Ford windsor/cleveland length?

#1
Hi

Im trying to make a decent 3d model for starters but im missing the length of the engineblock.
Does someone know a place I can find it or happen to have the dimensions?
The dimensions i need is from the bellhouse surface to front of the block and the total length inc the pulley.
 

Jac Mac

Active Member
#2
Hi

Im trying to make a decent 3d model for starters but im missing the length of the engineblock.
Does someone know a place I can find it or happen to have the dimensions?
The dimensions i need is from the bellhouse surface to front of the block and the total length inc the pulley.
Leave the Cleveland out of your computations as while it shares the same cyl bore centers, its length includes the integral timing chain cover area.

All 221/260/289/302/351w have the same block length..529mm. and timing cover depth 53mm. Lots of variation in water pump & front crankshaft balancer/pulley dimensions though.
 

Ron Earp

Administrator
Staff member
#3
Lots of variation in water pump & front crankshaft balancer/pulley dimensions though.
No kidding. Ford seemed to not have a plan there at all.

I don't know Chevys well and Mopars even less. Did either of them do a better job at putting together a relatively standard and tidy package for the front cover and water pump?

We race the 3.8L Essex extensively. And it has the same problems the 5L does - you have a short and compact block, everything nice, and then tack on 50% more overall length on a dressed engine with a horribly designed bracket system, front cover, and accessory setup. Looks worse on the Essex since it's missing a piston on each side.
 
#4
Well, boltons are easily modified to suit the application...

Thanks for the measure, more than good enough at this stage :)
BTW; Is the 529mm the total length inc the timing cover or does the 53mm come in addition to 529?
 

Jac Mac

Active Member
#6
No kidding. Ford seemed to not have a plan there at all.

I don't know Chevys well and Mopars even less. Did either of them do a better job at putting together a relatively standard and tidy package for the front cover and water pump?

We race the 3.8L Essex extensively. And it has the same problems the 5L does - you have a short and compact block, everything nice, and then tack on 50% more overall length on a dressed engine with a horribly designed bracket system, front cover, and accessory setup. Looks worse on the Essex since it's missing a piston on each side.
Chevy was pretty good until they went with full circle rear main seal, although all of them have minor running changes. Ford was/is a real pain as you found out with fuel pump eccentric and the more you mix n match the worse it gets. The V6 is that bit longer due to dizzy & pump drive being out front of timing chain and#1 cam bearing, they must have copied that off the GM/Rover V8. UK 3.0 Granada V6 had no support for lower Dizzy shaft which put a bending moment on hex drive for oil pump under load plus shifted dizzy gear away from cam.
I like Fords, but they do appear to employ a lot of dimwits, or is it just the bean counter factor. The 351c/351w is a classic example when the ideal would have been pick the best features of both, Ford would have dominated Nascar a decade or two earlier if they had got their act together.
 

Ron Earp

Administrator
Staff member
#7
Ford was/is a real pain as you found out with fuel pump eccentric and the more you mix n match the worse it gets. The V6 is that bit longer due to dizzy & pump drive being out front of timing chain and#1 cam bearing, they must have copied that off the GM/Rover V8. UK 3.0 Granada V6 had no support for lower Dizzy shaft which put a bending moment on hex drive for oil pump under load plus shifted dizzy gear away from cam.
True. The Essex V6 was long running, something like 1981 to 2008, but it is the only US Ford motor I'm aware of that had the oil pump external to the engine. That of course necessitated some lengthening. Couple that with the Ford theory of More Front Covers is More Better, the passing of years, plus add in "Lo, Behold, Internal Balance We Shall Do In the Final Years" and you've got a mess. Shame. Decent motor, as good as the GM 3.8L that they took many cues from.

What's up with the UK 3.0L? Is that a version of the Vulcan V6? We've seen none of that business with the Essex but it has a lower bushing on the dizzy/cam position sensor drive.

Currently we're working on building a Essex 4.3L stroker V6 based on the neutral balanced truck rotating assembly and a later 2001+ block that had better caps and webbing, plus factory girdle. With some forged pistons and rods the motor should last a long time and we hope to only rebuild heads for a long time to come. Of course, we have a lot of hopes.

Got any ideas on reciprocating balance weights for these V6s? Ford specifies 38.5% if memory serves. I've spoken to a NASCAR builder, not any old NASCAR builder, but a builder who built the old SVO 4.5L V6 truck engines back in the day who balanced at 50% give or take what the shop wanted for oil weight and what not. Doing that though requires adding a lot of metal to the crank, especially if using a heavier forged rod. We did an experiment with a neutral balanced 3.8L but it was foiled with cast pistons and blew up after about 2.5 hours of operation.

NASCAR builder doesn't care about weight as they had special forged cranks for the job, but all we have access to is stock 4.2L crank shafts which are cast and need weight to hit 50%. Those SVO NASCAR V6 block were aluminum too which would make for a hell of a cheater block. I'll save that for my retirement when I start vintage racing.
 

Jac Mac

Active Member
#8
True. The Essex V6 was long running, something like 1981 to 2008, but it is the only US Ford motor I'm aware of that had the oil pump external to the engine. That of course necessitated some lengthening. Couple that with the Ford theory of More Front Covers is More Better, the passing of years, plus add in "Lo, Behold, Internal Balance We Shall Do In the Final Years" and you've got a mess. Shame. Decent motor, as good as the GM 3.8L that they took many cues from.

What's up with the UK 3.0L? Is that a version of the Vulcan V6? We've seen none of that business with the Essex but it has a lower bushing on the dizzy/cam position sensor drive. The Granada was built from 1966 thru 1971 here in NZ, probably longer in UK & SA. 60° vee and 'split pin' rod journals to give even 120° firing intervals, nothing much in common with the German V6 of that era.

Currently we're working on building a Essex 4.3L stroker V6 based on the neutral balanced truck rotating assembly and a later 2001+ block that had better caps and webbing, plus factory girdle. With some forged pistons and rods the motor should last a long time and we hope to only rebuild heads for a long time to come. Of course, we have a lot of hopes.

Got any ideas on reciprocating balance weights for these V6s? Ford specifies 38.5% if memory serves. I've spoken to a NASCAR builder, not any old NASCAR builder, but a builder who built the old SVO 4.5L V6 truck engines back in the day who balanced at 50% give or take what the shop wanted for oil weight and what not. Doing that though requires adding a lot of metal to the crank, especially if using a heavier forged rod. We did an experiment with a neutral balanced 3.8L but it was foiled with cast pistons and blew up after about 2.5 hours of operation. Your 3.8l Essex should be 90° vee and also have split crank pins and even firing intervals, hence the 38.5% balance factor, so is the 4.2L crank common pin or split as this will dictate bobweight percentage reqd. The SVO 4.5L had common pins & uneven firing intervals hence the 50% bob weight factor.

NASCAR builder doesn't care about weight as they had special forged cranks for the job, but all we have access to is stock 4.2L crank shafts which are cast and need weight to hit 50%. Those SVO NASCAR V6 block were aluminum too which would make for a hell of a cheater block. I'll save that for my retirement when I start vintage racing.
Having been associated with a few 'older' vintage racers the cheating gets more expensive with age!
 

Ron Earp

Administrator
Staff member
#9
Having been associated with a few 'older' vintage racers the cheating gets more expensive with age!

The SVO 4.5L had common pins & uneven firing intervals hence the 50% bob weight factor.

Wait now I'm not that old yet!

I have a out of print 4.5L SVO Build book I picked up off Ebay and I thought the SVO crank had split journals but I've never seen one in the flesh. I would've thought I'd have remembered it being odd fire but maybe I am that old cause I'm sure you're right.
 

Jac Mac

Active Member
#10
'1990' SVO catalog..M-6302-A380 Crankshaft- semi finished- common pin. All the reqd part #'s as well, cam blanks, iron block, heads, odd fire armature plus cap/ CD ignition pack.

Pic is from a guy on Speedtalk who had balance issues- one common pin, other split journal even fire.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Randy V

Administrator
#11
'1990' SVO catalog..M-6302-A380 Crankshaft- semi finished- common pin. All the reqd part #'s as well, cam blanks, iron block, heads, odd fire armature plus cap/ CD ignition pack.

Pic is from a guy on Speedtalk who had balance issues- one common pin, other split journal even fire.
GM tried that split pin with the V6 (Buick origin) and it was an abysmal failure in my opinion..
 

Jac Mac

Active Member
#12
A V6 should be 120° Vee to get even firing & intake pulses and use simple common pin crankshaft design, anything else adds weight and compromise. The Buick deal had the same issues as the Ford... mix and match at your own peril!
 

Ron Earp

Administrator
Staff member
#13
A V6 should be 120° Vee to get even firing & intake pulses and use simple common pin crankshaft design, anything else adds weight and compromise. The Buick deal had the same issues as the Ford... mix and match at your own peril!
Yep. And even at 60 degrees the motor still needs a balance shaft since it has the inherit vibration modes of two triples that can't be canceled.

The GM and Ford 90 degree V6s are some odd ducks. They work, both were fairly long lived (GM started the modern split pin version in 1977; Ford in 1982) and they appeared in dozens of cars/trucks, sometimes with good results. Both were successful engines by that metric.

Ford ended their Essex V6 production for passenger vehicles in 2007. It last appeared as a 4.2L V6 making 208hp/260 tq that was in the F150. The motor continued on til 2015 as a Ford produced generator engine.

GM ended their 3800 series V6 in 2008.

RIP 90 degree V6.
 
Top