rod comparison

[MRJLB84D]

Well, in typical backyard style, i have my old pre xflow simply sitting in the back yard, so im thinking i might strip it down and compare certain castings of conrods compared to the 2 sets i have of xflow ones.

As we may all know (especially back in the late 70's and early 80's) the factory race teams used to goto the casting factory and hand pick engine parts for their race engines and generally picked ones with a slight thicker casting etc for that increased strength.

Now im hoping, that my old pre xflow 250 (which came from a 73 XB) might just have a thicker cast rod than both xflow sets i have, and if so, i will send them off to be prepped for when the rest of the motor gets a freshen up b4 it goes in the car and boost added

Will show pics when i get around to it, but just wondering what your thoughts are and if anyone already knows if the pre xflow stuff would be that bit thicker than xflow ones.
Another reason im curious is cause both my sets of xflow ones are different with one set seeming that bit slimmer (and probobly weaker)...

 

[xctasy]

Here's one I prepared earlier...

Technically, the later 1976-1986 X-flow engines were more prone to detonation than earlier ones, so they should have had stronger rods. I see no evidence of that they got better rods.

The earlier 1971-1976 Non Crossflow rods should be stronger for one reason. Fords later desire to cut costs, inventory and waste under Edsel Ford II and Sir Brian Inglis (1978 to 1981).

After the XD/TE era, the peak rev limits on the 4.1 sixes started to tumble from about 5300rpm to 4800 rpm in the XD1/2, then to 4500 rpm in the XF. The valve gear and ring specification was changed (downgraded).

Under Tom Pettigrew (1985), the Ford Quality Assurance line manager, there was a concerted, Japanese (Toyo Kogyo) style effort to cut inventory, suppliers, and metal use everywhere. Imported US C9 gearboxes were gone on sixes in 1981, and the surplus BW 35/40 units made for Chrysler and AMC got used up in Fords. During the first 4 years from 1979, six cylinder Ford Falcons and Cortinas lost well over 75 pounds. Ford rationalised everywhere...kilos were shaved form brake calipers, gearboxes, diffs and then cheap imported whole engine components (eg Alloy Honda head castings, Eurpoean gearboxes and engines in the Cortina 4) in an era where everyone else was getting paid by the Government to make parts here.

Incidently, the measures worked. Ford made the greatest profit of all in the Fo Mo Co Emprire in 1981.

Around 1981, Ford axed the Cleveland engine shop, and in 1982 reworked the whole I6 engine line for EFI engines, there were changes in the engine plant. It was rumoured that the Ford Telstar engine was to be assembled in Australia in the V8 plant, but insted, the Geelong plant was fully regiged for the up and comming EA OHC. In 1985, a whole host of internal and casting changes were made to the 85DA6015 blocked engines. The crank shaft casting lost some of its quality, and so did the block.

There is no issue with these engines, but there were machining quirks in 1987, as both the first OHC and last 1987-1993 OHV engines were cast at the same time. The OHV X-flow got a lot of really good OHC internal gear, and the same noeprene main seal crank and rods as the OHC. There may have been rod bolt specification differences, and I'm not certain about these. It's most likely that the 4.1 rod specification was raised again in 1987 becasue AIT and Ford were developing a 3.9 EFI Multi Turbo engine for the EA. When AIT went broke in 1987, and BTR defaulted on the LE 85 4-stage Auto and World Class T5, Ford axed the project and most likely upgraded the old imperial V8 bolt specification shared on all I6 and V8's to Metric

 

[xrglen]

hi, from 1986 on ford had trw make their conrods and are stronger than all other ones. cheers

 

[prostkxy]

strongest rods for a 4.1 are the ef el rods au had different length.