90 ltd



hey guys.... a 1990 ltd have the same engine as the EA???? now how sh*t was the EA??????? just briefly ;)
Sh*t Enough not to want to touch it with a 12.467 metre (forty foot) barge pole.

Head gaskets failed to stick to the block like sh*t fails to stick to a polititician.

Brief enough for ya?
hahahaha good to see the metrics coming into use.... see how accurate it was hahahahahah

and yeh sums up my question very easily! :LOL: it was exactly what i thought.... doesnt hurt to check tho!! hahaha

Dont listen to him! The OHC motor and gearbox are ahead by a Country 1.6109km compared to the Crossflow!

NVH, production issues, recalls were all sorted out by late 1989 in the EA series. EAIIs are good aswell. The 4.0 didnt see the light of day until EBII, but all thats different is that the 3.9's bore is 1.016mm smaller than the 4.0.. When you think about it, the EAs are built on the XF platform, which was based on the XA-XC platform. EAs are just an evolution on that, with Wishbone front suspension, and a development of the XE-XF's coil-over multilink suspension, with the Watts axle locator.

The reason the EAs have got such a rotten reputation is that stupid people bought them without optioning the Multipoint Injection (or the 5-speed), thought it was RS, so they thrashed it, didnt fix it, sold it onto the next person. And so on, the reputation just stuck. Head gaskets? Use distilled water in the motor, you wont get any problems. Food for thought, an EA S-pack 5-speed will run a low 15 second pass as per stock.
What can I say, disco'? :rolflmao: LMAO! You're a good bloke anyway! You help seive the truth out. Your historic factual average is over 99 % right from what you've said.

Any one else want to comment?

Don't have to listen mattXF, but heres proof:-

1. I wouldn't want to tell anybody that the headgasket won't fail on a pre 4.0 litre alloy head six from 1991 back to 1980. It may be service based as you say disco...they need a corrosion inhibitor anti-freeze and deionised or distilled water for sure. But the next door neighbour has done two head gaskets in his 3.9 single point 4-speed BTR EB II Fairmont in the last two years. Only reason Bruce dosen't flick it is cause he spent a motsa on it. Aside from that, he loves it. It does 17 second quarters, smokes the bags, and totes his five kids. He doesn't mind the fuel consumption, either, even though it runs 91 octane unleaded and he lives on a mountain.

A pre EB Falcon that runs on LPG, your guarenteed to blow a headgasket. Ask the taxi guys, and see if what I say is true. When I was a tech tweleve years ago, my friends LPG EA chomped up two head gaskets.

2. Your right about maintenance, though. Could be that Dunedin is a hick town with lousy mechanics, but most Falcons here are thrashed and never maintained. I blew a gasket on my LPG XE Falcon at 185, 000 km on a recon engine. Previous owner had sanded the alloy head face down, shoved on a mono torque gasket. Good quality service is all Fords need, but I get sick of people blaming the cars because of it. Fact is, must pre loved Falcons, Fairmonts, Fairlanes and LTD's are likely to have been around the block a bit, and if the reputation was bad for factory 1988 to 1991, then whats a pre loved one gonna be like?
lol, you're a top bloke too, for someone who lives on the island state of Australia!! :stick: :rolflmao:

Pre-EB on LPG to blow head gaskets? I was under the impression that heads are the same from EA-AUIII, save for valve sizing nuances, and valvetrain applications. Let him in on the secret A7M, how many taxi gaskets have you done?

sanded the head??? there should be a Darwin award for backyard mechanics, or at the very least, somewhere where you can voluntarily hand your car keys in or something.

I personally feel that if someone, who had their head torqued on right, bought an EAI factory, had all of the little things fixed like they shouldve, would have a good car today.

In A Perfect World, Ford would have waited another 12 months before releasing the EA. In Lieu, they should have made an XFII, with some fruit in there to tempt people away from the VN (which is the bigger heap??). In that time, I reckon the EA wouldve been made a far superior vehicle, one that wouldnt suffer from lifter issues, power steering pump failures (and hence altinator fires), crappy 3 speed auto, and various other issues which scream Rush Job.

Still, one of the EAs thats been around the block heaps, and left out on the pasture would make for a very durable bush bomb :eek:
Personally I wouldn't touch anything EA, they are just as bad as the AU's.

Sure the series II was improved a fair bit, but I think when it comes to looking at an EA and EB, this is one of those cases where it is really worth your while to spend that little bit extra. You might get a really reliable EA, but why chance it when you can just go for the proven design and not have to worry. Plus the EB is slightly newer...lol.

If I had my way, id' be chasing a 351 C....lol

Just as a side question, how many of you prefer the EA/EB/ED shape to the XD/XE/XF.

My next car will definitely have an OHC fitted to it. I wouldnt mind an EAII, an EBII or an ED, but on budget constraints, I'll probably have to go hunting for an incredibly high Ks EF-EL (Ex Taxi). Blackwood shape Falcons attract too many coppers, if I've got a newer Falcon, it'll give them the impression I've got some money, so they'll leave me alone..

I'd actually like an AUI S-pack, they came with XR6 suspension as stock. I'll chase down a Barra240 motor plus gearbox and stuff it into that. mmm, sleeper!
the 3.9's bore is 1.016mm smaller than the 4.0

Gee, I gotta get up real early in the morning to catch you cocky Aussies!

Remember I said that you have a 99% hit average of being right? Yeah, well the one percent you didn't get right was that the 3.9 had a 0.5 mm smaller bore. That's 20 thou smaller, but thats imperial, and I'd have to wash me mouth out if I said that!

Oh, by the way, New Zealand is still officialy a state of NSW...we never deleated the stars until the State Government Act in 1905! And we still escaping in droves to hassle the crap outa ya, delete all the red tape, and try an unify the seperate states. No wonder we Kiwis are so obnoxious!. Never mind, at least if I'm giving you a wind up, theres still hope for ya disco'



Thats why Kiwis can't say Six...reminds them too much of the two lost stars...
I'm venturing that "sanding" the head means on a long bed linisher. Not as drastic as it sounds.
put a bog stock eb/ed next to a bog stock xe/d/f and id have to say the eb/ed....... BUT with a bit of werk.... lets say real low, bigish rims, nice paint, dark windows, fat tyres, the outside stuff. and id have to say the XD - F shapes win hands down! (i may be just a little bias tho)

XECUTE":2mdaabl5 said:
the 3.9's bore is 1.016mm smaller than the 4.0

Remember I said that you have a 99% hit average of being right? Yeah, well the one percent you didn't get right was that the 3.9 had a 0.5 mm smaller bore. That's 20 thou smaller, but thats imperial, and I'd have to wash me mouth out if I said that!

Perhaps there was something wrong with my method, but I'm fairly sure that the 3.9 is .040 under the 4.0... http://fordsix.com/tech/aussiesixes/aussiesixes.htm
239 cubic inch versus 240!
Hang on, I'm on the ball now. 3.9 versus 4.0 239 CID versus 240CID, an '.040' underbore would make for a bit more than a 16.34cc displacement difference.. Too late in the evening for me to do serious (convert it all into Metric and do it that way, I've just knocked off a shift at Coles) maths, but I'm thinking theres a typo in "The Bible"!

Didn't wanna get you in a head spin. Whats 20 thou amoung friends!

Have you ever heard of people boring the 4.0 OHC beasts out to 93.314 mm with 4.1 pistons?
lets not forget that the underboar or overboar does not have a direct relation on capacity, due to the r squared in the equation. This is why you cannot compare the difference in bore diameter of a 239vs240 anything else that drops one cubic inch, the extra diameter will be different in every case.

Plus 4.1L ~ 250cubes
4.0L ~ 244cubes
Which is ultimatly what I think you were saying.
I guess it shows that I'm not a mathematician. I'm a computer nerd, an organic chemist and physicist (Tertiary Entrance level anyway).

R^2?... oh thats right. the pi times radius squared.

I think thats the point I'm getting across Dylan (I'm all out of caffeinated carbonated beverages!) :D

True, whats 4cu.in, and .020", if its our little secret!
lol, damn logic traps hey? Worst thing is that it always takes me awhile to calculate my change whenever I buy something....haha
Bug***d if I know. I'm not a smart man but I now what cubes is Jenny:-

EA 3.9 Calcs
3.9 is 3939 cm3, then the bore diameter of 91.744 mm (3.612 inches) or 9.1744 cm, and stroke as 99.314mm or 9.9314 cm. Now my mama say pi at 3.141593 times radius squared is 66.10667 cm2 for the surface area. Then mutiply by the stroke. That gives 656.53 cm3 per cylinder, which is 3939 cm3.

EB 4.0 Calcs
4.0 is 3984 cm3, then the bore diameter of 92.252 mm (3.632 inches, twenty thou bigger) or 9.2252 cm, and stroke is 99.314mm or 9.9314 cm. Pi at 3.141593 times radius squared is 66.84193 cm2 for the surface area. Then mutiply by the stroke. That gives 663.83 cm3 per cylinder, which is 3984 cm3.

Just a note on Holden 202's .

It had a 3.625 inch (9.2075 cm) bore diameter, and a 3.25 inch ( 8.255 cm ) stroke. Then area of cylinder is 3.141593 times 4.60375 times 4.60375 , which is 66.5845 cm2. Multiply the area by the height at 8.255 cm, then you get 549.655 cm3 per cylinder, which is 3298 cm3. Divide that by 16.3870, the conversion from cm3 to cubic inch displacement, you get 201.25 cubes. So Holden we lying about the 202..it never was one!

So the difference is 20 thou. Right I'm hungrey..... Pi's Anyone? :roll:
So was Ford on the 4.1 (250) it seems.. that weighs in at a neat 249.5 cu.in :D

Ok, I take that back. I think I'll feed that one into my HP38G calculator, and store that equation for future use :)

It beats playing Arkenoiid on the bus with it.. :roll: