Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40, mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry, rzcrisis, DoctorC, jamyers, Motorboy, fastpat, Silverback280, chad, drag-200stang, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, Jimmys61falcon, rjonah, Sooshi, Robert92867, Invectivus


PLEASE TEST ON http://dev.fordsix.com

<<<***PLEASE READ*** New Site Update >>>

Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Moderator: Mod Squad

peeeot
Registered User
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:07 pm

Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #1 by peeeot » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:25 am

I have read an article from Hot Rod magazine (http://www.corvairforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=545) where the valiant, corvair, and falcon received Paxton superchargers with 10+ pounds of boost with great success. What is particularly intriguing to me is that, for most of their tests, these engines were totally stock, even down to ignition timing, with no alterations but the installation of the blower kit and a larger carburetor. They claim that the engines proved durable even after repeated thrashing far beyond the limits of what a stock engine could do.

Furthermore, I noticed that they initially used the Holley 1904 carburetor with a bonnet on the Falcon installation.

All of this had me wondering whether I could, with research and careful selection of equipment, boost a Ford 223 with a turbo and say 5-8 lbs of boost without doing anything to the block, head, or induction to produce a reliable engine with some extra grunt. The goal would be to increase torque primarily, and in the 1500-3500 rpm range.

For those of you in the know: could this really be as simple as the Hot Rod magazine makes it appear?

User avatar
powerband
FSP Moderator
Posts: 2024
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #2 by powerband » Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:49 am

Way back I saw an old Flat Bed gas six farm truck with a McCollough supercharger, the farmer said it made for carrying more load. He meant the engine torque was significantly increased... .

Power adders - forced induction can generate max power just before total destruction. BUT at reasonable boost and expectation levels an engine in reasonably good shape should easily handle moderate power adder (although likely decreasing overall life or MTBF)

I added a Buick based Draw-Thru turbo carb' setup to a STOCK (except ARP headbolts) small block 250 Maverick with good power at @ 5-10 lbs until too much boost blew piston ring-lands off at @ 15-20 lbs boost. Currently running the STOCK 250/Maverick with a Vortech supercharger BUT more careful boost control, ignition timing and AFR monitoring for significant power increase. the SC setup has been reliable for past two years.

Modern real-time AFR gauges and electronic timing and boost controllers and widely available components have simplified getting the durability factor in the forced induction equation.

BTW: Universal Holley 2300 2Bbl's are simplest carb candidates for modifications, consider managing blow-by at boost , brakes and suspension upgrades and the big smile when spooling up...

Hav efun
"Take time to stop and smell... The roadkill..."

User avatar
curts56
VIP Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 12:15 am
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #3 by curts56 » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:39 pm

You'll probably be ok if you keep the boost down around 8lbs or less. I busted a connecting rod on my turboed 223 when the boost got up to around 11lbs.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

peeeot
Registered User
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:07 pm

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #4 by peeeot » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:19 pm

Thank you for your responses!

I have read elsewhere on this forum and see that it’s possible to get way into the weeds with a turbo build. In my case, I would like to keep things simple.

I have a 223 on an engine stand right now that I am tearing down to go through. As I put it back together, it will either get some kind of forced induction, or remain NA with multiple carburetors, probably 3-4 sidedraft CVS. Since the engine will go in a full-size 3600# car with a 3-speed auto and 3.10 axle ratio, torque is king and I do not intend to rev past 4500 at the maximum. It is pretty clear that a turbo would be far more effective at increasing low- and mid-rpm torque than any NA setup, so I am leaning in that direction. I also like the idea of being able to use the stock iron manifold to feed the turbo.

Since the engine will be torn down, what are the critical items to look at for low-boost turbocharging?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3600
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #5 by pmuller9 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:12 am

Before you take the engine apart it would be good to do a leak-down test on each cylinder to see where the problem areas are.
For turbocharging or any other application you want to check the cylinder wear and piston clearance.
You will need to check the crankshaft journals for wear.

As you take the engine apart I'm going to ask you to take some measurements since there is not a lot of specs or history available for the 223.

After you take the cylinder head off please bring #1 piston to TDC and measure how far down the piston top is from the top of the block.
I would also like for you to take some readings on the camshaft duration and lift if you have a degree wheel and dial indicator.

Be sure to number each lifter as you remove them from the block so you know which hole each one came from.

What year is your engine?

peeeot
Registered User
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:07 pm

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #6 by peeeot » Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:03 pm

Pmuller9, I will be happy to get you all the information you requested very soon. I do have a dial indicator and a degree wheel and was planning to fully check the cam to figure out exactly what’s in there. I also found some stock cam specs I can share if that’s helpful.

The block is C3AE-AC so it’s probably a 1963 car block. The head is C1AE-D so I’m assuming 1961. Valves are 1.78” intake and 1.51” exhaust.

peeeot
Registered User
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:07 pm

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #7 by peeeot » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 pm

Here is the info I have gathered so far:

The engine has been bored 0.030 oversize.
Piston #1 is 0.0485" below the deck at TDC
Intake lifter reaches 0.050" from base circle 13 degrees ATDC opening and 26 degrees ABDC closing. Centerline is at 110 degrees. Max lift is 0.258".
Exhaust lifter reaches 0.050" from base circle 34 degrees BBDC opening and 23 degrees BTDC closing. Centerline is at 118 degrees. Max lift is 0.258".
Lobe separation angle is 114 degree.
Intake duration above 0.050" lift is 193 degrees.
Exhaust duration above 0.050" lift is 191 degrees (probably actually the same as intake).

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3600
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #8 by pmuller9 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:53 pm

Thanks for measuring those points.
The stock cam would make a good low rpm turbo cam.
Does the stock cam look to be in good shape?

The stock rocker ratio is around 1.5?
It would also be nice if there was some way to drill the block to get oil to the lifters so they could be changed to hydraulic lifters.

peeeot
Registered User
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:07 pm

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #9 by peeeot » Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:21 am

The cam looks good to my eye. I don't see any flaws in the lobes, scuffing, pitting, or anything like that. The lift value of .258" is less than specified in the information I have. I am wondering whether this might be the special 61-64 passenger car "silent lash" cam, c1ae-6250-a. The silent lash setup still used the same solid mushroom-type lifters but the rocker arms were unusual, with an eccentric and spring-loaded plunger. The parts manual referenced here http://www.fordpartswiki.com/getpage?pageid=152721 shows that the silent lash cam was different than what was used in all other 223 applications. The readings I got from this cam don't fit with the normal 223 cam specs, though they are similar; I cannot find any silent-lash cam specs without a 61-64 shop manual.

Anyway. Yes, I believe the stock rocker ratio is 1.5.

Ah, found it! https://www.manualslib.com/manual/925805/Ford-1963-Galaxie.html?page=56#manual This page shows the specified lobe lift for the silent lash cam is 0.260" with a wear limit of 0.255. So this must be the cam I have, and this also confirms wear is within limits. This engine doesn't use the silent lash valve train though. I bet it didn't run very well, or was down on power as a result.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3600
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #10 by pmuller9 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:51 pm

Doesn't the silent lash rocker arms just take up the valve lash with the spring loaded tip but there is still valve lash before the rocker actually begins to open the valve?
If so there shouldn't be a valve lift difference between the quite rocker and the regular lash rocker?
Am I looking at this correctly?

Will the mushroom lifters allow a higher lift cam with the same base circle without hitting the bottom of the lifter bore?

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9301
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #11 by bubba22349 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:50 pm

The 215, 223, 262, engines all used these mushroom solid style lifters and most engines used the same adjustable rocker arms The the Zero Lash Rocker option was only offered on the 223 during the last few years of its production. These special rocker arms use oil presure to make them zero lash and quiet down the valve train noise. One of the site members had some NOS rocker arms for sale on the site a little while back. I also had one of these unique grind cams (new), about six new lifters (lifters are the same as others) plus complete zero lash rocker arm set up until I moved in 2013. :thumbup: :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.

peeeot
Registered User
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:07 pm

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #12 by peeeot » Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:23 pm

Pmuller9, I'm not completely clear on how the silent lash mechanism works. It seems like the hollow eccentric serves as a sort of spring that limits the force applied at the base circle to a minimum while maintaining zero lash. There is a lash spec, but it is set with the eccentric pushing the plunger into its fully retracted position; it sets the eccentric up to contact the valve stem properly.

The non-silent lash engines use normal 1.5:1 rocker arms and the cam that is used with them has 0.273" lift, so yes, the mushroom lifters will tolerate at least that much more lift without bottoming out. I'm not sure what the rocker ratio is for the silent lash rockers so I'm not sure what actual valve lift would be.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3600
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #13 by pmuller9 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:52 pm

I need to ask you how much you want to invest in this project.

If the block needs another overbore to get the proper piston to wall clearance, is that something that you would be willing to do?
Would there be an interest in a higher lift cam?

peeeot
Registered User
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:07 pm

Re: Turbocharging the 223 for a “safe” increase

Post #14 by peeeot » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:13 am

Those are good questions. I had a conversation with my wife yesterday about the future of the car this engine was intended for, and we aren’t planning to make it the “keeper.” So I’m not sure what I’m going to do with this engine now. Perhaps it would be best to pause this discussion until I have that answer.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests