ENGINE SELECTION

[L6]

I am hoping for some guidance here.

Next year I intend to build a 27 track T powered by a Ford L6 and over the next six months want to begin collecting the engine and driveline components.

The vehicle will have a much lower mass than a family sedan and will never be raced, so outright power will not be an issue but it would be nice to have enough for a spirited run should the opportunities present themselves.

It will have triple SU carbs in keeping with the nostalgic nature of the vehicle but I will probably yield to points-less distributor as over the years I have set enough points to see me out for the rest of my days.

My hands-on experience with these engines is limited to changing filters, plugs, (and more plug leads than I care to remember) on the XD ute I had for a few years, hence the request for info.

The simplest and cheapest solution would be to drop in a complete lead fuel cross flow and run it on PULP to keep the detonation at bay. I have read in other posts an early head with EFI valves and cam flows well and this would not be a big job if felt worthwhile. Old farts of my age still have an urge to avoid low rod ratios, and 200 rods with ACL pots turned down to zero deck height is appealing.

On paper the 3.2 OHC with almost square bore/stroke and a healthy rod ratio looks a sweet motor. Also conversion to carbs and dissy does not appear to be a major operation. I have heard reports of frequent head gasket failure, is this a real problem?

Now for transmission. How does the 5 speed hold up? From my reading I understand the OHV has a different bolt pattern, is there a bell housing for the 5 speed to OHV. Yes I could use a Celica, but this is going to be a budget operation.

 

[SONNY]

if its an old car like that why not go a 250 2v???it would look hot as in a car like that!!!hang the tripples off it and everyone will drool off your car.

 

[L6]

if its an old car like that why not go a 250 2v???it would look hot as in a car like that!!!hang the tripples off it and everyone will drool off your car.

As the whole project is a rather flippant exercise, price will be a real consideration and I am guessing a 250 2v head alone would cost more than a complete cross flow engine. Also, I wonder if old style blocks in good condition are becoming difficult to find.

 

[xctasy]

The T roadster idea is awesome. One member here, Rob, has a red Ford T punted by a 221 with EFI X-flow intake and a turbo. It used to be supercharged with an SC14 blower from a Toyota, and a turbo.

Only problem is its just a fun part time project, and he works for GM....


The long rod 3.3 and 3.2's are sweet, sweet engines. On a light T, I'd go for the XE 3.3. In terms of power and smoothness, it was almost as powerfull as the 4.1, but lost out with the torque.

I'd look at getting a set of six GSX 1100 36 mm carbs, and a spare 4.1 auto ignition set-up. This has a more conservative ignition ramp. The rest of it can copy Jacks Collins X flow 200 engine.

Any way, Aussies have been doing it since Merv Waggot was a lad.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/ ... tsix06.jpg

and even in the non cross flow engines.

http://xpfalcon.kicks-ass.net/XPFalcon/ ... %20Six.htm

http://xpfalcon.kicks-ass.net/XPFalcon/ ... igin14.jpg

 

[L6]

I would like to stick with the SU because I could build and tune these wearing a blindfold, and even though I have given away most of my parts, should not have too much trouble laying my hands on three.

These are at their best on a cross flow where they are away from exhaust heat which can make restarting difficult on a hot day. However I will need to check the float bowl on the front carb will clear the distributor cap.

Ok, if I go for the 200, then I would like to carry out a few tweaks to recover some of the power sacrificed by going for the smaller displacement.

From my reading the early alloy head has larger ports but the later models have larger valves. Can larger valves from a later model be installed easily, is there enough meat in the existing insert, will the valve drop in without alterations to spring seats or guides. Staying with OEM cams, is there one which will push the torque curve up the rev range.

Regarding the gearbox. I suspect the BW 5sp is a variant of that used in the early Commodores and Stigmas, how did these last with the torque of the Ford engines. Would they hold up to a mild 200? If they are borderline, how much drama is there fitting the later Ford 5sp.

 

[xctasy]

The small single rail Sigy/Commodre/RWD Toyota Corona gearbox was made in Aussie from 1976 to 1985. It is fine behind little 2.85 sixes, and 1.8/2.0/2.6 fours in light cars. How Ford and Holden got it to live behind there 3.3's is by changing the oil specification and doing some work on the ratios and gear cut angles.


Apparently, weird holes appear in the case under stress, sort of like the a UFO has tried to break in. (Noel Tucky discribed an acount of this in Dirty Wheels back in the early 80's).

In a T-bucket, it could work okay, but keep a spare!


I love the Falcon 3.3 XE ratios. First was tall at about 3.22, and the over drive 0.79:1 and the 3.23:1 final drive made it as perfectly geared a car as you could get. The stock 5-speed GL 3.3 was quicker over the quarter than a 4.1 Fairmont Ghia auto, and gave 27.4 Imperial mpg on a cruise.

The XC and XD iron head got the big ports of 35 to 40mm. They made them smaller in 1979 with the XD. All the alloyheads were about 33 mm in the intake port. With the leaded 1984 XF's, the heads got Ford High Swirl Combustion head, and it had to use bigger inlets and exhast valves to make up for the shrouded intake ramp. When 91 octane came in, it got a knock sensor and a compression drop. I guess you could grind it away and duplicate the XE chamber. Like the HSC 2.3/2.5's, and the nasty 86 5.0EFI Mustang heads, the combustion chamber was optimised to work with a knock sensor and Electronic ignition to give greater fuel economy. There is no detonation sneeze factor with these engines. Documented fuel ecconomy improvements of 5 to 8% were possible with these heads, with better emissions as well. Today, its better to fit the less advanced XD or XE alloy head with later valves than risk running into detonation by messing with a latter XF engine.

 

[L6]

Thanks for all the info. One more question, is there an OEM cam from another year/model that is a bit more aggressive and can be swapped in, or are they so similar as to not make a change worthwhile.

 

[xctasy]

Ford had a generic 252 cam used on all cooking 221-302 v8's and I6's.

With the Cleveland 302/351 and the X-flows, they went to a 256 degree item on the base engines.

With the XF EFI, they got a 264 degree cam which is quite a decent item with a smooth idle, but plenty of extra power and torque still low in the rev range. It doesn't have a fuel pump lobe from what I've heard.

If you don't mind running a Holden Gemini or some kind of fuel regulated Holley fuel pump for your SU's, then the XF EFI spec cam will be perfect.

 

[L6]

Looks like the shopping list is:-
XE 200 Complete engine
XF Cam
XF Valves
X flow extractors
Triple SU manifold. Not hard to build if difficult to find.
Elec fuel pump
BW 5sp with taller first and OD. Unfortunately these have a one-piece cluster (apart from OD), so they can not easily be customised with a mix of ratios from different models.