Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2018 Contributors:
StarDiero75, curts56, DannyG, B RON CO, wsa111, Captainslow42, falconcritter
Econoline, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, 95FordFleetside, turbo6, Max_Effort, WorldChampGramp
cr_bobcat, C.S.Designs, pmuller9, gus91326, rwbrooks50, rocklord, drag-200stang, Big64my79Effie, CNC-Dude, gb500

2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe

MORE TORQUE

Moderator: Mod Squad

MPGmustang
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Chandler AZ

MORE TORQUE

Post #1 by MPGmustang » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:04 pm

just shooting the breeze here...

what would it require to reach N/A 200+ lbs of rwtq on a 200ci and log head?

what makes more torque? (some guestimates)
short duration cam probably in the 254 range??
high lift up to .495, more if possible
long piston stroke
closer lobe centers
CR??

what are the benefits of more torque?
increase of mpg on the freeway
off the line
easier traffic passing, in the 35-60mph traffic
low rpm operation allows higher (numerically lower) gears to improve mroe economy if casually driving
i6 has the wonderful torque curve though the entire rpm range...
spinning tires (smiles, and more tire cost)
enough torque lifts the front tires 8)

What else is really into making so much torque, what could the log head 200ci really acheive in max torque area? could more torque naturally increase hp? what pistons to use for more torque (dished domed flat)? what happens to the HP as the torque increases? after the peak torque is acheived, what would adding the alum head do? and what's the max NA torque the alum head can reach if focused toward torque?

Again just shooting the breeze here for the 200ci, I know the 250 could produce more torque easier but wanna know what thoughts are out there for the N/A 200ci

I know turbo makes torque, but just haven't seen any posts dedicated to N/A torque.. Thanks in advance.
65mustang-SOLD-200ci-t5-scarebird disks-vintage air ac-264/274 110 cam-mav 8inch 3.8 open-350cfm-CI headers
66 Bronco-SOLD-i6 170 - rust bucket never ran...
75 bronco-SOLD-v8 c4 dana 20 33's and disk brakes, locker front/rear.

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4225
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

(Yee Haw!) MORE TORQUE (= more work)

Post #2 by chad » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:41 pm

"...what makes more torque?..."

Now That's My kinda talk. Thanks for askin in a more direct way than I've done.
I'd say:
*wedge combustion chambers,
*shortie headers,
*1V carb (W/big throat/boar),
*the '77 + head (I'd assume),
were a few things U left offa ur list I believe (don't have certainty).
I'd like to get a complete list, a lill more on motor engineering theory, and have the list ordered by a gradient of most to least effective of these mods (so I can develop a pricing and sequence of operations plan. It must be staged as I have very low funds). I need the theory explanation because I have only seen "increasing HP" ideas, while I seek tq (1 reason I have the '69 250/4.1) and there are 'overlaps' between the two and some components (& prts of the system like "air in") that should be only upgraded for one rather than the other...
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

User avatar
FalconSedanDelivery
Registered User
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Freeburg Pa
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #3 by FalconSedanDelivery » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:25 pm

Compression is the biggest Torque improver , but like any one part it takes others to work in conjunction , fuel injection ( read port ) is even more so , BUT you were asking about a Log Head Combo
Falcon 6's, FE's I Like them both , Sold all My 6 cyl stuff ( for now at least ) glad to pass along some tips though

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4225
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #4 by chad » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:41 pm

Oh, good a response:

"...compression but it takes others to work in conjunction..."

Yes, one thing I've come to understand is it's a system (am trained & experienced in human systems, not mechanical, but there's a link). OK so that's number one on the list we suggested? I would have thought cam grind...am now dissuaded of that. Would stroke to piston displacement ratio B 2nd? cam, or what would folks say.

1) compression
2) cam factors?
3)
4)

Any additions to the preceding list, wrong items included?
Thanks lots.
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

170-3tree
Registered User
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: KC, Kansas area

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #5 by 170-3tree » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:43 am

I believe near the top would be the bore to stroke ratio. I believe stroke increases torque, maybe wrong, I always get it confused. But a how much change would make a noticeable change, I have no idea. And it is expensive to change in these engines, for now.
63 Fairlane Sedan, 200 bored .030 over. Aluminium head. Autolite 2100 1.08. DUI ignition. 274/274-112* Hyd. 9.5:1 compression. ARP bottom end. 2.77 3 on the tree(until she blows I guess) 8 inch 3.55 rear 5 lug all standard on fairlane.
2010 Mazda 3s 2.5l L4 6spd manual
1957 Chevy Belair 4dr post, 283/powerglide

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #6 by xctasy » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:30 am

It's already been done, but were are bad people for not doing tha thinking hombre. No-one mentioned the cure all for torque...a GMC 3,4,6 or 8/71 blower, although turbo will do the same job.

See

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65587&start=50
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=66958
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=66888

a) Best single way to get torque is a narrow included angle BDA Cosworth twin cam cylinder head. There is over 1.39 lb-ft per cube there, so 200 cubes could yield 278 lb-ft at 4000 rpm, maybee less, while still allowing 320 hp at 6000 rpm.
b) port on port carburation or variable path resonant intake manifold, that keeps the rpm at which maximum torque happens down. The idea is to get air speed down to 265ft/sec via small ports at the peak torque rpm.
c)Then variable valve timing, to get as much Simpsons rule area under the curve. That ensures minimal throttle movement to get torque.
d) then jump up compression using six soft head stratergies (listed in previous posts).
e) changes in rod ratio and bore to stroke ratio, like Pontiac 455, A-series Mini 997/Austin Healy Sprite 1098/1275 or VTEC Honda long rod, long stroke with smaller bores.
f) low friction piston and crank to cylinder geometry as per the Aitken cyle engine, and later Toyota Beams engines

Now, you've gone an set the parameters to include a log head, so a) and c) are eliminated options :bang:

So you'll rapidly see that b) port on port carburation and d) soft head compression upgrades in tandem with cam, restricted exhast flow verses intake flow head with a NASCAR/Historic C style cam profile, piston, knock sensor ignition retard, and waste spark ignition with very special custom advance curve are the only good options.

So at an aspirational level, somewhere between where you are know and 278 lb-ft at 4000 rpm are the options using b) and d) above. To do e) you then have to look at the Argentine 187, a four bearing engine with narrow bore (170 plus 45 thou) and long 200 stroke. Ford Australia reduced the bore of its 200 cube engines by 68 and 48thou undersized pistons, eventually with rods 180 thou longer.

If you then start getting het up on rules and restrictive on intake carburation, you then start coming back to a loose-low end torque car like a Turismo Carretera Argie TC 188 engine...where you have one 48 IDF 2-bbl, and 380 hp at 9500 rpm on a 9.35:1 compression ratio, and you'll get close to about 260lb-ft at 6500 rpm. That engine has an optimised non log head with roller cam, but that is another aspirational focus for us.

Then you'll just need a six speed gearbox highstall auto gearbox to make it streetable. Its no mistake that the latest 362hp twin cam turbo Ford Falcon uses all the above stratergies except f).
Last edited by xctasy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

sp_alloy_head
Registered User
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:50 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #7 by sp_alloy_head » Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:02 am

Deano-I get the 8/71 blower part, but what does the rest of mean?

MPGmustang
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Chandler AZ

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #8 by MPGmustang » Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:36 am

X it's funny u mentioned those posts... I think I see a pattern :lol:

we all know that 6 1bbl carbs would be really nice on the 200ci, but most daily drivers aren't going to do that lol... so lets make it more realistic, which includes the vairiable valve timing, and we should probably lower the torque to a usable street too... but the 6000rpm numbers sound good, just most often people just don't aim thier engines that high... this is more towards the avg joe (or jane :wink: ) rebuilding thier i6 for more grunt, but with out going radical or going all out for hp.

questions, just shooting the dark here...

could more torque increase hp? say, if you wanted torque out of our little loved 6 cyls, would the increase help the hp? what is really considered to reamp up the torque, more velocity or carb and what's the best route to increase either or both?

I have seen 166tq with my 1bbl, but have also seen 167 tq with a 2bbl and with a difference of 40hp but same tq... whats the best way to increase tq period, like chad mentioned, more torque is more work.

the gearing I'm sure everyone is familiar with, most fo us just use these for comutes, but what if we could increase the effeceny of the comute by increaseing the torque, not where is sits in the rpm band, I mean realisticly where would you rev the engine up to 9800rpm going to work???? I like the 4000 rpm figure better as it's just well more realistic and not so far fetched.

also how would one go about to make the begining of the torque band reach as low as 1100rpm but not any lower, reason I ask, some of my early dyno tests showed 140tq off idle (900rpm) to the tires, that was with a manual trans. 900rpm is not usable except for off the line. it seems my current torque isn't usable at lower than 1600rpm, have to rev it higher.

then the other question I had, as before I had at idle 140tq, now 166tq at 3k rpm, that's not that big of increase per say... just really moved the tq band higher to a more usable range... what really increase was the hp with the cam... went from 68hp to 135hp... that's mostly cam. so is it correct to assume that less duration and higher and longer lift would help the torque to a point?? example, stock cam is ~250 druation, kinda low or probably 180@ .050 and max lift of .275 or even less in most cases. where as the new cam, 264 or 214@ .050 has 300 lift, what would the 258 or 260 be with say .320 lift? or .360 lift??? the higher lift would increase the gulp of air it can get, in low rev's higher spring's wouldnt be as critical, granted you need to make sure no coil bind but the fact would be there.

what kinda of cam grind would you be looking for, or does hp make torque? or torque make hp?

as I'm at 167tq (just being theretical) what else could be done simply to increase tq to say 200rw tq... gearing?? does that have any play on how much tq u have?

sry for my random thoughts/notes, if you can't follow them let me know I'll clean them up in the morning lol...
65mustang-SOLD-200ci-t5-scarebird disks-vintage air ac-264/274 110 cam-mav 8inch 3.8 open-350cfm-CI headers
66 Bronco-SOLD-i6 170 - rust bucket never ran...
75 bronco-SOLD-v8 c4 dana 20 33's and disk brakes, locker front/rear.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #9 by xctasy » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:10 am

Read and feed.
List in good American English.

Item 1 was b) create port on port carburation or variable path resonant intake manifold, that keeps the rpm at which maximum torque happens down. The idea is to get air speed down to 265ft/sec via small ports at the peak torque rpm, and allow air speed to get as low as 100 ft/sec at maximum power.

Item 2 was d) make a jump up in compression using six soft head stratergies (listed in previous posts, inludes a NASCAR style restrictor plate or Historic C Pan America 87 octane cam, restricted exhast flow verses intake flow head with a custom, piston, knock sensor ignition retard, and waste spark ignition with very special custom advance curve are the only good options).

That will boost torque on a street engine.

And an explanation on how that works in my Mustang project engine

I use three staged 2-bbl carbs sized in my case to make maximum power at about 5100 rpm, maximum torque at 2700 rpm, a 170 chamber size log head for high compression, with restrictive exhasts ports to allow a special cam to build good cylinder pressure, but long enough to reduce cold cranking compression, EDIS-6 Explorer ignition, and a five speed auto to put the torque band where the car needs it.

Good power with a log head needs good carburation, so that was why I was first looking at triple #7508 Holley 2-bbl carbs, which is a work-a-like Weber DGEV 38, and on a 200 yields peak power of 215 hp net at about 5100 rpm, or 137 feet per sec air speed based on 100% volumetric efficiency.

To create great torque, air speed has to be dragged down (idealy to about 265 ft/sec at 2700 rpm in my case). Firstly, by dividing up the 840 cc log into independent runners it ensures each intake recieves the same A/F ratio. With 6 sq in of total carb venturi area using three progressive 32/36 Webers with the venturis bored out to Weber DGEV or Holley 2-bbl 7508 spec allows the peak rpm flow to be the equal of, say, a set of DCOE 38's with 30 mm venturis. At maximum torque, air speed with the staged 32/36's is still a good 145 ft/sec. The primaries raise low rpm air speed, much like a set of Triple Hitachi, SU or Zenith Stromberg 1.75" carbs do when the throttle cracks open on a worked 240Z, Austin Healy 3000, or GTR XU1 Torana.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #10 by xctasy » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:28 am

MPGmustang wrote:X it's funny u mentioned those posts... I think I see a pattern :lol:

we all know that 6 1bbl carbs would be really nice on the 200ci, but most daily drivers aren't going to do that lol... so lets make it more realistic, which includes the vairiable valve timing, and we should probably lower the torque to a usable street too... but the 6000rpm numbers sound good, just most often people just don't aim thier engines that high... this is more towards the avg joe (or jane :wink: ) rebuilding thier i6 for more grunt, but with out going radical or going all out for hp.


You should see a pattern, because its how Detriot re-invigorated the whole industry when the TPI Camaro, Corvette, port EFI Mustang 5.0 and F150 4.9 i-6 hit town in the mid 80's. The same revolution at GM and Ford happened four years earlier with at Ferrari and then later on all Maseratis, when Bosch injection replaced independent runner Weber carbed engines. They used one huge throttle body to keep air speed to about 130 feet per second, and basically the intake runners did the same job as four IDA 44's would. One throttle, no synchronisation issues, and clean, snatch free power from idle to 5000 rpm or more.

Before GM and Ford Dearborn got into port EFI, Ford Australia predated the 4.9 EFI F150 engine, and proved that EFI can do the same job as a 6V intake.Thats why my 1998 4.0 liter SOHC Explorer and my old 1986 4.1 EFI Fairmont wagon made better torque at 2000 rpm than even my LPG 500 cfm carbed 1984 XE Falcon did.

The 149 hp at 3800 rpm, 240 lb-ft at 2800 rpm EFI Falcon engine, released in 1983, had more torque from 650 to 4800 rpm than the 2-bbl Weber 131 hp at 3800 rpm, 225 lb-ft at 2000rpm. The EFI had an 8.8:1 compression, the 2-bbl had 9.35:1. Any port on port carb engine can match and EFI multipoint engine, and each engine had a standard 256 degree cam. The 2-bbl was inferior at all speeds, especially off idle to 3000 rpm.

In 1985, the EFI engines cam got changed to 264 degrees, yielding more torgue everywhere than the 1983, but had 164 hp at 4000 rpm,and 247 lb-ft at 3000 rpm. 15 HP more, 7 lb-ft more.

{Due to power being a 5252 factor of torque,and power being PLAN (Pressure, Leverage, Area and N, cycles persecond), torque increase is almost always half the power increase when you alter cam timing and change allother factors to suit.}

The dual runner EFI systems were to ensure that 80 to 90% of the peak torque figure is around from off idle to the power peak. 1.6 Liter EFI Toyota Twin Cams were first,and the Ford empire soon followed suit. The 1993 EF Falcon got it, it yielded no extra power on the best non dual runner pick-up variants, but it did give a flat torque plot. It has remained an Aussie I6 staple,with the latest 4.0 giving 291 lb-ft at the flywheel on 87 octane (91 RON), or 1.2 lb-ft per cubic inch. Its got twice the torque as your 200 from off idle to about 2500 rpm.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

thesameguy
Registered User
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:34 pm

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #11 by thesameguy » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:54 pm

Man, I love reading your posts. :beer:

MPGmustang
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Chandler AZ

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #12 by MPGmustang » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:25 pm

okay okay, we can't compare apples and oranges, the 200ci is not in any EFI falcon, they are years apart... and lots of other things too starting with efi... I'm not interested in what other engines use/achieved, they aren't the i6 200ci with a log head... different animals, an elephant and a whale live different lives even though they are both mammals.

I'm talking what addons or simple mods that the backyard joe in the USA understand to improve torque???

I have picked up from your posts X,
EFI (if only available to the log head)
TBI (closest thing we can get to efi)
a 2bbl weber reason is why would this help? is it the velocity of the air over the venturi at the lower speeds?
what kind of cam grind specific for the 200ci log head, the NASCAR style didn't use this engine, but their theory can work and that's what I want to understand.


how can we setup a dual runner on the i6 log? I'm not interested in Toyota's achievements... could a plate for the center be bolted down into the 1bbl hole, then 2 2bbl progressive carbs be placed on the front and rear of the log, consequently 2 i3's... would that be considered dual runner and help achieve max torque?


xctasy wrote:Good power with a log head needs good carburation, so that was why I was first looking at triple #7508 Holley 2-bbl carbs, which is a work-a-like Weber DGEV 38, and on a 200 yields peak power of 215 hp net at about 5100 rpm, or 137 feet per sec air speed based on 100% volumetric efficiency.

this is plan and simple geared toward the 200. effectively we won't reach 100% VE, I myself see 85-90% VE most of the time, but that's with ALOT of head work, which I hope most do.

xctasy wrote:To create great torque, air speed has to be dragged down (idealy to about 265 ft/sec at 2700 rpm in my case). Firstly, by dividing up the 840 cc log into independent runners it ensures each intake recieves the same A/F ratio. With 6 sq in of total carb venturi area using three progressive 32/36 Webers with the venturis bored out to Weber DGEV or Holley 2-bbl 7508 spec allows the peak rpm flow to be the equal of, say, a set of DCOE 38's with 30 mm venturis. At maximum torque, air speed with the staged 32/36's is still a good 145 ft/sec. The primaries raise low rpm air speed, much like a set of Triple Hitachi, SU or Zenith Stromberg 1.75" carbs do when the throttle cracks open on a worked 240Z, Austin Healy 3000, or GTR XU1 Torana
This is great, I like it, sadly I don't think many ppl are wanting to invest in the log head to make independent runners... unless you just mount them on the log and keep them connected, it's basically a 3x1bbl setup. I believe Kevin has a great project that maximizes this with 1bbl's. some 2bbl's would be interesting to see even if they are funneled down to 1bbl' holes for a dyno test.

sadly I have only seen a turbo'd i6 250ci get 340hp... I highly doubt the 200ci will achieve 300hp N/A... and we want torque, 100hp is easy but more torque is harder.

Maybe I'm rambling on, but just asking what can easily be done. we have the 2bbl conversion, we can bore out the cyl's unless the smaller the bore the better, what about size/shape of compression chamber? does the smaller log help more or does the larger log help most? longer rods and shorter piston's, could those increase the piston travel really affect any dramatic change for torque?

I hope I'm not too big of a pain in the butt, but I'm learning hence I'm asking. I just don't understand the comparisons to other engines with high power outputs have any effect on our engines, I can see their concepts being incorporated to the i6, but I don't see how their numbers affect the 200ci with a log head.
All in all I really do appreciate the reply's.
65mustang-SOLD-200ci-t5-scarebird disks-vintage air ac-264/274 110 cam-mav 8inch 3.8 open-350cfm-CI headers
66 Bronco-SOLD-i6 170 - rust bucket never ran...
75 bronco-SOLD-v8 c4 dana 20 33's and disk brakes, locker front/rear.

User avatar
rocklord
Registered User
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:25 pm
Location: Hurricane, WV

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #13 by rocklord » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:06 pm

xctasy brought up way to increase torque in the 200 with a little effort, supercharging.

A supercharger will give torque at lower rpms than a turbocharger, it is easier to plumb than a turbo (relatively speaking), and the best way to increase power with a log head is boosting.

You can get a scroll type supercharger from a Thunderbird SC Coupe, or one off of a GM 3800.
Or you could look at the Paxton vane type supercharger.

One downside is you have to have access to the crank pulley and room beside the engine to place it.

Just a thought.
Dan

Currently Own
1965 Mustang, 200CID, 3Spd
1964 Corvair Coupe, 164CID, 140HP, 4Spd
1961 Corvair Lakewood wagon, 145CID, 80HP, 2Spd Powerglide Auto.
2017 BMW X3, 3.0L Dual Turbo, 300HP, 8-Spd Auto

79granada
Registered User
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:46 am
Location: dillsboro IN

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #14 by 79granada » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:43 pm

i got the supercharger for the 3800 just throwing that out there
'79 granada 250 inline six 80,000 miles (gone)
'96 ranger 2.3 4cyl 5 speed
'96 chevy blazer 4x4 4.3 v6(wifes car, im trying to talk her into a ford)
'86 F-150 300 inline six automatic rust free 97000 miles

thesameguy
Registered User
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:34 pm

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #15 by thesameguy » Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:51 pm

There are two quick ways to make more torque: More compression, or more displacement. The former has only a very slight effect on torque, the latter quite a bit. You can simulate both with forced induction. All things being equal, a supercharger or small turbocharger are going to be quick, easy ways to boost torque. If forced induction isn't an option, the only "real" option to dramatically improve torque is to increase displacement. That's the money for making improvements in torque. Everything else is nickles and dimes. That's my $0.02, anyhow!

User avatar
FalconSedanDelivery
Registered User
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Freeburg Pa
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #16 by FalconSedanDelivery » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:42 pm

OK , lets define Easy , the question didn't ask for a dollar amount , BUT , I think that's a given , based on the fact that it was on a Log head engine , Yes BOOST , makes lots of Torque , BUT it will also cost MORE than most have in their cars to start with , That is Why I said Compression , remove the head have it milled replace 300 tops a Blower or Turbo 3000.00 Minimum as any Boost requires lots of other changes , with compression , , a Dist Recurve ( should be done regardless ) and possibly High Octane Gas or a Mix of Pump and Race , and of course there is the No Replacement for Displacement , That is Why I always say go 250 instead of a 200 Torque !! , or 200 instead of a 144/170 .
Falcon 6's, FE's I Like them both , Sold all My 6 cyl stuff ( for now at least ) glad to pass along some tips though

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #17 by xctasy » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:01 am

FalconSedanDelivery wrote:OK , lets define Easy .....That is Why I said Compression , remove the head have it milled replace 300 tops a Blower or Turbo 3000.00 Minimum as any Boost requires lots of other changes...


Yeah, just said it because both you and I love GMC blowers on Fords :P (only you've actually got one, natch!).Points noted, supercharging cost is based on how much smarts you have with 6 or 8 rib belt, and its beyound most of us to shade tree one up in the back yard.

(My mate Richard bolted an Castelmain RodShop SC14 Twin blade Ogura to his GM 3800 powered non emissions NZ Commodore, power was up from 177rwhp to 230, basically similar to Eaton M90 from 3800 Thunda Turd SuperCoupe. His costs were 450 U$, and its switched via A/C Terminal. Just like the 205/225/240 L67 GM 3800, only they used a little M62 Eaton before going M90 later.

MPGmustang wrote:I'm talking what addons or simple mods that the backyard joe in the USA understand to improve torque?.


Simple add-ons are:-
cylinder heads
headers
one, two or three 2-bbl carbs,
or a brace of three progressive 32/36's
efi,
camshaft upgrades
EDIS ignitions.

You can bolt on an Aussie Alloy head Jack Collins style, or the better Classic Inlines head which flows more and can make greater low speed torque. But you've politely said nyet to these.

MPGmustang wrote:I have picked up from your posts X,
EFI (if only available to the log head)
TBI (closest thing we can get to efi)
a 2bbl weber reason is why would this help? is it the velocity of the air over the venturi at the lower speeds?
what kind of cam grind specific for the 200ci log head, the NASCAR style didn't use this engine, but their theory can work and that's what I want to understand.


Your only cost effective options are improving whats there. By EFI, TBI, or three 2-bbl multiple carbs which can be made to be dual runner with just a few bits of steel ( my NCHO-6v kit).

The cam for extra torque and power is the soft head cam profile I’ve discussed at length, that’s really NASCAR and Historic Category C racing technology filtering down to our cars. Examples are the Keith Dorton carbed 289.See http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engi ... e_buildup/
David Vizard makes custom scramble pattern cam designs where each pair of cylinders are given different lobe centres or cam profile changes to avoid fuel mixture going the wrong way as the cam profile is made more radical
Hot Rod.Com Tech Article on Historic C 352 hp two-barrel 289 wrote: The custom ground ’shaft from Comp Cams is a mechanical flat-tappet design with NASCAR Winston Cup restrictor-plate lobe profiles to help compensate for the two- barrel carb—see the sidebar for specs.

Ground on a 109 LCA lobe, the cam is basically a Comp Cams #7406 Inlet 244-degree duration at 0.050-inch #7408 exhaust 248-degree duration at 0.050-inch, 0.584-inch lift, flat-tappet lifters, a high intensity 270/272 at lash cam. ( see http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/hrd ... -fastback/ and See page 8 of 14, MHF Grind, http://www.compcams.com/catalog/COMP201 ... 39-452.pdf for the parent grind. That should give you some clues

The design reduces seat time to bleed cylinder pressure at low engine speed but bolsters intake flow as revs climb to offset a restrictive intake tract.
.

This is a typical how to optimise my stock production engine without exotic stuff post
MPGmustang wrote:how can we setup a dual runner on the i6 log? .


By independent runner conversion, and then using three staged 32/36

MPGmustang wrote:sadly I have only seen a turbo'd i6 250ci get 340hp... I highly doubt the 200ci will achieve 300hp N/A... and we want torque, 100hp is easy but more torque is harder.
.

9 port Holden 3.3 liter engines with three carbs were making 216 hp at Bathurst in 1971, then 245 in 1972 with carb upgrades and a 12 port head, and 300hp by 1974. So we can make any 200 cube Ford six match that, exceed that, with a stock log head casting. We've got technology, 30 years of cam and port flow detail on our side.

MPGmustang wrote:Maybe I'm rambling on, but just asking what can easily be done. we have the 2bbl conversion, we can bore out the cyl's unless the smaller the bore the better, what about size/shape of compression chamber? does the smaller log help more or does the larger log help most? longer rods and shorter piston's, could those increase the piston travel really affect any dramatic change for torque? .
.

The above answers what to do next. If torque is king, then get a performance consultant to design a cam around your chosen bolt on gear
Last edited by xctasy on Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:41 am, edited 3 times in total.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
FalconSedanDelivery
Registered User
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Freeburg Pa
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #18 by FalconSedanDelivery » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:33 pm

You know I at first was put off by your posts , but Ive since learned
to enjoy them , LOL , keep up the good work , would love to visit ( Down Under ) till the Good Day , PS , Ive Recurved 2 428 CJ Distributors for a gentleman in Victoria
Falcon 6's, FE's I Like them both , Sold all My 6 cyl stuff ( for now at least ) glad to pass along some tips though

MPGmustang
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Chandler AZ

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #19 by MPGmustang » Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:22 pm

so in short answer, to make more torque u aim for hp and move the power band to the lower rpm where u want to use it via gearing

simple way's I've seen to increase torque
advancing the cam,
*bigger/longer gulps of air (via higher ratio rockers and longer cam duration)
high velocity through the carb making best mix (indepenant runners if possible)
highest air flow intake and 65% flow exhaust.
higher compression ratio


In the end, to get more torque, you need to reach for peak HP and lower gearing.

unless u went forced or more cubes...
65mustang-SOLD-200ci-t5-scarebird disks-vintage air ac-264/274 110 cam-mav 8inch 3.8 open-350cfm-CI headers
66 Bronco-SOLD-i6 170 - rust bucket never ran...
75 bronco-SOLD-v8 c4 dana 20 33's and disk brakes, locker front/rear.

User avatar
FalconSedanDelivery
Registered User
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Freeburg Pa
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #20 by FalconSedanDelivery » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:33 pm

A better answer to your Big cam and Gulps would to be shooting for a higher velocity intake charge ,BUT not necessarily more overall duration , usually more lift ( think RV cams ) extra duration causes overlap that bleeds off cylinder pressure and REDUCES Torque albeit for more power at a higher rpm because of a slight ram effect , thus the need for High stall converters as a bigger cam kills low end , that's why forced induction makes more Power and Torque ( as does N20 ) the more you stuff in a given space then light off , the more power and Torque, that's why raising compression works ( to a point ) if you cant pack more in squeeze it more .the induction and exhaust also play a part as if you cant get it in squeezing wont help as does the opposite , if it cant get out it hinders the next cycle , hi ratio rockers help because they increase lift and speed up the opining and closing events of the valve train without adding much duration to the equation , remember torque comes first , multiply that times RPM and Time = HP
Falcon 6's, FE's I Like them both , Sold all My 6 cyl stuff ( for now at least ) glad to pass along some tips though

MPGmustang
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:23 pm
Location: Chandler AZ

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #21 by MPGmustang » Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:45 pm

FSD, that is a beautiful reply lol. I think you nailed it, I was thinking an accumilation of everything when it really comes down to valve timing. everythign else can improve it but the valve timing still dictates torque in the end.

this is much more of a cam topic as it seems it's the heart of what I'm looking for/try'n to understand

area's to think about:
Overlap - more over lap less bottom end, less overlap more bottom end
Lobe Centers - tighter gives more overlap, wider gives less overlap
duration - more is more overlap, less is less overlap
Lift- increases power without moving the power on the power band
these came from various websites, all conferming eachother.

so I'm guestimating for torque we can bleed little off to gain more. from what I have seen I improved toque alot from going stock to not...
so from the following I get

256/256 .233 114 has 28* overlap, with 1.5 rockers .350 lift, makes 68hp 117tq (140tq @ <1100rpm) (stock engine)
260/260 .300 112 has 36* overlap, with 1.6 rockers .480 lift
264/264 .300 112 has 40* overlap, with 1.6 rockers .480 lift
264/274 .300 110 has 49* overlap, with 1.5 rockers .450 lift, makes 135hp 167tq (95hp 168tq with same stock engine carb)

just guestimating the middle 2 could make more or less torque? I would guess more, but at the cost of HP.

I guess that's why the CAM is reffered to the heart of the engine.
65mustang-SOLD-200ci-t5-scarebird disks-vintage air ac-264/274 110 cam-mav 8inch 3.8 open-350cfm-CI headers
66 Bronco-SOLD-i6 170 - rust bucket never ran...
75 bronco-SOLD-v8 c4 dana 20 33's and disk brakes, locker front/rear.

User avatar
FalconSedanDelivery
Registered User
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Freeburg Pa
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #22 by FalconSedanDelivery » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:45 pm

Heart, Personality , The most duration with the least overlap using the highest ratio rocker would be the trick , but keep in mind it will be rpm limited so there is always a trade off , a higher compression ratio than would be normally used can gain back a loss from overlap , its a combo that makes it , all parts in Harmony
Falcon 6's, FE's I Like them both , Sold all My 6 cyl stuff ( for now at least ) glad to pass along some tips though

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #23 by xctasy » Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:28 am

You have to see where your heading, using past precedents, then forwarding actions, then review that its done. Richard, your really looking at a T-code 200 Sprint engine with a special 2v carb, headers, cam/head/valve mods to get past the poor exhast flow.

Lets recap on a 352 hp net at 6700 rpm /316 lb-ft at 5000rpm C-code based 2-bbl 289 with K-code solid lifter cam, and show what a soft head/NASCAR restrictor plate tune would be like to draw out power and torque which tecnically wouldn't be there considering the carburation to cube ratio and air flow readings. Once that's pulled apart and understood, apply the concept to a 200 or 250.

Stock 2-bbl 289 power was rated back in the day as 195 hp gross, but was probably 156 hp at 4400 rpm, stock torque was most likely 225 lb-ft at 2800 rpm. Compression was about 9.2:1, which is elevated to 9.25:1 for his engine. It uses stock 2-bbl 2300 series #4412 Holley 500 cfm with 1.375" venturis, and stock 73 jets and two stock 62.5 thou power valve channel restrictions for this new found power. That means that the carb is being sucked within an inch of its life at 6700 rpm for its 293 cubes and at 85% VE, the carb 'sees' 482 cfm. Stock was the 2-bbl 2100 Autolite 1.14 = 300cfm, 1964 - '67, on 289's

Vizard and others use traditional power predictions that take peak head flow at 10, 25, or 28 inches on a standard piston size of 500 cc for 4 cyl, 625 cc for a 5 liter /305 cid engine, multiply by a factor, and thats your maximum power. A scala factor is applied to correct for engine sizes above or below. A 293 cub engine making 237.5 cfm at 28 inches can make 450 hp at 8500rpm if there is no choke point. For an all encompassing link, see http://www.wallaceracing.com/calcafhp.php

Now, the last kicker was the heads were based on a 237.5 intake, 185.6 exhast, and "because of the two-barrel carburetor, exhaust-port flow was intentionally limited to less than 80 percent of intake flow above 0.400 lift to maintain a scavenging effect. Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engi ... kYG0GTeI80%" Itallics mine, and its all based on 1.94 intake /1.60 exhast.

The intake manifold, a single plane Edelbrock Victor Jr. intake with an adapter that’'s hogged to match the carb’s bore size, is one of the best, so its not really feasible to copy it on a small six. It's like comparing a two hole 1.675" discharge to a nice square verses one 1.75" hole to a rectangle.

So running the numbers, we have a 289 V8 making really good power very high up in the rev range, and, at just over an lb-ft per cube, quite poor torque at 316 lb-ft. Scaled down to a 200 with 1.75" intakes and 1.45" exhasts, that's 244 hp and 219 lb-ft. Due to poor head flow and limited carburation, torque and hp occur at too high an rpm.

Back tracking to an EFI 3.3 non crossflow Holden engine in 1985, it had 195 lb-ft at 3000 rpm, and 142 hp at 4800 rpm, with a 264 degree cam with 8.8:1 compression. 1.625" intakes, 1.4" exhasts, 12 port head with similar head flow to a D7 head. Still less than 1 lb-ft per cube. A 250 EFI Falcon with 8.8:1 compression, 264 cam, 247 lb-ft, or less than one lb-ft per cube at 3000 rpm.

Somewhere between the two is where best low end torque curve lies.

I'd personally like to see 9.7:1 compression, maximum torque at 3500 to 4000 rpm( 207 lb-ft at 4000rpm being possible), power of 193 hp at 5750 rpm, and a 2-bbl 2300 series 350 cfm #7448 carbwith 1.1875" venturis, and a 280 degree cam which produces those figures with a head that meets 80% of the peak intake flow at 360 thou. Based on Wallaces website, which calculated 450 hp at 237.5 cfm, I'd punt for 249 hp flowing heads to get 193 hp. You'd only need 175 cfm at the intake. To get power at 5750 rpm, your internal port size outside the intake valve needs to be only 1.338", and a D7 head is about that already, but the intake runners are too small leading up to that to allow the 1.338 port size to be effective. Thats why people favour the large runner intake manifold, as the ports then have a chance to get good air flow from the carb.

With that combo, you'd still get power, but get excellent lower speed torque.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
Explorer
Registered User
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:55 am
Location: Raphine, VA

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #24 by Explorer » Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:46 am

You guy's are way out of my league. I crunched numbers with some of the members here and other sites, for a couple months designing my engine. After comparing a lot of different cams, in a couple different dyno programs, I finally went with the Isky 321256. 256/256, 112 lobe center and .450 valve lift, 1.5 rockers. On paper and seat of the pants, it works. Can't backup any data with a dyno run. Torque curve is extremely flat from 1200-4500rpm. My engine was built entirely around the torque curve since it's in a 4x4 with horsepower not being a concern. Granted, I'm running the aluminum head, but cam choice made a huge difference. This is just FYI info, not meant to make any suggestions.
66 Bronco half cab, 203 ci, 9.7:1 comp, CI aluminum head and intake, DSII ignition, Clifford header, Keith Black pistons, Isky 256/256 cam, lifters, chrome moly rings, push rods, Holley 390cfm 4v, 4:11 gears, 3-speed, 30/9.50/15's 18.28mpg pushing a 4000lb brick.
66 Mustang Coupe, 200I6 automatic

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #25 by xctasy » Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:44 am

Explorer wrote:You guy's are way out of my league.


Nah, man,its just that we've gotten our hands dirty, and are now checking on what works. If you use my favoured Pontiac website http://www.wallaceracing.com/chokepoint.php, and get a copy of PipeMax from http://www.maxracesoftware.com/pipemax36xp2.htm, it forces you to analyse the same stuff, over and over again. What you loose in top end power with a low duration cam you can generate with a brilliant exhast, lesson learned from Ford and Holden Australia. I had nine long years without a registered Ford Six road car, and did a lot of research work on air flow. Jack Collins here was undespensbile for info.

When I got a Mustang and Explorer, I fitted up Alex Peppers EEC5 real time data logger for 120 dollars US, and nek minute, I could understand where modern engines got there power from.

Nine times out often, Pipe Max valiadates what many of us here already now regarding peak power. What is missing is how that even a short stroke in-line six makes excellent low end torque. If you've got personal experience with in line engines, or combinations with similar results, you can then figure out why certian engine combos work. I read lots. Every single Pop Hot rod and Hot Rod and Australian Wheels and Australian Street Machine mag from 1980 to 1993 give me a great index on the worlds cars, so you can benchmark of compare a combination. Any article on a car engineer should be read dilligently, 'cause those guys are awesome. Actually, a 1985 Wheels article had US GM engineers testing TPI Corvettes and Camaros in Aussie, when durability testing Aussie Borg Warner 7.875"diffs and PBR brakes. GM Holden Australia was technically bankrupt, and the Yanks came to purchase really good brakes and diffs for the F-cars and Corvette, and all those guys wanted to do was just drive EFI six cylinder Commodores and Falcons. Why? Because in line sixes were already being consigned to the wreckers yard for GM. The US committe car is in essance a lot of really talented people talking the a$$ off really mundane details, just like us. Go figure!

A lesson from the Mini Cooper S and Cleveland headed Trans Am and tin top Aussie racing days of the 60's, 70's and early 80's. If you have a free breathing head, you can under cam your car with a hi intensity cam that has great 50 thou and lift figures compared to the other cam profiless, and the results on short and long stroke engines are quite stunning. Off idle torque is then better than before, and it'll hack huge gearing without effort.

If your head is poorer breathing, you have to cam it up, and work around the cfm restrictions with better gearing, and compression. My 1982 3.3 Mustang when it was 1-bbl pulls almost the same gearing as the auto Falcon I'll describe, with a 256 cam too

1995 to 2003, I ran a very similar profile to that on my 1984 alloy head 250 Ford Falcon. See http://kastang.tripod.com/fsp/xecute.html

US Heatseaker HS10E 252 Cam, a 252 econo cam with very intense lobe lift for 50thou figures over 205 degrees and total lift about 450 with 1.73 ratio lifters. It had 1.75" intake valves, headers,1.875" exhast, 1.3" ports, 500 Holley, 3-stage auto with stock 1650 rpm stall converter, 2.77:1 open wheel gears, power steering, 245/60 14's for 2232 rpm at 60 mph in 1:1 top, 2.39:1 first gear, 3064 pounds.

What was significant is that in the first 50 feet of any off the mark traffic light race, no matter if it was a turbo Subaru WRX, Mitsubishi Evo, or 351 Ford, it would be first cab off the rank. It was quiet and no descript,and cops would look at the other cars racing you. Best thing was how it would quietly leave rotaries like RX-7's, for dead.

Having so little duration means that off idle torque is just massive. I use a modern EFI vehicle as a baseline for my car tuning business at XEC. My 4 liter/245 205 hp SOHC EFI with 5 speed 235/6016's and 3.73 slipery diff and 2837 rpm in 1:1 resulted in a 2.48:1 first gear which was has 31% lower gearing and, at 4034 pounds, 31% more weight to move. It is significantly more Mondayish off line than my old 4.1/250. My wife always comments on this factor, that in off the mark hook up, fat tires with a 250 in line six seams to be an unmatchable combo.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

170-3tree
Registered User
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: KC, Kansas area

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #26 by 170-3tree » Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:53 pm

X? Were you suggesting him use a 280* cam? just clarifying for my own curiosity.

What if Richard were to separate the intake as in a Dual plane setup? As in just braising in a port divider under the barrels. It would increase his bottom end torque dramatically as well as lower the RPM that he see's peak power. It would also smooth out his idle a bit which has been a bother of his since he got the 264/274 cam put in the engine. Might smooth it out enough to go to a 274/274 cam even? I am pretty sure that producing lower end torque like that would be less likely to deteriorate his fuel mileage which is also always a major concern for him. The only downside to this is that he would have to tune in everything again to match the fuller intake into each cylinder, improving intake efficiency anyways.

Just throwing that thought out there.

Gerald.
63 Fairlane Sedan, 200 bored .030 over. Aluminium head. Autolite 2100 1.08. DUI ignition. 274/274-112* Hyd. 9.5:1 compression. ARP bottom end. 2.77 3 on the tree(until she blows I guess) 8 inch 3.55 rear 5 lug all standard on fairlane.
2010 Mazda 3s 2.5l L4 6spd manual
1957 Chevy Belair 4dr post, 283/powerglide

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4225
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #27 by chad » Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:53 pm

"...240Z, Austin Healy 3000..."

"Square" engines, no? (stroke=bore)....
A stroker (250/4.1 is a 'stroked' 170/200) has more tq - and a stroke bigger than displacement for each cylinder.
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #28 by xctasy » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:45 pm

170-3tree wrote:X? Were you suggesting him use a 280* cam? just clarifying for my own curiosity.


Yes, if the head flow is poor, you can increase duration without camminess, especially on the US 200 which has the same rod length to stroke ratio as the US250...1.5:1. Generally, the old E303 280 degree Ford 5.0 cams and mechanical K code 289 cams were the level where emissions compliance and waranty claims started. When head breating and intake are improved, the cam needs to be less in lift or duration to avoid camminess. The level that latent/lazey bottom end performance with idle chop sets in for 3.3 to 3.7 OHV engines with poor breathing (Holden L6's, Valiant 225's, Ford 188/200/221's ) is about 280 degrees. Bigger engines can cope with a 30/70 duration cam with ease, but a Cross flow 200 has a lot more chop at idle compared to a 250 x-flow, but the log 200 non has a 1.5:1 rod ratio; Our Aussie 200 cross flow has a 2:1 rod ratio, and is suceptable to poor lowend performance (reversion) compared to the log 200. A practical note again... big engines aren't influenced as much as small engines by large cams, but a smaller engine will really chop if you compare it toa bigger one.

Back in 1988, my mate Blair was selecting a 295 degree cam, and the guy as US Speed and Spares had a 302 Cleveland 2V headed car with 4-bbl carb and with that cam, and it had a worse idle than a Boss 302 mustang, a notably lopey engine. When he fitted it to his 2v headed 4-bbl 351C, it had heaps less chop and was quite tame. The issue is that the Aussie 302c was a 2:1 rod ratio engine and short stroke was very suseptable to poor idle. Same with the Aussie 200 x-flow verses 250 x-flow.

The division of the log from "one hole feeds six" to "hole one feeds 1,2,3 and hole 2 feeds 4,5, 6 will eliminate reversion when a cam is bigger. Its close to dual runner, but not quite. You just use a stock 38 Weber or 2-bbl Rochester style adaptor with two 1.375 or 1.675" holes, and drop it down 2.165" to the nine flutes in the log floor, and drill a 1/4 transfer hole. Not a biggie.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

170-3tree
Registered User
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: KC, Kansas area

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #29 by 170-3tree » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:13 pm

As a cheap test run, a small plate could be made onto a two bore throttle spacer and made to fit in the hole you have provided for the carb. It could be made with a slight notch cut in to tighten up the clearances a bit. It wouldn't be a true dual plane situation, but it would give you some of the benifits without COMPLETELY commiting your worked over head into the mix. IE could be removed.
Also, it might be better than full sealed, allowing the vacuum signal between planes to be communicated, just the same as an x-pipe in the dual exhaust.
Just spouting theories.

I get what your saying X. It hard to think more cam in smaller engine though, when most of the time, you are taught that smaller engine gets more lope with more cam. I guess that is a basis without considering flow capabilities at all.

Gerald
63 Fairlane Sedan, 200 bored .030 over. Aluminium head. Autolite 2100 1.08. DUI ignition. 274/274-112* Hyd. 9.5:1 compression. ARP bottom end. 2.77 3 on the tree(until she blows I guess) 8 inch 3.55 rear 5 lug all standard on fairlane.
2010 Mazda 3s 2.5l L4 6spd manual
1957 Chevy Belair 4dr post, 283/powerglide

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #30 by bubba22349 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:12 pm

:hmmm: Just thinking out loud, but it's too bad something like a 221 crank or stroker kit wasn't available here to drop into the 200 block that would give a nice little increase in torque :nod:
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

170-3tree
Registered User
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: KC, Kansas area

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #31 by 170-3tree » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:57 pm

I have heard of such plans being discussed as well ad some pretty awesome plans about blocks, don't know what came of the 221 idea, but I know the block plans got put aside because dev costs would be extreme.

Honestly, calling up scat and working out plans with them for such an arrangement wouldn't be too much more than the "kit" would be. Just a bit more for all the initial expenses and factoring that would have to take place. I would worry about cam position being the biggest issue here.
63 Fairlane Sedan, 200 bored .030 over. Aluminium head. Autolite 2100 1.08. DUI ignition. 274/274-112* Hyd. 9.5:1 compression. ARP bottom end. 2.77 3 on the tree(until she blows I guess) 8 inch 3.55 rear 5 lug all standard on fairlane.
2010 Mazda 3s 2.5l L4 6spd manual
1957 Chevy Belair 4dr post, 283/powerglide

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #32 by bubba22349 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:02 pm

:hmmm: That's true so far I have never even seen any pictures of a 221 apart and a 200 is plenty tight at the cam already :nod:
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4225
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #33 by chad » Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:02 am

most fo us just use these for comutes

also how would one go about to make the begining of the torque band reach as low as 1100rpm but not any lower, reason I ask, some of my early dyno tests showed 140tq off idle (900rpm) to the tires, that was with a manual trans. 900rpm is not usable except for off the line. it seems my current torque isn't usable at lower than 1600rpm, have to rev it higher.

NASCAR style didn't use this engine, but their theory can work and that's what I want to understand.

Its got twice the torque as your 200 from off idle to about 2500 rpm.

but get excellent lower speed torque

built entirely around the torque curve since it's in a 4x4 with horsepower not being a concern
*********************
The most TQ @ the lowest engine rev (in a moderate [read low cost]) on the 250 (or as asked in the thread - 200) cuz rather NOT spin the tires.
what makes more torque? (some guestimates)
short duration cam probably in the 254 range??
high lift up to .495, more if possible
long piston stroke
closer lobe centers
CR??

I'd say:
*wedge combustion chambers,
*shortie headers,
*1V carb (W/big throat/boar),
*the '77 + head (I'd assume),
were a few things U left offa ur list I believe (don't have certainty).
I believe the 250's highest tq (mine's a '69) is @ 1500 rpm. I like that due to camber on off rd situations and traction needs. With 411 rear I'd rather not get up over 2500 too much - gets slippery.
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

User avatar
redxm
Registered User
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 12:46 am
Location: Tamworth NSW Australia

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #34 by redxm » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:54 am

bubba22349 wrote::hmmm: That's true so far I have never even seen any pictures of a 221 apart and a 200 is plenty tight at the cam already :nod:


221 cam is higher up in the block. it uses the same timing chain as the oz 250
64 XM 4 door Deluxe
221 2V, 63666 Crow cam, ARP studs and bolts, EFI, Romac balancer, and lots of shiny bits.

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #35 by bubba22349 » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:52 pm

Okay that makes sense. :thumbup:
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #36 by xctasy » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:44 pm

You guys can get another 20 cubes with just a set of 50 thou over US Ipel pistons used in BMW's and Argentine TC racers, a set of custom 4.98" rods on the VW-Audi or Aussie GM Holden bearings, and an offset ground 3.35" stoke crank, same stroke as the little Falcon based HSC 2.3 engine. 10% extra capacity by stroking is always 10% extra torque, if the rod ratio is preserved. There is no extra weight...a 220stoker is ligher than a 200 Ford.

For you info, Fords colonial offposts and US were busy making a bunch of special six cylinder engines for 68. The two stunning medium block engines in 1968...the 188, the 221, and in the US, the first big block 250.

The Argentinian~Australian medium block, had a 8.425" deck engine, which was 622 thou taller; the engineers just added two links to the stock 144-170-187-200 engines timing chain to space the cam far away for potentially a 3.91" stroke. But the bigger engines started at just 188, and it became the 1968 Argentine and Aussie 188/221 block. First versions had 2.94 stroke with 5.37" rods (seven bearing 170 crank, for 188 cubes), then 3.46 (with 5.14" rods, for 221 cubes), and in 1971, it came out with a 9.38" block, 89 thou shallower, and 1 inch narrower than the US 250, but it still had space for 3.91" stroke with 5.88" rods.

Remember, it was October 1967 technically when the US 250 came out as a Ranchero pick-up option in the Fairlane/Torino based light utility vehicles.

The 188 rods and 221 cranks were used in stoker engine builds in Holden 186 engines...you could take a Holden from 186 to a stunning 235.2 cubic inches or 3853 cc's, a huge 27% increase, or 808 extra cc's for just swapping the crank and rods. The cam base circle diameter had tobe reduced, and the rods needed grinding back, the crank case needed a grind back, but 47 cubic inches is 47 cubic inches.

The US 200 can be easily taken out to 220 cubes within the confines of the 200 block. You offset grind the crank to 1.9" rod journals, and add BMW Ipel/Mahle or Ross/Denco equivalents. Deck is about 1.15", with 0.866" wrist pin, and a competition version of the Ford Pinto 2.0 4.96 to 4.977 style rod used. With a 56 thou overbore, you've almost gotten 221.

The operating envelope of the cam to crank clearance is stock, so no special cam or slipper skirts are required, but the stock small Ford piston profile must be used to clear the counterweights.

Rod ratio ends up at 1.486:1, whilethe stock 221 was 1.486:1 as well, so its the worlds easiest 221 conversion.

The rods are based on standard aftermarket Ford Kent/Pinto line references. The Ipel pistons are standard high end BMW replacements, made in Florida, and the best money can buy.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

thesameguy
Registered User
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:34 pm

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #37 by thesameguy » Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:50 pm

Speaking of BMWs, any thoughts on how the venerable I6 compares to the BMW "eta" 2.7l? Seems like in design and intention the two engines have a lot in common...

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #38 by xctasy » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:34 pm

127 hp and 170 lb-ft from 164 cubes. Our Multi point EFI Falcon engines were doing that in 1988 (186 hp and 254 lb-ft from 239 cubes). The eta engine concept was a dead end 1983 concept for BMW. Though early dirty European spec 523i and 323i lost only a few foot pounds of torque to the eta engine, and BMW customers didn't like an engine that had a Ford Fairmont 200's rev range and torque readings.

The reduced rev range (4700 rpm I think on the first 325e and 525e) wasn't made up for by a twin cam head or dual resonance intake or by an elevated compression ratio with better mixture motion...it was a reduced revs, reduced internal friction via less cam bearings, increased capacity rendition of the 3-series six cylinder engine block, and even before its introduction, was based on an engine which was a hated orphan for BMW. Its home in the confined space of the 3 series forced BMW to adopt what were for their engineers hated siamesed cylinder bores.

The low rev engine base was due to it being the first production turbo diesel. Not the Rabbit, but the 1978 BMW 524td, and the M20/M21 engines were really a means of BMW farming out diesels to Ford for the Lincoln LSC, which used the engine during the dark years of the EPA's strict emission laws. As Germany and the EU standardised US 1975 emissions regulations in 1986, the engine lost more torque.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #39 by xctasy » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:38 am

xctasy wrote:The US 200 can be easily taken out to 220 cubes within the confines of the 200 block. You offset grind the crank to 1.9" rod journals, and add BMW Ipel/Mahle or Ross/Denco equivalents. Deck is about 1.15", with 0.866" wrist pin, and a competition version of the Ford Pinto 2.0 4.96 to 4.977 style rod used. With a 56 thou overbore, you've almost gotten 221.

The operating envelope of the cam to crank clearance is stock, so no special cam or slipper skirts are required, but the stock small Ford piston profile must be used to clear the counterweights.

Rod ratio ends up at 1.486:1, while the stock 221 was 1.486:1 as well, so its the worlds easiest 221 conversion.

The rods are based on standard aftermarket Ford Kent/Pinto line references. The Ipel pistons are standard high end BMW replacements, made in Florida, and the best money can buy.


Ooops. What a difference an A makes. Parts are Iapel...http://iapel-europe.com/prod/eprod_bmw.htm,

If any old block is sleeved, you can run standard M88/S38 B351983-1989M5 3.677" BMW pistons, but decks are 1.2598", but can be cut down.

BMW Euro Spec M5 1991.5-1996 S38 B38 335 hp engine had 95 mm pistons which are +60 thou for our 200 engines. Deck height is 1.2047", which can be shaved down. It runs a Holden/BMW/Datsun spec 22mm 0.866" wrist pin.

The crank can be ground back to 1.899 for the Holden bearing, or 1.890" for the VW-Audi bearing. Conrod to suit is the standard Kent 4.926" item, but with the Holden 1.899 or VW-Audi 1.890" rod journal and Holden/bmw/Datsun~Nissan 22 nn pin, not the stock 13/16" 0.8125" item. The common and hardy Holden 2250/2650 149/161/173/186/202 rod bearing (1963-1986), or the 1.4/1.5 Rabbit/Golf Diesel, G60 1781 cc, and early 2144 cc 5-cylinder Audi 5e/Fox/5000 engines were 48 mm journals. http://www.not2fast.com/vw/stuff/vw_engines.shtml
The B18c stroker, B20a5 Honda rod journal size is 48 mm too
There is a non custom same bore spacing Toyota T-series, Y series OHV or S-series OHC rod that does the job, but I can't remember which one it was.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
rocklord
Registered User
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:25 pm
Location: Hurricane, WV

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #40 by rocklord » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:54 pm

xctasy wrote:
The crank can be ground back to 1.899 for the Holden bearing, or 1.890" for the VW-Audi bearing. Conrod to suit is the standard Kent 4.926" item, but with the Holden 1.899 or VW-Audi 1.890" rod journal and Holden/bmw/Datsun~Nissan 22 nn pin, not the stock 13/16" 0.8125" item. The common and hardy Holden 2250/2650 149/161/173/186/202 rod bearing (1963-1986), or the 1.4/1.5 Rabbit/Golf Diesel, G60 1781 cc, and early 2144 cc 5-cylinder Audi 5e/Fox/5000 engines were 48 mm journals. http://www.not2fast.com/vw/stuff/vw_engines.shtml
The B18c stroker, B20a5 Honda rod journal size is 48 mm too
There is a non custom same bore spacing Toyota T-series, Y series OHV or S-series OHC rod that does the job, but I can't remember which one it was.


I need a bit of clarification. Some of the numbers I'm finding don't match up to yours.

The 1.6L Kent rod has a big end diameter range of 2.0825"-2.083".
The VW rod bearings have a bore range of 1.9291"-1.9298"; a difference of around 0.1534". That's a big difference to make up.

The VW rod bearings have a journal range of 1.8087-1.8094 (45.95mm) , not the 1.890" (48mm) you mention.

The stock size Holden bearings specs are closer (2.025") to fitting the Kent 1.6L rods; about 0.058" smaller based on ACL's website. Could the big end of the Kent rods be resized to fit the Holden bearings? Am I looking at the wrong VW bearings?

I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the numbers and make them work.
Dan

Currently Own
1965 Mustang, 200CID, 3Spd
1964 Corvair Coupe, 164CID, 140HP, 4Spd
1961 Corvair Lakewood wagon, 145CID, 80HP, 2Spd Powerglide Auto.
2017 BMW X3, 3.0L Dual Turbo, 300HP, 8-Spd Auto

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6590
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #41 by xctasy » Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:58 pm

rocklord wrote:
I need a bit of clarification. Some of the numbers I'm finding don't match up to yours.... Am I looking at the wrong VW bearings?

I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the numbers and make them work.


Yes, the Bearing size is 45.949-45.974mm for 1976-1980 1.471 Diesel, but 47.758-47.778mm for 1980-1984 1.588 Diesel. 136 mm rod. Can't remember the wrist pin for the diesel.

But the performance Aussie engine builders use Golf/Passat diesel rods in Holden's,or either type, 1.5 or 1.6 litre.

Best option is custom Ford Kent/BDA/Pinto rod with smaller crank journal, but I think there is an off the shelf 2T/3T Toyota rod around if you hunt for it. 1.889" rod bearing (47.981mm journal size. .... TOYOTA 2T 3T, or also called the 12T,13T, the OHV 8V 70-82 and DOHC 70-85 engine) 123mm centre spacing, or 4.84" before resizing, with a bullet proof 22mm Holden/BMW/Datsun 0.866" wrist/gudgeon pin .

That results in a 1.444:1 rod ratio with 3.35" stroke with the Toyota 4.84" rod,but custom rods are around which are longer to suit the Formula Pacific and Toyota Formula 3 engines. Ford BDA and Toyota twin cam engines are close enough in size so that aftermarket suppliers for H or I beam forged rods will be able to use there cores to make specials on Audi, Toyota, Honda or Holden bearing sizes. Except for Carillo, which don't make forged steel or H section rods below 5.375" centres.

Finding 4.724-5.00 inch (120 to 127 mm) rods is like finding 3.630- 3.740 (92.2 to sub 95mm) pistons... a freeking nightmare!

There are standard rods which use a stock nominal 48 mm Holden, Toyota or VW-Audi bearings (about 1.875 to 1.900"). With repect to VW-Audi Group (VAG). The internet creates the problem. I think 1.7 liter 1716 cc VW-Audi engines were used in 1979-1981 Dodge Ominis, and along with Porsche and LT Truck VWs, and five generations of Golf-Jetta/(nee Rabbit) versions, often with the same capacity of the superseaded ones. 5 cylinder versions of the Rabbit engines then used 4 cylinder parts as two liter , 2144 or 2226 engines, but the diesel was based on the gasoline engine.

The Holden rod journal is for the Holden 4.08" bore centre L6/L4 engine, made from 1963 to 1988,and variously called Red/Blue/Black/XT5/XT6/Starfire/Phase 2 and 3 engines, 1-X Toyota engines, 1892 cc as 4-cyl, 2850 cc,3300 cc, then 138/149/161/173/179/186/202. Gotta get the right one from the ACL catalogue.

Ideal rod is
1.9" nominal rod journal,(48.26 mm)
0.866" small end, (22mm)
4.926" centre to centre (125.1 mm),
and can be custom made, or resized from a Ford based blank.JUN, Carillo, Iapel and others make custom ones, but Toyota has some standard production rods which do the trick. Unlike US Car parts, the Germans and Japanese don't publish there rod dimensions in imperial.

All Toyota engines had OHV and DOHC versions on the same bore spacing engine. I think the 1970-1983 2T/3T 1587cc and 1770cc rods as per single cam OHV T18 Corolla/Corona/Celica and its twin cam 8 valve variant are 123 mm, have a 48 mm rod journal and a 21 mm small end. One of the related 18/22r bore spacing 1,2,3 and 4Y ohv series and S series Toyota 1629/1812/[early sohc was 1974]1998/ and 2.2 single and double OHC engines have a similar rod dimensions to the 2T/3T (1s~,2s~, 3s~,4s~)

The Volkswagen-Audi group rods have had huge changes over the years. The right rod journal is the Australian Diesel version of the Golf/Rabbit/Fox/5000/5E engine, a 1471 or 1588 cc engine which has a rod which is able to be put into a Holden 4.08" bore centre L6. At about 5.35" long, but its got the right rod journal to offset grind. Its got an almost 1" wrist pin, but it can be bushed.

Yes, all 957 to 1593 cc Kent four cylinders run Falcon six size bearings, and are 226 thou too big. Size is about 4.926", for the later Heron headed X-flow 1600. It has a smaller wrist pin

All small four cylinder OHC Pinto rods, 1294/1593/1.8/1993, are about 2.05",or 150 thou too big. 4.96"
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
rocklord
Registered User
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:25 pm
Location: Hurricane, WV

Re: MORE TORQUE

Post #42 by rocklord » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:37 pm

Thanks xctasy.

Looked on ACL's website and got the specs on the Holden 202 conrod bearings.

I'm sure if one found a set of unmolested Kent 2737E rods, the big end could be resized to fit the 202 bearings.

I did find a cheaper piston the may work for the stroker. The piston for the Jeep/Chrysler OHC 4.7L is a 94mm (1mm oversize) flat top with a compression height of 1.24" and a pin diameter of 0.946". Around $24US apiece.

Shave the top of the piston to get zero deck height, resize the Kent rod to accept the larger pin, and it would give you a 215 displacement.
Dan

Currently Own
1965 Mustang, 200CID, 3Spd
1964 Corvair Coupe, 164CID, 140HP, 4Spd
1961 Corvair Lakewood wagon, 145CID, 80HP, 2Spd Powerglide Auto.
2017 BMW X3, 3.0L Dual Turbo, 300HP, 8-Spd Auto

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests