221 now on the operating table, The build begins

J

justman234

New member
Hey guys,

New to the forums so i will start with what i have and what's going to be done first.

I have a 1965 XP sedan, my dad has given this to me as a first car. So going to be doing it up/restoring it to drive on my P plates. I have a 221 to go in it and a list of mods.

Last week i picked up a 221 on ebay for $52, Have stripped the thing apart and i am now ready to get started on the good stuff. Nothing wrong with the block, Looks like it has been rebuilt in the past.

To start off i have an EF crank all ready to be sent off to have the mains machined down and then the crank balanced. I am unsure of the crank/rods will hit the cam though. Never heard of this combo being done. If the rods do hit, I will have the journals machined down. I am unsure of what piston/rod combo i would have to use to suit the smaller journals and stroke. If the pistons on the new combo need to be machined- I can do that not a problem.

I have a stage 3 heatseeker cam allready and the rest of the build will consist of
Aluminium head, Double valve springs with pressure to suit cam, Romac EF harmonic balancer, yella terra roller rockers, electronic distributor, Double row timing chain and a set of extractors. Yea i'v probably missed a few things, Fuel side of things doesn't matter at this time. It's coming later.

Aiming for decent HP but the midrange cam to make it nice to drive on the road with a fair bit of go :eek:

Quote from 9triton on Fordforums au-
221-

stroke = 3.46"
mains = 2.24"
pins = 2.123"
rod length = 5.13"

250(log and crossflow):
stroke = 3.91"
mains = 2.39"
pins: 2.123"
rod length = 5.87"(250)
rod length = 6.27"(200)

EF/EL sohc=

stroke = 3.79

mains : = 2.39
pins = 2.123"


Cheers- Justman
 
Unless you are planning on a 221 so it doesnt need engineering, why stuff around and stroke it. Be much easier to throw a 250 at it.
 
Unless you use aftermarket long Argentine Peugeot 504 conrods, Iapel low deck 1.04" forged pistons and the same technology the Argentina TC 4000 race cars use, you can't stroke a 221 easily and cheaply. At 8.425" of deck from the crank centreline to the tippy top of the block deck, there just isn't enough deck height to produce a decent rod to stroke ratio. The 221 is the worst of any Ford engine ever for rod to stroke, a ratio of 1.486, with 5.14" rods and 3.46" stroke.

If your keen, you can get up to about 3.685" of stroke, and 305 Chev pistons sizes (+56 tou or 3.736") with 1.04" deck, giving 5.54" rod, and a 1.504:1 rod ratio.

There is room to go to 242 cubes, or about 3972 cc, but its based on getting the crank offset ground to either 1.9" Holden red or blue motor rod sizes, then welding back up to 2.124, or under stroking an EF 12 counterweight crank.Then you just have to find custom 5.54" conrods.


It's Argentina which did all the hard work on stroker 4 litre Speciale Performance engines. Most of the advances came through using there local Peugeot parts from there racier 1800 and 2000 cc Hemi 504 engines. The SP 221 often runs 5.2" Pug rods (with 0.9055", 23 mm wrist pin, 1.9675 -1.9681 daimeter journal, 0.924" long bearing surface, allowing a small offset grind to a stroke of 3.614 or more), and other exotica. Then you use the common Rover 4.6 or low deck 229/305 Chev 1.425" tall pistons from Ross. Problem is the rod ratio then goes down to an appalling 1.438:1


*See http://sd2cx1.webring.org/l/rd?ring=ppn ... nes%2Ehtml.

The 504 1796cc and 1971cc engines have a conrod length to stroke ratio of about 1.63 which results in some power loss due to excessive piston to cylinder wall friction. Stock rod length is 5.20", which are often used in SP 221 engines in Argentina.

Ideally, rod :stroke ratio it should be more than 1.7. The earlier 404 five bearing 1618cc has an ideal ratio of 1.8,same conrd sizes as the later 1796 and 1971cc Pug Hemi OHV engines.
 
justman234":2nivhhii said:
To start off i have an EF crank all ready to be sent off to have the mains machined down and then the crank balanced. I am unsure of the crank/rods will hit the cam though. Never heard of this combo being done. If the rods do hit, I will have the journals machined down. I am unsure of what piston/rod combo i would have to use to suit the smaller journals and stroke. If the pistons on the new combo need to be machined- I can do that not a problem......

Cheers- Justman
Click to expand...


The 221 and Aussie 250 share the same cam to crank spacing and timing gear teeth count, so any OHC crank from 1987 to date will clear the cam with ease. its the block (the crankcase/sump rail and the counterweights that have to be clearances, the 84 verses 92 mm crank falge at the back needing an early 200 or 221 84 mm flange cut off and shrink welded into the existing EF crank that are your real issues

aussie7mains":2nivhhii said:
All falcons after eb have 3.91 stroke, you womt be able to get that in a 221 .
A7M
Click to expand...

redxm":2nivhhii said:
Unless you are planning on a 221 so it doesnt need engineering, why stuff around and stroke it. Be much easier to throw a 250 at it.
Click to expand...





Hope this helps. Non factory, aftermarket stroker engine swaps generally are not worth the effort unless you can manitain a better than stock L/R ratio, as hp gain is not proportinal to the % cubic inch gain. Although there are some really awesome exceptions.

Namely the Scat US 347 and Aussie 'factory' Tickford 5.6 T3 Falcon stroker kit for the 5.0, which was a stroker engine with poorer L/R ratio (1.585 vs 1.70), and its the natural next step for a die hard performance small block. 335 hp verses 295hp for the 250 Pursuit Falcon verses our Aussie 2002 XR8, a cube for cube 13.5% power gain from a 13.5% capacity increase. It did take a matched 5.6 high performance intake with 5.4 XR8 260 parts to meet the target, but it did the job. So a stroker can be done, and can yield stunning gains, worth it for a dollar for dollar basis. But you have to be very smart to do it right when L/R ratio suffers.

Example follows:-

The 221 is an intermediate engine, a low deck 250 with a slightly wider block which will certianly take a 250 or 3.9/4.0 crank if the mains, counterwieghts and rods are clearanced like the old timers like Bill Mann et al did when they shoved 1967-1969 221 Aussie Ford cranks into 179HP and 186 Red motor Holden blocks.

Since the 221 runs 200 bearing sizes, work has to be done to clear the crankcase and get enough rod length. The reason the 250 isn't always used is that in XK to XP Falcons, the tall 9.38" Aussie block makes fitting the stock big 250 fan a pain, and its no longer a stock looking engine bay when you have to hack up the 170/200/221 radiator.

Remember, the stock rod ratio for a 221 is a ratio of 1.486, with 5.14" rods and 3.46" stroke. With a Ford Six, and for every 10% loss on L/r by gaining engine stroke, you loose 5% in peak power and torque potential right through the rev range from off idle to maximum revs. Thats why a 250 doesn't make 25% more power than the same spec 200 engine. Stroking reaches a point of diminshing returns.

When you get more capacity in a 221 by stroking it, your L/R ratio nose dives. A 221 converted to 250 with Iapel 1.06" pistons, your rod with a 250 stroke is 5.435", and thats 1.39:1 ratio, far too much side thrust. Compared to a 1.48 ratio engine with 221, the specific out put of a stroker 250 is down half the 6.5% rod ratio length increase, or 3.5 less power per cube than a 221.

There are custom pistons at 0.875" deck, very expensive, and and thats 5.595, and L/R of 1.431, still a fail as far as L/R ratios go, but just managable in the crank case, and you can use small wrist pin 400 Chev style rod. If you raise the rod ratio to 3.5% less, you get 1.75% less specific power per cube.

The key is that the 221 is half the weight increase of a 250, and can turn in at close to 352 pounds with a 221 block and alloy head, less than an iron headed 200 at 365 to 385 pounds.

A stock 7.803" low deck 1963-1965 narrow block 200 with an alloy head sits at about 337 pounds all up, or 365 pounds as an iron headed narrow block log head or 385 pounds as a wide block Aussie log head..the Aussie engine ran a wide 160 teeth flange block from 1966 on.

A tall 9.38" wide block Aussie 250/4.1 engine with an alloy head sits at about 481 pounds, so that extra 1.577" of engine deck height makes an extra 144 pounds. In iron headed format, it can be as heavy as 532 pounds in the US 250 and cross flow iron Aussie 4.1, so a 2V 250 with iron head can be up to 195 heavier than the lightest possible 200 engine.

A tough 195 pound 250 engine, plus the stronger diff (60 pounds for a 9" over a BW 7.625-7.875" 78 and gearbox [good heavy duty gearbox can 80 pounds over the weight on a little BW 35], can collectively add 335 pounds to an XK engined early Falcon, turning a nice light 2315 pound iron headed 200 car into a 2650 pound car with much more weight over the front end.

The 221 is a stroked early 200 with a deck only 0.622 thou taller, and might not even see a weight increase if you added an alloy headed 250 stroker.

Just things to think about. The 221 is a good option to stroke, but I'd be looking at offset grinding a fully counterweighted EF 3.91" crank, reworking the rear flange to suit the smaller 3.622" hole and 2.75" bolt flange the 221's came with, and then splitting the difference in stroke from 3.46 to 3.91, or 3.685". Then I'd run 1.9" Holden 202/xt5/xt6 rod bearings, a VW Audi early Golf Diesel long rod at 5.375 to 5.42", and a set of ACL Race low deck pistons 1.1629". Rod ratio 1.47;1, or close to stock, and with a 30 thou over 3.71" piston, you'd get a 239 cubic inch 3.916 liter engine which would go pretty well.

This was how the old 186 Holden with 221 crank engines were set up, they worked okay with 5.25" XT5 Holden or Starfire Four rods and an offset ground 3.685" stroke 221 crank in a 8.625" deck engine, and Duralite 250 pistons with cut down decks . Rod ratio was a really bad 1.425:1. That's as far as I'd stretch the L/R ratio friendship on any engine.
 
Sorry guys, didn't get an email to say the thread was created so haven't noticed it until now :banghead:

Hope this helps. Non factory, aftermarket stroker engine swaps generally are not worth the effort unless you can manitain a better than stock L/R ratio, as hp gain is not proportinal to the % cubic inch gain. Although there are some really awesome exceptions.

Namely the Scat US 347 and Aussie 'factory' Tickford 5.6 T3 Falcon stroker kit for the 5.0, which was a stroker engine with poorer L/R ratio (1.585 vs 1.70), and its the natural next step for a die hard performance small block. 335 hp verses 295hp for the 250 Pursuit Falcon verses our Aussie 2002 XR8, a cube for cube 13.5% power gain from a 13.5% capacity increase. It did take a matched 5.6 high performance intake with 5.4 XR8 260 parts to meet the target, but it did the job. So a stroker can be done, and can yield stunning gains, worth it for a dollar for dollar basis. But you have to be very smart to do it right when L/R ratio suffers.

Example follows:-

The 221 is an intermediate engine, a low deck 250 with a slightly wider block which will certianly take a 250 or 3.9/4.0 crank if the mains, counterwieghts and rods are clearanced like the old timers like Bill Mann et al did when they shoved 1967-1969 221 Aussie Ford cranks into 179HP and 186 Red motor Holden blocks.

Since the 221 runs 200 bearing sizes, work has to be done to clear the crankcase and get enough rod length. The reason the 250 isn't always used is that in XK to XP Falcons, the tall 9.38" Aussie block makes fitting the stock big 250 fan a pain, and its no longer a stock looking engine bay when you have to hack up the 170/200/221 radiator.

Remember, the stock rod ratio for a 221 is a ratio of 1.486, with 5.14" rods and 3.46" stroke. With a Ford Six, and for every 10% loss on L/r by gaining engine stroke, you loose 5% in peak power and torque potential right through the rev range from off idle to maximum revs. Thats why a 250 doesn't make 25% more power than the same spec 200 engine. Stroking reaches a point of diminshing returns.

When you get more capacity in a 221 by stroking it, your L/R ratio nose dives. A 221 converted to 250 with Iapel 1.06" pistons, your rod with a 250 stroke is 5.435", and thats 1.39:1 ratio, far too much side thrust. Compared to a 1.48 ratio engine with 221, the specific out put of a stroker 250 is down half the 6.5% rod ratio length increase, or 3.5 less power per cube than a 221.

There are custom pistons at 0.875" deck, very expensive, and and thats 5.595, and L/R of 1.431, still a fail as far as L/R ratios go, but just managable in the crank case, and you can use small wrist pin 400 Chev style rod. If you raise the rod ratio to 3.5% less, you get 1.75% less specific power per cube.

The key is that the 221 is half the weight increase of a 250, and can turn in at close to 352 pounds with a 221 block and alloy head, less than an iron headed 200 at 365 to 385 pounds.

A stock 7.803" low deck 1963-1965 narrow block 200 with an alloy head sits at about 337 pounds all up, or 365 pounds as an iron headed narrow block log head or 385 pounds as a wide block Aussie log head..the Aussie engine ran a wide 160 teeth flange block from 1966 on.

A tall 9.38" wide block Aussie 250/4.1 engine with an alloy head sits at about 481 pounds, so that extra 1.577" of engine deck height makes an extra 144 pounds. In iron headed format, it can be as heavy as 532 pounds in the US 250 and cross flow iron Aussie 4.1, so a 2V 250 with iron head can be up to 195 heavier than the lightest possible 200 engine.

A tough 195 pound 250 engine, plus the stronger diff (60 pounds for a 9" over a BW 7.625-7.875" 78 and gearbox [good heavy duty gearbox can 80 pounds over the weight on a little BW 35], can collectively add 335 pounds to an XK engined early Falcon, turning a nice light 2315 pound iron headed 200 car into a 2650 pound car with much more weight over the front end.

The 221 is a stroked early 200 with a deck only 0.622 thou taller, and might not even see a weight increase if you added an alloy headed 250 stroker.

Just things to think about. The 221 is a good option to stroke, but I'd be looking at offset grinding a fully counterweighted EF 3.91" crank, reworking the rear flange to suit the smaller 3.622" hole and 2.75" bolt flange the 221's came with, and then splitting the difference in stroke from 3.46 to 3.91, or 3.685". Then I'd run 1.9" Holden 202/xt5/xt6 rod bearings, a VW Audi early Golf Diesel long rod at 5.375 to 5.42", and a set of ACL Race low deck pistons 1.1629". Rod ratio 1.47;1, or close to stock, and with a 30 thou over 3.71" piston, you'd get a 239 cubic inch 3.916 liter engine which would go pretty well.

This was how the old 186 Holden with 221 crank engines were set up, they worked okay with 5.25" XT5 Holden or Starfire Four rods and an offset ground 3.685" stroke 221 crank in a 8.625" deck engine, and Duralite 250 pistons with cut down decks . Rod ratio was a really bad 1.425:1. That's as far as I'd stretch the L/R ratio friendship on any engine.
Click to expand...

EXctasy, you have the info i need. I have written up a thread on ford forums as-well so i have been getting a fair bit of input.

To the people that think the crank wont fit- It will, and the ones that think it hits the cam- It doesn't.
Ok, I sat the crank in the block without the bearings. It fits in like that so i have been measuring. "Had to have a main hanging out the front as the rear main wont fit without machining".

How i had it set up
http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/h34 ... 32d1af.jpg

Clearance between conrod and cam
http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/h34 ... bb97b2.jpg

Counterweight hitting piston
http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/h34 ... 67de87.jpg

the 221 piston coming out the block
http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/h34 ... 67de87.jpg

Ok, This was using the stock 221 conrods and pistons, the piston come out of the block 1.5mm. The EF pistons are a different pin height and dished "About 1mm lower", I can machine the faces on them if needed "Will be very small amount if i need to" I still need to try the EF pistons, From measuring with verniers "Not put in yet" it will work. This will give me a zero deck height. NOTE- the counterweight hit the piston when coming down, Counterweights will need to be machined down.
Got a quote for machining the mains, machining counterweights and Balancing the crank/conrods/pistons- $700.

I am using the 221 as it's the biggest i can go legally on my P plates "No engineer cert required"


Xctasy- Those rod and piston combo's you mentioned, How much would that set me back?

Running this crank will help the thing rev, Really rev.

Cheers- Justman
 
I did the 305/229 Forged Chev, 56 thou over conversion to my X flow 9.38" block in 2000/ I did the 221 log block excerise back in 2002 after I joined Ford Six Performance.

Due to cost of parts being so crazy when you try to find a rod /piston which is economical, There are head gasket and sleeving options whic are in many ways better to get the stroker EF crank engine to work in the 188/221 block.

Aussies have always thought outside the square, and I know the 8.425" deck 188/221 block intimately from years of measurement and hands on experiance. Its Fords best six cylinder non four valve racing engine, the Argie dudes are the leaders in this little pudding bowel. All my work focuses on the 7.803 and 9.38 inche deck 200 blocks, the 221 is a very interesting engine to work around.

For a start, you can just make up a custom 1.5mm steel spacer gasket or copper head gasket, and some custom pushrods, and find the right diameter pistons by sleeving, which is what I do with the my FAZER engines.'

Price for conrods not much. Its all about finding a second hand supply which has been prepared and peened to suit.

The pistons are a major at the AU on 1.1629" deck and the 3.68"-3.736" diameter. For a custom piston, 8 dimensions need to be traded off, and a dollar benefit ratio formed. I purposely sleave my Aussie OHV x-flow blocks using a Melling sleave to use the more common CP/Subaru Boxer, just as Ford did in 1987 when the OHC engine was taken back 68 thou to get easier, cheaper low deck piston sizes, or 48 thou over with the 4.0 in 1992. But you loose 2.6% engine capacity, or 105 or 6.4 cubic inches. But you gain in having 180 thou thrust faces in the block when you drop a nice thick sleave into a 3.68-3.736" bored Ford I6, and then you instantly can go to smaller OHC pistons which have a different taper to clear the counterweights.

See the needed size constraints. The Argentinians have pushed the envelope with their 188 and 221 inch SP 3.6 and ME 3.1 engines

http://www.lioliosracing.gr/documents/i ... easure.pdf


I got all my advice from a five minute phone call with Denco Engineering (1987) Ltd in Christchurch back in 2009. (Now at 419 Tuam St Christchurc New Zealand 8011).

They have designed and built the recip parts of the Britten engine. The guy I spoke to says that in the size I was looking at( the particular Holden 3.625" 202/253 to Ford 3.68" 188/200/221/250 bore size), the sub 1.15" compression height just costs lots more, and the worth of shallower decks is traded off with the need to go down bellow the 23.15 mm Ford 6 and SBF pin size, with BMW/Nissan/Holden 22 mm pin size needed and perhaps the 21 and 20 mm wrist pins for 0.875" decks. Because reliabilty is the key with an L/R below 1.5:1, they generally use a grade of Ross blank for race engines in the 3.68" to 3.736" size, with Chev size 305 and Rover pistons, and don't suggest going to the Iapel pistons 1.06" deck, as it comes at a price and won't yeild better reliabilty at those compression deck heights. They aren't knocking going to shallower compression decks, just that your going to have to look at better rods in the right wrist pin size, which adds extra cost to the project.

Wiesco, Iapel etc are also able to do specials, and if cost is the only issue, you'll use off the shelf sizes for common engines, but can get anything made up for a price. But the cost goes up astronomically at the 3.68-3.736 and sub 1.15" deck. The costs drop at 3.612 to 3.632, and pistons in those sizes with deck heights in 22, 21 and 20 wrist pin sizes are cheaper again, but then you have to look for Japanese or Eurpoean conrods in smaller journals to suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

6
  • Question
All Small Six In a Damn Cam Jam - 200 build
Replies
15
Views
286
65musty
6
DON
All Small Six Dynamic compression
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
DON
DON
StarDiero75
All Small Six MPFI 200 Build
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
4K
chad
chad
Drive67Bronco
All Small Six Need Help Finder a Starter Motor for my 170ci Bronco Build
Replies
15
Views
864
chad
chad
J
Newcomer Racing Cams
Replies
2
Views
346
pmuller9
P
Back
Top