rattle , the ford kent engine was not used in the zepher , the zepher had both a 4 cyl and a 6 cyl engine , dating back to (4 cyl) 1951 !!!
the kent lump came out in 59?
the engines are completly different to the a series ,
|
I am not sure where zepher comes from, I know it is a completly different engines. I was talking about the Kent/ A series is those are the engines which most cars from the 60's to 80's had which were sold in the UK.
The Kent/A series is similar in that they were both fairly low deplicements, both four cylinder and both overhead valve. I realise that were a far bigger range of Kents compared to the A series and the A series is a smaller engine in most cases though.
|
rattle , the origional poster said
" If a common pushrod engine from the mid 60?s (Ford Zephyr for example) "
thats where the zephyr came from,,,
In 1971 , i got a ton out of a zodiac mk 111 , truth be known the speedo was prob puddled , prob doing 80mph
|
|
I attended the midnight launch of the Mk3 Zodiac at the local Ford main agent and I distinctly remember all the large posters on display in the showroom banging on about the new Zodiac being the first 100mph production ford. Shortly after that launch we took delivery of the first of forty Zephyrs, pared down to specification, for use as area and traffic cars. I can assure you that they certainly did well in excess of 80mph !
|
|
|
|
I owned a 1967 Series 3 Lotus ELan - Ford twin cam engine etc.. about 8 years ago.
The seals did not like synthetic or semi synthetic oils, the engine tolerances were too wide and the differential leaked. Normal non synthetic oils were just fine...
The engineering tolerances on the pistion rings were - by modern standards - wide as a bridge.. As were the bearing tolerances. No NC machines and laser testing:
Fors used to have engines built new with 0.020" undersize cranks .. to utilise cranks originally incorrectly machined. BL did not bother.. they jsut threw them together any old how judging by some A series engines I heard..
The Ford Kent series was designed in the late 1950s. The BL A series was designed in the 1940s.... Siamesed inlet ports and exhaust on the same side as the inlet manifold showed how carp the A series design was.. and the timing chain tensioner - if fitted - was a rubber band... and after 30k miles, sounded as if it had snapped.
The Kent had a proper crossport head in its later derivatives and was a modern oversquare engine. The A series by comparison was always limited due to the head design although you could buy OHC conversions for Minis in the 19990s...
|
I've been reading this nonsense, published by oil manufacturers, about tighter tolerances for the last 30 years - doubtlessly, it's been going on for far longer.
Firstly, if the tolerances have been getting tighter, then, nothing has been changing which needs better oil. All toerance means is deviation from the nominal. So, if modern engines deviate less from nominal, that cannot mean they need better oil. If anything, with less deviation from nominal an engine would tolerate poorer oil.
I don't think that they can be talking about clearances either - although it might make a bit more sense. The range of tolerable clearances between, say big ends knocking and big ends siezing up hasn't changed, nor has the range of tolerable clearances between piston rings and bore with excessive oil consumption at one end of the range, and again, siezing at the other.
The things which I can believe have changed are things like increased cam loadings from more aggressive cam profiles and in VWs case, heavily loaded unit injectors. I can also believe that long chain runs for OHC engines might need something a bit special. I can also believe that a modern high output engine might subject the oil to higher temperatures than older engines, particularly where turbochargers are used.
I can believe that older engines are incompatible in terms of their sealing materials, but, I think you do need to be back in the 60's and earlier before that becomes an issue.
However, the very mention of tolerances just makes me laugh, as it's clearly the invention of the marketeers rather than any (credible!) engineer.
|
|
|
How's this for a Mini OHC conversion spotted on a hill climb car just to get a sixteen valve head?
BMW K series motorbike head. The 'bike has chain cam drive, this is belt. Oil galleries, combustion chamber and fixings alignment must be a nighmare.
tinyurl.com/y8r75zq
Edited by bathtub tom {p} on 30/11/2009 at 20:29
|
|
why is the engine in backwards? :)
|
That's just the cross flow head!
The engine retains it's original orientation. I guess you're used to seeing the inlet and exhaust at the back.
|
|
Why backwards? Timing gear (belt) on right, clutch on left., with a crossflow head. The only things out of place are the carburettors. Doh, missed the smiley!
Edited by Old Navy on 30/11/2009 at 21:16
|
I'd say the machined surface finish on cylinder bores and crankshafts on older engines would have been microscopically rougher thus more susceptible to wear than engines produced today. <<
Surprisingly this isn't really the case - if a bore/journal is too smooth it can hold less of an oil layer and may be prone to excessive oil consumption. I think the same phenomenon was noted with artificial hip joints when it was assumed (wrongly) that an amazingly smooth surface would wear less.
I'm suspicious material science (nitriding of cranks for example), better oil quality/additives, and some of the emissions changes have actually improved engine longevity.
Unleaded fuels require tougher valve seats, so wear is reduced there.
Catalytic converters/fuel injection means less acidic combustion products than old carburettored engines, especially from cold starts. Equally there is less fuel dilution of modern oil and shorter periods of 'rich' mixtures mean oil is not washed from bores on start-up as it used to be.
Other than archaic seals, putting new oil into old engines risks disturbing years of deposited crud through the use of more potent detergents - this can lead to oil gallery blockages and oil starvation.
The flow volume of oil, rather than its inherent pressure from the pump is probably more important to good engine health, so lighter weight/viscosity oild probably aid longevity compared to 20/50s of the past.
I would be suspicious that modern oils may confer a slight benefit to the lifespan of an unused old engine, but I think the fuel system is more likely to have been the cause of accelerated wear in the past.
As usual definitive evidence is thin on the ground - with engines having a life of 8+ years, real world testing is limited as engine technology has moved on by the time you know if you "got it right" with an older generation engine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rattle,twice a year.Spring when the 20w/50 went in and Autumn for the 10w/30.My shortest journey however was 18 miles and always plenty of revs(you had to-4-speed box) to get the valves rotating.The OHV engine that came out in 1959 in the 105E was not a Kent tho' there were many similarities when the Kent was finally introduced.
|
|
|
|
