Rotating Assembly Knowledge

Hello,

I have been reading as much as possible on the forum plus google related to the 200ci. What I'm looking for is information about the crankshaft. Really I have 2 questions. Though a little back round info, the 200 I'm looking at comes from a Fairmont, if fantasy holds true my ideal engine would rev to 6k - 7k and make 400ish HP.

1.) How good/strong is a stock cast crank?
2.) What 200s would have a forged crank? Could one be found in an industrial version?

Thank you, if I missed a post please let me know and I will dig some more.
 
Sorry 'bout all this,See post #5 below. I'm overseas, so sometimes the Trans Pacific cable or a few sattelights get bumped off during transmission :mrgreen:
 
Its important to note that everything has a natural frequency, that can be picked up by cyclic examination.

Like an earth quake on gravel or sand, it can trigger abscene responses that you'd never expect.

nzta_oara_road_upheaval_Downer_Light_Maintenance_Patrol_11_14_2016.jpg



If you use a 29 frames per second, you can make a helicopters blades seam to stand still.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLiumVfzGrA

Down here, our power is 60HZ, and fluro tubes in work shops where you use Mazraks to machine, it creates a serious issue with the machined stock looking like its not moving...


Noise, Viration and Harshness engineers at GM and Ford did all the work on six cylinder crankshafts. Vibration periods are essentiually based on dimensions and material frequency. Adding forged steel to a stock crank design raises its natural frequency, so does welding on counterweights, increasing the main or crank pin diameters. The 300 industrial crank and in some cases, even SVO blocks were designed to cope with extreame duty. Our user super4ord's pictures on the 300 industrial big six heavy duty components

DSCF0278.jpg


SVO300Block.jpg


The Fox and 1978 onwards Granada/Monarch crankshaft has a different part number to the earlier versions. 3MA, IIRC. Still cast iron, but Ford did some NVH work on it. Forged cranks are usually weighted differently to the cast iron cranks, and normally weigh an extra 13 pounds on a 3 to 3.25" stroke six with a 4.08 bore spacing. A fully counterweight, 12 counterweight crankshaft weighes another 13 pounds up on the stock 6 counterweight cranks.

No factory Ford forged crank exists for the Falcon six except for some of the early four bearing cranks in 144's and 170's. When Ford went to seven bearing, everything was exclusively 6 counterweight nodular iron.


Since the Australian GM H 138/149/161/173/179/186/202 engines use the same 4.08" bore spacing as the Falcon six you can get a 149 /179M/179HPcrank from Australia that is forged, but its only 3.0" stroke and has 1.90" crank pins and 2.2" mains. You cut off the nose, wled up the main bearings to 2.4" and spigot weld a Ford crank flange on it, and use the 350 crank balancer since the cranks noses are similar. It then fits a Ford 200 or Australian 250 engine.

General Motors Holden engines in Australia were trial made form US protoype engines, so there was a forged crank made in Canada for GM Austrlaia for seven years. This Forged crank, IIRC, was made 145 hp for the twin carb X2, 2-bbl "S", and the 160 hp triple Zenith Stromberg CD150 carb GTR's, from 1963 to 1970. The long stroke 190 hp 3.3 liter 1971 202 XU1 GTR came out with a 3.25" stroke crank, but this time cast iron. To make it survive, Holden took the main bearings up to 2.5", but It suffered constant issues with two torsional vibration periods, although it never failed much in service, even in 500 mile endurance races with 215 to 235 hp engines. Even with the cranks main bearings ground back down to 2.2" to be used as a cheep 8% stroker on the smaller engines, it would take any level of abuse without failing. It was just blqqdy rough.


GM took stock of the cast iron 202 crank vibration periods (typically noticed in back to back comparions with Ford and Chrysler and Leyaland in line sixes which were much smoother). Vibration was most noticable on the stock 260 degree cammed 3.3 liter 1-bbl carb version, 135 hp gross or 102 or 118 hp net, and that came in at about 4500 rpm, and its that period that shakes everything loose, flywheel bolts, dampener bolts. Extensively raced every avenue of Australian Motorsport, and it was later replaced with a 12 counterweight XT5/XT6 crank starting 1980, and that lasted to 1987 in the last Bedford CF trucks.


That fully counterweighed crank raised the vibration periods to a very mild one at 5300 rpm, and another bigger one at over 7500 rpm, a zone no 3.3 liter six cylinder engine really runs into


The EF Falcon 4.0 egine in a similar way went to a 12 counterweight crank, and Ford used this from 1993 to 1998, and then downgraded it to a 10 counterwight design for the later Intech and Barra engines.

The same issues exist with single and double row timing chains, aluminum gear drives, steel timing chains, phenolic fibre gears, Pierrili or Uniryol belt drives. They all have periods where they shake. It might be 10000 rpm, it might be 3800 rpm like the cam belt on my twin cam 188 hp Nissan Skylined engine Stagea. But everything shakes if you find the right period.
 
davis1d0":jlbpbalv said:
Hello,

I have been reading as much as possible on the forum plus google related to the 200ci. What I'm looking for is information about the crankshaft. Really I have 2 questions. Though a little back round info, the 200 I'm looking at comes from a Fairmont, if fantasy holds true my ideal engine would rev to 6k - 7k and make 400ish HP.

1.) How good/strong is a stock cast crank?
2.) What 200s would have a forged crank? Could one be found in an industrial version?

Thank you, if I missed a post please let me know and I will dig some more.
All the cranks are cast, but in '65-66 they got 7 mains instead of 4
Early (60's) rods are forged, later are cast, not sure when that changed...
People have gotten those power levels, but it would be an expensive build, especially without boost...
 
davis1d0":hin3u1z0 said:
Hello,

I have been reading as much as possible on the forum plus google related to the 200ci. What I'm looking for is information about the crankshaft. Really I have 2 questions. Though a little back round info, the 200 I'm looking at comes from a Fairmont, if fantasy holds true my ideal engine would rev to 6k - 7k and make 400ish HP.

1.) How good/strong is a stock cast crank?
2.) What 200s would have a forged crank? Could one be found in an industrial version?

Thank you, if I missed a post please let me know and I will dig some more.
All the cranks are cast, but in '65-66 they got 7 mains instead of 4
Early (60's) rods are forged, later are cast, not sure when that changed...
People have gotten those power levels, but it would be an expensive build, especially without boost...
 
Howdy Davis:

1.) How good/strong is a stock cast crank?
A- really quite good for an OEM piece.
2.) What 200s would have a forged crank? Could one be found in an industrial version?
A- I know of no factory forged stock type cranks for the 200.

Is your goal to peak out at "rev to 6k - 7k", or sustain for a longer time?

"and make 400ish HP." Will this be NA or boosted somehow?

Weaker links than the crank would be rods and rod bolts, cam chains and the block in several places. I'd sure like to know more about your project and plans.

Adios, David
 
Howdy Davis:

1.) How good/strong is a stock cast crank?
A- really quite good for an OEM piece.
2.) What 200s would have a forged crank? Could one be found in an industrial version?
A- I know of no factory forged stock type cranks for the 200.

Is your goal to peak out at "rev to 6k - 7k", or sustain for a longer time?

"and make 400ish HP." Will this be NA or boosted somehow?

Weaker links than the crank would be rods and rod bolts, cam chains and the block in several places. I'd sure like to know more about your project and plans.

Adios, David
 
Howdy Davis:

1.) How good/strong is a stock cast crank?
A- really quite good for an OEM piece.
2.) What 200s would have a forged crank? Could one be found in an industrial version?
A- I know of no factory forged stock type cranks for the 200.

Is your goal to peak out at "rev to 6k - 7k", or sustain for a longer time?

"and make 400ish HP." Will this be NA or boosted somehow?

Weaker links than the crank would be rods and rod bolts, cam chains and the block in several places. I'd sure like to know more about your project and plans.

Adios, David
 
I'm guessing you're expecting to be using forced induction to achieve this goal?
 
xctasy":xt02oj4n said:
Tried for hours to respond to a post.There is a 504 Gateway Timeout error


"The 504 Gateway Timeout error is an HTTP status code that means that one server did not receive a timely response from another server that it was accessing while attempting to load the web page or fill another request by the browser"


Multiple posts,,,,multiple Posts, oh dang, you get the idea...I'm cranky today...
 
I do not believe that there is a problem with a good 200 oem timing set, at least on a street or drag race app...No it wont last for ever.
Of course your results may very.
 
Has any one broke a us crank that did not have something else break it like the rods ?..I have not, but I do not keep it at high rev long just buzz thru them...I do not think It would make a steady high rev rate endurance engine.
 
No breakages known. 144, 170, 200, or 250.

Nor the four bearing Argentine 187 (a 170 block with 1963 Fairlane USA four bearing 200 crank), or seven bearing Argentine/Australian 188 and 221 engines,


HydroBob a Hydrfoil racer, had a four bearing 144 bored out to 156 cubes; it reved to 8400 rpm without breakeag. Had six Amal motor bike carbs.

The four bearing cast iron cranked 1961 170 can make 280 flywheel horspower net if you give it enough carburation and about 6500 rpm. Triple 45 DCOE Webers with 38 mm chokes will do it. Paul Knotts old car.


gb500 posted it.

gb500":56pxol1n said:
and this 1960/61 falcon (XK) racer in Australia :
cut off log , some hose and clamps to the orig circular inlet stubs left and triple webers .

no trouble with hitting the suspension tower ...
but also no underbonnet reinforcing sections left

this guy is in the Victorian early falcon club and races successfully .after buying the car off paul Knott

....a


and earlier photo with different inlet trumpets



The Argentinian Falcon had a 188/221 block, another 622 thou taller (IIRC, 8.425" deck), and it makes 390 hp net at 8500 rpm as a 183 cubic inch alloy head engine in Turismo Cattera 3000/ 188 TC4000 Sprint racing down in South America, with just one 41 MM choke 48IDA Weber. The crank is forged steel, I think, and it has a big lift roller cam shaft with huge duration, Mike1157 style.


With its lack of bearing to crankpin overlap, the 250 should be the worst crnk type, not the 200.

Bill Santuccione (pronounced San-chee-oh-nee) ,

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=919

/viewtopic.php?t=2297

This is a piece of information from an August 1990 Australian Street Machine article on high performance sixes. It's from Bill Santuccione, a Ford Australia development engineer who worked on the Aussie 250 and Cleveland V8 engines during the 60's and 70's. It is worth a read to determine ways of making a six cylinder Aussie Cross flow Falcon engine produce big power.

"The 250 six is a good engine to modify in a mild sense - if you make the torque work for you. On an around - town street car, a strong 250 can be a lot quicker in the first 50 to 100 yards away from the lights than even a V8.

Bill says the biggest problem with the 250 is its design. "Almost across the board, I believe the 250 suffers because of its stroke/rod length ratio. Rod length verses stroke is a crucial factor when it comes to determining the optimum 'revability' or torque output of engines. The Falcon six has a bloody terriable ratio compared to the ideal formula.

"Back in the old days at the engine laboratory in Geelong, we did a lot of development work on cams for the 250. You know, aiming for driveability, torque - getting the best of all worlds if you like. And I remember then playing with compression ratios and valve sizes and all the things you do in research and development. It didn't matter what comp ratio. valve sizes or cams we evaluated., all we were able to do was move the horsepower peak up or down in terms of horsepower out put but not in rpm.

"Normally when you start to 'cam' an engine up, the horsepower goes up and the power peak moves up accordingly. On the Falcon six, due to what I believe was that rod length ratio, it didn't matter what you did. It remained at around the 4800 rpm mark'. Bill reckons the Ford six can rev to around 7500 - which is pretty damned good for a stock Falcon six. It's just there's no point in doing it. Peak grunt happened 2700 rpm ago...

"What I'd be suggesting to anyone going for more horsepower is to be conscious of that characteristic and aim to fill the torque curve as much as possible, " Bill says. "Your horsepower will increase proportionally but not much further than that rpm point." Bill says that the 250 is a good street package. But for racing, he thinks you'd have to consider increasing the rod length. Okay. Fine. And you wonder why there aren't many killer 250's around! As it happens, Bill is curently planning a kit designed specifically to get around this problem...

Lets assume you want to get good power out of a 250. First port of call is, of course, the cam. "I'd think of someone like Crow Cams," Bill says. "They 've got a computer so you can feed that kind of stroke/rod length data into it and come up with the best result."

The same torque characteristics come into play when you're talking about carb choices. " The fact that you're only revving to the 5000 rpm mark means big carburation isn't that critical. But the tripple Webers are probably the best package to go with because they lend themselves to 'pulse - tuning' (Timing the pulse to coincide with the next intake filling charge). That complements the fat torque curve situation." Bill says he's also done a lot of promising development on four barrel Holleys by altering the tune length of the intake runners. Headwise, Bill reckons you just have to go for the better breathing crossflow head."In terms of making maximum torque and horsepower, it just breathes that much better - the port shapes and angles are very, very good. But with the Series II alloy head, I think, the combustion chamber shape was different to the earlier one. They changed to an almost kidney shaped chamber and I remeber they appeared to be a bit prone to pinging. That's a particularly critical thing if you start building a higher compression engine."

Bill says that apart from the torque curve and the possibly suspect later model alloy head - plus the fact that the water pump location tends to cause number one cylinder to run cooler than the rest - the 4.1 litre (sic)engine is a pretty srong engine. "I've never found any weaknesses in the bottom end, the bearings or any thing else." That means if you'd like to build one up, normal rules apply."We almost always up - rate the oil pump output - that's always good insurance. And the standard conrod bolts tend to be a bit on the plsticine side. Even if you're not reving the engine too high I'd still go to a set of high performance bolts."


And who the heck is Bill?

This guy, part of the team that made American import 351's into 500 mile champoins, and potential 142 to 170 mph Falcon road cars...


theshot.jpg

Again we chewed up the miles and spat them out. In remarkably short time we were striking the long straights of the Hume about 140 miles north of Melbourne, and with the speedo steady on 125 mph I squeezed down still farther on the accelerator as the ribbon of road speared straight ahead.

The shaker heaved in the bonnet, the car sort of shrugged and the nose rose up even further from the road. It might have been a tiger kicked awake; the noise alone said that. The speedo needle went determinedly around the dial, and soon it was showing 144 mph. A true 141 mph.

But whoa! The engine started missing; fluffing and farting. For G""d's sake - the rev-limiter! we'd run right up to it. In top gear. A full 6150 rpm (the tachometer actually said 6700rpm; it was optimistic).

And if I kept my foot hard down that hoary great V8 just kept thumping away against the cutout, straining for even more. So once Uwe had shot some pictures over my shoulder, to prove it really was happening, I lifted off a fraction to back it off from the limiter at a neat 140 mph.


They picked up around 40 net horsepower over what Mick Webb dynoed in 1972, that was 350 hp. The 1972 RPO83 Phase Four made it to 170 mph at 6800 rpm claimed by Bill Santuccione or the similar 170 mph top speed Howard Marsden and David Bowden have claimed at 7200 rpm...that car, could do 140 mph at 7200 rpm in 3rd gear with the 6200 rpm rev limiter un hitched.









No issues known...
 
Thank you to eveyone that responded, great information and what I was looking for.

There were some questions about my plans:

- How long will I keep the engine at 6k - 7krpm? That would be peak and hit only on shifts, with the slight chance I would maintain it maybe a few times a year past just a shit

- Am I planning on boost? Yes, I was planning on a turbo build
 
Boost has a wonderful side benefit of being able to produce higher HP levels at lower RPM compared to a N/A engine, so you may not need to rev the engine that high to make your power goals. The RPM is also a function of how well the cylinder flows and is ported. There will be no benefit to rev an engine to 6 or 7000 RPM if it falls short of delivering the needed flow for an engine that is built to spin that high. So pick and choose your components carefully to achieve the best all around function.
 
Back
Top