250 xflow Fox body

Hi, has anyone put a 250 Xflow engine into a 79-93 Fox bodied car yet? I have a 2.3 Mustang sitting around and thought it might be a fairly straight swap. Cortina sump (oil pan) with a 4 speed or T5 box. It looks hard to get the inline 6 K member hence the Cortina sump with the original k member. Any ideas on any factory engine mounts that would work for this swap?
cheers Eddie

Sorry guys, double post

I have heard the I6 K member is very similar to the 4.6 K. if you are having to import it I would just get a Tube K and rework it. There were a couple I6 cars at my local u-pull. the only difference on the K member is the motor mount pads. if you can fab I would jsut buy some local motor mounts for a falcon and have the stock 2.3K modded for them.

I have a 200 fox rear sump pan and it is a close fit to a XFlow. I was planning on just doing a hack job on it to make it fit.

for a bell I would just go with a toploader bell and run an plate for a T5 (just make sure it is a cable bell or do a hydraulic conversion)

If the mustang is EFI the 2.3 harness will take minimal rework to run the stock 3.3/4.1 ecu.

I have one 250 X-flow prepared for my X-Flow Engine Components Road Roughness vehicle.The engine is for sale, along with 23 other engines over the next calander year. Each gets built, owned, operated and transfered to the owner(BOOT). The engines are gently run in over 2500 miles while doing road audits and road roughness work for my contracts with NZTA, Raoding contractors, Local Authorites etc.

The Aussie 250 to Fox swap is dead easy, one of the easiest you'll ever deal with. It is does not exclude the use of log, 2v and Classic Inlines heads, but it does allow the use of modern large diameter roller camshafts with little risk of rod fouling when you start retarding or advancing when tuning a special cam grind.

I'm using an Aussie X-flow 250 block with Fox body sump and pickup. There's a special adaptor clip which mates the Aussie 250 to the US 200 double hump sump. Engine mounts are stock Fox I6 3.3 , and I'm using the stock lame Fairmont/Mustang Fox I6 crossmember at the moment. I'm using an early XR alloy bell housing with 1981 Toyota w50 Steel case 5-speed and the stock 6.8" 2.73:1 gears until I get a Roy Macdonald 9" diff sorted next year.

My service engineer is Roy Macdonald in 540 Kaikorai Valley Rd from Roy Macdonald Autos. He does the race prep for one of Dick Johnstons 1984 Greens Tuff Mustang GT 5.0'S, the number #18 car, and another one, the legandary Pine Pack Mustang.
See




Number 18 was sold to NZ racer Robbie Kerr, and then restored by NSW driver Ross Donnelley. Its now backin NZ, so I've got the best guys around to help.

Basically, my 250 Stang is designed via its gearing and engine tune to copy and eclipse the 350hp wide ratio top loader Phase IV 4v HO 351 Falcon with 3.00 gears, but with a nice 17% overdrive

Phase 4
2.93 13.5 kmh @1000 rpm 83 kmh @ 6150 rpm, or 52 mph
1.93 20.5 kmh @1000 rpm 126 kmh @ 6150 rpm, or 78 mph
1.36 29.0 kmh @1000 rpm 178 kmh @ 6150 rpm, or 111 mph
1.00 39.5 kmh @1000 rpm 243 kmh @ 6150 rpm, or 151 mph

6V HO
3.287:1 12.3kmh @1000 rpm 71 kmh @ 5800 rpm, or 44 mph
2.043:1 19.7 kmh @1000 rpm 114 kmh @ 5800 rpm, or 71 mph
1.394:1 28.9 Kmh @1000 rpm 168 kmh @ 5800 rpm, or 104 mph
1.00:1 40.3kmh @1000 rpm 234 kmh @ 5800 rpm, or 145 mph
0.853:1 47.3 kmh @1000 rpm 248 kmh @ 5250 rpm, or 154 mph

My 82 Mustang sits at 2773 pounds or 1258 kilos with the 1978 iron head on the 1984 alloy head x-flow block. It's designed to run either alloy or iron heads, crossflow or non cross flow , CI or Log head. Or 200 or 250 cubes. The head is gasflowed against the cam, carb or EFI specs. And as its been saying in my signature, its designed around whatever the owner wants, but the goal is using stock late model fly by wire EEC5 and a proper 5speed auto as used in the 2005 on V6 Mustangs or later V6 Explorers. It is my preference to use the log, 2V or Classic Inlines head

I've been aiming for 275 hp at 5250 rpm via a Competition Cam K-code 289 roller cam replica 284HR grind, and triple 4412 500 cfm Holley 2300's with a #6425 conversion +62.5 thou over venturis and throttle plates. Kit runs the same basic roller cam gear as Jasons CVCO6 11 second Cortina 250 x-flow, (SEE http://www.fordaustraliaforums.com/foru ... y&p=369716) but with far milder cam specs of the Brock Group 3 308 Group A 304 Wade 169/ 289 K-code /5.0 E303 type so I can run a 4.0 Explorer SOHC EEC5 EFI sometime next year.


Anyone wanting the Fox kit can contact me
Dean A Stevenson
at
XEC Ltd
X-Flow Engine Components Limited
PO BOX 7072
DUNEDIN 9011
NEW ZEALAND
Cell 64 277225623
Home 64 4535668
email XECLtd@yahoo.co.nz

The only big difference between the I6 and the I4/V8 crossmember that I could see were the engine mounts. With a little fabrication you could use the V8 piece, but you would still need to come up with a rear sump pan and pickup.

The rest should be pretty simple.

I am very happy to see all those pics of Fox Mustangs racing, especially the 85-86 noses.

Happy to hear of more inline six Foxes. Did see a pic recently of a DOHC Barra motor in a aero nose Fox body Mustang.

I am getting closer as well.

My engine is finally done after about 7 years, 2 layoffs, and 3 job changes, starting 86 WC T5 rebuild, then will start rebuilding T3 turbo. I recently did the SN95 11" 5 lug front brake swap and now looking for the 99-04 PBR aluminum dual piston calipers for upgrade. I have SN95 A-arms but have not installed them yet.

My car has a 96 GT 8.8" rear with 3.73 traction lock. 5 lug 16x7 95 Cobra R clones, P225/50-16 front and P245/50-16 rear. Hoping to get 17x9's over winter and run P245/45-17 front and rear.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/A ... 0_0253.jpg

My goal was 300hp and 300ft lbs torque but I no longer feel that will be possible with a 200 and log head so I am saving now for the Aluminum head.

Nice I like those four eye Foxes

Log head Cylinder head flow rates can be easily elevated with the right intake adaptotor and carburation.

In 1990, I came accross three articles on power losses due to poor flow efficency when inspecting two David Vizrad bookes.In situations where peak cfm was raised via better manifold and head cfm, there were drops in specific power due to poor flow efficency on Aussie and British made log head intake manifolds for SOHC Pintos and A-series Mini/AustinSprite engines. It was then that Sam Blumstien from Chevy Off Road and Marine Engines siad 'There are no wrong cam choices, only worng engine combinations". Larry Perkins, who drove and did engine development on 308 Holden engines and 302 Mustang engines in the 80's said that an engine that makes 460 hp at 6700 rpm beats an engine that makes 462 hp at 6900 rpm. The least revs that get the most power was his tip, and by inspecting every dyno curve I can lay my hands on, the most healthy cam to engine combination is the one that holds that maxim. So peak power is all very fine, but most important is a wide torque curve which fills gets close to filling out the best peak power. Agood read of all work and intervies with the likes of David Vizard, Larry Perkins, Mike Stacy, Bill Santocesseoni, Dick Johnston, David Bennett, Bentley, Aston Martin, Jag, MOWOG engineers and Italian engineers like Dallara showed the way well over 20 to 40 years ago, and we still haven't caught on to it yet. :roll: The energy crisis, emissions concerns and the concept that single four barrels were better economically and engieering wise than a brace of SU's or Webers was an unleaded cata converter disease which has infuenced our thinking like some kind of plethora.

From those leading lights, it set me on a 21 year quest for best BMEP on six cylinder engines. Any alteration which gains hp is not always the best alteration to perform. Sometimes a huge cfm gain will gain peak power, but then also loose a bunch of torque at other ends of the rpm range. That article I posted in 2003 on Brad Girdwood and StreetMachines dyno work on Holden 3.3 engines when they were getting into the 220 to 250 hp range with 500 cfm Holleys and Triple 1 3/4" SU's showed me that Vizard and and certain Ford SVE Engineers were on the right track with rod ratios, pulse tuning, and a tendancy to more independent runner induction designs. There is a face off between 4-bbl in line sixes with huge cams, and 3 and 6 venturi Stromberg/SU carbs and indpendent runner side and down draft Weber systems with much less intense cams.

1972 work via Chrysler's Mike Stacey derived E49 295 hp net 265 Hemi and David Benetts HX cammed 216 hp XU1 Holden Bathurst spec engines show that early high duration cams with less lift intenity than is common today result in less power than a more optimised modern cam. Same with the all wiining 351 C 4v engines. Today, an optimised 2v 351C can match and exceed peak power with much less duration with more intense cam profiles.

If the cam suits a more isolated runner type intake, then you can work on better cylinder to cylinder flow efficency. If flow efficency, the difference between cylinder head intake and exhast flow between cylinders, is evened out, you can then design the flow cfms around the best cam timing for power, and get a lot more low end torque. The Australians basically found that back in 1970 (Chrylsers with their proposed triple carb Hemi 265, GM Holden with their 186 and 202 Triple Stromberg GTR Toranas, and,internally via a certain ex Repco Ford engineer during the developement of the 2V), that triple carbs got closer to pulse tuning the fuel delivery and even a 9 port Chevy style head with non idependent runner three small 1.5" carbs would gain a huge amount of torque and power when a wilder cam spec and dual out headers were employed. And that is the key for log and cross flow enfines going forward.

It's all standard late 60's early 70's Works Austiin Healy 3000 Mkiii/Charger E49/Aston MartinDB6 Vantage/Torana 202 XU1 GTR/ Maserati GT 3500/ XKE 3800 Triple carb tuning practice. All the old guys who used HD8's and DCO 50 Webers on there race package engines were basically moving towards old Aero engine practice of engine tuning, basically what engineers who design Port EFI systems are relearning today.

Those old guys were onto something and a big 2-bbl or 4-bbl is a loss leader on the dyno due to flow efficency losses. The fact that single carb sixes are making power is due to advances in cam design and balanced porting to suit the cfm ratings. That's why in our six cylinder engines with modern 265 degree cams are doing better than 300 degree cams engoines werein the 70's.

Next step for Ford Sixes is IR induction and cams to suit .Watch this space