Stuck between a rock, and a hard place.

[xctasy]

You want to say no to something more like this ^, a head design which makes in excess of 235 flywheel hp with the most basic Holley or Motorcraft/Autolite carbuartion on a 3.3 liter 200 cube engine. But head flow at 0.510" is 218cfm@28"H2O which, according to the usual calculators, that is 336hp potential with ease.

But a propane 250 cube 4. 1 liter engine, made 240hp@5200rpm at the flywheel with 280 lb/ft flat around 3500rpm with this set up, and 11.2:1 compression and a custom hydraulic cam 285/292 with 230/237@0.050 and 0.510/0.530 lift, 112LSA

the LPG manifold 73GreenMachine has made is perfect for an F150 4.9 EFI throttle body, eliminating the hood clearance issues.

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=65701&p=504490#p504490





And on a turbo charged 250's, like Georges old Crossflow, his F150 4.9 EFI twin bore throttle body got him into the 10's.




And you want to go to all these requirement to fit an inferior cross flow head. 52 pounds less is not worth it whn it pacakages so much better and has ther superior FE shaft valve gear.

Even the iron head gas flowed would out do a cross flow, for a lot less effort. Cross flow heads are no better than the Classic Inlines head and require massive block and head mods and an Australian cam, header, intake and they are not emmission compliant in some states.

http://www.classicinlines.com/images/Te ... xflow2.JPG

http://www.classicinlines.com/XFheadswap.asp

 

[xctasy]

Down here you can get a cross flow head for 25 bucks that will flow 200 hp, every 3.3 and 4.1 from 1980 to 1992 had one. Our F100's, Cortinas, Falcons, Fairmonts, Fairlanes and even LTD's got them in various strengths from 114 hp to 164. Stock, they could be as slow as 18.8 seconds or as fast as 16.3 seconds over a quarter mile.


Cross flow is just a marketing ploy, the real i6 engines which make power were non cross flow engines with high ported heads like the detachable intake heads for racing Torana 3.3 liter XU1's and 250/292 Chevy and GMC truck engined speedway cars. You make more power with high ported non cross flows than with cross flow heads, absolute fact. The Phil Irving, Duggan, and Raymond Mays high port heads for L6's and some rare non cross flow high ports for V8's still flow off the chart cfm readings and make exceptional power, and are hunted down by smart Americans who study them, and make there own.

^^The Raymond Mays headed, Ken Rudd prepared Ford Zephyr Six found in the penultimate Stage 5 tuned 1961-1963 AC Ace RS 2.6



The last three show how Duggan hi ported his non cross flow heads for V-8'S. First is a Duggan Small Block non cross flow in alloy, the other two are a Holden 308 ( an Aussie 90 pound ligher Chev engine with 4.4" bores and Buick/Oldsmobile architecture) now with a special non cross flow high ports and DCO 50 Weber side draft carbs.

Its very hard to high port an alloy Aussie cross flow Falcon 200/250 head unless you add a chunk of alloy above the intake port by welding. The short turn radius can be fixed easily on iron heads by hi porting, much like the old Cleveland head exhasts were high ported. A non cross flow head has more scope than a thin wall Honda cast X-flow head.

 

[xrwagon]

I wouldnt adapt a crossflow onto a log motor and i live in Australia and can get em for 30 bucks, we have more sixes down here, buy a complete crossflow engine or keep the log i6. I just returned from a meet yesterday, aspirated, yes aspirated crossflows are running sevens on the eight, one runs 11.14 over qtr and thats aspirated, another guy had a 200 crossflow that ran 8’s turboed over the qtr. I have the same quandry, i can buy a complete solid cammed 4 barrel crosflow 250 for 2000 bucks, made 330 at the tyres and ran a 8.1 over the eighth in a Cortina, i have to work a hell of a lot harder to do this to a log motor, but i want a log and i wont see 330 at the tyres aspirated on a log motor, i am going to get as close to 200 rwhp out of an iron headed log aspirated and i will do it with my original motor.

 

[mike1157]

Even the iron head gas flowed would out do a cross flow, for a lot less effort. Cross flow heads are no better than the Classic Inlines head and require massive block and head mods and an Australian cam, header, intake and they are not emmission compliant in some states.

http://www.classicinlines.com/images/Te ... xflow2.JPG

http://www.classicinlines.com/XFheadswap.asp

I wouldnt adapt a crossflow onto a log motor and i live in Australia and can get em for 30 bucks, we have more sixes down here, buy a complete crossflow engine or keep the log i6. I just returned from a meet yesterday, aspirated, yes aspirated crossflows are running sevens on the eight, one runs 11.14 over qtr and thats aspirated, another guy had a 200 crossflow that ran 8’s turboed over the qtr. I have the same quandry, i can buy a complete solid cammed 4 barrel crosflow 250 for 2000 bucks, made 330 at the tyres and ran a 8.1 over the eighth in a Cortina, i have to work a heck of a lot harder to do this to a log motor, but i want a log and i wont see 330 at the tyres aspirated on a log motor, i am going to get as close to 200 rwhp out of an iron headed log aspirated and i will do it with my original motor.

Look, There seems to be some confusion w/ the intent of my thread.

I was asking which would be a better combo based on what I offered as my choices. I offered the two options based on what I had, (two different heads, two different engines)

I do not intend to invest in the Classic Inlines alloy head. If I go with the log head option it will be the hacked up, milled smooth modified cast iron piece I currently have.

I do not intend to "high port" either head,..they will be ran "as cast" with the exception of bigger valves and standard port work.

I will make both the intake, and the exhaust for either head regardless, so the lack of an OEM crossflow intake and exhaust is a mute point.

If I keep the 200 I have to adapt the transmission to a 4R70W. I already have the trans.No other trans will be considered.

If I go with the 250,At the very least, I have to make an oil pan, and sleeve the block.

Realistically, if I could adapt the damn transmission, the 200 would be my choice. The fact that I could install the mod log head directly on top of the engine "as is", and run the fuel injection w/ the present camshaft is a big plus.

 

[xctasy]

Even the iron head gas flowed would out do a cross flow, for a lot less effort. Cross flow heads are no better than the Classic Inlines head and require massive block and head mods and an Australian cam, header, intake and they are not emmission compliant in some states.

http://www.classicinlines.com/images/Te ... xflow2.JPG

http://www.classicinlines.com/XFheadswap.asp

I wouldnt adapt a crossflow onto a log motor and i live in Australia and can get em for 30 bucks, we have more sixes down here, buy a complete crossflow engine or keep the log i6. I just returned from a meet yesterday, aspirated, yes aspirated crossflows are running sevens on the eight, one runs 11.14 over qtr and thats aspirated, another guy had a 200 crossflow that ran 8’s turboed over the qtr. I have the same quandry, i can buy a complete solid cammed 4 barrel crosflow 250 for 2000 bucks, made 330 at the tyres and ran a 8.1 over the eighth in a Cortina, i have to work a heck of a lot harder to do this to a log motor, but i want a log and i wont see 330 at the tyres aspirated on a log motor, i am going to get as close to 200 rwhp out of an iron headed log aspirated and i will do it with my original motor.

Look, There seems to be some confusion w/ the intent of my thread.

I was asking which would be a better combo based on what I offered as my choices. I offered the two options based on what I had, (two different heads, two different engines)

I do not intend to invest in the Classic Inlines alloy head. If I go with the log head option it will be the hacked up, milled smooth modified cast iron piece I currently have.

I do not intend to "high port" either head,..they will be ran "as cast" with the exception of bigger valves and standard port work.

I will make both the intake, and the exhaust for either head regardless, so the lack of an OEM crossflow intake and exhaust is a mute point.

If I keep the 200 I have to adapt the transmission to a 4R70W. I already have the trans.No other trans will be considered.

If I go with the 250,At the very least, I have to make an oil pan, and sleeve the block.

Realistically, if I could adapt the damn transmission, the 200 would be my choice. The fact that I could install the mod log head directly on top of the engine "as is", and run the fuel injection w/ the present camshaft is a big plus.

I'm with you and totally see. Fitting the V8 trans to the high mount block makes the bottom right hand side block flange hit the low mount starter. The Modular OHC is a little easier, but still has a problem. The old AOD/4R70 to big block "385" 370/429/460 kits clocked the whole trans 12.5 degrees clockwise to clear the flange, which works with the High mount 200 as well. I'd personally go log 200, and use that 4R70W, and get a 2350 or higher tall converter.

The lower right hand high mount flange to low mount strter collision point can be taken care of by some cut and shut tactics if your not going to drag race it without a transblanket or scattershied. Some, not all, of the later 1981 to 1983 Foxes with the grey 3.3 B and X code engine got a lock-up clutch C4 or C5 auto in low mount form. They came with the AOD spec flexplate which is 164 teeth and will fit to the 4R70W. For starter motor clearance with the 4R70W, you'd be best to splice in the cut-out 3 bolt starter chunk from the lower right hand side of the transmission, and splice that rotated into the lower left hand side of a 0.625" block to transmission adaptor. Ford Australia did something like that on its imported US V8's.


this is the Australian Left Hand Entry SBF Windsor 5.0 bellhousing for EB, ED, EF and AU Falcon from 1992 to 2002.

Like the American sourced post 92 Aussie 5.0 Windsor engines, you just use the 164 teeth flexplate, and weld in the alloy mounting around it, and it doesn't require there to be a pocket like the low mount 200 and 250 has. You can then mount it on a 0.625" alloy adaptor plate to change the rear flange to SBF. Same type of thing was done on rickwrenches Brazilian mates car. I sent this to RickWrench about his Brazillian mate who used and perfected the kit back in the early Naughties.

Way back, I remember your brilliant Brazillian friends Alfa Romeo GTV 5000 with 302 Small block Ford with a Cologne V6 gearbox adaptor plate, 138 tooth flywheel and its 5 speed gearbox mated up to down size the 141/148/157/164 tooth bellhousing enough to fit in the 1750 derived engine bay.

Done a heap of research, mixed and matched some photo's




and I'm gonna use the idea myself. I can ad lib it from here, but do you still have any contact with him, and if so, what thickness was used, and how does the little 138 flywheel mate to the 3" pitch 6 bolt 3.625" crank flange. Is he making a kit. If not, its a really good idea and would allow all the stronger 5r55 auto gearboxes to fit behind any 302 small block.

Best wishes,

Dean from New Zealand

Then inject it using two VQ30E Nissan fuel rails and a JGTurbo/Fast64Ranchero/Does10's style Hogan intake with a big throttle body. 200dragstang has pictures of his Buick Gran National injector log head set up.




Sound like your on the right track.

I high port port 1, 2, 5 and 6 on my heads at a 30 degree angle with my trusty 47 mm diamont tipped cement core drill, and they flow well over 170 cfm with a little care and attention.

The point I make with the iron head is that its stiffer, and will handle turbocharging well, and if your smart, you can improve on the short turn radius by working the upper section with a minimum of iron cover.

 

[mike1157]

Well, I've decided. Thanks to all that helped me do so.

I've decided to go ahead w/ the sleeved 250, and use the cross flow head. I've been corresponding w/ Crow cams, and they have quoted me a flat tappet solid grind for $280 shipped. For that price, I can't go wrong. A similar grind for the US log would be 160-180 before shipping, and that 60-80.00 difference is the only thing standing in the way. (a No brainer for me).
I also picked up the shaved log head from my machinist today. He charged me 40.00 to finish the rough cut I made w/ 5 cut-off wheels, so I can afford to let that anchor sit in the corner, should I ever decide to use it.

Maybe I should start a build thread???

 

[rbohm]

Well, I've decided. Thanks to all that helped me do so.

I've decided to go ahead w/ the sleeved 250, and use the cross flow head. I've been corresponding w/ Crow cams, and they have quoted me a flat tappet solid grind for $280 shipped. For that price, I can't go wrong. A similar grind for the US log would be 160-180 before shipping, and that 60-80.00 difference is the only thing standing in the way. (a No brainer for me).
I also picked up the shaved log head from my machinist today. He charged me 40.00 to finish the rough cut I made w/ 5 cut-off wheels, so I can afford to let that anchor sit in the corner, should I ever decide to use it.

Maybe I should start a build thread???

ok, now that you have made up your mind, do you know what is involved in adapting the crossflow head to the US block? if not then pm me your email address and i will send you the files on i have on doing the conversion.

 

[mike1157]

Well, I've decided. Thanks to all that helped me do so.

I've decided to go ahead w/ the sleeved 250, and use the cross flow head. I've been corresponding w/ Crow cams, and they have quoted me a flat tappet solid grind for $280 shipped. For that price, I can't go wrong. A similar grind for the US log would be 160-180 before shipping, and that 60-80.00 difference is the only thing standing in the way. (a No brainer for me).
I also picked up the shaved log head from my machinist today. He charged me 40.00 to finish the rough cut I made w/ 5 cut-off wheels, so I can afford to let that anchor sit in the corner, should I ever decide to use it.

Maybe I should start a build thread???

ok, now that you have made up your mind, do you know what is involved in adapting the crossflow head to the US block? if not then pm me your email address and i will send you the files on i have on doing the conversion.

I have read the article on the conversion that is on classic inlines website. Is there anything else that is missing beyond that?

 

[rbohm]

8) i have the original article that was written by mustangsix that i downloaded a few years back when i was considering the very swap you are now. there are differences in the articles. it would behoove you to read everything you can find on the swap before actually attempting it. just a bit of advice.

 

[mike1157]

Well,.......the one thing that prevents me from installing a 250 in my fox became one less thing today. I "married" two oil pans today to make one.

I started by drawing a cut line to reference back to, and used a 4.5" grinder w/ a cut off wheel, and bolted the "foundation to my bare block.

I bought, an oil pump and bolted the thing in place. Just for good measure, I taped an additional piece of 1/8" plate to the bottom to be sure I didn't bottom the pump against the pan.

Next, I put another cut line reference on the 200 pan, and transposed a stand off reference from the oil pan rail "in inches", and marked it on the 200 pan, so as to be sure to space it properly from the 250 pan rail.

Than I transferred the bottom of the 200 pan, onto the top of the 250 pan.
Now I don't have to tell anybody here that the 250 pan is significantly wider than than a 200. So,...I had to build a filler strip to take up the slack.

To keep warpage, down to a minimum, I moved around alot,..only a couple inch weld bead at a time. After I got it completely welded,
I unbolted it to see if it had warped.......Nope.

[imghttp://imageshack.us/a/img541/4307/vw21.jpg[/img]

I decided to take a chance, and weld the inside of the pan. The filler strip was a catch point for oil, so I wanted to be sure that it couldn't seep down between the pan, and the strip. I welded the entire inside, all w/o the benefit of having the block to bolt it to to be sure it didn't warp on me.

It did.

Not bad though. I was able to run a few bolts on the one side, and pry a little on the other, and the thing came right back into line.

Next will be arduous process of leak testing the thing. It'll be tough because the cut line is right below the seal lip.

All in all, I'm glad it's behind me. It was alot of work, and took several hours. Why Ford didn't put a 250 in a fox is beyond me,...but today,...It really doesn't matter. 8)

 

[rbohm]

Well,.......the one thing that prevents me from installing a 250 in my fox became one less thing today. I "married" two oil pans today to make one.

I started by drawing a cut line to reference back to, and used a 4.5" grinder w/ a cut off wheel, and bolted the "foundation to my bare block.

I bought, an oil pump and bolted the thing in place. Just for good measure, I taped an additional piece of 1/8" plate to the bottom to be sure I didn't bottom the pump against the pan.

Next, I put another cut line reference on the 200 pan, and transposed a stand off reference from the oil pan rail "in inches", and marked it on the 200 pan, so as to be sure to space it properly from the 250 pan rail.

Than I transferred the bottom of the 200 pan, onto the top of the 250 pan.
Now I don't have to tell anybody here that the 250 pan is significantly wider than than a 200. So,...I had to build a filler strip to take up the slack.

To keep warpage, down to a minimum, I moved around alot,..only a couple inch weld bead at a time. After I got it completely welded,
I unbolted it to see if it had warped.......Nope.

[imghttp://imageshack.us/a/img541/4307/vw21.jpg[/img]

I decided to take a chance, and weld the inside of the pan. The filler strip was a catch point for oil, so I wanted to be sure that it couldn't seep down between the pan, and the strip. I welded the entire inside, all w/o the benefit of having the block to bolt it to to be sure it didn't warp on me.

It did.

Not bad though. I was able to run a few bolts on the one side, and pry a little on the other, and the thing came right back into line.

Next will be arduous process of leak testing the thing. It'll be tough because the cut line is right below the seal lip.

All in all, I'm glad it's behind me. It was alot of work, and took several hours. Why Ford didn't put a 250 in a fox is beyond me,...but today,...It really doesn't matter. 8)

bloody nice job on the oil pan there.

 

[bubba22349]

Nice job

 

[chad]

how far is the screen from the bottom of the pan (3/8 inches, not sure on mm)?

 

[mike1157]

how far is the screen from the bottom of the pan (3/8 inches, not sure on mm)?

I'll have to build that. There is no pick up for that pump. I'll modify a 200 pick up to fit, and yes, there'll probably be like a 3/8" gap between the pick up and the pan floor.

 

[chad]

Thanks for bringin us along, appreciate it.
Surprised U have to do this mod on that vehicle, but I don't know it's ins&outs anyway (fox 'stang, no?).

May have to do this mod for the 250 in a Bronk. As usual:
"Conditions may vary on your vehicle as we have no control over...blah, blah, blah."

The 4WD crowd places the front on the back (170/250) on two pans for the same reason - avoid the 'chunk'.
Some of those conditions inc a D44 vs a D30 frnt diff, SL or BL, TRO (tire-rod-over, altho I don't C how it would matter as that's in frnt of the chunk/pan not back) weight of after mrkt bumpers, etc.
Nother fella just rolled/brazed (not weld, less heat, no mig needed) a 1/2 circle of steel (think a long cardboard tube holding paper towel cut in 1/2 length-wise) onto the lip similar to what you've done (& fab a frnt/back 'plate' to close it up)...

The pick-up tube/screen is just twisted around opposite way. Hope this step is that simple 4 U. Let us know, plez...

I C ur in USA now, forget the mm reference, & best of luck!
Love the ingenuity and fab skills (& tools and experience) some have! U Go Guys!

 

[drag-200stang]

Wow Mike, looks good. Now that we know you can fabricate, I would like to suggest dropping the sump if there is room in your chassis. It will help with the hp you plan on making. Getting the oil farther away from the crank and maybe adding some. These engines turbo'd tend to hold a lot of oil in the upper part of the engine, not draining back well. A horizontal dam at the rear of the pan would keep oil from climbing up into the crank under exceleration, but your oil pan may be difficult to get on an off with your oil pickup. Good luck.

 

[mike1157]

Wow Mike, looks good. Now that we know you can fabricate, I would like to suggest dropping the sump if there is room in your chassis. It will help with the hp you plan on making. Getting the oil farther away from the crank and maybe adding some. These engines turbo'd tend to hold a lot of oil in the upper part of the engine, not draining back well. A horizontal dam at the rear of the pan would keep oil from climbing up into the crank under exceleration, but your oil pan may be difficult to get on an off with your oil pickup. Good luck.

Thanks, While I''m done with the pan "for now", I'm far from done. I was in fact planning on "T-ing" the rear sump, adding the baffle to keep the oil from sloshing forward, locating a turbo drain, and relocating the oil dipstick (since the old one is useless now). But that will be another day.

The next thing I'll do tomorrow is bolt that pan back on the block, throw the steering rack back on the k-member, and mock up the motor mounts.

 

[xctasy]

Its a case of so close, so close and yet so far...





The Aussie 1972to 1982 Cortina sump is almost the same as what a US 250 Fox sump would be. Though the six-cylinder engines are essentially the same as used in the 60-70.5 Falcon/69 to 78 Maverick and early 75 to 80 Granada , detail changes for 200 six have been necessary to adapt them to the Cortina and Fox body cars. The US 250 six was never offered in the us Fox, although Jack Collins made a special for a 250 Fox back in the 80's.

The different sump is fitted, with the main oil reservoir at the rear so as to provide clearance at the front for the cross member and steering rack.

For the same reason the oil pump has a new body which is a half inch shorter than that of the Falcon. Because of the new sump, the dipstick has been moved rearward, as has the oil pump pick-up screen. On the Cortina and Fox, the oil filler tube, at the front of the rocker cover, is shortened to clear the bonnet.

The centre rack and pinion on both the US Fox Fairmont and TC/TD/TE/TF Cortina was in the same place, but the Fox Cross member forces the US 250 into a very steep rear letter box. The design is a very good one, its not really dual sump on the sixes, the Fox sumps prfile is just a way of fitting the oil pump. It's got heaps of scope to cut an shut with room to single or double letter box sump if desired. I like Peugeot Bills

http://i608.photobucket.com/albums/tt16 ... 54-25A.jpg

The Aussie tall deck 200 and 250 cubic inch Cortina has a very good baffled sump and gradully arced pick-up tube that requires X-member modifications to fit, and is narrower than the US 250.

 

[xrwagon]

Lucky in Australia we have one of the best oil pan companies, ASR use to be the guy that ran High Energy, i had a Cleveland Pro Pan once, awesome bit of gear, he has priced me a oil pan for my rebuild.

 

[mike1157]

Lucky in Australia we have one of the best oil pan companies, ASR use to be the guy that ran High Energy, i had a Cleveland Pro Pan once, awesome bit of gear, he has priced me a oil pan for my rebuild.

We have plenty of custom oil pan fabricators here as well.....As long as you have a "custom oil pan budget". :nono:

I for one have a broke-ass budget.