A
Anonymous
Guest
Hey guys, I need information. I thougt I read in a post somewhere that the 188 crank is steel. Is that correct? If so, will it fit the US 200 block? What differnces if any? Thanks
aussie7mains
Famous Member
OK there were NEVER any steel cranks for ford sixes.
188 is basicly a 170 seven main crank, dont think the USA guys ever had that, it would fit in 200 but why bother?
If you must have small cubes get a crossflow 200.
A7M
188 is basicly a 170 seven main crank, dont think the USA guys ever had that, it would fit in 200 but why bother?
If you must have small cubes get a crossflow 200.
A7M
A
Anonymous
Guest
OK,thanks A7M. The reason I asked is I want to get a better rod ratio in the 200 block and have an engine that can live at 7000+rpm. Here 170s after '66 had 7 mains so I may go that route.
I know that the 221, 3.6 crank is steel, but I'm not sure if the 188 (3.1) is too. I had the 221 crank long run welded to increase the main journal diameter to fit my 250, a process the machinist said he wouldn't do on a cast crank.
For the record, my measurements of my last 221 block gave it an 8.465 deck, 5.14 rods, and 3.46 stroke for a real crappy 1.485 rod:stroke ratio.
The 188 was 2.94 stroke, and a 5.47 inch rod, and used the same block, so it should have been a 1.86:1 ratio. As the Italians have long known, reduce the stroke, increase the revs. People love revs.
My Falcon project is that 6.275 inch rod, 3.46 stroke steel crank into a 305 Chev pistoned and valved 250. Phew! Rod ratio is 1.81:1. I hope this will be more inspiring full flight as a 228 cube machine!
Oh, Matt (I'm being a smart ass again...or just an ass):- (Using the standard bore of 93.472 mm, and the various strokes)
221 was really 3618 cc's, stroke is 87.884mm, rod 130.556mm
the 188 was 3075 cc, stroke 74.676mm, rod 138.938 mm
the US 200 was 3269 cc, stroke 79.4mm, rod 121.361mm
the Oz and US 250 was 4089 cc, stroke 99.314mm, rod 149.479 mm
my 228 is really 3729 cc. (its got std size 94.894 mm forged pistons), 159.385 mm rods.
Hands up who likes metrics. Not me. French people had other better ideas like revolutions, art and foxy ladies!
For the record, my measurements of my last 221 block gave it an 8.465 deck, 5.14 rods, and 3.46 stroke for a real crappy 1.485 rod:stroke ratio.
The 188 was 2.94 stroke, and a 5.47 inch rod, and used the same block, so it should have been a 1.86:1 ratio. As the Italians have long known, reduce the stroke, increase the revs. People love revs.
My Falcon project is that 6.275 inch rod, 3.46 stroke steel crank into a 305 Chev pistoned and valved 250. Phew! Rod ratio is 1.81:1. I hope this will be more inspiring full flight as a 228 cube machine!
Oh, Matt (I'm being a smart ass again...or just an ass):- (Using the standard bore of 93.472 mm, and the various strokes)
221 was really 3618 cc's, stroke is 87.884mm, rod 130.556mm
the 188 was 3075 cc, stroke 74.676mm, rod 138.938 mm
the US 200 was 3269 cc, stroke 79.4mm, rod 121.361mm
the Oz and US 250 was 4089 cc, stroke 99.314mm, rod 149.479 mm
my 228 is really 3729 cc. (its got std size 94.894 mm forged pistons), 159.385 mm rods.
Hands up who likes metrics. Not me. French people had other better ideas like revolutions, art and foxy ladies!
A
Anonymous
Guest
c'mon!! The Metric system, Blancmange and Yoplait are the three best things they gave us!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well here's my ideas for a 200 build-up progect in my '65 mustang fastback. A 200 block(7.808 deck Ht.) and a 170 crank (or 188 if it's steel) with 5.205 pinto rods and a 2.94 stroke gives me a rod/stroke ratio of 1.77. I may offset grind the crank some because of the smaller rod journals of the 2.3 rods. With a 2.88 stroke that will give me a 1.80 rod ratio and 188 cubic inches (.040" over bore). The biggest expense will be the custom forged pistons needed for the short comp. Ht. and the expected high rpms. Obviously I will need a head that can flow well. Right now I'm looking at some cross-flow hy-brid options. I do know it will not be a log head, but a cross-flow of some sort. Cam will be around 250 degrees duration @ 0.050" and 486 lift. Ought to be a high winder 
Don't care much for metric system. Can't feel comfortable using it but there's no going back!
Don't care much for metric system. Can't feel comfortable using it but there's no going back!
I used to land survey. They had a really weird set of Old English units. Everything had to be converted to metrics. I loved the old units because you couldn't stuff up calculations. You did it right, or you got sweet fanny adams. These days, with every thinhg being in multiples of 10, a good deal of younger guys just plug away at their calculator until they get the right answer, no structure, no rules, just throw everyhing at it until you get something that makes sense. Get caught out without a total station, GPS, or scientific calculator, and there poked!
I laugh when I find that swaping between metrics and imperial has caused VERY EXPENSIVE USA spacecraft to crash. I like the saying from my surveyor buddy
"Americans have deemed metrics to be unconstitutional"
I agree! Metrics suck. But I live in NZ, and everybody uses metrics!
I laugh when I find that swaping between metrics and imperial has caused VERY EXPENSIVE USA spacecraft to crash. I like the saying from my surveyor buddy
"Americans have deemed metrics to be unconstitutional"
I agree! Metrics suck. But I live in NZ, and everybody uses metrics!
aussie7mains
Famous Member
Never seen or heard of a steel crank for any ford six, you can weld nodular cast iron or grey for that matter, people put welded up cut down 221 cranks into reds all the time. The cranks are all nodular or SG cast iron, which is VERY durable.
I doubt the NASA space programme was ever imperial units, dont forget where Werner Von Braun came from with a heap of his coleges?.
Imperial units are almost dead now, hardly anyone uses them in a design application.
A7M
I doubt the NASA space programme was ever imperial units, dont forget where Werner Von Braun came from with a heap of his coleges?.
Imperial units are almost dead now, hardly anyone uses them in a design application.
A7M
A
Anonymous
Guest
pass me a calculator anyday please!!
im not a smart man, but i aint a dumb one either
im not a smart man, but i aint a dumb one either
Ok Aussie7Mains, I'm off to have a look.
What pay out do you want if I'm wrong, buddy?
I may have to burn all my Street Machine mags, which clearly state its steel, and recant if you're right.
Addo said you can drill out steel and cast cranks in a non critical area and find out from the nature of the swarf. Mine has wide drop forge casting lines and 5ma or some such on centre "counterweight", along with some the ARD cast numbers and 221 embosed on the casting. And a smooth ground finish on the edges...certainly not like its cast.
All my info is based on articles over the last 10 years which back up that the 221 crank is forged steel. Thing is all Red engine Holden 3.854 litre 235/ 3.619litre 221 stroker rebuilds specifically needed the 2.94 litre 179 M or 179 HP steel cranks snouts and flanges to make them work. The snout of the 179 steel crank was welded to a Steel Falcon 3.6 crank...they were heated and then quenched in brine, then welded down hand in a jig. Cast iron Holden ones weren't to be used.
They were also offset ground to a punny 1.9 inch crank pin, and had rottern rod:stroke ratios of 1.425:1 with the Starfire 4 5.25 inch rods and 3.685 inch stroke, with Forged US 200 flat top pistons milled 55 thou to fit.
Even for all that, they never had a habit of breaking. This included GMC super charged variants which would have snapped any cast crank to bits. Even blown, steel crank 350 Chevs shear crank snouts.
After my mate broke his 2.0 inch journal cast nodular iron 265 crank ( non RT, didn't have the fillet radius that caused the RT spec cranks to shear) I'd never use one. People say that if a cast crank hasn't broken in service over 35 years in sevice, it's not going to after a rebuild, I say good luck to ya!
Like I said, suss out a pay out if I'm wrong. I'm under the house clearing out my things latter, and I'll have a look then at drilling it and reporting back to you.
What pay out do you want if I'm wrong, buddy?
I may have to burn all my Street Machine mags, which clearly state its steel, and recant if you're right.
Addo said you can drill out steel and cast cranks in a non critical area and find out from the nature of the swarf. Mine has wide drop forge casting lines and 5ma or some such on centre "counterweight", along with some the ARD cast numbers and 221 embosed on the casting. And a smooth ground finish on the edges...certainly not like its cast.
All my info is based on articles over the last 10 years which back up that the 221 crank is forged steel. Thing is all Red engine Holden 3.854 litre 235/ 3.619litre 221 stroker rebuilds specifically needed the 2.94 litre 179 M or 179 HP steel cranks snouts and flanges to make them work. The snout of the 179 steel crank was welded to a Steel Falcon 3.6 crank...they were heated and then quenched in brine, then welded down hand in a jig. Cast iron Holden ones weren't to be used.
They were also offset ground to a punny 1.9 inch crank pin, and had rottern rod:stroke ratios of 1.425:1 with the Starfire 4 5.25 inch rods and 3.685 inch stroke, with Forged US 200 flat top pistons milled 55 thou to fit.
Even for all that, they never had a habit of breaking. This included GMC super charged variants which would have snapped any cast crank to bits. Even blown, steel crank 350 Chevs shear crank snouts.
After my mate broke his 2.0 inch journal cast nodular iron 265 crank ( non RT, didn't have the fillet radius that caused the RT spec cranks to shear) I'd never use one. People say that if a cast crank hasn't broken in service over 35 years in sevice, it's not going to after a rebuild, I say good luck to ya!
Like I said, suss out a pay out if I'm wrong. I'm under the house clearing out my things latter, and I'll have a look then at drilling it and reporting back to you.