Ford Cyclone 3.5L - CEG Archives

Originally posted by giddyup306:

Originally posted by RodneyBur:
did anyone ever post that response to the idea of putting the 3.0 inplace of the 2.5?

Werd. Anyone know if the 2.5L heads or the 3l heads will be a direct swap? Thought not.

Then again people said that I could not use the '96 block because the bellhousing was not right. I guarantee that it can work because I have my mtx75 and 96 3l bolted together as we speak. Their is a thing called ambition.... Their is a first for eveything.

that their is,kinda like me completeing my pre98 to post98 front end swap,(painted,just needs to be cleared!!)unfort. for you,your not the first to use the early 3l block..nobody said it couldnt be done,they said its not practical,givin the age,milage etc of a old block,

Originally posted by RodneyBur:
did anyone ever post that response to the idea of putting the 3.0 inplace of the 2.5?

Nope. Because the 3L was available easily when people started modding these cars, and especially because the turbo wasn't.

He's right, turboing a 3L with moderate boost will kill that engine. But then turboing that engine.....
There is still some fun to be had there.

Originally posted by Twisted6:
Funny FAST managed to get the new 4.0L V6 with iVCT to run without an ECU that had VCT controls on it. But what does a low-post count member like myself know about such things?

Please provide more info on this and/or link. The 4.0L SOHC V6 has never had VCT. Not for Explorer, Ranger, SportTrac or the new Mustang. A few prototypes engines were made w/ VCT internally at Ford but that's as far as it ever got. Now the 4.6L 3V V8 used in the new Mustang does have VCT.

Originally posted by procyon:

Originally posted by Twisted6:
Funny FAST managed to get the new 4.0L V6 with iVCT to run without an ECU that had VCT controls on it. But what does a low-post count member like myself know about such things?

Please provide more info on this and/or link. The 4.0L SOHC V6 has never had VCT. Not for Explorer, Ranger, SportTrac or the new Mustang. A few prototypes engines were made w/ VCT internally at Ford but that's as far as it ever got. Now the 4.6L 3V V8 used in the new Mustang does have VCT.

Correction: It was the new 3V 4.6 and I found the article here:

http://www.fuelairspark.com/ArticlesAboutUs/Details.asp?ID=1027707949

"The variable cam timing on the Three-Valve motor is controlled by a pulse-width modulated signal from the factory computer. While we can control this using the SCT software on a stock ECU (on a chassis dyno), our FAST management system did not offer this capability. We had been running the testing with the cams in the default position (no electronic signal to the solenoid), and though we could not alter the timing electronically, we could adjust it mechanically.

To illustrate power gains (and losses) offered by retarding the cam timing, we retarded the cams 1 tooth. Changing the cam timing 1 tooth on the cam sprocket was the equivalent of 8.5 degrees (42 tooth sprocket/360 degrees). As expected, retarding the cams increased the power output above 5,200 RPM (to a peak of 369 HP), but dropped the power below that point (as much as 37 lb-ft at 3,000 RPM). The key point to remember from this test is by using the variable cam timing, we can have all the torque offered by the advanced position as well as the power offered by the retarded position."

Found some more info (and great pictures): Ford 3.5L Cyclone Info

Having removed my MTX-75 once, the bolt pattern on the rear of the 3.5L looks very familiar:

Who will be the first to attempt a transplant of one of these into a Contique?!

hmmm...its the same dimensions as the 3 liter,thats good news,i wonder if the tranny mounting holes are the same?

Nice!

Look, similar SVT style oil/water cooler. Waterpump is moved, that could be a problem. THe bell housing mounting area is more rounded though.
Look at the rear mounted crank pickup sensor though. YUCK if that ever goes bad.

The basic block looks essentially the same design though. It might not mate to the transmission evenly, but it may go.

The big question is what would it take to make the crank fit a 3.0 block.

Originally posted by Big Jim:
The big question is what would it take to make the crank fit a 3.0 block.

Humm... stroker... lol

Is it just me, or does it look like the 3.5 is a one piece block design?

Just you.

Actually it looks very similar to the regular 3.0 duratec.

It looks similar enough that I wonder if a 3L/2.5L head bolt pattern and galleries are the same?

I could see a 3.5L ovalport with correct waterpump drive, high compression without the valve shrouding in the 2.5L being quite the monster.
I wonder what the valve sizes are for that thing anyway?

Originally posted by warmonger:
Just you.

Actually it looks very similar to the regular 3.0 duratec.

It looks similar enough that I wonder if a 3L/2.5L head bolt pattern and galleries are the same?

I could see a 3.5L ovalport with correct waterpump drive, high compression without the valve shrouding in the 2.5L being quite the monster.
I wonder what the valve sizes are for that thing anyway?

Who will be the first to try...??

Originally posted by touredon:

Originally posted by Big Jim:
The big question is what would it take to make the crank fit a 3.0 block.

Humm... stroker... lol

Is it just me, or does it look like the 3.5 is a one piece block design?

That is a computer image. It's not showing any gaps for oil pan, girdle, heads, etc.

Originally posted by Big Jim:
The big question is what would it take to make the crank fit a 3.0 block.

You mean besides custom length rods and maybe even pistons so you don't quickly use up the few hundreths of valve clearance you have.

Originally posted by TourDeForce:

Originally posted by warmonger:
Just you.

Actually it looks very similar to the regular 3.0 duratec.

It looks similar enough that I wonder if a 3L/2.5L head bolt pattern and galleries are the same?

I could see a 3.5L ovalport with correct waterpump drive, high compression without the valve shrouding in the 2.5L being quite the monster.
I wonder what the valve sizes are for that thing anyway?

Who will be the first to try...??

not tom,since he's trying to sell it

Good writeup on the new 3.5L Cyclone engine in the January issue of Automotive Engineering. There is a cutaway display engine in the pictures. There is also interesting reading at the start of the article about Toyota engine that has direct AND port fuel injection. The supercharged and turbocharged Volkswagon engine is pretty cool too but a plumbing nightmare.

Here is the link

Originally posted by DemonSVT:

Originally posted by Big Jim:
The big question is what would it take to make the crank fit a 3.0 block.

You mean besides custom length rods and maybe even pistons so you don't quickly use up the few hundreths of valve clearance you have.

Of course., the rod length or piston pin position as well as skirt length, all would have to be taken into consideration. If the crank has the same spacings and same journal sizes that is often the hardest part of stroking an engine. There would still be a lot to figure out.

the 3.5L block is at least 18.8mm longer than the 3.0L... that's a minimum, could very well be more...

an inch isn't much to recover, but it's going to require alot of custom work for that measly inch (mounts, axles, possible cutting), not to mention the other custom mods required, like a custom bellhousing plate, and i'm sure there are a few others... making demon's statement of turbo 3L much more attractive....

3.5L bore = 92.5
3.0L bore = 88.9
3.5L bore centers are placed 4mm farther apart than 3.0L

((92.5mm - 88.9mm) * 3 cylinders) + (4mm * 2 cylinders) = 18.8mm
There could be even more room at either end of the block so that number could very well be 22 - 25mm in difference.

Originally posted by PuckPuck:
the 3.5L block is at least 18.8mm longer than the 3.0L... that's a minimum, could very well be more...

an inch isn't much to recover, but it's going to require alot of custom work for that measly inch (mounts, axles, possible cutting), not to mention the other custom mods required, like a custom bellhousing plate, and i'm sure there are a few others... making demon's statement of turbo 3L much more attractive....

3.5L bore = 92.5
3.0L bore = 88.9
3.5L bore centers are placed 4mm farther apart than 3.0L

((92.5mm - 88.9mm) * 3 cylinders) + (4mm * 2 cylinders) = 18.8mm
There could be even more room at either end of the block so that number could very well be 22 - 25mm in difference.

With different bore centers, there is not much chance that the the crank could be used as a basis to stroke a 3.0.

Did you get those specs from somewhere, or are you speculating on how they made it go from 3.0 to 3.5?

procyon posted this link a few replies up....

Yeah, but it doesn't work for me.

Yuck, it has an open deck, not ideal for mega power/bossting, like the Honda boys found out.

Yes, but that is easily fixed in a day with the right epoxy

Originally posted by Stazi:
Yuck, it has an open deck, not ideal for mega power/bossting, like the Honda boys found out.

Just incase you think that I'm smoking crack, this appears to be a common mod on boosted honda blocks: http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1444721&page=1

Originally posted by Stazi:
Yuck, it has an open deck, not ideal for mega power/bossting, like the Honda boys found out.

I believe that the die casting process necessitates an open deck. Sand casting allows you to have cavities and such.

Originally posted by fastcougar:

Originally posted by Stazi:
Yuck, it has an open deck, not ideal for mega power/bossting, like the Honda boys found out.

Just incase you think that I'm smoking crack, this appears to be a common mod on boosted honda blocks: http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1444721&page=1

I've heard of someone using concrete.

does anyone else find it funny that only now in it's 3.5l form, the duratec is making the HP that was specified in the original porsche design??