Unconventional XR powerplants: a learn me

Well, the XR7 name for the Cougar dates back quite a bit earlier than XR2/3/4. I forget if the XR7 was introduced along with the Cougar in 1967 or if it came later, but I distinctly remember that the XR7 was available at least as early as 1969.

I, personally, wouldn't bother with a Cologne mill. That engine family is one of those "special" (in a needs-a-helmet sense) Ford engine families where they kept making changes here and there. The ones you can easily find in the US are not performance engines, and (I was told) you cain't get there from here; something about cam journals and other important things being different.

Deck height on the 4-liter is much higher than the 2.9, which IIRC is higher than the 2.8/2.6. The 2.6 is supposed to be the sweetest engine of the family, wouldn't know as I've never seen one!

The SOHC 4.0 is a monster of an engine, a 5.0 would be a much easier fit. The "mini-Cammer" is a real bastard of a design: you can't unbolt the heads without first unbolting the mains girdle or the block will warp, there's a timing chain at each end so Ford could cast and machine only one cylinder head, and my favorite: for the 4wd models, Ford resurrected the side-mounted balance shaft from back in the very early days of the engine's design when it was just a V4. Put a 4wd engine in a 2wd chassis, everything is fine. Put a 2wd engine in a 4wd chassis, it shakes like hell. I don't get it either.

A 5.0 is supposed to be about the same weight as the 2.3t. Then again, the 2.3t block can handle a lot more power than a 5.0 block can.

There any proof of this concept where having a 4wd setup somehow changes imbalances internal to the motor? What's the V6 balance shaft part number?

And the 2.6 that we got in Federal Capri's is not remotely "the sweetest", that would be something like the 2.9 Cosworth I would think; the 2.6 has siamesed exhaust ports so they could use the same manifolds as the V4; they sound cool but there is a lot of efficiency left on the table because of that.

Cam journals changed with the pushrod engines between the 2.8 "car" stuff of the 70's and the 2.8's in trucks. There are performance cams for either size.

It seems very odd to slag off an entire engine family that ran from 1962 to current because there were changes along the way. It wouldn't be my choice but I've at least owned an example of the breed... And there's a 210 horsepower example fitted by the factory from 2005 to 2010 in the Mustang which should shove a Sierra around just fine.

Final thought; if this is a street car, I don't think I would worry about how much power a 302 block can handle versus a turbo-Lima's block.

I didn't say 302, I said 5.0. There is a biiiig difference between a 302 and a 5.0.

And yes, if your block splits at only ~450hp, that is in the realm of streetable issues. Heck, that's 100hp less than your uncle's new Caddy. And he manages to take 1/2 mile past the end of the on-ramp to finally get up to 5mph below the speed limit in preparation for making a 3-in-a-row leftwards lane change and turning the ol' brain dial down to "pilot light"! That means that only 450hp would be MIND NUMBINGLY SLOW!!!

Merlin V12...

Do note that I do, in fact, drive a car that genuinely takes a quarter mile to achieve 60mph unless the road is flat or preferably is downhill, and this requires a full-out effort with precision timed speed shifts and not getting held up at the middle of the on-ramp by some bozo who waits until the ramp ends before accelerating beyond 25mph, so maybe if it sounds like I'm bitter, then that is only because I may have accidentally learned something about writing when I was in school.

Anyway, long story short, people who don't accelerate on on-ramps should be charged with attempted manslaughter. They're probably the same people who say things like "What do I need turn signals for? I know where I'm going."

(and yes, I did have someone tell me that once, with all seriousness)

find an early '80s Ford DFL or DFY. might be expensive, but the wail of an old F1 engine from an era when, as far as race cars go, the women were men, the children were men, and the men sure as hell were men, that exhaust note would send chills down your spine the first time you punched it in a tunnel

Wow, that duratec pdf is LOADED with stuff! And I noted that it's also 'confidential', so how'd it end up here, where it can only be used in ways that FoMoCo never imagined? I ask you.... Anyway, I think I really like that little powerplant...lots of possibilities. And the re-engined Sunbeam? Whooeee! My stars and garters! That's cool!

Yeah this thread just got pointless.

Couple of points...

Truck LS motors are not all iron block. It's quite easy to find the aluminum 5.3 version. There was also an aluminum 6.0 if I remember correctly. Car Craft and Hot Rod have built enough of the AL 5.3's for me to be sure they exist.

Second, a 5.0 and 302 are freaking identical. Yes, an 86 and later 5.0 will have a roller cam. There's no other differences! I disassembled a 88 5.0 (fuel injected, TFI, roller cam) that had D2 part # rods. In Ford speak D2 = 1972. They use the same block, crank, and rods in all of them. And if you add a $85 girdle to the mains it will last well over 500HP N/A.

Now, back to the thread... After reading all of this stuff about a motor I thought was crap, the Ford V6 actually seems like a sweet idea. I did a little digging, and the very last V6 fox Mustangs in 2004 had the 4.0! Grab one of those cheap for the engine and 5-speed manual, it would be a sweet start to the XR4.

Javelin wrote: Couple of points... Truck LS motors are not all iron block. It's quite easy to find the aluminum 5.3 version. There was also an aluminum 6.0 if I remember correctly. Car Craft and Hot Rod have built enough of the AL 5.3's for me to be sure they exist.

Aluminum 6-liters are in Cadillac SUVs, aluminum 5.3s are in certain 4wd pickups. I think it's the long-box, extended cab 1500s. At least, the one that I've seen in the wild was in a long box extended cab 4x4. Maybe they needed to lose a little weight for their heaviest half-ton?

Second, a 5.0 and 302 are freaking identical. Yes, an 86 and later 5.0 will have a roller cam. There's no other differences! I disassembled a 88 5.0 (fuel injected, TFI, roller cam) that had D2 part # rods. In Ford speak D2 = 1972. They use the same block, crank, and rods in all of them.

Ford weems to have yanked a lot of mass out of the block in '82, since it's only the 5.0s that you ever hear about having problems. Forced induction has been around a lot longer than the Fox Mustang.

The rotating assembly definitely got different. Ford pulled a ton of weight out of the counterweights to make the 5.0 crank. (Let's not talk about the 255 crank)

Ok, enough of this crap, sell that POS you just bought and go buy this:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/2273781.htm

Ship with this:

http://www.autocarshippers.com/

Since it's over 25 years old you can import it and register it in the US legally, and for around $5000 with no motor swap or any other crap necessary you get a real Cosworth, enjoy having one very cool ride stateside...

Raze wrote: Ok, enough of this crap, sell that POS you just bought and go buy this: http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/2273781.htm Ship with this: http://www.autocarshippers.com/ Since it's over 25 years old you can import it and register it in the US legally, and for around $5000 with no motor swap or any other crap necessary you get a real Cosworth, enjoy having one very cool ride stateside...

First the Holset turbo and now a 24v Cosworth? Why do you keep showing me things I have to talk myself out of? (PS: I started calculating exchange rates until I saw the word "welded" in that ad.)

In all seriousness, unless someone can show me an outstandingly clear reason why a 4.0 SOHC would be better than the 3.8/4.2, the 90 degree six is 95% of the way towards getting the nod.

1) I know the 3.8 fits and the oil pan clears everything. The mounts are also embarassingly simple. The packaging is nice and it moves weight back in the engine compartment.

2) There was a factory supercharged version if I get bored. Super Coupe gurus: How do you get the split port heads to work with the M90?

3) As far as cost, I found a 3.8 split port, RWD engine that I would have to tear down for $100. I'm scouring town for a 4.2 from an F-150/E-150, but those have been slightly less forthcoming.

Raze wrote: Ok, enough of this crap, sell that POS you just bought and go buy this:

Oh my, yes.

Please correct me if I am wrong but the 3.8 and the 4.2 are not the same base engine. The 4.2 is from the Mod motor brigade and is really, and I mean REALLY wide (exterior dimensions of the 4.6 was close to a Boss 429 so think that only a little shorter.) The 3.8 is a 5.0 with 2 cylinders knocked off, (for over simplification.)

XR4ti is the 4 cylinder and the XR8ti is the South American 5.0 V8 version, correct?

I like the 4.0 SOHC engine, there are a few parts running around for them, unless you want to wait for a 3.5 EcoBoost out of a Lincoln/Taurus SHO.

The South African versions would be XR8i, with no T, since that stands for Turbo, and those cars were NA. Same deal with the XR6i Sierras in Europe, no turbo, 6 cylinders.

When I went to Hot Rod Power Tour in Bowling Green, KY this year they came through on Beech Bend's test n tune night, and I had my Merkur nut friend with me, and we spotted what we thought was a cosworth bodied merkur, but as we went over there and upon further inspection we found it was a real deal Cosworth Sierra. Imported over, 2.0 engine, single rear window and everything. Odd thing was the car was left hand drive, so it was a German model?

LordTurbonia wrote: 2) There was a factory supercharged version if I get bored. Super Coupe gurus: How do you get the split port heads to work with the M90?

You don't. You used the SC bottom end, spit port heads and a Holset set on stun!

The Eaton SC is a great donor for Quad4s.