The elusive 224/3.7 MerCruiser banger

IM thinking about building this engine and sticking it in a LOCOST 7 like this
http://www.locostusa.com/ That would be awesome with all of the torque this engine puts out...it should be the ticket.. And as a added bonus you can build your own car..

 

encswsm,

With a total engine and T5 weight of about 450 lbs and about 275 ft/lbs of torque it should get the job done.

With the mild build I am doing it would be very reliable and still very fast.

The aluminum head that I am using has the same combustion chamber volumn as the Mercruiser/Ford cast iron head with an 8.8 to 1 compression ratio.

It you wanted to make a tiger out of it you could put a turbo on it at 5-6 lbs of boost and still be fairly reliable.

I imagine it would be good for 300 hp with a turbo.

Anything more than that and I would go for better connecting rods than the Mercruiser/Ford rods even though they were semi-performance rods of the time.

If you decide to go with the 470 in a LOCOST 7 keep us posted.

Dick

 

I stretched my car 24" all in the hood. There have been many times that I'm glad I did. It makes very useful extra room in front of the engine.

 

I have found it easier to fit a body to the car rather than the car to an existing body. As what remains to do on yours has no compound curves, sheet metal is a good option. Its main problem is vibration.

 

I was told that there are no more cam blanks left for the 470. Not that a motivated builder couldn't make a blank from an old cam and metal.

 

I think that some of you are trying to gild the lilly too much.

You might pay the price in reliability by trying to get too much out of these engines.

I understand it if you are trying for race car performance.

But if you are going to drive your cars on the highway for any distance you might have problems as a result of trying to get too much HP out of them.

I figured that the 190 Hp Mercruiser could be bumped up in Hp by using a performance aluminum head, roller rocker arms and an improved exhaust system.

I figure I will get about 225-230 Hp out of my engines.

These engines are slightly destroked compaired to a 460 Ford.

They therefore have 224 cu/in. If you double that to equal a V8 they would have 448 cu/in.

If I get 230 Hp out of my 4 cylinder and double that to equal a V8 that would be 460 hp.

Ford didn't get that kind of power out of them back in the day.

" The 460 motor is a 429 with longer stroke, same bore. In 1968, when it was first offered, the 460 was rated at 360 horse power with 10.5:1 compression. By 1972 the compression dropped to 8.5:1 with a horse power rating decrease to 212 HP. The next year, 1973, saw the compression down to 8.0:1 and horse power at 200 HP. However the way horse power was stated changed during this time. Early motors were rated using flywheel or brake horsepower, in '72 net horsepower was used. (The difference being whether all the power robbing accessories are considered.) "

This quote was taken from a 429 Ford web sight.

Save your wind, I know that Ford under rated their Hp for racing purposes and that they got more Hp in racing trim.

But I am talking Highway driving reliable engines.

Again save your wind I won't argue with you about special engines or Muscle Cars.

I think that the Mercruiser engineers who were able to ring 190 Hp out of these engines with stock Ford cast iron heads and internals must have known what they were doing.

I am using the Aluminum performance heads as much to eliminate the expansion/contraction head gasket problem that I have seen on engines with iron heads on aluminum heads as I am to improve performance.

The 2.19 intakes and 176 exhaust valves and free flowing head design is just the frosting on the cake.

They might even hurt the low Rpm torque a little.

With 5 speed T5 transmissions in the light weight cars I am using them in it shouldn't be a problem.

The roller rocker arms might save a couple of Hp and the side dump exhaust has to also help.

Back on page 15 of this thread Randy Dupree warned about messing with the cam too much.

Between my faith in Randy who ran one of these 187 mph on the salt and my faith in the Mercruiser engineers I think I will not mess with a good thing.

Some one on here said "If it an't broke fix it untill it is."

I hope none of you do that with your 470.

For those of you who are trying to get Race Car performance out of yours RACE ON and have fun.

Please take what I have said as only my Free Advise. Its always worth what you payed for it.

Dick

<SCRIPT> window.open=NS_ActualOpen; </SCRIPT>

 

Dennis g,

Somewhere on this thread are the specs for the 190 Hp cam grind which is a little hotter than the 165-170 cam.

If I were going to have one ground I would have it ground to those specs.

I am just using what ever good used cams that I have. None of them show any significant ware.

That way I know that I am not introducing any wild card into the mix that might lead to excess vibration or premature failure.

Dick

.

 

I have 3 of these engines in various stages of disassembly that I need to get out of my way,, any takers? PM me if interested.

 

Babyearl,

Are any of them 190s ?

Dick

 

Good thoughts Dick, I had a worn out cam so it had to be reground. As my car is under 1800 lbs [ and due to loose more weight] I felt that there was more need of fuel consumption that would make it usable on the highway than increased power. My older motor was getting less than 7 mpg so much better economy and power that I could live with was my target. So I picked a more conservative cam than stock with 115 degree lobe centers.

I also usually specify cams which will work well with a blower, should the need arise.
As its compression is around 180psi with stock pistons, economy and low rpm power are both given a boost. I changed gearing to take advantage of the increased torque.
Its compression ratio would have to be dropped for a blower application.

 

After selling 2 poly 4 barrel intakes for over $700.00 that came from marine engines and also getting some good coin for a Stewart Warner Mate 3 gauge panel with gauges I'm going to be visiting boat junkyards more often. Now that I know the old Chevy 4 bangers were used often and are valuable will be keeping a closer eye on what gets junked. It's treasure I tell ya!

 

Dennis,
I wrote down those cam specs from the previous post.

Advertised duration 269/274 (216/220 @ 50 thou lift) on 114 lobe centres.
Inlet timing 26/63
Exh timing 69/25

That should make an ideal street cam as is, and economy is just as important in a boat as a car.

It would also make an ideal blower cam if it is advanced about five degrees:
Inlet 31/58
Exhaust 74/20

I believe trying to make these engines rev to gain more power is not the best way to go.
All the engine parts are big and strong and heavy, and the second order vibration is going to get a whole lot worse at higher rpm.

Better to use forced induction, the standard cam (advanced) and an aluminium head. It will pull like a locomotive, even with very tall gearing in a light car, and the horsepower will still be there without the need to turn silly rpm.

Use the inherent strength of this truck motor with supercharging, rather than have it vibrate itself to pieces at rpm it was never designed for.

 

dennis g and Warpspeed,

I figure that the 190 version was designed to run all day at 4800 rpm.

I have also read threads on boat sights where people ran them for years with under pitch props that allowed 5500 rpm because they didn't know any better.

They stated that they did not have any problems as a result of over revving them.

Theirfore I think that occasional brief runs into the 5500 rpm range won't hurt any thing.

I will see when I get one running in a car.

I figure that the torque can't drop off that much between 4800 and 5500 rpm.

But the Hp increase should be significant especially with the bigger valves and better flow of the aluminum performance head.

The 5 speed might make this unnecessary anyway.

I usually can drive a car for about 5 minutes and tell pretty close when to shift for maximum acceleration.

I think it will be fun to take a first time passenger for a ride and only use second, third and forth gear and low rpm shift points.

My light weight cars they should accelerate pretty well anyway.

Then after they have commented about how well the car runs.

Then take them thru all of the gears at full throttle and see their reaction.

I think that a sleeper is more fun than an obvious race car and sometime the ladies won't even get into a race car.

Dick

.

 

Dick,
The problem is volumetric efficiency.
A good street engine might produce typically around 1Hp per inch at 6,000 rpm.

If you want to reach 1.5Hp per inch, you really have only two choices, improve the breathing so you can actually peak out at 9,000 rpm, or boost it to 1.5 atmospheres at 6,000 rpm (or less).

What you say about the Mercriser working happily at 5,500 is true, but it will be past it's power peak in stock form. If you do carb/head/cam/exhaust and raise the power peak to maybe 6,000 rpm, expect 225 Hp. That is entirely practical.

But a supercharger or turbo opens up a whole new world of power without having to really do much to the engine internally.

 

Warpspeed,

225 Hp will be fine for my cars.

I am using the Mercruiser QuadraJet carb, manifold and cam.

My midifications include the aluminum head with bigger valves and better flow.

Aluminum roller rocker arms.

A 2.375" center dump manifold that should flow very well.

I have cut off the camshaft waterpump extension, plugged the hole in the front cover and I am using a small toyota water pump.

I will use an electric radiator fan and a PowerGen alternator.

I am using a zero balance Mustang clutch and harmonic balancer in front of a Mustang V6 WC T5.

I think the combination will not only look good but will be bullet proof.

Dick

.

 

Just the aluminium head and a good free flowing exhaust should do that easily.

The original iron 460 truck head is very restrictive, particularly on the exhaust side.

 

Be careful Dick, they will be afraid of even getting on a tandem bicycle with you

[ I'm camming my engine for 1500-4000rpm as I'll be driving this one there. ]

 

Ah, but you can fit a supercharger and lots of mufflers.

It will be so quiet you will be able to hear the "snap" of knicker elastic.

 

my cam card reads:
115 deg lobe centers
203 deg intake 13/37
210 deg exhaust 40/10
( there is a tic mark or maby a minus?? on -13 & -10 )
It builds 180 lbs cylinder pressure

 

Something not quite right there.

Intake 13 + 37 +180 = 230 duration.
Exhaust 40 + 10 + 180 = 230 duration.
Overlap = 13 + 10 = 23 degrees.
That sounds fine.

Intake -13 + 37 + 180 = 204 duration.
Exhaust 40 - 10 + 180 = 210 degrees.
Both valves will both be fully CLOSED for 23 degrees over TDC
WTF ?

 

Warpspeed,

The reason that I am not initially putting a turbo on the engine is that when I show the engine to someone I don't want them to see anything that appears to be a performance engine.

I want it to look more like an old original 4 cylinder engine.

Never mind the fact that anyone who knows the technology of engine block design would see the modern casting technique used to make this light weight aluminum engine.

Most people either don't know the difference or won't notice that aspect of this engine.

The simplicity of the installation will serve two purposes.

One is that it will look old.

The other is that I understand all of the technology involved and can easily repair any possible problems that might occur.

The PowerGen alternator will even appear to be an old generator.

The engine will obviously be an overhead valve 4 cylinder carburated engine with a distributor and a water pump and what appears to be a generator.

What could be simpler. Only a flat head 4. If asked I might reply that I did an overhead conversion.

This might be like the story about the man who claimed he had the hatchet that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree.

When questioned about the hatchet head he replied that the original had rusted away long ago and had to be replaced.

When questioned about the handle he replied that it had been eaten away by termites and and was also replaced but that his hatchet occupied the same space as the original.

I noticed that when I mentioned ladies you and dennis g both had a comment.

I might be getting old but I'm not dead yet.

Every morning when I wake up I'm glad to see that I'm still on the green side of the grass.

Dick

.

 

Very fair comment there Dick,
We all have a slightly different slant on things, and that is what makes this hobby so very fascinating. And I am only about a few years behind you in age. Never too old for a bit of fun though.

 

I wondered about it also, it must be a couple tic marks.

 

You are right, turbos quiet engines nicely.
Glasspacks seem futile on this engine. I used a turbo muffler on a previous engine and liked it except for its size. A turbo made that engine quiet enough by itself.

 

Good for you Dick, I thoroughly approve. Youth is wasted on the young. I don't want your supply of ladies to be needlessly diminished.

 

If I recall any 1960's MOPAR or Ford car had a Voltage regulator that was not part of the Alternator. it was located on the firewall or inner fender well. It shouldnt be hard to adapt this to our needs..

 

Sarge Nichols is on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/people/Sarge-Nichols/100001859949847

 

Idar, you've said the above a number of times so I decided that as my old lathe was running well, I'd play with headbolts today.
I found that mine already are 1/2" in the center. So keeping in the spirit of the idea I turned down one 50 thousandths to 0.450" for most of the bolt staying away from the fat part under the head. It went easily and was fun that I spent an hour doing the rest of the set. [ An old bolt set that I don't expect to use]
Having seen many VW studs, both necked down and the older thick ones which look like logs, broke and pulled out of the cases.
To look right the ford 460 studs would have to be way thinner than 1/2" ( I'd guess 3/8" or less to keep the VW difference in size ratio going) But it is only a guess. They'd have to be angle torqued and thrown away each rime the head is off. I don't have a big enough micrometer to gauge stretch, but that is a critical step in determining proper torque .

 

They had them through 1965. Something went wrong with my 65 Mustang, the alternator was getting way hot and I cured it by giving the regulator a whack with a rock ( I was driving New York to Seattle in two days and didn't have time for anything else). If a rock cured it, I'd think it was a points type regulator on my alternator.
I still have the car, but have never looked inside the regulator as it has worked ever since (38 yrs). It must be afraid of rocks.

 

I'm toying (not very serious yet) with the idea of connecting two Mercruiser blocks in tandem.

Remember the unmuffled straight eight Buick sound?
And I've been concerned with gas mileage?