NS Dev
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 07:52 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
GT head isn't chambered. A GT head has larger valves.
Basically the 'old' crossflow block had chambered head, small valves and flat top pistons. The 'new' crossflow block has flat
head, dished pistons.
If you have the GT head you get larger valves.
I know you should know better than me, but are you sure?????
I know there was a crossflow (as in late one with heron head and chambers in the pistons etc) which also had small chambers in the head. They
weren't full chambers, just little pointless things, and I'm sure it was the GT that had them, but maybe not. Just inquisitive!?
|
|
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 07:54 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
It's a non-chambered flat-face head with big valves, and combustion chambers in the piston tops.
I've decided that it's not worth getting stressed about this - it does go very well, and I'm sure it's giving more power than
a std x-flow. I'm beginning to wonder whether the readings were at the wheel, not the calculated flywheel figure. As an example, I squealed my
tyres in 1st and 2nd when accelerating hard out of a slip road last week, and it'll reach 60 in around 6 seconds (or less) so it really
isn't a feeble engine! 
I don't intend to throw too much more money at this engine, as it is 30 years old, after all! I'll continue to enjoy what I've got,
and save my pennies for a better engine in the future (Duratec?).
Cheers to all,
David
I think you are right there. I'm sure if it will get to 60 in 6 secs or thereabouts then the 85hp is at the wheels.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 09:53 AM |
|
|
Up until i read this i would have put money on what i've said.........
now with you questioning me i'm not sure (yeah perhaps i do respect your opinion too much! :p)
hold on, let me read wallage (if i'm wrong this also means about a year ago i turned down a fantastically well ported and large valved head
because i thought it was an 'old' head with a lot skimmed off).
ok, wallage says ........
old heads have combustion chamber.
new heads don't.
highly tunned heads (ie not ford GT) have small combustion chamber machined into them so flat top pistons can be used
Ripped & rephrased from Wallage.
flat top should be lighter & have less material above the little end therefore reducing wear & potentially increasing revs by 400 - 500
hundred. Flat top pistons also have less surface area / angles so will not absorb as much heat helping generate more power + too much heat and the
pistons can start to burn.
bugger bugger bugger springs to mind  looks like i might have missed out on a VERY good head. Excause me while i go off an cry.
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
GT head isn't chambered. A GT head has larger valves.
Basically the 'old' crossflow block had chambered head, small valves and flat top pistons. The 'new' crossflow block has flat
head, dished pistons.
If you have the GT head you get larger valves.
I know you should know better than me, but are you sure?????
I know there was a crossflow (as in late one with heron head and chambers in the pistons etc) which also had small chambers in the head. They
weren't full chambers, just little pointless things, and I'm sure it was the GT that had them, but maybe not. Just inquisitive!?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 10:52 AM |
|
|
Didn't real McCoy MK1 Mexico engines have very shallow chambers in the head but most of common or garden Mk2 1600 Cortina didn't ?
Certainly all of the 1600 xflos I worked on were flat head but I don't think the very early ones were.
I seem to recall the shallow chamber on the Mexico was purely to allow "correction" of the compresion ratio ie a homologation dodge.
(Just to confuse matters more the first year of Mk2 Cortina production used a 1600 kent that wasn't xflo)
[Edited on 26/8/05 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 11:41 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Didn't real McCoy MK1 Mexico engines have very shallow chambers in the head but most of common or garden Mk2 1600 Cortina didn't ?
Certainly all of the 1600 xflos I worked on were flat head but I don't think the very early ones were.
I seem to recall the shallow chamber on the Mexico was purely to allow "correction" of the compresion ratio ie a homologation dodge.
(Just to confuse matters more the first year of Mk2 Cortina production used a 1600 kent that wasn't xflo)
[Edited on 26/8/05 by britishtrident]
You may well be right. I have no idea where the chambered head that I saw was from, but it was "as supplied by ford" and it was definitely
from a crossflow 1600, not the previous engine. Your explanantion rings true because the chamber was tiny, and just seemed to get in the way when
trying to put big valves in. I probably got muddled up and thought it was from a GT when in fact it was mk1 mexico.............maybe??
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 12:35 PM |
|
|
Sorry what i mean by early and late crossflow is .........
681 block (old) vs 711 block (new)
The RS 1600 is the twin cam engined BDA (if original) or the road going copy is a standard 1600 xflow 86hp engine.
The RS 2000 is a pinto.
Ford did do a 1600 Mexico in the mark one using the Crossflow engine (in the mk2 it used the pinto). Still trawling the web for engine data on the
crossflow mexico.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 12:39 PM |
|
|
I'm in wind up mode now so................ Actually, roadgoing RS1600's had the same BDA as the rally cars, just in roady spec. MK2 Mexico
used a pinto instead of a crossflow. RS1800 used a rather tasty BDA..............................more random facts not at all linked to the
thread
sorry Mike, just bored so i thought I'd take the p155, you can get your own back on Sunday in front of my missus!
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 12:45 PM |
|
|
can't find anything conclusive. The implication seems to be that the 1600 mexico road going car was a standard crossflow engine.
If anyone can set me right on this i'd love to know, not knowing this sort of trivia keeps me awake at night!
(well ok, it doesn't but i'd still like to know)
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 12:51 PM |
|
|
You might be in wind up mode but your right about the mk2 mexico using the pinto & the RS1800.
Ford originally modified the RS1600 to be 1601cc's instead of 1599 in the normal crossflow but putting all the tollerances at the max. This
meant they where in the sub 2 litre class and could bore the engine out up to 2 litres. Hence why you get BDA's up to 2 litre!!!!
And would I take the p*ss out of you infront of your misses? Naaah, I'll just try and chat her up 
I mean I've got to have a chance I don't have umpteen cars, a desire for a transit crewcab and I like football
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
I'm in wind up mode now so................ Actually, roadgoing RS1600's had the same BDA as the rally cars, just in roady spec. MK2 Mexico
used a pinto instead of a crossflow. RS1800 used a rather tasty BDA..............................more random facts not at all linked to the
thread
sorry Mike, just bored so i thought I'd take the p155, you can get your own back on Sunday in front of my missus!
[Edited on 26/8/05 by MikeR]
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 01:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
I mean I've got to have a chance I don't have umpteen cars, a desire for a transit crewcab and I like football
[Edited on 26/8/05 by MikeR]
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 01:57 PM |
|
|
transit crewcab?
oh no, please lets not even go there..
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 02:00 PM |
|
|
i've no intention of going there ........ but NS DEV ........... well ......... he's, you know .....
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 02:19 PM |
|
|
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 02:57 PM |
|
|
transit crewcabs are great!!
bunk in the back half of the cab, much better than a tent and my grasser can go on the back, so I can get rid of my rather dodgy car trailer!
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 03:32 PM |
|
|
wouldn't you then need a small trailer to carry spare set of wheels, jack, toolbox, tools etc?
-sorry for prolonged thread hijack David.
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 06:21 PM |
|
|
sorry for the thread hijack!!
No, wheels go on the wheelrack which I will make on the back of the cab, to sit above the front of a car on the rear deck. Tools will go under the
bunk in the rear half of the cab. Would put a locker under the rear bed as well I think for straps and jack etc (the really dirty stuff)
Problem is that for a 1/2 decent post 1992 (the longer wheelbase ones) crewcab tipper (take tipper off and put beavertail on) I am looking at
£2000-£2500 which is a lot for a ruddy van!
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 09:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
sorry for prolonged thread hijack David.
No worries! I think all's been said that's going to be said...
DJ
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 26/8/05 at 09:29 PM |
|
|
i dunno - i think we can still say a lot more about NS DEV
still curious if ford ever did sell a BDA in a road car for joe public and not as part of a homogligation special!
|
|
|
