Aussie engine questions...easy stuff!

[Greywolf]

I've been playing with a ruler and some photographs, but since I'm (as usual) on the ship and not near any engines of automotive size...

Does anyone have overall dimensions of the 250 X-flow?
1. Length from rear (mounting face) of block to snout of water pump.
2. Width at widest point
3. Width at mounting bosses
4. Height from bottom of oil pan to top of valve cover
5. Height from bottom of oil pan to top of air cleaner (carbed)
6. Height from bottom of oil pan to top of air cleaner, EFI (most important to me...)
Also...weight? I'm using 350lb, EFI long block with fluids and water pump, but no alternator, A/C, P/S, etc.
Length of common bellhousings?
Length between engine and trans mounts?

Sorry to have all these questions, but a project has suddenly landed in my yard and I have the X-Flow EFI and the Zephyr might have to wait for a little while...!

Ben

 

[xctasy]

Dimensions for 250 X-flow?

1. Length from rear (mounting face) of block to snout of water pump. 31.1 inches. The taller deck means the water pump is centred 1.58" higher up and 0.5" further out than the 200. The harmonic balnacer is generally 3 grove, and comes out a little further than the earlier ones, but it sits where the later 3.3 US engines sit.
2. Width at widest point is hard to work out because the first x-flow (76 to 81) was a heap narrower than the 2-bbl Alloy head carby (82 to 93), while the x-flow EFI (83 to 88) had the silly Bosch air box hanging off the spring tower (on the Block, between the engine mounts, ) wider than the US 200, but and inch narrower than the US 250. The block is 1.5" wider at the top, but the engine will easily avoid a Fox car brake booster (there is an SVO one around)
3. Width at mounting bosses is 9.625" wide.
4. Height from bottom of oil pan to top of valve cover. 25.19"
5. Height from bottom of oil pan to top of air cleaner (carbed) 28.68"
6. Height from bottom of oil pan to top of air cleaner, EFI (most important to me...). About the same as the carb, about 25.19"

The EFI alloy air tube is a little shallower than the carb x-flow, but the EFI air cleaner is slung off the spring tower. The top of the plenumb is less than the carb engine.

7 Also...weight?
ready to run factory figures for the iron carb x-flow is 241 kg (531 lb, alloy head II carb x-flow 218 kg (481 lb) , EFI is 244 kg (538 lb). They come from Street Machine, Wheels and Modern Motor.

8 Length of common bellhousings?

All earlier 1966 to 1975 non cross flows were similar to the x-flow.

With the manual bellhousings, about 6.10" from the block to the gearbox, with a 4.25" hole before 1969, and about 4.33" for the later 78DA code bellhousings. The bolt spacings were four bolts at about 8.58". The earlier ones which are alloy tend to crack. The best ones are the kind that JD got Mustang Six a while ago in the "Cross Flow Chronicals"


Some one else can fill you in on the various types. The don't have proper codes on them until 1976, as they were in the US, so you've got to be carefull. Some have odd spaced bolts. Automatic bellhousings were the Aussie Borg Warner 35/40 and 51, the US import C4 used an Aussie cast iron 'C9' bellhousing to fit a V8 style C4.

For manuals, there were quite a few. The Toploader,the Aussie only Borg Warner Single Rail. The later Borg Warner Small Single Rail (4, 5 speeds) and BW 3-speed on the tree and Cortina floorshift Bell housing.

They made no major changes from 1976 to 1993, but all the later bellhousings were cast iron. Early manual ones (66 to 71) were alloy. The later T5 bell was alloy, I think..


8. Length between engine and trans mounts? Same as the US 200. The C4 auto was the standard bearer, and the Aussie BW 35/40/51's had the same yoke and mount spacings as the AOD, FMX, US C4, Toploader. Nothing there to spoil the fun.

Bellhousing 4-bolt spacing is different on these Aussie engines.

 

[Greywolf]

Thanks, Xecute!

I'll let you in on it (although I'm sure you've guessed).
See, I have that 280ZX, and I just got the offer of a 280Z that is built for a high-horse motor, but doesn't have one in it.
Between my pile of 280 Z/ZX drivetrains, I can build a nice motor for one of the 280s...and I think I can try to squeeze the X-Flow into the other. It would be especially nice in the 280Z, as I believe it is about 80lb lighter than the l28...
This would mean my Zephyr could be set aside for an OHC engine in a couple years (when the dollar recovers, or my budget does...whichever comes first...) :roll:

Are there any known X-Flow 280s out there? I'm sure there must be some.

Ben

 

[xctasy]

No, sorry, can't help.

I do every thing backwards. Plenty of formerly X-flow Falcons with Datsun LD 28's in them. :duh:

 

[Greywolf]

I think his valve timing might be off.

It's okay...I've been informed that, if I buy the 280Z in question, I am honor-bound to install the 400hp VG30ET that comes with it (as well as the collection of swap parts included).

I suppose I can live with that...the X-Flow Zephyr project is spared!

Ben

 

[Greywolf]

New Questions!

...I've decided the "forced V-6 install in the 280Z if you buy it" is a little too draconian for me (I'm now being told HOW I will perform the swap...and the cost and effort to make someone else's dream car just don't appeal to me. There's a reason I'm not a general mechanic anymore!).

So...this is probably going to land right on Xecute's doorstep again...quick rundown of the OHC engine, whichever one is most appropriate where an X-flow would land? Pretty much, same as I asked about the X-Flow.
I'm guessing dimensions are similar. I know later OHC had very complex intake systems; can I retrofit a simpler one (perhaps the X-Flow?)?
I'd expect to be running aftermarket EFI/Ignition as I can't just trot to the local parts puller for most of the pieces.

Sorry for all the silly questions, but I guess that means I'm a silly person, right? :roll:

Ben

 

[addo]

The only two reasons I could see for "dumbing it down" with earlier parts would be propane or forced induction.

Why not take the physical installation as part of your challenge? It'll add a guarantee of compatibility.

As to the other person wanting you to build their car at your expense - what can I say? :roll:

 

[Greywolf]

Dumbing down would be useful if one couldn't find a good way to control the "variable intake". Of course, I'm an engineer, I'm sure I could find something fun to do with it.

I agree, physical installation is part of the challenge! That's why the VG30 swap, which is being spelled out, is not that exciting to me--there are scores of them about, but that doesn't mean I can't approach it my way, right?

Anything is possible with time and money. I just want to know a little of the OHC engines so I can figure out how much time and money it would likely take...since I'm 2000 miles from the chassis I'd like to measure, and far further from an Aussie OHC. I'd hate to have one shipped halfway 'round the world just so I could drop it on a bathroom scale and hit it with a tape measure.

Ben

 

[addo]

Be spontaneous! Be indulgent! It'll make you a chick magnet. Have one airfreighted over (a motor :nono: ). Or - there's still room in Evan's crate amid all the bellhousings. :roll:

As the cranks are reasonably interchangeable you can assume the basic dimensions front-rear to be very similar.

I'm looking forward to when you post in the bodywork section and the only issue left, is grafting the E-type power bulge onto your bonnet.

Where's my whip-cracking emoticon?

 

[Greywolf]

I was spontaneous and indulgent. I have the crossflow dangling ominously over the engine bay of my Zephyr!

But the big question, again...what are the OHC weights? I can make up for lack of OHC with boost...but if the OHC is lighter, even better!
I'll just pretend the dimensions are "close enough".

Ben

 

[addo]

If anything, I'll guess at it being heavier. The rockers look heavier, the cam is fatter. Wouldn't be much in it, though. Few kilos.

 

[2nd.gunman]

i just happen to have a crossflow and an OHC sitting next to each other and can tell you the it's about 1.5in to 2in longer, roughly the same height and width without manifolds and has the same sump configuration.

i'd say the ohc weights about 5-10 kilos more than the x-flow at the most without manifolds.

just remember that the ohc came with both v-belt and serpentine acessory drives and pressed steel and cast alloy sumps depending on year. the one pictured is 95

i can get more accurate measurements if you require them.

 

[Greywolf]

Ooooh...that looks nice. Is that a dual-runner manifold? Does the little vacuum solenoid looking thing at the front operate the switch from short to long runners?

One of those would be very nice indeedy...measurements would be fantastic!

Ben

 

[P100 Ute]

that engine looks the same as mine.. same colour paint also
must be in fashion

the 250 xflow and the 4.0L OHC engine have the same port spacing for intake.

so u can cut off the header plate off the 4.0L OHC and weld a 250 xflow header plate onto it and use that as intake on it.

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure about OHC weights, but the intake is easy as to control..

Basically the tracts are switched over by a vacuum solenoid, which is switched by the computer at somewhere like 3800-4000rpm.. All you'd need to do the switching is something thats configurable to put some power on at those rev ranges to the solenoid.. maybe cannibilize the innards of a tachometer with a shift light...

 

[Greywolf]

oooh...so it's either/or? Well, in that case, easy, just set it as an RPM based output on your aftermarket ECU.
I was thinking of trying to load-control it, sort of like a turbo wastegate.
Or, combine with turbo and all...hmmm...brain is doing some dangerous work now!
Ben

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure about OHC weights, but the intake is easy as to control..

Basically the tracts are switched over by a vacuum solenoid, which is switched by the computer at somewhere like 3800-4000rpm.. All you'd need to do the switching is something thats configurable to put some power on at those rev ranges to the solenoid.. maybe cannibilize the innards of a tachometer with a shift light...

the computers on the EF onwards also have different timing maps to the earlier single length runner motors.. but I used an ea computer on an ef motor, and got 130 rwkw with a 2.25 inch exhaust and no extractors had approx 20deg initial timing though! the only difference was the max torque was 500 rpm higher than the factory quoted (3500 instead of 3000 I think from memory)

just leave it on the short (default) runners and its fine.. it loses alot of top end on the long runners.

Oh and the manifold switches at 3800 standard..

thanks
Craig

 

[xctasy]

The XE carby was 218 kilos ready to run, the EFI 241 kilos, the OHC 3.9 Multi and about 245 kilos. Last figure from Wheels 1999 write up by Mike McCarthy on the EA 26 Engine. "Engines are a couple of kilograms heavier than before". The CFI should be similar to the carby 4.1, about 220 kilos of so.


The ohc Block is very heavily gusseted, and even though its 166 thou shallower, its wider and heavier becaue of the water conduits and front cover. I guess having the cam in the head is going to make the head lots heavier.

Dunno if the 4.0 EF would be lighter, or the 3.9 EA Muiltipoint. I'd say they are the same. What is lost on not having the heavy intake is gained on the fully counterweighed crank and 3 element harmonic balancer.