Stuck between a rock, and a hard place.

[mike1157]

I'll warn you in advance, this will probably be wordy.

I have both a 200, and a 250 as potential candidates for my build up.

I also have a x-flow head,....and a completely cut up (read....log intake and exhaust completely milled off) log head that will permit me to build a fairly decent intake, and exhaust system.
Regardless, I intend to port fuel inject, and turbocharged the engine.
Both engines have their pro's and cons,....but I am undecided as to which direction I need to go.

First, the 200:
The 200 has 80k miles on it and it looks pretty good inside. The engine is the one that came in the car, (so, it fits w/o any modifications) and already has all of the accessories I want in place. It is complete,..and up until today, ran.


The problem I have w/the 200 is the lack of a bell mating surface to accommodate a full size 4 speed auto trans (i.e. 4r70W) I found a company in Colorado that makes an adapter to allow a 2.3 engine to mate to a SBF pattern trans, and I'm pretty sure that I can order the thing "undrilled" for the 2.3 engine, and transpose the 200 bell pattern onto it. It sells for a reasonable 185.00.

As I said earlier, plans are to T/C the combo, and fuel inject it. The problem w/that is that the injection is a mega squirt,.... and has no run time on it. Starting a new engine w/a brand flat tapped cam requires a break in process that I'm not willing to risk to a untried fuel injection system. I do have the old stock 200 cam shaft and old lifters that I could install for a short time until I get the injection "dialed in",..but obviously that requires I tear it back down at some point to do the cam swap for the turbo.
The rub comes from the temptation to completely rebuild the 200, including a new set of forged pistons. this engine looks like I should be able to get away w/a minimal .020 over bore to get it to clean up.

The 250:
The reasons for the 250 are obvious,..50 more cubes, a longer stroke, more tq as a result. It has the SBF bell.
The cons.....it don't fit w/o oil pan mods, the accessories are not as neatly bundled. The block is worn out, and the cylinders are beyond boring,...I'd have to sleeve all 6 cylinders (which aside from cost, would add back some structural integrity, and allow me to return the bores back to standard. (a plus considering the turbocharging I intend to add))

The iron head: I copied another member here and cut the cast log intake and exhaust completely off. I will make a tubular intake w/a log style plenum w/ a throttle body on one end. From what I've read, cutting this head for a bigger exhaust valve (1.5) runs the risk of breaking into water, and after the amount of work already invested, I'd hate to have to ship the heavy pig off somewhere to have it welded. I'd have to modify the valves and ports to make the targeted power(400/500), additionally I'd have to swap the cams, but not after getting the injection right.
The xflow:
I know what's involved w/ making this head work on either engine. I contacted Crow cams, and the quote for the cam shipped to me was not unreasonable. (330.00) The problem again is installing a flat tapped cam (this one all the way from Australia) in a new engine that has an untried fuel injection system. So,..again I would have to modify the block to allow for the head swap, unscrew the blocked passages to allow a cast iron log head to run, use the raggedy stock cam currently in my 200 until I'm sure the injection is right, then tear it back down, plug the passages that are not required, install the xflow head and install the turbo cam and run the thing for the required break in period. The look of the xflow alone is justification for me to use it, the aesthetics of having an intake on one side, and the exhaust on the other just makes sense to me. The huge weight savings is just a perk.

So the dilemma......which engine, which head would you choose...........provided you're still with me.

 

[100_2023]

*

 

[JackFish]

Here's some pics of an EFI 250 turbo to help with your decision making process.
Yah it's a log head, but so what?

 

[ludwig]

OMG!!

Want? Need?

So hard to know.

 

[CNC-Dude]

You really only have one choice, and thats the 250 with the x-flow head. Unfortunately, your 250 block is too far gone to attempt to use. Installing 6 sleeves will only worsen its structural integrity, not help it. Just find another block and start fresh with that. As for the FI setup, just go ahead and build the engine with the crossflow head, but get a cheap carb/intake from OZ to get it running with and just switch to FI afterwards, it will be a lot less backtracking and parts swapping that way.

 

[rbohm]

You really only have one choice, and thats the 250 with the x-flow head. Unfortunately, your 250 block is too far gone to attempt to use. Installing 6 sleeves will only worsen its structural integrity, not help it. Just find another block and start fresh with that. As for the FI setup, just go ahead and build the engine with the crossflow head, but get a cheap carb/intake from OZ to get it running with and just switch to FI afterwards, it will be a lot less backtracking and parts swapping that way.

i disagree to a point. sleeving any motor, if done right, will return the original strength to the block, and even increase it depending on the sleeves used. for instance when bob glidden was building 351c for pro stock racing back in the 70s, he sleeved the blocks with ones that were made of steel, i forget which alloy though off hand, and they were a full .250" thick.
and they added lots of strength to the block. i will grant however that the sleeves normally used in sleeving a block are not going to add strength, but still properly done they will restore the original level of strength to the block. again though the key is properly done.

 

[CNC-Dude]

Sleeving one cylinder in a race engine is acceptable, but when you sleeve all 6, you are removing too much parent metal to retain any strength, simply adding a sleeve back into the block does nothing to regain what was lost, its now only as strong as what parent metal is left to hold it. Plus it just isn't cost effective, another block would be much cheaper. Bob also furnace brazed the sleeves in place on the deck side and on the bottom side, that is the only way you will ever regain rigidity by doing all 6. He also had to fully re-machine every original machined surface on his blocks as a result. I've had several blocks split apart between adjoining cylinders when installing multiple sleeves with as a little as .001 interference fit, its also too risky for that reason as well, especially for no more than you will gain....it's just a 250 block.

 

[rbohm]

Sleeving one cylinder in a race engine is acceptable, but when you sleeve all 6, you are removing too much parent metal to retain any strength, simply adding a sleeve back into the block does nothing to regain what was lost, its now only as strong as what parent metal is left to hold it. Plus it just isn't cost effective, another block would be much cheaper. Bob also furnace brazed the sleeves in place on the deck side and on the bottom side, that is the only way you will ever regain rigidity by doing all 6. He also had to fully re-machine every original machined surface on his blocks as a result. I've had several blocks split apart between adjoining cylinders when installing multiple sleeves with as a little as .001 interference fit, its also too risky for that reason as well, especially for no more than you will gain....it's just a 250 block.

actually glidden sleeved all 8 cylinders. as i said the sleeves he used were .250 thick steel, and the blocks were stronger afterwards. but in this case i agree with you, its just s 250 block, and as such really isnt worth sleeving, unless it will be built into an all out race block.

 

[mike1157]

Here's the deal for me....A 250 block ISN't just on every street corner, in every salvage yard anymore. The 250 I have came out of one of our local yards, and I paid a premium for what was supposed to be a running engine.
What I got was a neglected...(No scratch that,.....never maintained) engine that was so badly worn,..the number 1 cylinder was .037 bigger than the #6, w/ a vertical gouge that probably is another .030 deep on top of that. Despite that wear, everything was standard. Now the salvage yard made it right, (sort of) but given that they are all 40 year old engines,.and given that "most" of the owners of these engines "forgot" to add/change oil every 12, 24, 36000 miles... .how "easy" is it gonna be to find a decent one that will clean up w/ a "minimal" overbore?
Like I said,...I'm looking to make the same power Classic inlines did w/ the Falcon detailed on dyno run 1a, (445/500 or a reasonable facsimile given the difference between their alum head, and mine.)
I also read that the block (a 250) will not tolerate a bigger overbore than .030 w/o overheat/structural integrity issues given the intended usage.....this will be a dedicated street driver,..and overheating is NOT part of the plan. If I have to bore whatever block to get it to clean up, (I know that I will) why not just pony up and spend the money (in the form of sleeving) to insure that that problem is behind me, With a new, fresh standard bore as a result of my 300.00 investment?

The machine shop I am using does alot of diesel work. They told me it could be done, and that they could do it. What they don't know is whether or not the 250 block will suffer as a result of doing it (they simply haven't ever done it to one of these engines). I appreciate the input from you guys, and I know that there have been examples of old school guys re-sleeving all of the cylinders back before Dart/SVO/Boss blocks existed to make them capable,...but.....if the process is a "block killer" on my 250, I need input before I do all of the stuff required to make the x flow head work.

Thanks for all the input guys,..please keep it coming.

** As an alternative If I do have to replace the block, I don't minding driving a couple hundred miles to pick one up if anybody has a good one that will work.

 

[JackFish]

So go with the 200 block and save yourself the oil pan fabbing.
They fit quite nicely in the fox-body and you can run a dual roller chain with adjustment.

 

[rbohm]

8) and the 200 will make nearly the power of a similarly built 250, perhaps within 10% difference.

 

[CNC-Dude]

Before you throw in the towel on the 250 idea, you might find someone on the forum that has a block to sell. You can also look on Craigslist or Search Tempest. before you decide to go another route.

 

[JackFish]

The only big issue will be the transmission. You're sort of stuck with the C4.

 

[CNC-Dude]

I think the 250 will give you better overall flexibility in more areas than the 200 will.

 

[rbohm]

I think the 250 will give you better overall flexibility in more areas than the 200 will.

at least we agree on that.

 

[mike1157]

8) and the 200 will make nearly the power of a similarly built 250, perhaps within 10% difference.

You say this based on what information? According to Classic Inlines specs for adv HP and TQ....the diff in HP between the two is as wide as 35 hp and 50 ft lbs of tq. (120 vs 155hp,...190 vs 240 tq) My rough calculations sums that to be close to 30% diff in hp, and 25% less torque. That's naturally aspirated of course, I'd imagine that once a turbocharger is added to the equation, those percentages will balloon exponentially.

Before you throw in the towel on the 250 idea, you might find someone on the forum that has a block to sell. You can also look on Craigslist or Search Tempest. before you decide to go another route.

The freight will kill me. :nono:

The only big issue will be the transmission. You're sort of stuck with the C4.

Well considering I just bought a 4r70w today, I'm thinking I'm kinda stuck w/ the 250. 8)

I checked the adapter plate again, to allow a SBF trans behind the 200 block, and tried to call the mfg to discuss the viability of the whole idea,..but they weren't answering the phone.

I think the 250 will give you better overall flexibility in more areas than the 200 will.

I agree,...I spoke w/ my piston builder today, and he suggested that I sleeve only cylinder #1, and bring the rest of the bores up to .030 over. ( I don't know if that is too thin for a turbo'd combo, but it'll allow me to use the block I got.)

 

[xctasy]

Too easy. The alloy headed Classic In line, and shave off the inlet tracts to make the worlds best killer sawn off head. Or a shaved log iron head. Why would anyone put an alloy head X-flow on there US engine when there is so much landmark good gear around for the 250 I6. And since the modern Ford Falcons are doing 1500 hp with 3.632" bores, who wouldn't any American Union dweller NOT use a 250 block?

For engineering, do what I do on my FAZER engines, use Nissan KA24E conrods and Melling 3/32" wall CSL328F 3.622" liners, which are a shoe in for the 250 bore. The CP Ford XR6 Turbo piston is 3.632", so they just need a hone up to fit.Or better still, the 84 thou wall CSL331F, the 4.05" bore spacing TrialBlazer 4.2 liner, which is finish machined for a Falcon 4.0 piston size. Just who were GM copying?

Just a bore to 3.8095 or 3.800, or 129.5 or 120 thou over bore, less the 0.003" max for press fit.

250's viewtopic.php?f=3&t=69791

221's viewtopic.php?f=3&t=69393
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=67525

200's viewtopic.php?f=1&t=67266


I've been over the thin wall Henry egg shell bore problems for years with our Aussie Clevelands. Chevy liners and making the iron block behave like a stiffer than hooch GM 4200 Twin cam six, Chevy LS1 or Rover/Buick Olds Pontiac 215 is the total solution. You get the closer to the 180 thou ideal wall thickness you need that way without any risks at all. Since 1961, GM knows more than anyone else how great sleeved engines are for ease of service and strength, and also for bore surfacing to plateau RA levels. Ford has too with the alloy block Modular cammers.

Just over bore your 250 to 3.8095 or 3.800", and use the same standard after market Melling sleeves I do, with a 0.03" press fit max. Then use an Aussie EL crank with the 250 Aussie Ford timing gear. The US block just needs redrilling to suit the Aussie thrust bearing. Use 6.38" Nissan 240sx rods, 3.622"CP Falcon Turbo pistons, and then do your Three Wise Magi on the iron head.

Then use rickwrenches mates left hand starter motor 4.0 Explorer adaptor, and shove a built up 5R55 behind it. Then you can run the biggest darn turbo you can with the best gearbox. Its easier to run a small bellhousing with a 138 tooth flexplate and high stall converter than a 164 teeth item and 4w70.

Then use the whole of the Cologne 4.0 sohc EEC5 EFI, ignition and trans controller. The whole kit can be reflashed to suit. Running eec5 requires you to hardwire hook up, but you do not have to go to the trouble to employ the obd2 sensors as they were on a 1996 to date Ford. Our Kiwi guys twigged to this in the 0tees, when fitting EFI 5.0's and Quad Cammers to street rods. The later Ford computers are so easy to have reflashed for a turbo, and there are some brillinat strategies around for making them run so nice.

TMA Turbo was doing kits for V6's, and anytime you combine a 6, a Fox and an EEC5'd hairdryer, you create instant insanity that mind bends the v8 mob. Its been five years since a young fella shoved a turbo on this V6 Stang, and it showed up the V8 crowd for being a bunch of profanity ridden meat-axes with limited brain capacity.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmdYiP6QYbw

 

[rbohm]

8) and the 200 will make nearly the power of a similarly built 250, perhaps within 10% difference.

You say this based on what information? According to Classic Inlines specs for adv HP and TQ....the diff in HP between the two is as wide as 35 hp and 50 ft lbs of tq. (120 vs 155hp,...190 vs 240 tq) My rough calculations sums that to be close to 30% diff in hp, and 25% less torque. That's naturally aspirated of course, I'd imagine that once a turbocharger is added to the equation, those percentages will balloon exponentially.

you cant go based on what the factory specs are. the factory does little tricks to indicate either more or less power than what the engine actually produces. in modified form though with equal modifications, the two engines will produce similar power curves, and they will be within about 10-15% of each other. this is based on building a number of engines of differing displacements, and differing manufacturers, and when these engines are all built to similar specs, they produced similar power curves, and varying displacements produced lower power levels, but always with in 10-15% depending on the difference in displacement. there are other variables as well that change the dynamic, friction generated, rotating mass, etc. even the dyno used can make a difference, and each dyno will have variables, even from dyno to dyno with in the same manufacturer line will have variables that need to be accounted for.

 

[mike1157]

Too easy. The alloy headed Classic In line, and shave off the inlet tracts to make the worlds best killer sawn off head. Or a shaved log iron head. Why would anyone put an alloy head X-flow on there US engine when there is so much landmark good gear around for the 250 I6. And since the modern Ford Falcons are doing 1500 hp with 3.632" bores, who wouldn't any American Union dweller NOT use a 250 block?

For engineering, do what I do on my FAZER engines, use Nissan KA24E conrods and Melling 3/32" wall CSL328F 3.622" liners, which are a shoe in for the 250 bore. The CP Ford XR6 Turbo piston is 3.632", so they just need a hone up to fit.Or better still, the 84 thou wall CSL331F, the 4.05" bore spacing TrialBlazer 4.2 liner, which is finish machined for a Falcon 4.0 piston size. Just who were GM copying?

Just a bore to 3.8095 or 3.800, or 129.5 or 120 thou over bore, less the 0.003" max for press fit.

250's viewtopic.php?f=3&t=69791

221's viewtopic.php?f=3&t=69393
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=67525

200's viewtopic.php?f=1&t=67266


I've been over the thin wall Henry egg shell bore problems for years with our Aussie Clevelands. Chevy liners and making the iron block behave like a stiffer than hooch GM 4200 Twin cam six, Chevy LS1 or Rover/Buick Olds Pontiac 215 is the total solution. You get the closer to the 180 thou ideal wall thickness you need that way without any risks at all. Since 1961, GM knows more than anyone else how great sleeved engines are for ease of service and strength, and also for bore surfacing to plateau RA levels. Ford has too with the alloy block Modular cammers.

Just over bore your 250 to 3.8095 or 3.800", and use the same standard after market Melling sleeves I do, with a 0.03" press fit max. Then use an Aussie EL crank with the 250 Aussie Ford timing gear. The US block just needs redrilling to suit the Aussie thrust bearing. Use 6.38" Nissan 240sx rods, 3.622"CP Falcon Turbo pistons, and then do your Three Wise Magi on the iron head.

Then use rickwrenches mates left hand starter motor 4.0 Explorer adaptor, and shove a built up 5R55 behind it. Then you can run the biggest darn turbo you can with the best gearbox. Its easier to run a small bellhousing with a 138 tooth flexplate and high stall converter than a 164 teeth item and 4w70.

Then use the whole of the Cologne 4.0 sohc EEC5 EFI, ignition and trans controller. The whole kit can be reflashed to suit. Running eec5 requires you to hardwire hook up, but you do not have to go to the trouble to employ the obd2 sensors as they were on a 1996 to date Ford. Our Kiwi guys twigged to this in the 0tees, when fitting EFI 5.0's and Quad Cammers to street rods. The later Ford computers are so easy to have reflashed for a turbo, and there are some brillinat strategies around for making them run so nice.

TMA Turbo was doing kits for V6's, and anytime you combine a 6, a Fox and an EEC5'd hairdryer, you create instant insanity that mind bends the v8 mob. Its been five years since a young fella shoved a turbo on this V6 Stang, and it showed up the V8 crowd for being a bunch of profanity ridden meat-axes with limited brain capacity.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmdYiP6QYbw

I appreciate your reply,..and I'll take advantage of some of your advice,...but I have a couple of points to clarify with you, so please indulge me.

#1. The head.
You seem to believe the "Sawn off" cast iron head is superior to the Xflow alloy head. How is that? I have them both, and even my wife (who couldn't tell you what part of the head to even look into) could tell you that the stock iron head SUCKS w/ regard to port design, bumps in the port, and overall design inefficiency, Not to mention she couldn't even pick up the cast iron head, but can do so w/ the x flow. How can the stock Xflow not just kill that log head, even modified to the point I have done?
"So much Landmark good gear for the I6"? How is a "single solution" $600.00 shaft mount twin roller rocker option better than the bounty of 1.7 ratio BBC/Cleveland/385 rockers that are currently available. (priced starting at $170.00 for 16). http://www.summitracing.com/search/depa ... =Ascending
Rockers I'll be able to "bolt on" after a simple pedestal machine process, then use Cleveland guideplates or simply buy the "kit" and leave the pedestal in place for about twice that. I have the xflow head,...for the sake of a 330.00 camshaft from AUS, I'm there.
#2. The rods.
You offered your long rod advice on another of my threads, and I looked at your recommended part numbers....but the 240 Nissan rods are expensive to the point of running into billet prices. 250-300 ea? I'm not building a 1000 hp engine,...maybe I'm not reading that right. The thought of having to move the pin .500 higher in the piston ( or less when taking the deck, and HG thickness into account and actually run the piston "out of the hole") is a little hard to swallow. My options are open on that right now, And I'd certainly invest money into a better set,..but it appears that the rod journal width is the obstacle to my doing so reasonably. That leaves me w/ a prepped set of stock rods, as my only option as well. (Another example of the landmark of good gear for the I6 huh? )
#3. The block.
I will sleeve it. Thanks for the reinforcement on that idea,..I spoke w/ a new custom piston mfg here (Racetec) and he can build me a 2618 alloy custom slug w/ pin,& locks for about 115.00. The 3.622 Falcon piston (obviously for an inline 6) is priced here on ebay at twice that.

Please don't think I'm discounting your advice,It's very clear to me that you know your stuff. I'm just asking for clarification on your points.

 

[rbohm]

#1. The head.
You seem to believe the "Sawn off" cast iron head is superior to the Xflow alloy head. How is that? I have them both, and even my wife (who couldn't tell you what part of the head to even look into) could tell you that the stock iron head SUCKS w/ regard to port design, bumps in the port, and overall design inefficiency, Not to mention she couldn't even pick up the cast iron head, but can do so w/ the x flow. How can the stock Xflow not just kill that log head, even modified to the point I have done?
"So much Landmark good gear for the I6"? How is a "single solution" $600.00 shaft mount twin roller rocker option better than the bounty of 1.7 ratio BBC/Cleveland/385 rockers that are currently available. (priced starting at $170.00 for 16). http://www.summitracing.com/search/depa ... =Ascending
Rockers I'll be able to "bolt on" after a simple pedestal machine process, then use Cleveland guideplates or simply buy the "kit" and leave the pedestal in place for about twice that. I have the xflow head,...for the sake of a 330.00 camshaft from AUS, I'm there.

once you remove the log on the iron log head, the ports open up nicely, and you eliminate a lot of the flow restrictions of the log head. the second issue with the crossflow is the fact that you have to adapt it to the US block.