Yes drift. The Geelong built 200 crank is fairly easy to fit with drag-200 stangs mods. Crank flange is SBF, and the thrust bearing journal should be similar. The crank I'd personally pick is the Aussie 5M '221' crank, if your going to import.
Out of polite respect to others here.
The points noted are very good!
:idea: The first matter is that anyone wanting performance has to compare performance verses cost, weather its a 200 dollar junker or a 20 000 dollar Megabuck. That is smart. In each case, the bill payer always complains about the cost no mater what the combination, as speed costs.
:idea: The second matter is that everyone plays a very important stategic game when they devise an engine combo...they have to play devils advocate and trade off doing nothing verses doing it all. Doing nothing is safe, it relys on Fords engineering integrity and you'll most likely be last. Doing everything will drive you broke, and you'll maybee still loose. The winners circle is full of people who obsess and analyse this stuff to screads, and then decide to do the stuff that gives them the odds to win.
I maintain the Ford's production mess-ups on the 250 six are easily fixable, and ex Ford Australian engineers have publicly admitted them, and the itemised list I've worked on came out in 1990. So a 228 stocker has been in gestation since then.
Every other major car maker who has had wild six cylinder engines in there line-up has found the smaller sixes to be better prospects. GM's Lotus Chalrton Turbo (3.6 liter) was based on an very high quality Enrich Bitter 3.9 stroker engine untill they discovered the reliabity would be awfull, so they reverse stoked the crank, beafed the block and rods and gearing to suit. Holdens wild 500 mile race winning GTR XU1 ran an engine able to hitting 7000 rpm, even though conversions like a 221 Falcon crank could bring it up to 3.9 liters. Holden never stoked the engine themsleves, even though drag racers were doing 11 second quarters with 235 cube versions.
Ford did a wild Capri RS 3400 engine, and one the European Touring car challenge. It coud have got 4 liters from just a stroker crank, but they didn't becasue of block longevity.
Jaguars 4.2 engine never, ever made the power of the 3.8.
Aston Martins 4 liter engine only existed due to the weight of the increasingly fatter DB-series.
The Renualt Alpine Turbo got a reduced capacity V6 when turboed because of block life and the fact that a supercharged engine could run in catagory against 3.4 liter Porsches.
The Nissan Skyline GTR had a tiny 2.6 liter engine, in an engine capable of 930 hp or more with just some basic changes. Yet it never got expanded out to 3 liters in the production Aussie Nissan Skyline and Holden Commodore block which got cast in the same factory.
The key problems with race longeivity on a Ford I6 are the rod ratio, it is the biggest production compromise. The other is the bore to stroke ratio...its known that large piston surface area is important to power. The Ford block is thinwall, the 250 crank has little journal overlap, the rev range is compromised, and the ability to make power is so hugely restricted by the cylinder to cylinder to cylinder flow differences on the stock head.
If you do a computer dyno run, you'll see that each modification gets results, and that they are the only money to spend.
Port on port carburation yields most of the power, you won't see it well defined anywhere else because most people don't understand it.
In the East Coast Timing Association verancular, a reduced stroke 'D' class reverse stroker engine is land speed record, class cheater stuff. Few people understand that the 250 engine block has a sweet zone for smoothness, longeivity and optimum specific power, except guys who build engines for class racing. Lots of drag racers build B engines, and win 1320 dashes, but club racing isn't drag racing.
The compromised production I6 cannot be over reved on a car which will have the wrong gear ratios. Any street style gearing will fail to suit the conditions, so the engine must have ability to be left in a gear and over-reved.
The Aussie 250 engine I destroked to 228 cubes has cost me 2700 NZ bucks so far. I fail to see how that cost is excessive. I couldn't have done it for less becasue I got the pistons of a drag racing engineer. There are custom 200 rod , 250 pistons these days, and some better rods around than the 200 rods I used, but I'm happy this is not an expensive escapade.
For a street engine, it was wrong, but for a race engine, I'll take 10% less capacity rather than 25%, and enjoy the 10% reduction in con-rod angularity at 6000 rpm while trying to stich up another car. And the 25% improvement in peak power from three 500 cfm carbs you can find anywhere. No calibration problems, no cost finding a return line and electric pump, and no concerns anywhere.
