Corky's engine choice

Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!

Bruce A. Frank


"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
Someone expressed surprise that I was now working on a Ford 3.8L V-6
for my engine. Last they'd heard, I was trying to find a certified
type.

I thought I'd bring everyone up to date. It's true that I had
basically given up on using an auto conversion as I was having trouble
justifying the cost of the PSRU. I'd started with a Buick/Olds 215
cid aluminum block V-8 and then switched to the Mazda 13B. I disliked
all the problems associated with the 13B so I sold that too.

I then actively searched for an aircooled aircraft engine. I mean I
really looked hard. But every single engine I looked at was really
tough to examine. I'd basically have to be an expert engine examiner
(which I wasn't) and be ready to travel all over the country to look
at it. Some had logs, most didn't. I eventually ended up with a
brand new piclkled 0-470-15. This turned out to be a military version
of the 0-470 and there was a LOT missing. I forget now what I paid
for it but it was too much and it would have cost me more than twice
that to get the thing running with all the parts missing. And
besides, it was REALLY heavy.

So I resold it.

I kept looking for a good low priced aircraft engine and just could
not find one close enough to get or I was unwilling to risk paying $7K
to $8K for someone to ship me an engine that had not been inspected.

I am an ex auto mechanic and have built several engines, but I am
totally unfamiliar with aircraft engines other than to understand from
a mechanical point of few. It's just that there is SO MUCH that can
be wrong with them and you don't know it until you've completely
dismantled them and zygloed them or x-rayed them or whatever to fully
inspect them. Then if anything is actually wrong, your bargain engine
is suddenly a financial black hole.

So I finally decided that I had to turn back to the auto coversion
again. At this point, things began to go right. Bruce Frank pointed
out why the Ford V-6 makes sense: millions of them out there, hundreds
of PSRU's and a lot of running time with a good record and it's a
light weight engine.

I found an engine salvager who was willing to ship any number of Ford
V-6's to me for $150 each. At that price, I took two, thinking that
if I found a problem part, I could just yank it from the other engine.

I also found a local machine shop who's owner had been building Fords
and just about everything else for half his life. He was willing to
take the block, crank, heads etc and clean them up and bring them to
specification. I needed all six intake valves, it turned out,
couldn't save them, they were pitted from water damage. I would have
used them in a street car but not my aircraft engine. They cost about
$16 each. The exhaust valves were fine.

At this point I found other parts suppliers. I found Morana racing in
Canada. They cater to the Ford V-6 and had all kinds of parts I
needed like new valve springs, keepers and caps. They also had roller
rockers. I bought a set of them too.

I found ARP which stands for Automobile Racing Parts. They make high
strength studs for engine assembly. They are used in a majority of
the racing world's engines. A set of studs for the cylinder heads and
main bearings cost me $145. I also bought new lifters, a new oil pump
kit and machined the intake manifold to accept the two barrel Holley
carb. Then I bought the carb and the McNeilly leaning block so the
mixture can be leaned.

All this was made possible because Bruce contacted me telling me that
he'd heard about a PSRU that was for sale at a good price. It was
less than half price.

I will be reporting the total bill for the engine and peripherals and
how things are working when I get there.

But for now, the process will be to assemble the engine and PSRU and
hang it off the firewall so I can get the rest of the airplane
finished. I already fabricated the engine mount, I used the second
block to mock that up. I also welded the Piper Tripacer landing gear
to the engine mount. That went well.

Corky Scott

Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nah.
I'm reasonably up to date on Corky's misadventures.

FWIW --
When it comes to car engines, I will never, ever own another Ford
with a V-6 as they currently make 'em.... much less be soooo nuts
as to shoehorn such a POS into a perfectly useable airframe.

Barnyard BOb -- don't 'axe' me what I really think )

Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nah.
I'm reasonably up to date on Corky's misadventures.

FWIW --
When it comes to car engines, I will never, ever own another Ford
with a V-6 as they currently make 'em.... much less be soooo nuts
as to shoehorn such a POS into a perfectly useable airframe.

Barnyard BOb -- don't 'axe' me what I really think )

P.S.
At $150 per copy, the Ford V-6 is waaaay overpriced.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:43:46 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:


Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nah.
I'm reasonably up to date on Corky's misadventures.

FWIW --
When it comes to car engines, I will never, ever own another Ford
with a V-6 as they currently make 'em.... much less be soooo nuts
as to shoehorn such a POS into a perfectly useable airframe.

Barnyard BOb -- don't 'axe' me what I really think )

P.S.
At $150 per copy, the Ford V-6 is waaaay overpriced.

Apparently it IS possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -
and the 3.8 as supplied by Ford IS a sow's ear. The current crop, from
198? on is leak prone and fragile. The commonly supplied antifreeze,
when it gets into today's oil, makes short work of the factory
supplied bearings.
There are gaskets and build procedures that can make a relatively
leak-proof 3.8. Is there a combination of oil, antifreeze, and bearing
that will not result in instant death when they are combined????
For this reason I have reservations about the 3.8.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:33:33 GMT, clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote:

Apparently it IS possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -
and the 3.8 as supplied by Ford IS a sow's ear. The current crop, from
198? on is leak prone and fragile. The commonly supplied antifreeze,
when it gets into today's oil, makes short work of the factory
supplied bearings.
There are gaskets and build procedures that can make a relatively
leak-proof 3.8. Is there a combination of oil, antifreeze, and bearing
that will not result in instant death when they are combined????
For this reason I have reservations about the 3.8.

I'm well aware of the problems Ford has had with leaking cylinderhead
gaskets with this engine. That's why I bought the ARP cylinderhead
studs instead of replacement cylinderhead bolts from Ford.

Studs allow a more accurate torque setting because the only thing
turning is the nut against the washer, not the entire bolt. ARP
recommends that you use either their lubricant between the nut and
washer or oil. If you use their lubricant, the torque value is a LOT
less than if you use oil. In addition, you get to use all the threads
available to hold the stud in: you thread it down till it bottoms.
The nice thing about having a cast steel block is you don't have to
worry about stripping the threads out of the block.

ARP also recommends that you install "throw away" head gaskets for the
first torque of the cylinderhead, then fire up the engine, bring it to
temperature and then shut it down and let it cool to room temperature.

Once it's completely cooled, remove the heads, replace the head
gaskets with new, reinstall the heads, retorque and you're good to go
for the rest of the life of the engine.

What this does, they said, is get the studs initially stretched, after
which they will hold constant pressure.

They were suggesting I use the old head gaskets for the initial
startup as it really didn't matter what you used. Cardboard would
work (they said) since you are just running it to temperature then
shutting it down again. Of course, I did not save the original
gaskets when I dismantled the two engines so I'll have to buy an extra
two.

Just another one of those tricks to remember when building engines.
I'm sure Lycoming and Continental engine rebuilders have their own
tricks.

By the way, the block was decked to true the surface, and the
cylinderheads were planed. I know that at least initially, I'll have
two flat surfaces to mate together.

The great majority of the Ford auto conversions have run reliably IF
(the big IF) the builder followed the conversion manual and
information that has accumulated.

Corky Scott

clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:43:46 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:


Uh-oh, duck!!! Here comes BOb!

Bruce A. Frank
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nah.
I'm reasonably up to date on Corky's misadventures.

FWIW --
When it comes to car engines, I will never, ever own another Ford
with a V-6 as they currently make 'em.... much less be soooo nuts
as to shoehorn such a POS into a perfectly useable airframe.

Barnyard BOb -- don't 'axe' me what I really think )

P.S.
At $150 per copy, the Ford V-6 is waaaay overpriced.

Apparently it IS possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -
and the 3.8 as supplied by Ford IS a sow's ear. The current crop, from
198? on is leak prone and fragile. The commonly supplied antifreeze,
when it gets into today's oil, makes short work of the factory
supplied bearings.
There are gaskets and build procedures that can make a relatively
leak-proof 3.8. Is there a combination of oil, antifreeze, and bearing
that will not result in instant death when they are combined????
For this reason I have reservations about the 3.8.

1988 Sable
1993 Thunderbird
nearly half a million miles between them using petroleum engine oil changed
@ 5k
zero reliability and maintenance issues
just one man's experience; YMMV

baltobernie

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:51:27 -0400, "baltobernie"
wrote:



1988 Sable
1993 Thunderbird
nearly half a million miles between them using petroleum engine oil changed
@ 5k
zero reliability and maintenance issues
just one man's experience; YMMV

baltobernie

At my brother's shop, (he is an ex Ford Dealership mechanic) he
replaces more 3.8 ford engines than any other 2 combined. Head gaskets
are the major culprit, but timing cover gaskets take down their share
as well.
Don't know if it is the silicates in the anti-freeze or what, but a
very MINOR coolant leak into the oil makes a noisy engine in a hurry.
Replacing rod and main bearings does NOT solve it, so he has stopped
even trying to patch them. Antifreeze in the oil? Pull the engine and
replace. Not out of the ordinary for them to let go under 85000km
Windstars and Taurus/sable from 1995 up appear to be worst.
We had some bad luck with an older T-Bird 3.8 (brother -in-law's car)
as well. It went through 3 cranks before it got traded back to the
selling Ford dealer. One under Ford warranty, one a year later, and
another required by the time it got to the dealer's lot less than a
year later. Interestingly, the brother-in-law works in the Windsor
engine plant - and he says it's no wonder Ford engine quality is so
variable, as there are test and calibration fixtures that have not
been functional for several years - and Ford won't spend the money to
repair/replace them

I just had the head gaskets in my Windstars 3.8 replaced last year.
about 115K miles at that time, I think.

John

There was a fascinating talk at AirVenture (at least some of it was
fascinating :-) by a guy from NASA. His point was that if you're willing
to give up some efficiency, you can save a whole lot of cost. For
example, if you're willing to put up with some extra engine weight, or
some extra fuel burn, or whatever, you can get in the air lots cheaper.
The real costs come in getting the last bit of efficiency was his point.

Let's take some hypotheticals:
* An "aircraft style" two seater, 1600 pounds gross, 1100 empty, 160
knots, 9 GPH, 60 thousand bucks
* An "unoptimized" two seater, 2000 pounds gross, 1400 empty, 140 knots,
11 GPH, 30 thousand bucks

I know which we'd all like to have, but which we'd all like to pay for.
I think that one factor is that most of the auto engine planes look much
less than cool, with gunky cowls and radiators and such. If somebody did
a "cheapmobile" and it looked cool...

Ed Wischmeyer

Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
There was a fascinating talk at AirVenture (at least some of it was
fascinating :-) by a guy from NASA. His point was that if you're willing
to give up some efficiency, you can save a whole lot of cost. For
example, if you're willing to put up with some extra engine weight, or
some extra fuel burn, or whatever, you can get in the air lots cheaper.
The real costs come in getting the last bit of efficiency was his point.

Let's take some hypotheticals:
* An "aircraft style" two seater, 1600 pounds gross, 1100 empty, 160
knots, 9 GPH, 60 thousand bucks
* An "unoptimized" two seater, 2000 pounds gross, 1400 empty, 140 knots,
11 GPH, 30 thousand bucks

I know which we'd all like to have, but which we'd all like to pay for.
I think that one factor is that most of the auto engine planes look much
less than cool, with gunky cowls and radiators and such. If somebody did
a "cheapmobile" and it looked cool...

Ed Wischmeyer

What was that rumor about Toyota again?

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------