FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: dozz302 on September 23, 2020, 04:49:28 PM
-
Hello, I have a set or rods I was going to be using in a motor I'm doing. They are 427 C3AE rods that have been polished. Had them checked and they are Good.
This will be a bracket motor that will most likely never see above 6200 RPM. Maybe 475 horsepower.
Question is should I go thru the trouble to have them shot peened? From the factory they were shot peened but when polished did that remove the hardened surface??
Should I have them shot peened again? I found a place I will have to send them to to get it done properly.
Thanks
-
Bracket engine? You need aftermarket rods. I would not trust 57 year old rods to a race application.
-
Head to the “Member Projects” section and check out my Mustang thread. That will talk you out of factory Ford rods.
-
By the time you get the factory rods squared away between shot peen and rod bolts aftermarket aren’t to much more. Regular I beams are stronger then 55 year old rods. Do yourself a favor and save yourself some aggravation.
-
Up until a few years ago, my old 390 was running the factory rods with stock bolts, but different nuts. They have seen 7k a few times and over 6k quite a bit. I would not hesitate to reuse them on a stockish or mild rebuild. For the peace of mind, you may want aftermarket here.
-
Some 25 yrs ago I wanted to put Lemans rods in my 428CJ race motor. I spend a FORTUNE getting them all tuned up. In todays money, that would be nearly what it cost to by TWO sets of aftermarket rods.
I agree, what you will spend on getting them redone, you can have a nice set of aftermarket rods that will survive forever compared to vintage rods.
Those Lemans rods still live in that same 428, but in light street duty.
-
X2 on new rods best deal i found on a set was from dsc motorsport.
-
Re shot peening the rods can do more damage than good. Ford has a specification , air pressure ,shot size , time being blasted , to get the desired surface hardness, Without that knowledge , there could be an issue.
As others have already said "costs" have to be looked at and that usually has the aftermarket rod being a better choice , both cost and durability wise. It's real easy to dump too much money into stock rods and still have a weaker part in the end. The least expensive H beam rod is superior to the low riser rods simply by design.
Randy
-
are they low stress rods out of a low milage engine or have they been run hard before? i re-used a set out of a 66 428 with very low milage and driven right too.the crank did not need turning,even the block did not need bored.the rods were prepped and fitted with arp bolts.that is the only only way i would re-use factory rods.but if its a bracket only motor,i would go aftermarket
-
X2 on new rods best deal i found on a set was from dsc motorsport.
I bought set from DSC about a year ago. He said they had ARP 2000 bolts. Rods showed up had ARP 8740 bolts. Rods are no name, but look like to be RPM. The rods I got look fine, but I have had two times Dennis send something different then he said and is kinda oh well...
He is a good guy, just at $450 for a set of no name rods, next time will get a set of Eagles for a few $$$ more.
-
RPM or Speedmaster/ProComp most likely.
-
427 C3AE rods that have been polished.
Question is ........................
Should I have them shot peened again?
I found a place I will have to send them to to get it done properly.
Thanks
If so, the short answer is YES!
Before the flood of all the after-market rods on market, and we only had available the O.E.M. pieces, polishing and shot-peening was an almost standard procedure for us in our performance/race build engines.
Scott.
-
What's funny is they never broke in the beam where we polished them to keep them from breaking in the first place.
-
When they break it's either a fastener failure at the side of the big end - or a fatigue failure about one inch below the pin. Back in the proverbial day we used to see a fair number of fastener failures before ARP stuff was common. Now, with the original parts being really old we see a fair number of fatigue failures. You cannot identify a potential fatigue failure with an X-ray or magna flux because its not caused by a crack or inclusion.
-
I have a 63 427 that broke a rod about 1 inch below the pin and put a window on each side of the block. I have heard that all the rods that come from china come out of same plant and the get their brand name when the they are shipped here?
-
The only CJ I have ever broke was a rod about 1" below the pin boss. It broke the rod in two places and left the big end on the crankshaft. Joe-JDC
-
The not lightweight TRW pistons available back in the 80's and 90's didn't help either.
I would not be afraid to run factory rods with modern lightweight piston.
However the cost of better forgings available now would be my first choice.
In the 80's and 90's one had to use factory rods - I even bought a set of scj rods new from the local Ford dealer.
-
I have a 63 427 that broke a rod about 1 inch below the pin and put a window on each side of the block. I have heard that all the rods that come from china come out of same plant and the get their brand name when the they are shipped here?
Not the case, Wayne.
There is "good China" and "bad China". Scat, Molnar, K1, etc., have excellent properties and you can obviously tell that Scat pieces are not made like Molnar or K1 pieces.
I would consider Procomp, Speedmaster, etc., part of the "bad China".
-
Here is a little more insight. The Chinese are good "replicators" . Give them an item and they can build a "look a like" for 10% ( in many cases) of the original. 30 years ago ( or more) "someone" ( I do not know who) , sent a Carrillo rod to a manufacturing facility in China to be copied. Rods like this are used by many here in the states and there are ( according to Tom Molnar) about five "grades" of quality , NONE are scrapped , just sold at lower prices. The "copiers" have little IF ANY automotive back ground and often do not know what it is they are copying. I was told the same information by Tom Lieb , owner of Scat.
Tom Molnar created K1 after he left Oliver connecting rods. He supplied his OWN designs for a different looking , stronger , H beam design than the "cookie cutter" Carrillo copies coming from there. Tom sold K1 to a "Wall Street" corporation who still owns it. He started Molnar Technologies after he saw what was happening to his old company K1. Molnar products are still made to Tom's blueprints and those designs . "I" feel they are the highest quality "offshore" manufactured rod out there.
Randy
-
I have a 63 427 that broke a rod about 1 inch below the pin and put a window on each side of the block.
That's why it was important to properly blend the beam into the transition for the pin loop in an attempt to spread the load over the length of the rod as much as was possible. Just shinning up the sides of the beam might look good, but it's a little more complicated then that; and proper execution (in my opinion) was rarely realized by most. ;)
I have heard that all the rods that come from china come out of same plant and the get their brand name when the they are shipped here?
There are different levels of quality in the "China" stuff; some looks not so bad, but others are atrocious! :o
Scott.
-
On the flip side of all this, I built a 289 back in 1977 when I was finishing up my degree in Automotive as part of my finals. I balanced all the internal parts by hand, deburred and polished the rods, finished the big end after installing ARP bolts, and installed the engine in a 1966 Mustang for a friend in Albuquerque, NM. I received a phone call last fall from my friend telling me that the Mustang is still running like a champ with the same engine in it. I know it is not a FE, but it was the latest thing in rod preparation at the time, and has worked well for 43 years. Joe-JDC
-
One reason for using the stock rods are the quality of rods made over sea's. There is little or no quality control. Since these Scat Eagle or who ever I have seen numerous examples of broken rods with these supposedly "superior" pieces. Just ask Steve Vandervilt (sorry if I misspelled) who recently wrecked his original CJ Notchback Mustang. Broken aftermarket rod was the culprit.
I will not be convinced that the steel they are using in those over sea's rods made today are better than the steel made 50 years ago.
You now even see broken crankshafts today with the after market over sea's pieces. I never even heard of a Ford Motor Company crankshaft ever breaking.
Come on, look who you are dealing with - CHINA > need I say more.
As far as cost you can get a very nice set of lightly used Ford rods very very cheap. Aftermarket bolts have them checked out and your good. Plus you know you have an excellent rod.
-
One reason for using the stock rods are the quality of rods made over sea's. There is little or no quality control. Since these Scat Eagle or who ever I have seen numerous examples of broken rods with these supposedly "superior" pieces. Just ask Steve Vandervilt (sorry if I misspelled) who recently wrecked his original CJ Notchback Mustang. Broken aftermarket rod was the culprit.
I will not be convinced that the steel they are using in those over sea's rods made today are better than the steel made 50 years ago.
You now even see broken crankshafts today with the after market over sea's pieces. I never even heard of a Ford Motor Company crankshaft ever breaking.
Come on, look who you are dealing with - CHINA > need I say more.
As far as cost you can get a very nice set of lightly used Ford rods very very cheap. Aftermarket bolts have them checked out and your good. Plus you know you have an excellent rod.
I’m sorry, but I’d take any Scat rod or crank over any 50-60 year old Ford part. If you use enough of anything, no matter who makes it or where it’s made, you will find an outlier. It’s statistics.
However, I promise you there are lots more broken and scattered Ford parts than anything made from Scat, Molnar, or the like.
Good luck.
-
You now even see broken crankshafts today with the after market over sea's pieces. I never even heard of a Ford Motor Company crankshaft ever breaking.
I have a two piece 391 steel crank, broken right through the journal/web of the thrust main... perhaps unusual but this was not even a hot rodded version.
and I have seen several cast 428 cranks broken, its ugly when that happens.
We are talking 75 year old parts here
-
You now even see broken crankshafts today with the after market over sea's pieces. I never even heard of a Ford Motor Company crankshaft ever breaking.
I have a two piece 391 steel crank, broken right through the journal/web of the thrust main... perhaps unusual but this was not even a hot rodded version.
and I have seen several cast 428 cranks broken, its ugly when that happens.
We are talking 75 year old parts here
I’ve got one of those cast 428 cranks, specialty 2 piece model now that broke between 1 & 2 main caps.
-
remember,the goal is just 475hp
-
remember,the goal is just 475hp
That doesn't seem a lot these days, but it was a lot more than engines were designed/rated for 60 years ago.
You have to look at the loading, hp, rpm, etc., but you also have to look at fatigue stress that's been in place over the last 50-60 years. The rods are also just not as rigid. Most guys that only had factory rods to play with and were turning some rpms had to machine the big ends out of round so that they would have acceptable clearance when running/loaded, to keep from spinning bearings.
For the guys that build for a living here, with our names on the engines, when a 450-500 hp FE bracket engine comes in, we're not going to take the liability of using a factory rod.
If you add up the costs of putting a $70 set of ARP bolts in, having them resized, rebushed, then sent out to be shotpeened, you're not going to be that far away from a set of Scat rods and just a little bit past that for a set of lightweight Molnar rods.
-
Think it just comes down to probability. I know of guys who used factory rods in 900 hp engines and did not hurt anything. My thinking is a lot has to do with how well the combo is dialed in, how it is used, knowing the history of the rods, proper prep and some luck. Most rod failures are not the rods fault. Detonation, lack of lubrication, etc... now that all said the likely hood of a failure with a used factory rod vs. a new aftermarket made of better materials of course the aftermarket rod is a better bet. Fact that they are close in price to a properly reworked set of factory rods kind of makes it a sensible choice. Of course an Eagle or scat rod is heavier than factory so add in cost to rebalance the engine and possible need for a slug of Mallory metal. Is like dominos falling. Go from basic rebuild and high performance prep to a stroker rotating assembly.
To the OP if you know the history of the rods you have, know that the work done is good and right, and getting them properly shot peened is say $50 and this is going to not be a race engine then go for it
Now if any of the above is a questionable then better of with new aftermarket rods.
-
Broke a 427 crank back in the '80s. Half mile oval (Toledo). Let go in the middle of the back straight. Factory cranks DO break, at least occasionally. It was likely an oiling problem, since the engine had a good few races on it, but the mess made it somewhat difficult to tell for sure.
KS
-
I know of guys who used factory rods in 900 hp engines and did not hurt anything.
I'd be interested in knowing who those guys are.
-
All the early SOHC users with blowers and 'pop' made more than that, but they were also replacing engines with alarming regularity. The analysis stands!
KS
-
All the early SOHC users with blowers and 'pop' made more than that, but they were also replacing engines with alarming regularity. The analysis stands!
KS
I doubt those were stock bottom ends, and those rods were as young as the builders were back then. Us FE guys and the stock parts are starting to get pretty worn out!
-
question, does a set of nos rods get fatigued just by sitting for 50 years.or would a nos rod or low mileage driven right rod be better than a set ran for many years that look good be just as good?
-
Here is a recent example from personal experience. I had to bow out of RMRW this year due to a spun rod bearing on #8 rod. It is very likely I hurt it early on or even before I started because my performance really dropped off after day one. So I may have driven over 700 miles with a hurt bearing and made 5 passes at the track shifting at 6400 rpm including two passes the last day when I could hear the piston tapping the head but couldn't figure out what it was at the time. I know now that for sure it was hurt before I made my last leg of 340 miles. Anyway my Eagle rod held in there even though the bearing had almost disintegrated and it looks like the rod had probably been red hot by the discoloration. Would a stock have held up to that, I don't know but I think this rod took a lot of abuse.
-
I bought a bone stock boss 302 years ago heard it run it had a knock oil pressure was good when i took it apart Crank was broke busted number two main cap I new of this engine a long time it was not beat hard even the good factory parts had trouble for no reason.
-
Well, I am no expert and there are certainly a lot of variables, not just one or two. You never really know what happened to an engine unless it is your own and you've owned it since it was built or rebuilt.
pl
-
Great feedback on this > but in this thread I see a lot of references to 50-60 year old rods. Does steel degrade over time? I thought it has the same strength...say a 1000 years from now if it is sitting on a shelf in some ones garage.
"Time" means nothing > only miles on rods or how they were used and history should be a known factor. But "Time " means nothing.
-
i have broken oem rods at 2500/3000 rpm a good friend broke a NEW 427SIDEOILER OEM SHORT BLOCK NOT rebuilt right from a ford dealership wiped block/crank/ every thing the block never saw 3500 rpm take a mic. and measure the web 1/2 inches below the rod pin not only millions of cycles if you look at enough of the you will find a paper thin web why chance breaking everything when good parts are finally available yes i used the rods available in the 60s when anything better was REALLY expensive!! on 1/2 mile paved track also picked up 1/2 428crank with damper/ parts of rds!!! broken oem rods just cost way too much to rebuild!! P.S. at the end of the back straightaway the parts are really HOT!!! penny wise pound foolish?? today it is so nice to have good parts where needed at a reasonable price short of really expensive rods i like molnar make your own good luck ::)
-
I bought a bone stock boss 302 years ago heard it run it had a knock oil pressure was good when i took it apart Crank was broke busted number two main cap I new of this engine a long time it was not beat hard even the good factory parts had trouble for no reason.
Balance issue. Happened often on Boss 302s. Always #2 cap or main.
-
I look at is risk/return. If a rod breaks, how many $$$ are you potentially looking at for the damage? Block/crank/cam/even heads could be damaged. What's the delta in cost between an aftermarket rod and rebuilt rods? $200? Seems like little investment for peace of mind.
-
i have broken oem rods at 2500/3000 rpm a good friend broke a NEW 427SIDEOILER OEM SHORT BLOCK NOT rebuilt right from a ford dealership wiped block/crank/ every thing the block never saw 3500 rpm ...
We certainly blew up a lot of new stuff when I worked at the Ford Dyno Building! One of the old-time dyno operators told me about a LeMans sideoiler that "unzipped" the whole bottom skirt of the block during a durability test. He was in the room with it - old style GE dyno with the console right next to the engine :o :o
I worked with him in that same cell on a 460 truck engine. We were deliberately detonating it at max torque rpm to test the bearings. Man - being right next to a detonating engine in a dyno cell will make your hair stand on end. Definitely not OSHA approved. Those old guys had big brass ones...
I have stories of early 3.8L supercharged V6's coming apart at 6,500 rpm. You had to be in a separate control room for those, with an empty cell on either side of you! They finally figured out that a cast iron crank was not going to work. ::)
-
I had one of the early '89 T-birds with that engine and it was probably the most fun street car to drive I ever owned...that is, until it rained or snowed. There's definitely a learning curve to driving a supercharged vehicle. The entire production package was reliable, well engineered and over-achieved in performance.
-
Yeah the Thunderbird SC's were fun :) I got to take test cars home on the weekends a lot. The car was very well balanced and predictable. You could do a full throttle 80 mph drift (before drifting was a thing!) with one hand on the wheel and the other hand holding a latte. Try that in a Fox body Mustang!
Sorry for the off-topic. BTW, the first few thousand cars were built with cast crankshafts. They were all recalled once management realized how potentially dangerous an engine failure could be. Bill Ford Jr. was wringing out a test car at Arizona Proving Ground, when drove over the crankshaft at 140 mph :o
-
An old racing friend, Gordon Payne, also a Ford engineer, had told me a few of the 3.8L crankshaft mis-adventures. I seem to recall that he said that once the decision was made to switch to forged cranks, in the interest of expediency, Ford farmed production out to an off-shore supplier; I may have that part confused with one of his many other work stories.
-
This is again off topic. I have a SC, it was a great car while it ran. Most power and the best gas mileage of the 3 T-Birds I had. My issue with it was it gulped antifreeze and ruin the bearings, twice (I bought that way to begin with but, didn't know why the bearing were out). I understand that even the 4.2 version of the V6 does the same thing. What's with that?
I was impressed with the forged crank but, why did they put in that odd main bearing journal?
-
An old racing friend, Gordon Payne, also a Ford engineer, had told me a few of the 3.8L crankshaft mis-adventures. I seem to recall that he said that once the decision was made to switch to forged cranks, in the interest of expediency, Ford farmed production out to an off-shore supplier; I may have that part confused with one of his many other work stories.
Yes they had to source the crank forging from Japan. It was an embarrassment, because no US supplier had the capacity at the time. I can't remember the exact supplier - may have been Mitsubishi.
-
This is again off topic. I have a SC, it was a great car while it ran. Most power and the best gas mileage of the 3 T-Birds I had. My issue with it was it gulped antifreeze and ruin the bearings, twice (I bought that way to begin with but, didn't know why the bearing were out). I understand that even the 4.2 version of the V6 does the same thing. What's with that?
I was impressed with the forged crank but, why did they put in that odd main bearing journal?
I wasn't on that design team, but I did work on (struggle with) head gaskets in the early 90's. We got the mandate that all asbestos had to be eliminated from head gaskets. It turns out that asbestos was covering a lot of sins in the old engine designs... The replacement materials such as graphite just didn't cut it on the older engines. Multi-layer steel needed much finer surface finishes and more consistent clamp load than what you could get on the old stuff, so that was out. (Many new engines are using multi layer steel now...)
The 3.8L was an iron block / aluminum head combo so it was super hard on head gaskets. After deep thermal shock tests on the dyno, you could see the head gasket getting abraded away from the differential expansion. I bet you were leaking coolant into an oil return...
The 3.8L block was originally supposed to be aluminum. That was before my time (early 80's), but they found that the aluminum blocks would literally fall in half during dyno testing. Management just punted and tweaked the block tooling for cast iron. I wonder if the offset bearing shells are a by-product of those tooling tweaks. Not sure on that one...
Sorry this got so far off the rails, but it does speak to the idea that factory parts (like rods) can be far from perfect! I wouldn't hang my hat on OEM quality control vs aftermarket either. I was a foreman at an engine plant, so I've seen things :o
-
Anyway my Eagle rod held in there even though the bearing had almost disintegrated and it looks like the rod had probably been red hot by the discoloration. Would a stock have held up to that, I don't know but I think this rod took a lot of abuse.
I need to find the pictures of my old 428 that came unglued back in 2000. Those Eagle rods held on for DEAR life. Stuff was blowing apart in large chunks, but those rods held onto that crank with everything they could. They were twisted, bent, heads of bolts ground off, but they were still attached to the pieces of crank and all 8 pistons.
I doubt a stock rod would do that.
-
Years ago, I ran a 390 in my Fairmont, with a 175 HP Nitrous kit. It ran pretty well, until the 105 block ripped out all the webbing away, between the cam & crank bores. The 390 crank broke in 5 pieces, the oil pan rails were bulged out enough that I couldn
-
Sorry this got so far off the rails, but it does speak to the idea that factory parts (like rods) can be far from perfect! I wouldn't hang my hat on OEM quality control vs aftermarket either. I was a foreman at an engine plant, so I've seen things :o
Ohh I've seen some things myself... I can't mention the manufacturers, but during my career as an engineer, I've had to point out major design flaws to several automakers. I don't mean the typical "Hey make this minor change for manufacturability," no, that's common. I mean the "Hey, this is entirely wrong, the manufacturing method you are calling for is not the right approach and you will likely face a recall over this..."
-
Ohh I've seen some things myself... I can't mention the manufacturers, but during my career as an engineer, I've had to point out major design flaws to several automakers. I don't mean the typical "Hey make this minor change for manufacturability," no, that's common. I mean the "Hey, this is entirely wrong, the manufacturing method you are calling for is not the right approach and you will likely face a recall over this..."
Like in the late '90's when we were doing an aftermarket replacement piston for the then fairly new LS1 engines?
We got a few current (at the time) piston samples and I handed one to my piston product guy - a 60ish year old Sealed Power veteran.
He picked it up, glanced at it - and instantly said "this can't possibly work - it will have huge oil consumption issues". The oil ring return scallops were completely covered by the lower oil ring rail. Looked like they initially designed it for a reduced radial wall oil ring and then went to SAE "D" wall package without deepening the scallops. Oil had no where to go.
Of course they had an oil consumption warranty issue break into the news media shortly after....
-
Thank you Barry! The place I worked for once, was getting many complaints, oil usage, LS motors, some were like 600 miles to a quart of oil. Re - honing and rings didn't help. I always wondered what they could have possibly done wrong. Makes sense.
-
This is again off topic. I have a SC, it was a great car while it ran. Most power and the best gas mileage of the 3 T-Birds I had. My issue with it was it gulped antifreeze and ruin the bearings, twice (I bought that way to begin with but, didn't know why the bearing were out). I understand that even the 4.2 version of the V6 does the same thing. What's with that?
I was impressed with the forged crank but, why did they put in that odd main bearing journal?
I wasn't on that design team, but I did work on (struggle with) head gaskets in the early 90's. We got the mandate that all asbestos had to be eliminated from head gaskets. It turns out that asbestos was covering a lot of sins in the old engine designs... The replacement materials such as graphite just didn't cut it on the older engines. Multi-layer steel needed much finer surface finishes and more consistent clamp load than what you could get on the old stuff, so that was out. (Many new engines are using multi layer steel now...)
The 3.8L was an iron block / aluminum head combo so it was super hard on head gaskets. After deep thermal shock tests on the dyno, you could see the head gasket getting abraded away from the differential expansion. I bet you were leaking coolant into an oil return...
The 3.8L block was originally supposed to be aluminum. That was before my time (early 80's), but they found that the aluminum blocks would literally fall in half during dyno testing. Management just punted and tweaked the block tooling for cast iron. I wonder if the offset bearing shells are a by-product of those tooling tweaks. Not sure on that one...
Sorry this got so far off the rails, but it does speak to the idea that factory parts (like rods) can be far from perfect! I wouldn't hang my hat on OEM quality control vs aftermarket either. I was a foreman at an engine plant, so I've seen things :o
The water jacket on the end (3and4) was so close to the bore that the gasket blew there all the time , especially on the SC.
Randy
-
This is again off topic. I have a SC, it was a great car while it ran. Most power and the best gas mileage of the 3 T-Birds I had. My issue with it was it gulped antifreeze and ruin the bearings, twice (I bought that way to begin with but, didn't know why the bearing were out). I understand that even the 4.2 version of the V6 does the same thing. What's with that?
I was impressed with the forged crank but, why did they put in that odd main bearing journal?
I wasn't on that design team, but I did work on (struggle with) head gaskets in the early 90's. We got the mandate that all asbestos had to be eliminated from head gaskets. It turns out that asbestos was covering a lot of sins in the old engine designs... The replacement materials such as graphite just didn't cut it on the older engines. Multi-layer steel needed much finer surface finishes and more consistent clamp load than what you could get on the old stuff, so that was out. (Many new engines are using multi layer steel now...)
The 3.8L was an iron block / aluminum head combo so it was super hard on head gaskets. After deep thermal shock tests on the dyno, you could see the head gasket getting abraded away from the differential expansion. I bet you were leaking coolant into an oil return...
The 3.8L block was originally supposed to be aluminum. That was before my time (early 80's), but they found that the aluminum blocks would literally fall in half during dyno testing. Management just punted and tweaked the block tooling for cast iron. I wonder if the offset bearing shells are a by-product of those tooling tweaks. Not sure on that one...
Sorry this got so far off the rails, but it does speak to the idea that factory parts (like rods) can be far from perfect! I wouldn't hang my hat on OEM quality control vs aftermarket either. I was a foreman at an engine plant, so I've seen things :o
The water jacket on the end (3and4) was so close to the bore that the gasket blew there all the time , especially on the SC.
Randy
I read about all the SC issues and realize I must have been really lucky once upon a time. Wife had a red 1989 Cougar XR7. Same driveline as a SC T-Bird in Mercury trim. Ran great and she really, really liked it. After over 150,000 miles we got rid of it when she was about to have our first kid - could not get into the car anymore around the large seat bolsters. Turns out that the car was really rare compared to the SC...
-
I've kept my SC, it's low mileage and I know it will be worth something, in the future. It still has the blown gasket. I thought about replacing the short block, with a 4.2 but, I found they have the same problem.
It's curious that they produced this engine, from '82, until 2008 (26 yrs) and not fixed the problem!
BTW, I love the seats! The best I've ever seen in a production car.
-
It's curious that they produced this engine, from '82, until 2008 (26 yrs) and not fixed the problem!
The answer comes down to money. The basic 3.8 / 4.2 engine architecture had some serious flaws that were baked into hundreds of millions of dollars in tooling / production equipment.
Pushrod engines were deemed a dead-end for meeting future emissions and fuel economy targets by the time I was there. Money was spent on new engine families instead of fixing the old ones.
-
Frank,
"To me" the solution on the 3.8SC was to "post" the end of the head. Ron a set screw in from the outside through the water jacket to keep the combustion chamber wall from lifting. We used to do the Cleveland heads the same way. Just touching ( cold) was enough to stop losing gaskets on a 13+-1 351C Pro Stock engine.
-
My opinion is that the 3.8 is one of Ford's worst engines ever. They tried to copy a good engine design (Buick 3.8 ), but got lost on the path to mediocrity.
I would take a 3.0 Vulcan engine over it any day.
JMO,
paulie
-
Not to take this further into the weeds...
But I'll also be forever grateful to the 3.8 SC for generating a supply of Eaton M90s available for disposal/afterhours R&D. Otherwise I would have never guessed how rowdy a 200 six can be in a 62 Falcon.
-
Thank you, Randy. I'll look into that.