Final completion pics of my 250 X flow turbocharged combo

mike1157

Well-known member
I was an active member quite a while back. I left because the old place seemed stodgy, but see that some changes have been made so I'll post a few things and see how it goes.

I'm a ford guy, but I hate the sameness that is typical w/ just about every build you see typically featured. I simply would not/could not condone yet another windsor V8 build up.

So,....in a real desperate attempt to stay "true blue," I decided to build up my first I6. I've spent way more money than what could be construed as rational, and have went so far off the deep end with this thing I'm hoping and praying that I havent created some future reliability nightmare that'll make me regret my decision.

Here is a bullet point list of what I've done:

* 250 block partially filled, with all 6 holes sleeved w/ .093 wall ductile iron sleeves, overbored +.020 final bore size 3.700.Deck widened w/ 1/4" bar stock to accommodate X flow head. Driver side cut open to allow access to "re-link" together BBF roller lifters, 3/8" cover plate fabricated to cover access holes.
* Rotating assy includes 2618 alloy Racetec forged pistons, Stock rods prepped for full floating pins. ARP bolts added. Stock crank, modified to accept SBF harmonic balancer.
* Camshaft is Aussie pattern solid roller 558/530 w/ 230/225 actual duration at .050 ground by Tighe in Australia.
* Competition cams Extreme series solid roller lifters to fit BBF application.
* SBF billet double roller timing chain set custom drilled w/ 2 1/4" dowel pins. 56 tooth double roller timing chain sourced through 3rd party supplier to fit some Toyota engine.
*Head is aluminum Aussie Xflow. Self ported with stainless 1.88 BBC exhaust valves cut down, now serving as intake valves. SBC 1.5 exhaust valves. BBC beehive valve springs (installed at 1.900, rated to 400lbs open pressure). Crower BBC 1.75 ratio "altered ratio" roller rockers.
* Intake is made of 14ga. mild steel exhaust bends, patterned after BMW M3 aftermarket unit. drilled to accept 42lb/hr. high imp injectors.
*Exhaust is made from .140 wall mild steel "steam pipe" els.
*Borg Warner SX300X 60mm twin scroll turbo charger.
* EDIS-6 ignition
*MSII/V3.0 kit built ECU
*External electric water pump.
* External belt driven oil pump.
* Custom made front drive system.

That about sums it up. It has been started, and it runs. I am presently waiting on a boost mod kit from DIY so I can modify the ECU to provide electronic boost control, but other than that,..this frankenstein combo runs.

0F0E16FF-0319-40AA-A6FB-097A4CE2453B_zps5sfqix5n.jpg

IMG_0388_zpse8w7fq59.jpg

temporary_zpseacb6a89.jpg

temporary_zps45644f3f.jpg

temporary_zps94018591.jpg

temporary_zps125dd95d.jpg

temporary_zps763339ea.jpg

temporary_zps8ef6fd4e.jpg

temporary_zps52b7afb7.jpg

temporary_zpsad37ec08.jpg

f17063ac-5cfb-415d-ac30-d0ca8ff59686_zps76e86e22.jpg

eb56b0f4-0c36-4af8-a07f-327169148529_zps240808d4.jpg


I'm doing this here to serve as a sounding board for questions and answers for any of the things I've done for others here considering the limited options we have with this engine when it comes to modifications so feel free to ask how/what I did to get here if you are interested. Enjoy.
 
how about a little detail on the oil system and block modifications you did on that? I have a 69 two fifty apart for some possible upgrades so for kicks it would neat to see the inside of the block and any oil passage works?
 
autoX65":2yiqmn4r said:
how about a little detail on the oil system and block modifications you did on that? I have a 69 two fifty apart for some possible upgrades so for kicks it would neat to see the inside of the block and any oil passage works?

No oil passage mods, other than to block off the shaft oiling passage for the stock rockers. The current engine oils through the pushrods.

temporary_zpsba91a6fc.jpg


The pick up was rerouted to the outside of the pan,..and the return oil routed through an oil filter adapter that ducted oil back into the standard oil passage way. It must work,..this engine makes 70 p.s.i. cold at idle,..and lessens to 35-40 P.s.i. at Idle when warm.
 
:wow: :beer: that's some really great engineering and fabrication work! Do you have any videos of it running? Was wondering what it sounds like. Good luck :nod:
 
bubba22349":dxq424i3 said:
:wow: :beer: that's some really great engineering and fabrication work! Do you have any videos of it running? Was wondering what it sounds like. Good luck :nod:
If you've heard a diesel truck,...you've heard this engine.
But since you asked...


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EghFLvbu9xg[/youtube]
 
SOOOOOOOO SEXY!!!! I am in love and cant deny it. I just got an Aussie 250-2V head and thought I had finally done it...now I want a crossflow setup and FI something fierce :rolflmao:

Thanks for sharing, would love to see more as the car evolves!!!

Matt
 
66Sprint6":3fiapah4 said:
SOOOOOOOO SEXY!!!! I am in love and cant deny it. I just got an Aussie 250-2V head and thought I had finally done it...now I want a crossflow setup and FI something fierce :rolflmao:

Thanks for sharing, would love to see more as the car evolves!!!

Matt

Be careful what you wish for. The required mods to the block aside, the head required EXTENSIVE modification to co exist in a high performance build. Every single thing has been modified ( rocker arm pedestals milled off, push rod guide plates fabricated, special stainless valves sourced, (11/32 stem, 5.30" long) special ratio 1.75 (w/ the trunions moved backwards .050) Crower SS rockers,...waay too much to ever consider redoing if I trash this head somehow.

In hindsight, I have absolutely no regrets, I'm positive that this thing will render a lot of other V8 builds inconsequential.
If it makes the torque and power that XCtasy thinks it will.....I'll be happier than a clam in pond water.
 
Gila-Lad to see you!

My 7.8 liter 475 cubic inch 2011 Isuzu FSR 700 bread delivery truck puts out 240 hp and 528 lb-ft with about 9 pounds of boost. 15 tons helps eliminate its ability to do 15 second 1/4 miles...

In your case, even with a sqwiff of boost, torque skyrockets in those engines any time you do head, cam, induction and header work. Glad its got solid mounts, an 8.8" axle and 4w70 auto...it'll freeken need it all!

Get a load of how Ford Australia responded when the aftermarket made turbo X-flow 4.1 kits like this...


aitturboxe1984.jpg



From 1983 to 1988, CDT, Hall Turbocharging, HKS, Advanced Induction Systems and Mike Vine added 4.1 turbo X-flow versions with carbs or EFI with anywhere from 217, 255 or up to 348 hp. At $3000 to $4000 a kit, verses the old $750 RPO tick at your friendly Ford dealer for a 188 hp 4.9 or 200 hp 5.8 Cleveland V8 option, there were few takers. The 4.9 put out 255 lb-ft, the 5.8, 306 lb-ft. The new 149hp optional EFI cost a huge 1030 bucks over the 131 hp X-flow 4.1 with 2-bbl Weber. Performance for I-6 Fords became a costly option for sure. The 1983 Falcon GL EFI had trouble breaking the 17 second quarter mile barrier. The old auto 4.9 could do it easily. The manula 5.8 could drop high15's, low 16's. The turbo 4.1's were able to do 16s in automatic LTD's, and high 14's in four speed Falcons.

http://mikevineturbochargers.com.au/pdf ... rticle.pdf

IMGP9659.jpg


According to Fords warranty claims and engineering people, the 250 X-flow after market turbo conversions made peak power and torque that could potentially destroy any production gearbox and axle combination when towing a braked 3500 pound trailer combination.. The Australian aftermarket had trouble locking X-flow 250 engine torque below 400 lb-ft. In 1986, Phil Scott from Wheels magazine announced that Ford Australia refused to cover waranties on T-5 and even AIT's Borg Warner 35 with Torington roller upgrade. What was now exported to the US as the GM F-car Chev Camaro/Firebird/TA G52 spec 9 bolt axles, and used behind 248, 275, and 295 hp Improved Performance 304 and 308 Holdens wasn't covered either. The T5 gearboxes, okay for Mustangs and the Borg Warner type 35 and 42, okay for 1969-1972 304 and 345 AMC V8'Ss, weren't strong enough behind turbo 4.1 engines.

The reason GM USA used the common proprietry Aussie Ford/Chrysler made BTR M78 axles in Camaros from 1986-93, Firebirds from 1985-93, and Trans-Ams from 1983-93 was as an updgrade for the 5.7 liter V8's which were too tough for the aftermarket Dana 34 and 36 and 10 bolt corporate axles. Valiants down here even had the axles behind 318, 340 and 360 LA V8's.

Since Ford had used it for 16 years behind the 4.7 or 4.9 Fairlane and for three years behind the 5.8 LTD, it was good enough for GM USA. In so doing, GM exhibited more faith in a standard Ford spec axle behind a 350 TPi than Ford Austrlia did with an aftermarket 4.1 Turbo.

Perhaps that's a clue to what a turbo X-flow 4.1 torque can do to the driveline.

Ford was okay with having the 306 lb-ft of a 4-bbl 200 hp 351c flowing through a 7.625 or 7.875" 9 bolt axle, but not a turbo 250!

Logistically, it took Ford Australia another 20 years to get tougher Tremec, BTR/Ion gearboxes and Dana M86 axles in place for a potential 432 lb-ft of 10 psi overboost from the 2008 model year , but the first factory 4.0 turbo had only 6 psi of boost, and the torque was modulated downwards for 3 years to 330 lb-ft, and for another 3 years untill 2008 when it was modulated to 393 lb-ft., with an extra 39 lb-ft possiable in favorable circumstances.
 
xctasy":ue8opdz7 said:
Gila-Lad to see you!

My 7.8 liter 475 cubic inch 2011 Isuzu FSR 700 bread delivery truck puts out 240 hp and 528 lb-ft with about 9 pounds of boost. 15 tons helps eliminate its ability to do 15 second 1/4 miles...

In your case, even with a sqwiff of boost, torque skyrockets in those engines any time you do head, cam, induction and header work. Glad its got solid mounts, an 8.8" axle and 4w70 auto...it'll freeken need it all!

Get a load of how Ford Australia responded when the aftermarket made turbo X-flow 4.1 kits like this...


aitturboxe1984.jpg



From 1983 to 1988, CDT, Hall Turbocharging, HKS, Advanced Induction Systems and Mike Vine added 4.1 turbo X-flow versions with carbs or EFI with anywhere from 217, 255 or up to 348 hp. At $3000 to $4000 a kit, verses the old $750 RPO tick at your friendly Ford dealer for a 188 hp 4.9 or 200 hp 5.8 Cleveland V8 option, there were few takers. The 4.9 put out 255 lb-ft, the 5.8, 306 lb-ft. The new 149hp optional EFI cost a huge 1030 bucks over the 131 hp X-flow 4.1 with 2-bbl Weber. Performance for I-6 Fords became a costly option for sure. The 1983 Falcon GL EFI had trouble breaking the 17 second quarter mile barrier. The old auto 4.9 could do it easily. The manula 5.8 could drop high15's, low 16's. The turbo 4.1's were able to do 16s in automatic LTD's, and high 14's in four speed Falcons.

http://mikevineturbochargers.com.au/pdf ... rticle.pdf

IMGP9659.jpg


According to Fords warranty claims and engineering people, the 250 X-flow after market turbo conversions made peak power and torque that could potentially destroy any production gearbox and axle combination when towing a braked 3500 pound trailer combination.. The Australian aftermarket had trouble locking X-flow 250 engine torque below 400 lb-ft. In 1986, Phil Scott from Wheels magazine announced that Ford Australia refused to cover waranties on T-5 and even AIT's Borg Warner 35 with Torington roller upgrade. What was now exported to the US as the GM F-car Chev Camaro/Firebird/TA G52 spec 9 bolt axles, and used behind 248, 275, and 295 hp Improved Performance 304 and 308 Holdens wasn't covered either. The T5 gearboxes, okay for Mustangs and the Borg Warner type 35 and 42, okay for 1969-1972 304 and 345 AMC V8'Ss, weren't strong enough behind turbo 4.1 engines.

The reason GM USA used the common proprietry Aussie Ford/Chrysler made BTR M78 axles in Camaros from 1986-93, Firebirds from 1985-93, and Trans-Ams from 1983-93 was as an updgrade for the 5.7 liter V8's which were too tough for the aftermarket Dana 34 and 36 and 10 bolt corporate axles. Valiants down here even had the axles behind 318, 340 and 360 LA V8's.

Since Ford had used it for 16 years behind the 4.7 or 4.9 Fairlane and for three years behind the 5.8 LTD, it was good enough for GM USA. In so doing, GM exhibited more faith in a standard Ford spec axle behind a 350 TPi than Ford Austrlia did with an aftermarket 4.1 Turbo.

Perhaps that's a clue to what a turbo X-flow 4.1 torque can do to the driveline.

Ford was okay with having the 306 lb-ft of a 4-bbl 200 hp 351c flowing through a 7.625 or 7.875" 9 bolt axle, but not a turbo 250!

Logistically, it took Ford Australia another 20 years to get tougher Tremec, BTR/Ion gearboxes and Dana M86 axles in place for a potential 432 lb-ft of 10 psi overboost from the 2008 model year , but the first factory 4.0 turbo had only 6 psi of boost, and the torque was modulated downwards for 3 years to 330 lb-ft, and for another 3 years untill 2008 when it was modulated to 393 lb-ft., with an extra 39 lb-ft possiable in favorable circumstances.


So then,..What you're saying after all that is that I can expect.....350-400 hp,...and somewhere in the 450-500 ft/lb of torque range......out of a banger? At 10 P.S.I?
 
mike1157":2n0o5ckq said:
So then,..What you're saying after all that is that I can expect.....350-400 hp,...and somewhere in the 450-500 ft/lb of torque range......out of a banger? At 10 P.S.I?


Yep, probably more. It loves being pulse tuned by Independent runner induction, and has a serious torque production not like the V8's sub 2800 rpm loss. Then the alloy heads chamber and port angles and your exhaust header do all the rest. 14.2 seconds for a Stage II Mike Vine kit was twin Stromberg Zenith CD 175 carbs, good for all of 173 hp in a 4.2 Jag, but able to make 350 hp and 400 lb-ft in MVT's 1984 customer XE Falcon turbo.


You'll make much, much more...it'll be better than taking a hot Mustang out for a Fang...


And the details....

Those tiny , well shaped ports are about 1.3 stock, with, according to the ex Repco Enginner who did the finish tunning on the 250 2v, the US 350 and 380 hp versions of the 351 4v, and some radical work on the X-flow I6's


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."
 
drag-200stang":r2mz1zgj said:
Looks great Mike, thanks for staying "true blue", but whats with the chevy orange ?
It's actually Chrysler Hemi orange......I knew that the car was gonna be orange,..I just didn't have the paint to spray the block at the time of the build, so it got rattle canned. Hemi orange is more gold based, and way more translucent. (It took about a bazillion coats to cover).

As for staying "true blue"....Hopefully the choice pays off. I'm not trying to set the world on fire here, I just want to be able to have an alternative engine that doesn't scream "Been there, done that " like a 5.0 does.
 
mike1157":1es8japv said:
drag-200stang":1es8japv said:
Looks great Mike, thanks for staying "true blue", but whats with the chevy orange ?
It's actually Chrysler Hemi orange......I knew that the car was gonna be orange,..I just didn't have the paint to spray the block at the time of the build, so it got rattle canned. Hemi orange is more gold based, and way more translucent. (It took about a bazillion coats to cover).

As for staying "true blue"....Hopefully the choice pays off. I'm not trying to set the world on fire here, I just want to be able to have an alternative engine that doesn't scream "Been there, done that " like a 5.0 does.


Everythings Mopar Orange when it gets really hot...Mike's just looking ahead

charger5.jpg


sizeimage.php
 
:unsure: Looking at your oil pan pictures i noticed that there arent any baffels installed yet, or is your engine using a dry sump system? :nod:
 
Just a little snippet of me and the banger wasting some 315 rubber:
[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGzdS4spUjA[/bbvideo]

[bbvideo=560,315]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMgrsexz_2M[/bbvideo]

Enjoy. I know I had fun.
 
Back
Top