200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Moderator: Mod Squad

User avatar
dkp_cobra
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:55 pm

200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #1 by dkp_cobra » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:52 am

Hi,

I have a little English sport coupe from the fifties (https://www.acownersclub.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1515.0) which lost its engine in the seventies. The original engine would be a Bristol, but the car was also fitted with the Ford Zephyr 6 engine. While the Bristol is really too expensive the Zephyr is not an engine you can find at every corner. So I start thinking about using a Ford I6.

I can buy a complete 223 or parts of an 200 so both need much time and money to run. The 223 has the intake and exhaust on the passenger side like the Zephyr and is a engine of the same period, the 200 from the late sixties has the advantage of more crankshaft bearings but the disadvantage of the intake log design. So I tend to use the 223.

The car will be used for vintage rallys with constancy checks (don't know the right english word), i.e. at no time a maximal speed is required but the engine must be reliable especially at low speed (= walking speed). It would be nice to get 140-150hp.

It would be nice to read opinions and advices from the experts.

Kind regards,

Peter

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #2 by xctasy » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:29 am

dkp, your work is sensational.



BE646 is in as good hands as AK 1029 was! You full rebuild of both the tube frame, ash wood and aluminum pannelling is exceptional.

Image


Man this could go anywhere!


I'd seriously think it'd be a good idea to use your skills on finding an engine that suits the time period. Where the transverse leaf intesects with the front of a 11,1 cm bore spacing engine will define if you have to cut away more o the turret to fit it. The 223 is very heavy, and not thin wall construction. In 1955, Chev was using Green Sands to make thinner castings, while Ford was still using other casting techniques way into the ealy 60's. Any Ford 223 will be a lot heavier than the old four bearing Zephryr Six.

The US 223 is an "deep skirt" I block engine, loosly based on the deep skirt Y block V8 tooling, which has a default 4.38" bore spacing, and its very tall and long. It was used in many forms until replacement by the 1965 Big Six in 240 and later 300 cubic inch form. It morphed out into the 262. There is parts backup for it, but you have to look at a whole new 4speed transmission adaption process. The early versions were a link between Side Valve and Y block production parts. Normally, the old 221/239 transmissions were copied by Ford of Frances factory, and AC could have gone the Allard Ardun headed or Simca-Vedette V8 path, which used the Flathead Ford gearbox dimesions to fit the all syncromesh Pont-à-Mousson 4 speed gearbox used for the 331 Firepower Hemi Chrysler-powered Facel Veglia, nd one some (racing/special order) RB 413 Mopar Cross Ram 300F's.

The BMW/Bristol engine is the exceptional choice, but its a weapons grade prewar engine that was retooled in both postwar BMW's and England via Bristol/ Frazer Nash war reparations.


The best period correct engine of choice that suit the frame are the 9,55 cm bore center Zephryr engines....the Mark II Zephyr 2.55 liter six is around in huge numbers down here, and its just the same modular distance between bores as the later Super Short Strock 105E Kent pushrod engine, which begat the DFV 3liter,FVA and BDA engines. Everything was 3.76", both the little Anglia 4 cylinder, the Consul 4, the Zephyr 6. Same as the early Holden Grey motor, the Vauxhall/Envoy 4 and 6 cylinder engines. Everything Ford made till about the V4/V6 er was 3.76" in line bore spacing. It is the lightest engine, and has the right backup.


Thinwall castings were not officially used untill 1962 at Ford, and that was at the Winsor plant that made the 221 Ford V8. Even though companies like Officine Meccaniche (OM) from Northern Italy pinonneered Green Sands Thinwall casting with the overbored 2.3 liter version of the 1923-1931 Type 665 "Superba" the result.


The AC Six was really very different to the OS engine, and had the same bore;stroke ratio, but a huge and strangley developed over head cam in line six with many unique features.

I'm a total six cylinderEnglish sports car fan. It feels good, but where is the Boss Mustang grunt, and American reliabity. Nowhere man!

I keep hearing that Sled Storm (PS1) Gameplay "a real cripler" and "Lamer" everytime I see Peter Marshall and Rod Tempero restoring them. The last basket case I enjoyed were the two Austin Healy 3000's from California.

http://www.autorestorations.co.nz/contact-us/

http://rodtempero.com/


The parts, expertise, and energy is there to do it all.


For me, the 1962 thin wall cast iron Small block was the death knock to any little six that failed to do 15 second quarter miles.

My favorite six is the Ford Aussie 4.0.

But I like overhead valve engines just as much.


https://fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=46316&start=100
xctasy wrote:Best looking? To me, its a tie between the Raymond Mays headed, Ken Rudd prepared Ford Zephyr Six found in the penultimate Stage 5 tuned 1961-1963 AC Ace RS 2.6
Image
Image
Image

Image

(The majority of them were no where near as wild as the Stage 5 versions. This was the alloy headed triple DCOE 40 carbed 170 hp engine that did 6.2 second 0-60mphs, 15.3 sec quarter 135 mph top speed in the AC Ace convertable and Acea hardtop. Stage 3 versions did 16.3 second quarter miles, but the stage 5 was heaps quicker. Even stock Bristol engined Aces did 16.4 second quarter miles. The Ford Zephyr MK II six was kicked out in favour of Carroll Shelby's 260 and 289 engines, but the little Stage 5 2.6 six with Moss 4-speed plus Overdrive six almost eclisped the 271 hp gross of the K-code 4-bbl 289 AC Cobra (0-60 in 5.6 secs, 14.4 quarter, 138 mph top speed) as it was just 1917 pounds instead of the 2315 plus with the Dana 44 /4HU diff, Toploader and iron headed small block. Power started at Stage 1, 90 hp 2553 cc six, then it got twin carbs, then triples, then alloy head...120, 125, Triple SU Alloy headed 155, and finally 170 hp, almost double the power with just a head, cam and carb change. Sounds familiar doesn't it?). The net figures of the K code was likely to be 205 hp, as it was no where near 271 hp flywheel net, while the 170hp gross engine was likely to be 145 hp net. That a 2.6 could almsot match the 4.7 was an example of how much power a little six can yield. And there would have been more to come. In the Reliant Sabre, the Zephryr 2.6 continued on, but the small block v8 killed any further European I6 and V6 development until the Cosworth Capri RS 2600, RS 3100 and 3400. The 2.5/3.0 Essex and Cologne 2.6/2.8 engines were latent engines compared to the Ruddspeed six)
......



Carrol Shelby revolutionised the performance industry. The 38 Special for me on pre Shelby Cobras is this one.

https://www.classicdriver.com/en/car/ac/ace/1991/157598?feat=oldlink

Image


Image

Image

Image

I guess 145000 pounds is a bit much, but hey
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
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #3 by bubba22349 » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:19 pm

HI Peter, I have experience with the 215, 223, & 262's six family, 144, 170, 200, & 250 six family, as well as the 240 & 300 big Ford sixes. Don't know much about the Bristal or Zepher six'es I doubt that very many ever made it over here to the US. While stationed in Germany (1971-72) I do rember seeing some the German Fords car models late 1950's to late 1960's Taurus?, think they had inline 4's and V6's though. I imagine the older straight six cyclinder engines are getting quite hard find over there now days.

From looking at pictures of your restoration (excellent workmanship your doing) the English Coupe appears to be a light weight car in about the 1800 to 2200 pound range. As Xctesy stated the 223 is a heavier engine I don't remember their true weight but I think it's right at about 485 to 500 pounds complete, the 200 is one of the lightest six'es if not the lightest of all the sixes at 385 pounds compleate. There isn't much of a problem getting either of these engines up into a 140 to 150 Hp tune, just a matter of choosing the right parts and careful assembly technic's, and in any case at that power level it should make a very nice fun Road car for cruseing on the Autobahn. Once you decide on the engine you want to use it will be easy to come up with a build plan to attain your HP goals.

The 215 version of these Ford sixes were first used in the 1952 Big Ford cars and Pickups starting in September 1951, the 223 first came out in the 1954 models. The 262 was first used in the big Ford trucks in 1961. I have tuned these stock engines to idle down smoothly as low as 385 to 400 rpm, stock they also have great low RPM pulling torque. Stock rebuild parts availability is still quite good as they are popular pick up truck engines used until 1964 and in many industrial applications until 1965. Speed equipment is also still being made for these engines by a few companies too. There isn't much you can do to reduce their weight though. It's easy to bolt up your top loader trans to them. As a side note I got to go with my Dad when he went to our local Ford dealer to order a new 1956 F100 pickup (223 six with a 3 speed trans). Later I learned to drive in that pickup and also raced it at the local drag strip, these old 223 engines hold a special place with me.

The 144 small Ford six was first used in the 1960 Ford Falcon starting in September 1959, 1961 the 170 was available, and the first 200's were used mid year (about February) in the 1963 and 1/2 model Ford Fairlanes (this was during the roll out of Fords "Total Performance Program"). The 200 is a great little engine with lots of potential, externally there isn't much differance visually between a 144, 170, or 200. Yes the log intake on the orginal heads are not ideal but there is a number of ways this can be overcome to still get excellent performance, such as using three 1V Carb's or one two or three 2V carb's, Webers ect. They are stil very popular with lots more in stock parts support and a huge amount of speed equipment available even including an great Aluminun head and many intake choices. A stock 200 has very good pulling torque from a low RPM too. It's easy to bolt up to your top loader Trans. It's also possable to shed a few more pounds of weight with some of the available parts such as an alum. water pump, small Alternator's, the above alum head, ect. My plan is to build a 170 six for a light weight drag race / street car using all these available techniques that is if my budget will allow (it's going to be a very small). Even with a cast iron head the total wight could be reduced to about 360 to 350 pounds.

Is there any rules that you need to follow with your Ralley car build, or does it only need to appear as a vintage year engine? Of the two engines the 200 to me seams like the best choice for your light weight of car.

Lastly there is the 240 & 300's six'es they were first used in the 1965 model big Ford cars (240's only) and both in the Ford trucks visually they look the same externally. These Ford sixes weight in at around what a SBF (small block Ford) V8 289 / 302 weighs about 485 pounds compleate they have great torque too. Stock rebuild Parts are also easy to find and there are severial companies that make speed equipment. A hybrid Alum head is being built currently also, cost should be reasonable. They used the same bell housing pattern as the SBF so easy to bolt up to your top loader trans too. Stock these engines are in your above stated HP requirements so that it's easy to get way over 150 Hp. Below is a link of a site members Triumph TR4 sports car build up that's using a 300 six. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73522

Good luck on your build :thumbup: :nod: Edited with additional info.
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
dkp_cobra
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #4 by dkp_cobra » Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:08 pm

Hi guys,

thank you for your replies. What I learned so far concerning my question 200 vs 223 vs Zephyr 6 is that for my lightweight car the 223 is a 'no-go' since it is too heavy . Wow, 500 pounds that's indeed a lot. A 289 would be a light weight even if hasn't alloy heads.

The Zephyr would be the correct engine and when I see what Chessman Motorsports (https://www.chesmanengineering.co.uk/zephyr) offers for the Zephyr it would be a pleasure to get such an engine. But this would be quite expensive. The alluminium head costs 3500 british pounds, the alluminium head for the 200 from Vintage Inline only 2150$. This is less than the half price.

As far as I know the weight of the 200 is 175kg (sorry, we still use the metric system :D ), the weight of the zephyr is 165 kg. Not such a big difference.

I don't have to follow any rules concerning the rally. These are small events nothing like Mille Miglia where every nut and bolt must be periodic correct. But there is a rule to get a legal road registration. And for that the engine must be younger then 1969 so any casting number C8 and lower would be fine. I like the idea of the 'lightweight 200'. Is there a chance to get a top-loader to this engine?

One important question: is the overall length of the 200 bigger than the overall length of the 289? If so, can anyone tell my how much?

Kind regards,

Peter

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #5 by bubba22349 » Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:24 pm

:hmmm: I do remember some of those Auto rules and inspections there. It took me a bit of time to fix everything needed to be able to get my VW bug certified and get a set of Lic. plates. Was also working on a 62 Falcon sedan swapping a 1971 1600 Pinto engine and trans into it. With the German Auto regulations / Rules for your car allowing you to use up to a 1968 year engine then that gives you quite a bite of lea way.

Yes for sure you can bolt a top loader three or four speed and Borg Warner 3 speeds, T10 4 speeds direct to the stock bell housings (by certain years) as well as a T5 five speed with a simple plate adapter to a 200'. To make it easy its best to use a duel bolt pattern block (see below link showing the duel patern 200 block) generally all 1966 up blocks have this feature. This allows the use of the larger of the bell housings, the larger stock flat flywheel and 9 inch clutch, custom billet flywheels are also available to use the larger V8 type clutches too.

Great Picture by "Powerband" of the back of a 200 duel pattern block
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Pow ... anBn/?ref=

:bang: The extent of my metric self training for me is that I can tell most of the comman European and Asian metric bolts and their thread pitch by sight, and have always used CC's (cubit centimeters) to measure a cylinder heads combustion chambers volume. Beyond that I try not to use metrics very much, but when I have too I use one of the online calculators! My brain is highly trained :shock: in understanding the Amercian system of inches, thousands, hundreds, pounds, tons, gallons, etc. and am probably to old to learn much more of the metric system now. :rolflmao:

A 289 / 302 V8 measures 29 inches long, a 200 measures 29.5 inches long you can see all the other 200 engine measurements in a great post by "Xctesy" see the below link. There are two lenght water pumps all 144's, 170's, plus the early 200 engines used the short water pump to about 4/11/1975 the later model 200's 4/12/1975 and up used a longer water pump up until end of production in 1982 models. Good luck :thumbup: :nod: Edited for correction.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=78396&p=604755&hilit=Length+of+a+200#p604755
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: 6562
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #6 by xctasy » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:24 am

If its on questions in a public format, then that is a much better way....that way you get more feedback, and sometimes one person isn't always right.

Mike1157, asked the question of which Ford Six cylinder engine has the most potential already...that discussion might answer some of your basic questions. He decided the best Ford six cylinder engine for Best potential power and Least weight was the Ford 200 or 250 in line six. Although its heavier, the Volvo 164 or 164E 3.0 liter 23.1 cm tall block with the average 4.165" bore spacing block is IMHO, the most indestructuable engine you'll find in Europe that J-U-S-T fits the AC chassis. Also used as the Volvo Penta AQ170 B30 boat anchor, um, no, boat engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTIj-uB4cBg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEQlunOqKx4

Image


Despite its heft, and having the intake and exhaust on the wrong side, its able to j-u-s-t fit the chassis.



Its a very expensive and heavy engine, but its got quality in every part, and Volvo never deviated from its bore spacing for the years it made its four and six cylindr engines on the the same production line. I just love it for its

"best junkyard options for a fox body"

Post number #9 by xctasy » Sat Aug 17, 2013 covers the bore spacings and Ford engine families, the best of which are the German Cologne 4.0157" bore spacing OHC Duratech V6's, Aston Martin V12's,all primarily designed for Ford by Yamaha, and based on the Japanese Yamaha outboard engine. Ford then developed the SHO V8 version, which Volvo uses in the V8 transverse engined S and XC series Volvo's.

/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=70602

xctasy wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D93DfrCOBPQ

Nice. Tell Brian its perfect. Glad to see the sextant of carbs you used on your Locost fanned the performance flame. Reminds me of Bens Volvo 120 with Zetec....some little cars with the heavier B series four cylinders work much better with a lightweight modern thinwall twin cam Ford four...its the 221/260/289 Windsor really, plentiful and perfect for a Pommy or European classic.Its sort of like the SHO V6

Image
Image
http://www.britishv8.org/other/normanrest.htm
http://www.taurusclub.com/forum/87-engi ... tions.html

Can anyone say ahamaY?

Image


Of all the designs that spawned the Duratec 4's and V6's, the specifically Yamaha designed SHO Taurus designed V6 is the most compact and smartest quad cam engine ever. Its the heir to the Aston Martin V12, the SHO V8, the Volvo S80 V8, and the legion of Yamaha v6 and v8 jet boat engines.

Fox parts raiders can take a leaf from mgman75's book, grab an old lowly Fox like a 1993 2.3 Mustang and plumb in the SHO, an Areostar 4-speed auto, and turn it into this

Image

into this

Image


Ditch the EFI, and run six or eight motorbike carbs, depending on if its an SHO6 or 8. The frame is basically Aussie Ford Cortina, and they've been using rat rod chassis horn mounted frames since 1977 for there TE and TF's, and those kind of engine mounts are dead easy to fit up.

http://s177.photobucket.com/user/mgman7 ... 4.jpg.html

Its a more expensive Fox body engine, but a great, cheap pickup good if it it hasn't been broken by they low rent hollow camshaft in the SHO8 engine from the Taurus.

V6 and V8 SHO engines into a Fox work well, and use the small HSC Tempo/Taurus/CVH/ EAO bellhousing, which means the Explorer and Ranger 4 and 5 speed automatic bolts right up to the Front drive bellhousing with virtually no mods.

Image

Image

http://ultimatefoxbody.com/forum/viewto ... =233&t=622

http://s177.photobucket.com/user/mgman7 ... e.mp4.html

How Ford got such an amazing engine is a real good story. To keep costs down by contracting out the insane development costs of twin and quad cam engines, Ford played off the 3.78" bore spacing 1970 British twin cam BDA Cosworth and 4.33" bore spacing 1974 quad cam GAA Cosworth engines with the 4.0157" bore spacing Japanese Yamaha development team in the mid 80's. The factory Ford Cosworth GAA predated the SHO 6 14 year in the 400 hp RS 3400 Ford Capri race engines. It was also used in British Formula F5000 races where it ate up small block 302 fuel injected Chevs for breakfast.
Image

At that stage, Cosworth and Ford was working hard to make better power for Formula 1 DFV 183 cube race engines. The costs were huge, so consulting businesses were keen to win four and five valve per cylinder head and engine supply contracts. The Japanese and Yamaha even made a sensational 5 valve per cylinder head to fit to the Coworth DF series engine, and it was supplied to Cosworth for testing. It did well over 500 hp with ease but was irratic through the rev range. The point was, with the the 400 hp plus championship winning Cosworth V6's based on the Essex 60 degree V6 with 4.32 bore spacing engine used in the English Capri already a reality, all Ford Dearborn had to do was farm out the 1988 SHO engine to the Japanese Yamaha. The result? The full supply of 3.0 and 3.2 SHO V6's and then 3.5 liter SHO8 V8's. The best quad cam vee-six cylinder engine ever made. That the later SHO 8 engine that replaced it became a major service disaster was due to the hollow cam shaft process, but the rest of the concept was very sound. What is really funny is that the Vulcan was a clean sheet metric design, not related to the 4.76" center spacing Cologne V6's 1936 two stroke Graf und Stiff tooling sizes, but was loosely 1966 British Essex 60 degree V4 and V6 based, with the same deck and bore spacings, but metricated with a Ford Cologne Pinto bellhousing. The Vulcan heads are basically huge classic D port 3.0 Essex Capri. When quad cams were placed on it, the engine was way too big to easily fit in a front drive Taurus or Tempo, so Ford got a totally new much smaller bore spacing engine from Yamaha. That's how smart Ford Dearborn were, there were already Cologne 4.76", Essex 60 and Vulcan 4.33, and Essex 90 4.193" bore spacing V-sixes, and then, sudddenly, the 4.0157" bore spacing Yamaha SHO 60 degree which then forms the base for every other Duratec V6.

In my opinion, the pick of the litter for Foxes is the Yamaha based 60 degree. You can see its potential today as the bored and stroked out Yamaha F350 outboard 5.3 liter 60 degree V8. When used in the SHOTaurus, Ford SVO made a kit in the 90's for this in RWD platforms, but it cost someting like 12 grand large back in the day. Since the second-generation S80 engine is the Yamaha V8 engine these days, all the Volvo 60 degree V8 Yamaha outboard engines are effectively based on the 4.0157" bore spacing 1988 Taurus SHO engine. Ford owns the rights to there's, but since Ford farmed out its developement to Yamaha, the Japanese plant still makes 6 and 8 cylinder engines with the same hard dimensions for power boat outboards as the SHO engine. It's the most sensational over head cam engine family ever made, as it combines tight bore spacings with a conventional 60 degree vee and used its plant to build. And it has been made in V6, V8, V12 form. Ford may have had issues with making the Fords Premium Automotive division make money, but Volvo, Aston Martin, Mazda and Jaguar used this engine configuation with stellar success. It was built in other plants asside from Cleveland. In Variable Valve Timing form, its a docile engine with a top end to die for.

This 4.0157 (102mm) bore centre Ford Duratec/ Mazda AJ V6 was doubled up to form the Aston Martin V12, and in other forms, the Front Drive Volvo 60 degree V8 and SHO 6 and 8 cylinder engines are the Yamaha 6 and v8 outboard engines, and are the worlds most compact engine for capacity. The bore spacing is the key to its origin in this case. The old Cologne 1969-1974 EOA I4 Pinto 1.3/1.6/1.8/2.0 engine also has the same 102 mm bore centers, and its likely the transfer machines making the V6 Duratec and V12 Cologne Aston Martin V12 used the Yamaha bore spacing after the SHO engine deal was coined. Ford most likely decided on the Yamaha based SHO because:-

a) it sorted out the packaging issues of the Quad cam versions of the Essex 60 degree in an Erica ( Escort/Tempo/Topaz/Tracer) front drive car, The 86-98 Vulcan engine in the Taurus/Sable was Metricated ex Ford of Europe 1966 model year Essex 60 degree V4 and V6 in design. It died in the United Kingdom in late 1980, but was continued in the South African Cortina, P100 and Sierra XR6 till 1997 in Imeprial tooling , and had the same huge 4.33" bore spacing, not the same as the SHO Yamaha.

b) With the SHO, Ford farmed out development to Yamaha. It's not the same as the joint effort between Mazda K and Suzuki H series 60 degree V6's used in Suzuki Vitaras, and Probe platform front drive drive Mazdas. And not the same as the illfated J series Mazda V6. The 1936 tooling, 1961 model year Corsair/Taunus/ Mutang II V4 based Cologne 4.76" spacing 60 degree V4 and V6 engine is not related.

Effectively, the Aston Martin V12 engines were two SHO V6's joined together. When they came out, the Duratech 25 and 30 [2,967 cc (181 cu in)] was found in Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable, Jaguar S-Type, Lincoln LS, Mazda MPV, Mazda 6, Mondeo ST220 and many other Ford vehicles. It is essentially an 89mm bore version of the 1994 Duratec 25 and is built in Ford Motor Company's Cleveland Engine #2 plant in Cleveland, Ohio. The Duratec 25 was a 2544 cc (155 cu in) 60° V6, developed for the Ford Contour and used in the Ford Mondeo, Mercury Cougar, Mercury Mystique, Jaguar X-Type. Based on the bore spacings, the key to the origins of this engine was the smaller 102 mm (4.0157")bore spacings, with the tell tale 8.189" deck of the SHO V8. For instance, Ford and Mazda have global engines with many differernt bore spacings, but some are actually reworks of other basic Ford engines, like the Kent i4's 3.78" distance that has reapered in Mazda MZRs 2.3 Four cylinder OHC engines. The Ford SHO engine detail in the Ford Racing catalogue is quite wrong

https://fordperformanceracingparts.com/ ... nsions.pdf

ImageImage
ImageImage

...the 3.4 V8 SHO engine has the Duratec 25 bore, and V6 and V8 SHO's share the same bore spacings.

The whole family of 60 degree Ford Yamaha Mazda Volvo 4.0157" spacing engines was different to the Mazda narrow bore spacing 985 cc PC, 1272 cc TC, 1416 cc UC, 1586 cc NA, 1796cc VB and 1970cc MC based 3.346" bore spacing xC design which the E and early B family was an evolution of , and then the bigger bore spacing medium spacing F series Mazda FWD Capella/626/Probe 1983 to date gasoline and diesel engines. The MZR Durtec 3.3 I4 has a 3.78" Ford Kent/BDA OHC spacing. The early Ford Duretec i4 engines are 3.614" bore spacing engines.



Other examples
"Which-V6-has-the-most-potential"
http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... -potential


"great-engines-that-put-six-cylinders-in-a-straight-line"

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/9 ... aight-line

"The-path-less-traveled-1978-Turbo-I6-Futura-(The-Gila-Monster)"
http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... la-Monster)

"building-six-cylinder-engine"
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/e ... er-engine/


"Turbo 200 in 1967 MGB"
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=75914

"Tuning-a-200cid-I-6"
http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... 200cid-I-6

Image
Last edited by xctasy on Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:27 pm, 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

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #7 by xctasy » Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:02 am

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
dkp_cobra
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #8 by dkp_cobra » Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:09 am

Hi guys,

thank you for your input. In the meantime I was able to buy a Ford Zephyr MK II engine (206E) here in Germany. The engine didn't turn because all pistons were stucked.

Image

Image

I could remove them but one piston made so much problems that the cylinder sleeve also came out.

Image

In order to rebuild the engine I need a lot of spare parts. Do you have any advice were I can buy pistons and bearings for that engine?

Kind regards,

Peter

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #9 by bubba22349 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:34 pm

:beer: That's a great score, congrats on finding a Ford Zephyr Mark II 2.6L Six engine! Looks like this first Company (the top link) carries all the stock Ford Zephyr Mark II engine rebuild parts. Second link shows lots of Company's dealing in Ford pats in many different Countries. Third link lists some performance parts such as ARP bolts and Valve covers, and a few other parts for the Mark II engines. Hopefully there are some links that are of help to you. I didn't get to work on or rebuild any of these Zephyr six'es so haven't personally bought parts from any of these listed companies. Good luck in the hunt. :thumbup: :nod: Edited to add some additional sources

Stock engine parts
http://yesterford.com/resources/Zephyr% ... 20List.pdf

Site listing many sources of Ford parts in many Countries
http://www.pixelmatic.com.au/cortina/parts.html

Some Performance engine parts are listed
https://www.carid.com/1960-ford-zephyr- ... omponents/
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
dkp_cobra
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #10 by dkp_cobra » Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:45 pm

Thank you for the links. In the meantime I disassembled the head. Two valves were heavily stucked.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6

Post #11 by xctasy » Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:01 am

:mrgreen: :thumbup: :cool: :hmmm:

:UK:

Its almost Oktoberfest. :Germany: :P The engine needs to be Quarantined and Cleaned, LOL.

Grab a big spa pool, and soak that engine in beer or Coca Cola.

Worked for me....


Image
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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests