...only way you can avoid cam to crank clashes on a stroker is by offset grinding down the crankpin diameter...(need a)...undercut cam casting with couterweight cheeks cut out to clear the conrods. A stroked 200 needs a ..." needs a what? clearence the counter weights? Hadda do that puttin the 400 crank ina che**y 350.

[glow=red]How to build a 221 Stoker[/glow] must B Harlon's Q on this post frm Mike W. in the CI archive
___________________________________________________________________________________
If you've got a spare $2 US K you have another option which will yield over 223 cubic inches.
1) First, you'll need to start with a 200ci block.
2) Next use the Aussie or Argentine 221 crank, which has a 3.46" stroke.
3) Then cut the crank pins down to 1.931".
4) After that, fit six Datsun 280 ZX rods.
5) Then use US Zolliner 3.70" pistons, from Fords latest 5 liter Quad Cam V8.
6) The pistons come up about 200 thou above the block, so you'll need to use a thick copper gasket. The rings will fall about 25 to 40 thou short of the top of the block.
7) Next, purchase an ARP stud kit to bolt the head down to the block.
8) Finally, you'll need to dig up a set of aftermarket 2.3 HSC pushrods.
All in all, its pretty easy. Piece of cake.
The conrod to to cam clearance was improved on later cams after the 250 came out in 1969, so as long as you use the aftermarket camshafts or a post 1969 cam, you have 53 more cubes.
Remember, the 200 is the smallest and lightest all iron I6 in the world for its capacity, and its pretty easy to get another 23 to 28 cubes using available parts if you are prepared to rebuild an engine.
The Ford I6 is narrower, shorter andshallower and tougher than any other I6 engine its size.As a pleasure boat engineits hard to beat!

He might wanna build a boat engine outta a US 200 (not the OZ 221).

 

[xctasy]

I'm still a lover of the 200.

The difference between it and a tall deck , large main bearing 200 that the Australians created by destroking the 250 25/32ths of an inch was about 365 pounds verses about 481 pounds, although Ford literature quoted 410 pounds. The Australian engines didn't follow the thin wall techniques as much as the US 250. The iron head Aussie 250 was as heavy as the US 240 or 300. Faron found it wasn't that much, but FalconSedan Delivery cut off 240 thou of iron from the engine. A quarter inch of iron 24.5 inches long is a lot of iron to loose by milling the block 120 thou, and the head 120 thou.

Back to the 223.

The 28 Ounce L28 rods are 5.13" long center to center. With the 5 liter Mod/Romeo/Windsor OHC pistons, the crank won't touch the base of the pistons if not clearanced, but the rods may touch the camshaft or walls of the block, as the 200 block is narrower than the 188/221/250 and 2.3/2.5 HS Fords.

The whole thing is a delicate balancing act.


The Australians did the same thing to the Holden 179, 186 and 202's, and could j-u-s-t get a 3.46 stroke Ford crank in there with 5.25" rods and Falcon 250 pistons. That was plus another 226 thou for a 3.685" stroke. But the grinding to get it enough swinging clearance was huge, right into the water jackets in some cases. So they often used 5.37 " 188 conrods and just left it with cut down 250 pistons and excatly 223 cubes. A 3.700 piston, 3.460" stroke, 5.37 rods, and 1.531" stock 40 thou over 250 pistons, a 137.5 or 75 thou overbore.

You can do anything, but you've gotta want it , b-a-a-d!

 

[fakundo__92]

Hi, I'm new to the forum, my name is Facundo and I'm from Argentina.
I have a Ford Falcon with a 6-cylinder 221 "maybe I can give you some information about it.
One of the improvements made in 221 here is to use 188 forged cranks and pistons that they sell in special measure for that reform.
if they need any measure just say
sorry for my english

 

[Kritas]

Lol.... I am thinking through potential go-faster upgrades for my 200 and read through the tech article that started this thread. Easy-peasy, it said. Then I found THIS thread. What a kick in the nuts. On the other hand, I feel good about where my 250-headed 200 is today.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I'll go searching for something attainable. Like a Bigfoot.

 

[aussie7mains]

Lol.... I am thinking through potential go-faster upgrades for my 200 and read through the tech article that started this thread. Easy-peasy, it said. Then I found THIS thread. What a kick in the nuts. On the other hand, I feel good about where my 250-headed 200 is today.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I'll go searching for something attainable. Like a Bigfoot.

Did you send me a FB message today? About the 200ci six, nobody bothers with them here, except me, I have a crossflow 200 with a blower, this works really well. I used the 200 because I needed to make it legal, and once you have forced induction the base engine hardly effects the torque you will get, its mostly down to manifold pressure. However for an NA engine, two things matter more than anything else, A breathing, without which no engine will ever be any good. B displacement, this and the breathing govern how much BMEP and therefore torque it will produce. The 200 log head is behind the ball on both factors. SO, what is need is more displacement and the breathing to go with it. Take for instance our 250 down flow headed 250, it was rated at 155bhp, in reality probably about 125, the more modern barra, with 240ci, gives 260bhp (a much more honest DIN rating) this is what decent breathing can do. So with that in mind trying to stroke a low deck 200 is a waste of time unless you can make it breath, the 10% extra displacement is NOT worth all the pain to get it. Bear in mind torque does the work, Power is the rate of doing work, a calculated value derived form torque and RPM. Pwatts=2piNrpsTn/m (metric)

 

[Kritas]

Did you send me a FB message today? About the 200ci six, nobody bothers with them here, except me, I have a crossflow 200 with a blower, this works really well. I used the 200 because I needed to make it legal, and once you have forced induction the base engine hardly effects the torque you will get, its mostly down to manifold pressure. However for an NA engine, two things matter more than anything else, A breathing, without which no engine will ever be any good. B displacement, this and the breathing govern how much BMEP and therefore torque it will produce. The 200 log head is behind the ball on both factors. SO, what is need is more displacement and the breathing to go with it. Take for instance our 250 down flow headed 250, it was rated at 155bhp, in reality probably about 125, the more modern barra, with 240ci, gives 260bhp (a much more honest DIN rating) this is what decent breathing can do. So with that in mind trying to stroke a low deck 200 is a waste of time unless you can make it breath, the 10% extra displacement is NOT worth all the pain to get it. Bear in mind torque does the work, Power is the rate of doing work, a calculated value derived form torque and RPM. Pwatts=2piNrpsTn/m (metric)

No, I didn't send you a message. The tech article made it sound practical and cost effective, but a bit more research led me to the conclusion that you've stated. I was considering a stroker with a crossflow head.

 

[aussie7mains]

No, I didn't send you a message. The tech article made it sound practical and cost effective, but a bit more research led me to the conclusion that you've stated. I was considering a stroker with a crossflow head.

Ok, Just go for an alloy head crossflow 250, dont worry about rpms, with the much better breathing they can rev. Wont be a 8000rpm unit, valvetrain will self destruct before then, but these things can give v8 power when done right. The SOHC an Barra are better of course. Remember how old these engines are, the newest crossflow is from 87, hunt around for a standard bore block.

 

[Kritas]

Ok, Just go for an alloy head crossflow 250, dont worry about rpms, with the much better breathing they can rev. Wont be a 8000rpm unit, valvetrain will self destruct before then, but these things can give v8 power when done right. The SOHC an Barra are better of course. Remember how old these engines are, the newest crossflow is from 87, hunt around for a standard bore block.

I started with the idea of putting an aluminum crossflow 250 on my 200. The search for information led me to the thread on stroking the 200. I am currently running a '77 250 large-log head on a '78 200 block with a Weber 38 which seems pretty solid, if not very powerful.