New Turbo Motor: 200 or 250 ?

[Anonymous]

What head casting should I be looking for ? I've done a few searches and can't seem to find a number. I have read there are certain castings with a larger diameter log and big intake valves.

Help anyone ?

 

[wallaka]

Get one of the E0xx- series heads. Those are the last produced in the States.

A D- series would be better than a C though. Probably like a D5 or -6 would be better. I believe they started putting hardened valve seats, etc in around '75 or so.

--kevin

 

[Anonymous]

Generally - - the later the heaed, the larger the valves and the larger intake log volume, but also got the larger combustion chambers. (fine for turbo)

Lately I have been finding that E0xx (1980) and later heads are very easy to find.

 

[Anonymous]

With regars to size not making a diff. because of the torque. Car Craft did a comparo on the 302 vs 347. Now they used ALL of the same internal parts and heads. SAME EVERYTHING except the stroke of the 347. Well the 347 KILLED the 302 with the same heads, cam, injection, exhaust, ect. I have run the same heads, cam and shortys on my LATE 5.0 and my 351W and the 351, even with the extra weight up, front beat the 5.0 hands down by nearly .5 sec at the strip(dropped 60' time) and in all around drivabillity. Though the extra displacement made the cam seem abit small, it ran better. Yes in the same '62 Fairlane with nothing changed but displacement. "Torque wins races....HP sells cars"

 

[xctasy]

If your into just wining racers, the old addage "for straight line power, go cubic inches" holds true.

It doesn't when you are paying the bills. The 200 out numbers the 250 5 to 1, and after a 17 pound bomb blast, its easier to get a 200 block than the 250. If your into winning races, the 250 will do the job admirably. If its a street and strip car, I'd go for the 200.


The stroker 347 kills the 302, amen.

http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_54759 ... ticle.html

If Ford Australia felt the 302 was a hand grenade, they'd never has stroked it, and increased the hp from 295 to 335 hp by the 347 crank. They just spent a bundle on all new parts so it could survive. Normally, a stroker

1) kills bearings,
2)blocks,
3)rods
4) pistons
5) smoothness

Simply because the of the laws of nature. If your getting a 13% boost in capacity, block loads, diff loads and transmission loads go up 13% too. All the time! So you spend extra on making sure it doesn't break! With every stroked engine, factory or aftermarket, there is extra periferal cost because and engine is an energy souce which needs to be contained in a car by other parts.

The little 200 with a turbo will give you all the power you could ever want.

However, the man is into the 250 turbo, and may Howard win every race!

 

[Anonymous]

If your into just wining racers, the old addage "for straight line power, go cubic inches" holds true.

It doesn't when you are paying the bills. The 200 out numbers the 250 5 to 1, and after a 17 pound bomb blast, its easier to get a 200 block than the 250. If your into winning races, the 250 will do the job admirably. If its a street and strip car, I'd go for the 200.


The stroker 347 kills the 302, amen.

http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_54759 ... ticle.html

If Ford Australia felt the 302 was a hand grenade, they'd never has stroked it, and increased the hp from 295 to 335 hp by the 347 crank. They just spent a bundle on all new parts so it could survive. Normally, a stroker

1) kills bearings,
2)blocks,
3)rods
4) pistons
5) smoothness

Simply because the of the laws of nature. If your getting a 13% boost in capacity, block loads, diff loads and transmission loads go up 13% too. All the time! So you spend extra on making sure it doesn't break! With every stroked engine, factory or aftermarket, there is extra periferal cost because and engine is an energy souce which needs to be contained in a car by other parts.

The little 200 with a turbo will give you all the power you could ever want.

However, the man is into the 250 turbo, and may Howard win every race!

Well stated. The added durabillity of the early 351W IS the reason that I did not run the 347. I knew that the late model 5.0s can have some issues with durabillity, and the added costs of all of the Mallory to balance the rotating assembly, I found it to be cost effective and expediant to run the C or D casting 351W.
"There is no replacement for displacement......UNLESS YOU PRESSURZE!!
I am not intentionaly ruffeling your feathers, just commenting on a many decades long dispute about size and tourque.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey all !

Glad someboby picked this thread up again. I have been trying to get the '66 fastback 302 going, so I haven't had time to do much on the 250 project. My willingness to trade economy for torque is at the heart of this. All things being possible, I hope to get a ripper out of this similar to Will & Kelly. I am sick of seeing cookie cutter V8 stuff. Even the best of them don't touch the engineering involved in the turbo Six setup. I am still hoping to get some help on identifying the turbo used in their buildup. I called my local turbo people and they look at me sideways. So if anybody has a clue what a Garrett, Holset, IHI, etc part number might be I'd appreciate a clue.

 

[Anonymous]

The time has come to stop lurking and start working.

I picked up a '78 250 from a Granada, fan to flexplate. The plan is to get it running and in the car. I don't have the time to sit down and show you guy's my list, but I have scored frame mounts from a '69 Mustang, an early C4, and a V* gas pedal assembly.

If anyone has picked up any tricks since this post started let's share. I will be posting pictures as I go, so maybe this thread can help others.

Thanks for the vicarious thrills!

 

[Anonymous]

Howard, what else are you needing?

 

[Bort62]

Well, I am jumping in on this way late, but I will say that Xtascy's intuition about torque and power is wrong. The only reason not to choose a 250 over a 200 would be because of mechanical characteristics of the engine (longer stroke = higher piston speeds, quench problems, etc) Nothig to do with torque vs power output.

He needs to re-evaluate his math and basic assumptions.

 

[Anonymous]

I am going to need some advice on arrangement of the throttle cable and radiator hose situation to start. The motor is sitting in a freinds garage, and I haven't been able to look it over much. I plan to keep the 1V on it for the time being. It appears that I will have to fab some brackets and use a cable for the throttle. IIRC the outlets on the rad hoses on the 250 are bigger than the 200. I may be able to splice some hoses off the rack. I had installed a new radiator some time back and have had no cooling issues since, so it should work fine.

Since I have the S#@%*Y hood on the car I don't think clearance on the top will be a problem. I am a little concerned about the fan clearance. I have an electric fan I may use, but until the motor is in I wont know. That type of situation is what I hope to get established before I get started.

 

[XFlow_Fairlane]

well it sounds like you are coming along!

I am picking up a xflow this weekend and am thinking of modding my block ALA jack that I am getting ready to build. JUST in case I go to a hybrid later on (the xflow needs fully rebuilt)

 

[woodbutcher]

Somebody said something about "normal".Hell,if we was "normal",WE wouldnt be hanging out HERE.Hehehehe.
Leo

 

[Anonymous]

I picked up some motor mount brackets from a '69 M#^&@*g yesterday and they are quite different from the 200 mounts. They appear to set the motor back and down about an inch. My one thought is whether the trans mount will be okay. I can't imagine Ford would go to the trouble of a different tranny mount for a C4 behind a I6.

When I first looked in to fabbing a header I checked out schedule 40 steel weld fittings. I looked them up on mcMaster-Carr and they seem to have gone up. My plan was to put a 90 on each end into a tee on 2 & 5 and then stand a tee on end for 3 & 4, This would give me 1-2-3 on one side, 3-4-5 on the other for a split input. The 90's are $15 a piece and the tee's are $26. By the time I gather and assemble all the parts I may have $200 wrapped up in this thing. Where are we at on turbo headers at this point?

I was thinking about using a CFI unit from a 3.8? since it uses the same pattern as a 2100. I thought I might add an extra pair of injectors between 2 & 3 and 4 & 5. With the Megasquirt controller I hoped to be able to fire these under boost for additional fuel, After looking closer I realized the bores on this little beast can't be more than an inch in diameter. I can make an adapter to take about anything, it just has to fit the log and clear the hood. Any thoughts ?

 

[Anonymous]

I seem to have picked the hottest time of the year to start this, but once begun half done.

I am fortunate to have 2 1967 Mustangs. One is the convertible this motor is destined for. The other is the one my son damaged some years ago. It is up on stands in the garage with all of the sheet metal removed from the shock towers forward.

My roomate is an accredited mechanic, and we stabbed the 250 in the engine bay this morning. We had done some initial measuring on the mounts and come to some early conclusions. We started with a spare pair of 200 frame / motor mounts and sure enough the alignment was perfect. But they were at least 1.5" too narrow. So we pulled those and put in the '69 Mustang 250 mounts. These allowed the motor to sit down, but the engine bosses are off by almost 2".

Our current approach is to fabricate a plate that will mount on the 250's three boss holes and drill to attach the motor mounts where the engine will sit right.