Questions on HSCing and HSO ing my E0 head and 3.3 engine

[xctasy]

In order to get the 12.7:1 compression I am looking for to improve the fuel economy of my Mustang, I have no choice but to duplicate one side of the HSC Tempo/Topaz combustion chamber of the 1983 to 1994 4-cylinder 2.3/2.5 head on to my E0 head.


Picture renderings of the open and closed chamber I6 heads in 60 cc on top left, and 52 cc on top right have the 37.5 cc swirl ramp tongue superimposed on them. This is what I'm having my machinist put on my EO head.





What I've done is copied at 60 thou version of the stock head gasket in steel, and added it to the large 60 cc stock 1981 head

Then added six swirl ramp wall tongues set screwed in each cylinder, and welded it into the chamber so it won't fall out. I loose 10.45 cc adding the plate, taking the chamber to 70.45 cc, but then by adding a weld of HSC style swirl ramp wall, about 37.5 cc's is removed to get a 33 cc chamber. I haven't been able to rework the spark plug side like the HSC head above, but the swirl ramp wall does the job on getting the compression ratio right up, as well as improving the paddle wheel rpm of intake flow into the cylinder.

This is the E8 HSC head below, and is so different to the last X shell and iron Fox versions of the immortal Falcon six head,

1)although they are the same sizes, its valves are
2)moved in the chamber,
3)the rocker gear is late model Small Block Ford/460 Big block
4), and because its designed to operate at 6000 rpm on occasions in a four cylinder engine, it runs some very aggressive cam timing with higher lift, what you'd expect to find on a triple carb 200 cubic inch 1970's race car. In fact, the HSO cam is a 298 degree variant of the later 1970 to 1971 351 4V Cleveland hydraulic cam with a little less lift, but the same over lap and similar duration. Which is why even a little 2.3 HSO drops 17.3 second quarter miles instead of 19's like the HSC does.


See 229 1918 and 229 1785, the respective HSO and HSC cams in the Clevite websites pdf

http://www.tempotopaz.com/main/index.ph ... 79&start=0

http://www.yoyoparts.com/oem/14165565/c ... 91918.html

See page 146 to 149 in the pdf for full cam specs

http://www.imperioautopecas.com.br/_arq ... levite.pdf




I'm getting the HSO cam specs redone in a roller cam form, and that allows me to keep the stock shallow valves in under 450 net lift.

 

[rbohm]

i like the idea you are proposing, with one change. you need to open up the area around the spark plug to properly unshroud the valves for good flow. remember that is where your flow curtain is on these heads.

 

[xctasy]

i like the idea you are proposing, with one change. you need to open up the area around the spark plug to properly unshroud the valves for good flow. remember that is where your flow curtain is on these heads.

That was Question one in my mind, and you answered it. I'd been thinking of that, as its what the Aussies and Argentinians did with the 188/221, and the Aussies with the tall deck log 200,250, and 2V 250 heads.

I dIdn't really want to go back on compression, as the relief of the spark plug pocket is a 3 cc loss.

Here is the Aussie 250 2v head's relief on the area about the spark plug.

Of course, the Classic Inlines head does it all with much more class and smoothness, which I can't duplicate in cast iron

Question Two.

I might go to a smaller, long reach 14 mm spark plug, from the stock 18 mm plugs the US log head engines use from 1960 to 1983. Our log heads went down to 14 mm with the XA Falcon in 1972. The problem with using the 14mm in the better long reach plug is it hits the intake valve at lift if I use the stock Log head/250 2V plug angle. Do I need to reposition the spark plug back to the exhaust, where there is space?

For example, on the emissions era Mustang 235 hp 5.0 "GT40" and other year 5.0 and 5.8 heads, the plug was aimed more to the intake valve, Cleveland and Aussie Cross flow style, but then late 90's emissions forced them to angle it back to the exhaust with the GT40P to help emissions. The High Swirl Aussie Alloy Head II engines still kept the intake facing sparking plug in long reach 14mm design, but the canted valve heads and HSC/HSO heads have the spark plug far away from the valves to get better flame fronts for combustion, and its that that gives these later engines the great power and economy figures the better performance versions of the small port 351C 4-BBL 2V's, the 4.1 X-flow and the HSO 2.3 were renown for.


Its great to actually find a compression ratio hike and better efficiency as well.

Its kinda nuts to think that adding metal to the deck and copying later model heads can help both fuel efficiency and power, but I have been at work trying to find out a way to do it.

Actually, the later 2.3'S and 2.5's got back to the stock time honored I6 open chamber head design, after Ford preached high swirl for 8 years from 1983...they then just added the excellent 3.0 Vulcan V6 as the performance option, and downgraded the I4 2.3 and 2.5 engines to 1977-1983/1980 open chamber 3.3 and 4.1 technology. It affirms Classic In-lines ideas on keeping the stock US log I6 chamber with just a lot of independent port 250 2V and a little bit of HSC thrown in. I'm just imitating excellence before I buy modify a Classic In-lines head. I can't fit the carb's I want on a Classic Inlines head unless I cut it up.

 

[JackFish]

Saw what you are doing and thought of Singh's grooves:

 

[rbohm]

actually i think you can duplicate the CI aluminum head, if you are willing to do a ton of grinding in the combustion chamber, after having the heads welded to fill in the areas you want to eliminate.

regarding the plugs, if you are going to a smaller plug, then yes relocate the plug as much as you can. 2mm is plenty of movement if you can do it.

one of the issues with high swirl technology was the actual execution of the technology. ford was trying to do too much with it, and it hurt airflow through the valves. the idea though is grand imo. make the chamber as small as possible initially, and then open it up as needed to get the best airflow through the valves, and recognize where your flow curtain is at its peak.

i think if you get the combustion chambers down to the early 170 size, and then bevel the edges out as if you were doing a 5 angle valve job, i think you will get the compression ratio you want, and the efficiency you are looking for, and you can do it with a flat top piston.

if you can duplicate the combustion chamber in jackfishs picture, i think you are there.

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy Back All:

What pistons will you be using to favor the chamber design? I'll be following this topic closely. Thanks for sharing.

Adios, David

 

[xctasy]

Howdy Back All:

What pistons will you be using to favor the chamber design? I'll be following this topic closely. Thanks for sharing.

Adios, David

David, I'm using the stock and replacement early US 200 pistons on any one of the four engines I use. At the moment, I'm using my 3.3 81 Mustang's 5.5 cc items, in stock 3.68 bore. I have some special high silicon Repco Duralites, a very strong full dish 8.5 cc piston for the tall deck 9.38"Aussie XA Falcon 200 engine to go to at a later stage.

Its a 6VO 200, and despite is triple 2-bbl carb intake adapter, its a 100% Ford period iron log head 1983 spec engine, planned to give a 204% boost to any B or X code Fox engine spec, about ~ 188 hp at 5250 rpm /220 lb-ft at 3500 rpm target, and a baby step back from the 425 hp iron log head boosted engine spec I discussed here when I devised that back in 2012. The cam is the missing link I'm working on. It's basically a Crane 163 cam that Auckland Cams used as an 585 or 590 master in 280 degree with 222 deg at 50 thou lift and its gives great results on 9 and 12 port 202 Holden engines, up to about 200 to 252 hp gross depending on carb and tuning. See viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5554&p=38262&hilit=+how+aussies+build*+#p38262. On a modified log head, lift goes up to 470 or 515 depending on 1.6 or 1.75 rocker ratio. There is a lovely 302W and 351C Kelford Camtech CT2062 480B/ 49906B-113(a ) grind which does away with the need for higher, Cleveland/FE style 1.73 rocker ratios. So the figures I've set are very conservative SAE net figures. The work the Cologne 4.0 SOHC V6 Ranger, Explorer and Mustang guys have done show you what you can get with a proper flowing head and cam combination.

I'm still running full emissions gear on the 81 Mustang, but am likely to run the stock pistons, and adding height to the chamber will allow me to get the 520 thou potential lift I need with 1.75:1 offset bush rockers. That's around 44 thou more lift than the stock 1.6:1 rockers, and the maximum I can expect without hitting the pistons. I'm moving to a five speed overdrive Bordeaux automatic, and am trying to initially replicate the 4.0 SOHC Explorers 205 hp and 250 lb-ft performance in a 3.3 engine with small triple carbs. The plan is to use a half breed between the 86-91 100 hp HSO 2300 and 96-2011 205 hp SOHC 4.0 engines, with a very specific Kelford Camtech roller cam of the same type of construction, but a little bit milder than the 425 hp Fazer 6Bi and 6Ti K code hydraulic knock off. The aim is to get US 1983 retro-respective certification for a 188 horsepower Fox 3.3 I6 in a 6 barrel carb engine. One that runs four cats, a modern S197 Cologne V6/ Windsor 5.0 OHV V8 Fox 4 style exhaust system using the foot ball header, and three 370 2V truck style 2-bbl carbs with there 4180C style float bowls, and a feedback emissions system using the stock 81 to 83 O2 sensor, as close to what was done stock as possible. Allowing stock air con, air pump, and an air cleaner close to the stock 3.3 as possible, with 100% stock Ford components. The only issue I have is finding a 5.16" 1.75" intake valve that is a Ford standard part...there is a 5.11" 1.92" diameter 262 I 6 valve from the F600 trucks which might work out if I cut ti down.

I've spent a lot of time with both of these 2.3 I4 and 4.0 SOHC engines in New Zealand, my mate has a blue US spec 1985 2 door Tempo 2300 CFI, even the emasculated 86 hp base Central Fuel Injection versions of the 2300 give the kind of performance characteristics that Ford USA failed to transpose to the small I6. The Aussies and Argentinians made 2-bbl 170 and 164 hp small sixes, and then raced them, Ford Dearborn USA just hobbled the 2.4/2.8, 3.3 and 4.1 small I6's down because they had so many really sweet and great V6's and V8'S. A 4.2 was a pretty latent and sad 1980 to 1982 engine, but Ford out did themselves when it made the 1978 to 1983 3.3's slower than a 2.3.

The little Tempo and Taurus 2.5 and all the 1976 to 2014 Aussie X-flows show what might have been if the US I6 design had been allowed to flourish.

I'd like to transfer the set up to my tall deck 200 with its long 2:1 rod ratio after I baseline the engine in my road inspection Mustang. And then move on to very radical cam profiles. After that, I'll pump up the engine capacity, and make the wildest non cross flow 4.1 engines. I've locked down my Turbo and Supercharged engine spec some time ago, but


The issue is that because I plan to use independent runner triple 350 cfm induction, in need increased lift, longer 5.16" minimum valves, so plan to use the longer Aussie 308 Holden 1.75" intakes in 11/32 stem and the 5.43" long Ford /IH valves cut down to 5.16 tall, and its head diameter from 1.73" to 1.5" size valve (based on the common FE 427/International Harvester 392 V8 sodium cooled exhaust valve with a huge 0.4145" valve guide). The engine favors quite a lot of duration, like the 229-1918 HSO 2.3 Tempo 298 degree cam, or Comp Cams HR 285 K code 289/Super Cobra Jet style roller cam knock offs with a wider lobe center, or any of the Tigue mechanical lifter cam profiles. The historic C7 FE 6250-A GT 40/Leman's style profile in rollerized cam form on a 250 x-flow makes an easy 345 hp.

That's why I added the plate to the head...valve clearance at full lift is sadly lacking in these engines.

I'm okay with any type of piston, but the stock limit of 450 to maybee 480 thou lift maximum before valves hits piston on small deck 200 engines is a major problem for me. The US 250 makes life easier, but nothing supports the valve lift and compression requirements quite as well as the Classic Inlines head on a 250 block.

Background is that I have three log heads and four engines, three strokes (3.126/3.46/3.91) and four rod sizes (4.715,5.88,6.06,6.275).
The log heads are the EO, the C3, and a 72DA Aussie log. There is an 83 C2 head cross flow. I can swap between any head, block or almost any crank stroke since Ford did all the leg work.

*a shallow deck 1981 B code (Low Compression 3.3 1V, 92 HP SAE net),over bored 40 thou with a copy of the standard 5.5 cc dish in center of piston, flat top around it
a shallow deck 1966 XR Falcon G code (200 1V, 125 HP), 5.5 cc dish in center of piston, flat top around it
a tall deck 1972 Aussie G code (High Compression HC 200 1V, 135 HP Gross), over bored 30 thou, with non standard fully dished 8.5 cc dish Repco Duralite pistons
a tall deck 1983 Aussie L code (High Compression 4.1 2-bbl, 147 hp non emission NZ spec engine, 9.35:1 with 22.9 cc stock 3.68" pistons
a tall deck 1983 Aussie L code with 221 crank, 1998 EL2/AU sohc 6.06" rods, 56 thou over for 305/229 pistons with 12 cc dish, and an 89 thou thick plate to convert the X-flow block to whatever log, 2v, Classic Inlines or Cross flow head I want. It replicates the 9.469" US 250 deck height, and yields a 148 thou piston short fall rather like the US 250 and 240 and 300 engines.

 

[xctasy]

Has anyone got the 2.3 HSO valve spring installed height and spring specs?


I've decided to duplicate the non roller HSO cam in Clevite #229-1918 form locally. With some offset bushes to raise the rocker ratio to 1.8:1. Basically what used to be done with the old A series 1275 Austin engines to go from 1.25 to 1.4 rocker ratios. It'll be used with the 3/8" taller Holden 308/Ford 262 style valve height, with similar specs to the HSO but with a taller 1.9" installed height. That means I've got to raise the pedestals with 375 thou taller new plates, and some work clearancing the pushrods, and spacing up the rocker cover with a 3/8" alloy thick plate to act as a large gasket sandwich to clear everything.

That cam has basically got big XU1 GTR 3300 Holden Torana style duration to suit a Ford Tempo 2.3 HSO to 6000 rpm, but its got very moderate 421 thou loft with 1.6:1 rockers. With 1.8:1 rockers, it will have ohc style lift. Even at that, its got fairly moderate lift, very much to behave like a modern K code 289 cam, with ability to run a high rev limit with out loosing too much low end torque. Its got a little more duration than the 280 degree cams that most consider to be the point where emissions compliance starts to suffer, but it has very low 50 thou figures, which offsets is aggressive at lash duration. I've got lots of Holden 202/3.3 L6 info on tall valves for longer valve springs to fit wilder cams like this, but it looks to me like what Ford did stock with the HSO was pretty close to where I'm headed.


Once I've trialled it, I'll get it done as a roller cam. What I love about these old sixes is that the guys in the USA have actually done all the ground work for what would have been a GT Sprint 200 package, and that ground work was the 2V 250, the Classic Inlines head, and the 2.3 HSC/HSO engines and the 2.5 Taurus, and the roller cam B, E and F 303 5.0 engines. The only thing is that they never made a triple 6BBL I6....