The 3.8L Motor

[_J_]

I think we need a thread to detail each and every part in a 3.8L motor
both for single-port and split port ..

also include where Ford rip (or copy) the part from..

* First up is the 3.8L block

Did the 3.8L block derive from a 351W or 351C or both or is it a copy of the GN 3.8l
I know its not made from ground up, cause there is some many parts from the
351W/C that we can use, plus the old 4.5L design spec are similar .. even some GN
stuff is similar .. did Ford just rip this motor design for everything under the sun back in the day!!

Please keep this tech .. going to ask a ton of Q..

[M_PI]

Originally Posted by _J_

I think we need a thread to detail each and every part in a 3.8L motor
both for single-port and split port ..

also include where Ford rip (or copy) the part from..

* First up is the 3.8L block

Did the 3.8L block derive from a 351W or 351C or both or is it a copy of the GN 3.8l
I know its not made from ground up, cause there is some many parts from the
351W/C that we can use, plus the old 4.5L design spec are similar .. even some GN
stuff is similar .. did Ford just rip this motor design for everything under the sun back in the day!!

Please keep this tech .. going to ask a ton of Q..

BLOCK:

I found the article http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/ar90134.htm
interesting. It details the history of the ford 3.8 from 1982 till 2001
(when the article was written). It makes a good argument for ford copying
virtually all of the buick design (down to bore and stroke). One major
difference is ford deciding to use aluminum heads instead of iron, apparently
for weight/fuel economy reasons ...

A similar article on the history of the buick v6 (up to 1992) can be found
here http://hh.hansenits.com/tech/v6hist.html
It goes into the technical details of each model year...

[OrangeV6F150]

Good info.

[_J_]

good reading .. I have seen that before .. however it seems as if its one
guy feeling on the subject .. not confirm info. reason being is that there is
a ton of stuff also found in the 351 Windsor that are very similar and or
the same on the 3.8L who is to say GM did not copy a few things from
the 351 Windsor itself? but yeah both GM and Ford 3.8L are so damm close,
I am hoping for this thread to finally get confirm info. where did the 3.8L
lift truly started from .. because it is very similar to the GM and the Ford 351 Windsor,
also keep in mind that Ford also had the 4.5L out and its not a copy of the
GM motor .. but still again similar ... so what gives?

Originally Posted by M_PI

BLOCK:

I found the article http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/ar90134.htm
interesting. It details the history of the ford 3.8 from 1982 till 2001
(when the article was written). It makes a good argument for ford copying
virtually all of the buick design (down to bore and stroke). One major
difference is ford deciding to use aluminum heads instead of iron, apparently
for weight/fuel economy reasons ...

A similar article on the history of the buick v6 (up to 1992) can be found
here http://hh.hansenits.com/tech/v6hist.html
It goes into the technical details of each model year...

[taylor0987]

Originally Posted by _J_

guy feeling on the subject .. not confirm info. reason being is that there is
a ton of stuff also found in the 351 Windsor that are very similar and or
the same on the 3.8L who is to say GM did not copy a few things from
the 351 Windsor itself?

Why do you think there is a ton of stuff similar to the 351W? The only thing on the 351W that is similar is the rods. Bore, stroke, bore spacing, etc. are all different.

I have a feeling you are thinking of the 351C. The head design and rocker arm design are similar to 351C. (The Harland Sharp roller rockers are 351C parts)

[M_PI]

Originally Posted by _J_

good reading .. I have seen that before .. however it seems as if its one
guy feeling on the subject .. not confirm info. reason being is that there is
a ton of stuff also found in the 351 Windsor that are very similar and or
the same on the 3.8L who is to say GM did not copy a few things from
the 351 Windsor itself? but yeah both GM and Ford 3.8L are so damm close,
I am hoping for this thread to finally get confirm info. where did the 3.8L
lift truly started from .. because it is very similar to the GM and the Ford 351 Windsor,
also keep in mind that Ford also had the 4.5L out and its not a copy of the
GM motor .. but still again similar ... so what gives?

To quote Wikipedia (authoritative, right )

"The most commonly cited story is that the Essex is a Ford Windsor V8 engine
with two cylinders cut off (similar to what Chevrolet and Chrysler did to make
their 4.3 L and 3.9 L V6 designs, respectively), but several important differences
between the Windsor's design and the Essex's make this implausible..."
[doesn't say what these are, but it should be possible to figure them out]

It then goes on to say

"One source states that the Essex is instead a copy of the Buick V6 engine [1],
done since Ford needed a working V6 much faster than building one from scratch
would take (the Cologne V6 couldn't meet fuel economy requirements, and the
all-new Vulcan was several years away from production at that point)."

So, two theories. Unless someone here knows someone on the essex
development team, it will be hard to know.

Again, another history of the buick v6
traces its origins to 1962, taking 2 cylinders off of the buick 215 ci v8 and increasing
the bore/stroke to 198 ci. It seems doubtful buick imported any 351W design features.
In fact, it is more likely they used their own 350 ci v8 in 1976.

I have had a difficult time tracking down the development of the stage II v6,
but it seems it was designed for indy/busch/track.

My take on all of this is essentially, whatever the buick guys have done (building
on their turbocharged 3.8L v6) we can do, given enough time and $$$. Running
deep into the 7's with a 4.5L turbo v6 would be a challenge even for the 4.5L SVO
block (come on SnoopStangII!). But even the turbo'd Stage 1 and
factory '109' blocks have impressive numbers.

The question I would ask is:

What has been done to the Buick 3.8L v6 basic

platform to allow it to achieve such fantastic
numbers, and how can we accomplish this with
the Ford 3.8L v6?

Suppose, just for discussion, someone with a ford 3.8L block were to
try and duiplicate the stage II platform by:

a) increasing the bore size to close to 4.0" (say with wet sleeves)
b) and/or increase stroke to close to 4" (say with a billet forged crank)
c) develop billet 4 bolt mains
d) develop a strong main girdle
e) develop heads that flow 300+ intake/240+ exhaust
f) develop a sheet metal intake (like Reichard)
g) add one or two turbos, and
h) turn up the boost to 30-40 psi

I am sure they would have 4.5-5.0L v6 able to put out the
power levels (1200+ rwhp) of the buick stage II.
This could all be done, but it would be one-off, probably adding
$30K to their engine.

It would be nice to have a table putting together the
OEM buick and ford 3.8L specs, as well as the stage II and SVO specs,
and best numbers for cylinder flow, boost, etc and see where
we are. I think we (as a community) are probably close to
putting together a 900 rwhp package. GT-Eater would probably be
close to that if he decides to keep his v6 and he and Matt continue working
on it

[taylor0987]

Here an the article that may answer questions about the origins of this engine.

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/820112

I've ordered the print copy.

Here are some other interesting articles
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/961151
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/911073

[Wallace]

[quote=taylor0987;339693]Here an the article that may answer questions about the origins of this engine.

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/820112

I've ordered the print copy.

Does that give you the specifications for the block as well? Bore spacing, bolt locations, etc?
Thanks.

[taylor0987]

Originally Posted by Wallace

Does that give you the specifications for the block as well? Bore spacing, bolt locations, etc?
Thanks.

I don't know as I haven't gotten the article yet.
Bore spacing is 4.193 for the 3.8 and 4.469 for the 4.5

what do you mean about bolt locations? If you are looking for blueprints for the block I don't think that is what the article contains. If you are looking for bolt sizes etc. there are other sources for that info.

[_J_]

Originally Posted by taylor0987

Why do you think there is a ton of stuff similar to the 351W? The only thing on the 351W that is similar is the rods. Bore, stroke, bore spacing, etc. are all different.

I have a feeling you are thinking of the 351C. The head design and rocker arm design are similar to 351C. (The Harland Sharp roller rockers are 351C parts)

yp that’s the stuff ... thats from the C? but still you list stuff from the W
as well.. I am having a feeling the designer may have just taken ideas from
the W and the C ...

[_J_]

wow .. very good info. Thanks...

but yeah I know we can be as good or even better
than a Buick GN .. money can do just about anything

but still would like to know if our block comes from ideas off the 351W & C
or ideas from Buick .. or both .. how old you think the ppl that develop
this block would be now?

Originally Posted by M_PI

To quote Wikipedia (authoritative, right )

"The most commonly cited story is that the Essex is a Ford Windsor V8 engine
with two cylinders cut off (similar to what Chevrolet and Chrysler did to make
their 4.3 L and 3.9 L V6 designs, respectively), but several important differences
between the Windsor's design and the Essex's make this implausible..."
[doesn't say what these are, but it should be possible to figure them out]

It then goes on to say

"One source states that the Essex is instead a copy of the Buick V6 engine [1],
done since Ford needed a working V6 much faster than building one from scratch
would take (the Cologne V6 couldn't meet fuel economy requirements, and the
all-new Vulcan was several years away from production at that point)."

So, two theories. Unless someone here knows someone on the essex
development team, it will be hard to know.

Again, another history of the buick v6
traces its origins to 1962, taking 2 cylinders off of the buick 215 ci v8 and increasing
the bore/stroke to 198 ci. It seems doubtful buick imported any 351W design features.
In fact, it is more likely they used their own 350 ci v8 in 1976.

I have had a difficult time tracking down the development of the stage II v6,
but it seems it was designed for indy/busch/track.

My take on all of this is essentially, whatever the buick guys have done (building
on their turbocharged 3.8L v6) we can do, given enough time and $$$. Running
deep into the 7's with a 4.5L turbo v6 would be a challenge even for the 4.5L SVO
block (come on SnoopStangII!). But even the turbo'd Stage 1 and
factory '109' blocks have impressive numbers.

The question I would ask is:

What has been done to the Buick 3.8L v6 basic

platform to allow it to achieve such fantastic
numbers, and how can we accomplish this with
the Ford 3.8L v6?

Suppose, just for discussion, someone with a ford 3.8L block were to
try and duiplicate the stage II platform by:

a) increasing the bore size to close to 4.0" (say with wet sleeves)
b) and/or increase stroke to close to 4" (say with a billet forged crank)
c) develop billet 4 bolt mains
d) develop a strong main girdle
e) develop heads that flow 300+ intake/240+ exhaust
f) develop a sheet metal intake (like Reichard)
g) add one or two turbos, and
h) turn up the boost to 30-40 psi

I am sure they would have 4.5-5.0L v6 able to put out the
power levels (1200+ rwhp) of the buick stage II.
This could all be done, but it would be one-off, probably adding
$30K to their engine.

It would be nice to have a table putting together the
OEM buick and ford 3.8L specs, as well as the stage II and SVO specs,
and best numbers for cylinder flow, boost, etc and see where
we are. I think we (as a community) are probably close to
putting together a 900 rwhp package. GT-Eater would probably be
close to that if he decides to keep his v6 and he and Matt continue working
on it

[_J_]

damm I need a copy of that book... when you get it ..
post up all the good info

Originally Posted by taylor0987

Here an the article that may answer questions about the origins of this engine.

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/820112

I've ordered the print copy.

Here are some other interesting articles
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/961151
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/911073

[Nick D98]

I want to see that book too. Taylor when you do recieve it, don't leave it
as a mystery to us. Such as "This engine was originally a... "

[_J_]

Originally Posted by Nick D98

I want to see that book too. Taylor when you do recieve it, don't leave it
as a mystery to us. Such as "This engine was originally a... "

great now you gave him ideas

[taylor0987]

Originally Posted by _J_

yp that’s the stuff ... thats from the C? but still you list stuff from the W
as well.. I am having a feeling the designer may have just taken ideas from
the W and the C ...

I only listed 1 thing that was similar to the W. the rods. those other things are all different from the W.

[_J_]

Originally Posted by taylor0987

I only listed 1 thing that was similar to the W. the rods. those other things are all different from the W.

when you get the book you let me know what it say

[taylor0987]

http://www.samwe.com/EngDim.htm
if you paste that into excel and sort by the different columns so you can see what is close to the 3.8

[cobra232]

if any of you can locate a copy of the book called V6 Power ( how appropriate) it goes into the fact that the ford is a copy of buicks 231.

the buick started life as a V6 iron version of the 215 aluminum V8 which became the rover V8. the block skirt stayed in the casting design. not needed in cast iron but necessary in the 215. GM sold the tooling for the V6 to Jeep in the mid 60's and they used it as the 225 "Dauntless" V6. in 75 when emissions and the gas crunch was starting ( which i remember) GM bought back the tooling from AMC for the V6 which was an odd fire design. they used the oddfire design till 78 when buick engineers found that splaying the rod pins 30 degrees they could make it an even fireing design and have better balance. in 79 the even fire tall port buick was born. ford having no v6 engine to use in their mid sized to full sized car during these times made a decision to take the buick and design their own 90 degree big V6 from it.


i used to build buick V6's and that's what turned me onto ford's 3.8. i did a head gasket for a taurus and realized that this engine looked strikingly similar to the buick. my wife wanted a mustang and bought a 98 V6. i then bought her a 99 GT and took over the V6 to play with being very interested in the potential. i still have enough parts to make aN NA 231 buick 4bbl with weiand intake nitrided crank,.030"block,9.5:1 slugs,Elgin prostock cam 263/263@.050" and .496" lift. the last one i did like that hit 347hp on an engine dyno. not too shabby. on a car it would be about 300rwhp. the idle would be like crap for the street but circle track it performed well for the guy i sold it too

in a nutshell. the 109 block can't do what most buick guy's claim. either they are lieing or they are running a stage 2 off center block and saying they are running a 109 to their cronies.

my 86 T-type regal ran 14 psi and barely made 300rwhp/335ftlbs. run that boost through the ford even stock and what do you have??? alot more power.

hands down the ford is the better design. it's has far better heads stock for stock. far better oiling system, it's on center while buick is offcenter requireing offset con rods to compensate for the longer even fire crank in the short block. the ford doesn't have the usless dead weight skirt which limits stroke to 3.625" in the buick and adds alot of weight

the 3.8 ford is about 150lbs lighter than the buick but is longer to allow for an oncenter design to have correct bore alignment with the rod pins.

the windsor only shares rod size and lifters. after that it's pretty much vastly different.

the 4.5L was Essex based to compete with buicks on center stage2 block for what was thought to be the next step in nascar. V6's. V6 lasted 2 yrs in NASCAR but found homes in INDY light cars especially buick till the late 90's.

Forde 3.8 heretage is buick based for sure and for certain but it made a much better design at least till the seriesII 3800 came out. they are about equal in capabilities. don't be fooled stage 1 buicks 109 blocks while the best of the litter are not equal to the ford 3.8 for making power because the heads suck ass. the blocks are pretty good but the ford is equal or better than it.

i loved my old 86 T-type so much i bought an 89 Lesabre T-type to replace it. it fell far short but my stang is everybit as fun. though it seems i have far less money now to mess with it than my old buick

[taylor0987]

I got the article from SAE.

I'll post a better summary later on.

The engine was originally intended to have an aluminum block. There were some other cool things they considered to make the engine lighter. They made it 90* to allow for longer intake runner length and for packaging reasons.

They talked TONS about using a "competitor's 3.8l engine" for development purposes which was obviously the Buick engine. They post weight differences for individual components. I'll post up the weight differences and then we can compare with the Buick 3.8 of that time period to confirm.

They used modified 5.0's for some development of the 3.8.

They talked briefly about using a competitive 2.7l engine. Does anyone know which engine that would have been? (would have been something current as of 1977ish)

[CobraSnakebyte]

Originally Posted by _J_

I think we need a thread to detail each and every part in a 3.8L motor
both for single-port and split port ..

also include where Ford rip (or copy) the part from..

* First up is the 3.8L block

Did the 3.8L block derive from a 351W or 351C or both or is it a copy of the GN 3.8l
I know its not made from ground up, cause there is some many parts from the
351W/C that we can use, plus the old 4.5L design spec are similar .. even some GN
stuff is similar .. did Ford just rip this motor design for everything under the sun back in the day!!

Please keep this tech .. going to ask a ton of Q..

J, I'm working on a Solidworks assembly model of a complete split port 3.8, if enough people think that it will help, I can make a thread when I'm done.

[_J_]

Originally Posted by CobraSnakebyte

J, I'm working on a Solidworks assembly model of a complete split port 3.8, if enough people think that it will help, I can make a thread when I'm done.

thats would be so damm cool bro..

[Stangcharger]

Good info man..enjoyed the read. and my thoughts about some of the similarities between the two.

Originally Posted by cobra232

if any of you can locate a copy of the book called V6 Power ( how appropriate) it goes into the fact that the ford is a copy of buicks 231.

the buick started life as a V6 iron version of the 215 aluminum V8 which became the rover V8. the block skirt stayed in the casting design. not needed in cast iron but necessary in the 215. GM sold the tooling for the V6 to Jeep in the mid 60's and they used it as the 225 "Dauntless" V6. in 75 when emissions and the gas crunch was starting ( which i remember) GM bought back the tooling from AMC for the V6 which was an odd fire design. they used the oddfire design till 78 when buick engineers found that splaying the rod pins 30 degrees they could make it an even fireing design and have better balance. in 79 the even fire tall port buick was born. ford having no v6 engine to use in their mid sized to full sized car during these times made a decision to take the buick and design their own 90 degree big V6 from it.


i used to build buick V6's and that's what turned me onto ford's 3.8. i did a head gasket for a taurus and realized that this engine looked strikingly similar to the buick. my wife wanted a mustang and bought a 98 V6. i then bought her a 99 GT and took over the V6 to play with being very interested in the potential. i still have enough parts to make aN NA 231 buick 4bbl with weiand intake nitrided crank,.030"block,9.5:1 slugs,Elgin prostock cam 263/263@.050" and .496" lift. the last one i did like that hit 347hp on an engine dyno. not too shabby. on a car it would be about 300rwhp. the idle would be like crap for the street but circle track it performed well for the guy i sold it too

in a nutshell. the 109 block can't do what most buick guy's claim. either they are lieing or they are running a stage 2 off center block and saying they are running a 109 to their cronies.

my 86 T-type regal ran 14 psi and barely made 300rwhp/335ftlbs. run that boost through the ford even stock and what do you have??? alot more power.

hands down the ford is the better design. it's has far better heads stock for stock. far better oiling system, it's on center while buick is offcenter requireing offset con rods to compensate for the longer even fire crank in the short block. the ford doesn't have the usless dead weight skirt which limits stroke to 3.625" in the buick and adds alot of weight

the 3.8 ford is about 150lbs lighter than the buick but is longer to allow for an oncenter design to have correct bore alignment with the rod pins.

the windsor only shares rod size and lifters. after that it's pretty much vastly different.

the 4.5L was Essex based to compete with buicks on center stage2 block for what was thought to be the next step in nascar. V6's. V6 lasted 2 yrs in NASCAR but found homes in INDY light cars especially buick till the late 90's.

Forde 3.8 heretage is buick based for sure and for certain but it made a much better design at least till the seriesII 3800 came out. they are about equal in capabilities. don't be fooled stage 1 buicks 109 blocks while the best of the litter are not equal to the ford 3.8 for making power because the heads suck ass. the blocks are pretty good but the ford is equal or better than it.

i loved my old 86 T-type so much i bought an 89 Lesabre T-type to replace it. it fell far short but my stang is everybit as fun. though it seems i have far less money now to mess with it than my old buick

[JackAysJake]

i read somewhere that the 3.8 block is stronger than the 5.0 block. is this true?







Jake

[_J_]

yes its true .. hell no one knows the limit of the 3.8L block yet .. the 5.0 block limit is 500-520whp before it split..
the 3.8L been over 600+ and still going .. hell if Matt did the dyno with a 5-speed it would be in the or close to
700whp by now.. a ton more than the crappy 5.0 block..

Originally Posted by JackAysJake

i read somewhere that the 3.8 block is stronger than the 5.0 block. is this true?







Jake

[Rookie]

I think part of the strength advantage that the 3.8 has over the 5.0 is simply it's a shorter block. It's less prone to twisting (since it's shorter), and it's a more consistent firing order (1-4-2-5-3-6 vs 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-7-.

[StompinV6]

Originally Posted by Rookie

I think part of the strength advantage that the 3.8 has over the 5.0 is simply it's a shorter block. It's less prone to twisting (since it's shorter), and it's a more consistent firing order (1-4-2-5-3-6 vs 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-7-.

My thoughts exactly...


I wish Ford built a V8 based of the 3.8/4.2, it would probably be much better than the 302/351 series..

[cobra232]

Originally Posted by Rookie

I think part of the strength advantage that the 3.8 has over the 5.0 is simply it's a shorter block. It's less prone to twisting (since it's shorter), and it's a more consistent firing order (1-4-2-5-3-6 vs 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-7-.

no, proportionatly the 3.8 is longer than a 5.0 block because it's an on-center design to accomodate the longer crank with the splayed rod pins. the old buick stage 1 is an offcenter design in even fire form. in odd fire it has shared rod pins like a V8 because it was designed from the 215 aluminum block V8. as an odd fire the block and bore spacing was fine when #3 and #6 were deleted from the V8. however when buick developed the 30 degree splayed rod pins to make it an even fireing crank thay didn't lenghten the block the accomodate the longer crank ( longer in the rod pins) the just made offset con rods to keep the rod centered in the bore. the buick stage 1 is much shorter than the ford 3.8 which is a longer block to elimate the use of offset rods with the splayed rod pins. the 901 buick block is only good to about 600rwhp and that is pushing it. ford just did away with every buick deficiency that they saw with the buick block and came up with a block in between the stage1 buick block and stage 2 block in strength and it's lighter than the buick production stage 1 block even though it's longer. the 3.8 isn't much shorter than the 5.0 and if a V8 was based on the 3.8 block it would be even longer if they just added 2 cylinders. but adding 2 cylinders would eliminate the need for splayed rod pin and go back to a common pin which would require a shorter block. a V8 based on the 3.8 would have been far superior to the 5.0 block but the 5.0 was good enough for ford to not even worry about designing a V8 from the essex 3.8. the SVO V6 block is about the same length as a 5.0 block so that shows how much waste there is in an even fire block for length. crank strength was always a worry with en even fire90 degree block and that is why buick and ford used shuch large journal/pin diameters which are larger than the 5.0 and equal to the windsor.


strip a 5.0 block and a 3.8 block and take awhile to examine them and you will see why the 3.8 is stronger. it is beefier in critical areas although i don't like the lifter valley being so open even more so than the buick it's still doesn't have the block splitting problem that the buick was known for as well as the 5.0 in high hp builds.

it's really amazing that the essex designed extremely fast to have a competing midsized to full sized v6 engine with GM turned out to be such an excellent design and it's sad that most out there think the 3.8 is a weak unworthy to build engine. building a few buicks in the past opened my eyes to the ford 3.8. i really have never seen an engiune take such abuse as i have put them through. (40,000 miles @11psi with no tune on stock injectors,MAF before i lost the engine and even then it just cracked #6 piston alittle)

it's been the funist most rewarding engine i ever turned a wrench on. i have never seen heads on any other pushrod engine be able to be ported so much. it will flow with some of the best aftermarket 5.0 heads

[Hiposilverandaway]

WOW.....Well golly gee. We have some smart guys here huh?....

Sorry, I'm bored and "STILL" at work finish up projects for tomorrow...and dead tired...about to pass out at keyboard.......

Must look at porn to stay awakeeeeeeee!!!!...........

[_J_]

Originally Posted by CobraSnakebyte

J, I'm working on a Solidworks assembly model of a complete split port 3.8, if enough people think that it will help, I can make a thread when I'm done.

Any update on this as of yet...

[_J_]

WOW the man knows his stuff ... VERY good reading Thank YOU!!!


lol

now that we got the origin (idea's) of our block clean, and know its going to hold
a ton of power .. its time to find a way to let in a ton of air for it to make
ton of power ..

Lets talk about heads ...

Is it possible to mod. or design an aftermarket heads that will use a 3 valve
or 4 valve push-rod setup? and or convert it to a 4 valve cams setup?

Originally Posted by cobra232

no, proportionatly the 3.8 is longer than a 5.0 block because it's an on-center design to accomodate the longer crank with the splayed rod pins. the old buick stage 1 is an offcenter design in even fire form. in odd fire it has shared rod pins like a V8 because it was designed from the 215 aluminum block V8. as an odd fire the block and bore spacing was fine when #3 and #6 were deleted from the V8. however when buick developed the 30 degree splayed rod pins to make it an even fireing crank thay didn't lenghten the block the accomodate the longer crank ( longer in the rod pins) the just made offset con rods to keep the rod centered in the bore. the buick stage 1 is much shorter than the ford 3.8 which is a longer block to elimate the use of offset rods with the splayed rod pins. the 901 buick block is only good to about 600rwhp and that is pushing it. ford just did away with every buick deficiency that they saw with the buick block and came up with a block in between the stage1 buick block and stage 2 block in strength and it's lighter than the buick production stage 1 block even though it's longer. the 3.8 isn't much shorter than the 5.0 and if a V8 was based on the 3.8 block it would be even longer if they just added 2 cylinders. but adding 2 cylinders would eliminate the need for splayed rod pin and go back to a common pin which would require a shorter block. a V8 based on the 3.8 would have been far superior to the 5.0 block but the 5.0 was good enough for ford to not even worry about designing a V8 from the essex 3.8. the SVO V6 block is about the same length as a 5.0 block so that shows how much waste there is in an even fire block for length. crank strength was always a worry with en even fire90 degree block and that is why buick and ford used shuch large journal/pin diameters which are larger than the 5.0 and equal to the windsor.


strip a 5.0 block and a 3.8 block and take awhile to examine them and you will see why the 3.8 is stronger. it is beefier in critical areas although i don't like the lifter valley being so open even more so than the buick it's still doesn't have the block splitting problem that the buick was known for as well as the 5.0 in high hp builds.

it's really amazing that the essex designed extremely fast to have a competing midsized to full sized v6 engine with GM turned out to be such an excellent design and it's sad that most out there think the 3.8 is a weak unworthy to build engine. building a few buicks in the past opened my eyes to the ford 3.8. i really have never seen an engiune take such abuse as i have put them through. (40,000 miles @11psi with no tune on stock injectors,MAF before i lost the engine and even then it just cracked #6 piston alittle)

it's been the funist most rewarding engine i ever turned a wrench on. i have never seen heads on any other pushrod engine be able to be ported so much. it will flow with some of the best aftermarket 5.0 heads

[Nick D98]

Originally Posted by cobra232

it's really amazing that the essex designed extremely fast to have a competing midsized to full sized v6 engine with GM turned out to be such an excellent design and it's sad that most out there think the 3.8 is a weak unworthy to build engine. building a few buicks in the past opened my eyes to the ford 3.8. i really have never seen an engiune take such abuse as i have put them through. (40,000 miles @11psi with no tune on stock injectors,MAF before i lost the engine and even then it just cracked #6 piston alittle)

it's been the funist most rewarding engine i ever turned a wrench on. i have never seen heads on any other pushrod engine be able to be ported so much. it will flow with some of the best aftermarket 5.0 heads

Wow, no tune with stock injectors and MAF. Tough engines.

From the way the heads are setup, i think it barely has enough room for a 3 or 4 valve
setup.

[cobra232]

Originally Posted by Nick D98

Wow, no tune with stock injectors and MAF. Tough engines.

From the way the heads are setup, i think it barely has enough room for a 3 or 4 valve
setup.

my 97 junkyard engine that's in there now has the same setup with about 20,000 on it now and driven 120 miles to work and back every day. i am down to 1 fuel pump now as the stocker is toast and the walbro in-line is dying. putting a 310 pump that i bought from nightshade in here after i am done posting. going to just run it and delete the external walbro and hope it holds up to pushing 110psi with the FMU till i get my other engine done. i can't go past 5 psi now as the fuel pressure won't build past 45psi now because of the fuel pump situation.

i got ran off the road a few months back and the only damage was a bent rear right side axletube so i bought a t-lok 3.73 rear from a friend and it is in now but the t-lok is already clunking and i don't have the extra money to have a shop swap in my truetrac from the old rear . just gonna have to nurse it along through the winter till i can save up enough to swap the truetrac in. i won't touch rears. they piss me off to much to pay close attention to runout and pinion depth.

anyways a 3 or 4v head could be made but it the stock head couldn't be modified for it. it would have to be an aftermarket head and all the valvetrain would need to be custom made. not worth it IMO

as far as singleport heads go the easiest thing to do is to just remove the injector well and make the port higher and move the injectors into the intake. this could add another 60cfm of flow. epoxy the floor and expirement with port angle to get the best velocity with a raised runner design and it would be a pretty formadable head.

you have to realize that even with the small 3.8" bore and much smaller valves, it flows as good as a 4" bore 5.0/windsor aftermarket head wqith huge valves, which is quite amazing and shows the potential for porting especially on the exh side and if an aftermarket head was developed.

i know my old tall port buick heads never flowed near as good as the ford stock head and they are bastards to port being iron and have tight bends around the pushrod that limits port width.

to an engine builder with en eye for powermaking the 3.8 ford would be a dream but most ignore it because it doesn't have the demand.

i have said it before and will repeat myself. if ford would have used the 3.8 in the old SVO and turbo'd it instead of chasing the porsch 944 turbo for competition with the turbo 2.3, the Grand national would have never gained such a cult following and most likely been shut down quickly and the 5.0 might have became an extinct species

[cobra232]

i will take some pics of my last stage 1 buick compared with my 98 3.8 so you guys have a chance to see how different and alike they are.

look for the pics by next friday at the latest.

[_J_]

Originally Posted by cobra232

i will take some pics of my last stage 1 buick compared with my 98 3.8 so you guys have a chance to see how different and alike they are.

look for the pics by next friday at the latest.

Thanks

[cobra232]

OK

[cobra232]

the pics are single port and Buick 231 4bbl Weiand Xcelerator intakes

[CobraSnakebyte]

Originally Posted by _J_

Any update on this as of yet...

Wow, I must have missed this. I'm still working on it J, trying to find time between #1 job, #2 job and spending time with the misses and family.

Biggest hurdle right now is to accurately loft the intake runners.

[taylor0987]

Ford's 1982 3.8l V6 Engine
D.L. Armstrong and G.F. Stirrat
Engine Engineering Office
Ford Motor Company



3.8L V6 Concept Development

In 1977 Ford planners projected the need for a lightweight, efficient, compact V6 engine as a replacement for the base V8 engine in the mid-size cars and light pick-up trucks of the 1980's. The prime objectives were light weight, excellent fuel economy and reliability. The initial design called for the maximum use of lightweight components, including die cast aluminum block and single plant intake manifold and aluminum semi-permanent mold cylinder heads. The 90* bank angle was chose to provided minimum length and height, lowest weight and a wide intake manifold which would provide runner design flexibility for optimum cylinder to cylinder fuel/air distribution.

The first engines were built in early 1978, and , with a minimum of development, demonstrated the ability to meet all of the objectives-- with the exception of cost. The aluminum block presented no problems, in fact one engine completed our 50,000 mile truck high speed durability route with no signs of stress. The development of a production head gasket to seal the open deck die-cast aluminum block to aluminum head was one of the more difficult tasks, but was close to success when the decision was made to change to a cast iron block.

As detailed plans for a new die casting plant, casting facilities and dies were developed, costs were considerably higher than initially projected. This, plus the ever increasing cost of aluminum, resulted in the turn-around to a cast iron block.

Other lightweight features that were also deleted because of cost or unresolvable manufacturing problems were:

• Cored Crankshaft
• Stamped steel exhaust manifolds
• Aluminum harmonic balancer
• Aluminum camshaft sprocket
  

The first iron block engine was built in February, 1979. Even after the above changes the 3.8L V6 is still the lightest V6 produced in North America regardless of displacement. It is 117 lbs lighter than our 4.2L V8 yet produces more power
[don't confuse the 4.2L v8--a shrunken 5.0-- with the 4.2L v6. the 4.2L v6 was just a twinkle in the eye of these designers when this article was written]

[taylor0987]

Abstract
------
The new 1982 Ford V6 overhead valve engine is the lightest weight V6 produced in North America, regardless of displacement. It has a 90* bank angle, even firing intervals and a bore and stroke of 96.8 x 86 mm for 3.8L displacement. It is released for the Granada, Cougar, Thunderbird, XR-7 and Continental passenger cars and F-100 light trucks, spanning an inertia test weight range of 3250 to 3875 pounds.
[note they are talking about the 1982 models. The 1982 Mustang and Capri were not initially available with the 3.8. The Continental they are talking about is the RWD Continental. At the writing of this article there was no FWD version of the 3.8]
This paper is intended to provided a brief overview of an all new engine program with descriptions of the unique design features and problems encontered [sic] and resolved with Ford's 1982 3.8L V6

Engine Description
-----------------
The Ford 1982 3.8L engine is an all-new, lightweight 90* v6 engine used in mid-size passenger cars and pickup trucks. Lightweight components include aluminum cylinder heads, intake manifold, front cover, water pump, oil pump, water outlet, rear cover plate, EGR distribution spacer, distributor, and carburetor. Weight reduction is also obtained by using glass-filled nylon rocker arm covers, nodular iron exhaust manifolds and a single poly-vee belt accessory drive.

Excellent power and torque have been acheived, specifically 139 BHP @ 4300 RPM and 200 lb. ft. torque @ 2500 RPM (SAE gross) with Ford's 7200 feedback carburetor and electronic control.

The bore and stroke are 96.8 x 86 mm for a 1.13 bore/stroke ratio. Other significant dimensions are:
Bore Spacing: 106.5 mm
Bank Offset: 24.0 mm
Block Deck Height: 234.5 mm
Crankshaft main bearing diameter: 64.0 mm
Crankshaft pin dia. 58.6 mm
connecting rod length 150.2 mm
overall engine length 660.0 mm
height 520.0 mm
width 619.0 mm
compression ratio 8.65:1
further detail is shown in the Appendix. [note some of these dimensions have been changed over the years]

The 50 state Continental and the California Granada, Cougar, Thunderbird, and XR-7 applications have Ford's variable venturi feedback 7200 carburetor with electronic control and knock sensor. The lesser emissions task for 49 State application permitted use of the lower cost Ford 2 barrel 2150 carburetor, without electronic control.

The more interesting and unique features of the engine are described below.

[taylor0987]

OK I'm going to skip through the article from now on so I don't get beat up by the SAE thugs. If you want more details in a particular ... then let me know and I'll fill it in.

Engine Features
----------
Cylinder block-...originally designed for die cast aluminum... The plan was to design the lightest iron block possible, let dynomometer testing and finite element analysis determine the weak points, and then add the minimum material necessary for correction...
A narrow rib was provided over each [camshaft] bearing bulkhead to help tie the two sides of the block together. This worked well for prototype engines but when blocks were cast on the production line an occasional barely visibile crack was found in the bulkhead above the bearing and magnafluxing revealed further indications...The problem was corrected... The question of how to replace the blocks on the 5000 engines already built was solved by running the assembly line in reverse, disassembling the engines, stock piling the parts, then running the line "forward" rebuilding the engines with new blocks. The final design weight 105 lbs. with main bearing caps and bolts, 5 lb. less than a competitive 3.8L V6 engine block.

[one of many mentions in this paper of the buick engine!]

[taylor0987]

Cylinder heads
----
Major contributors to the low engine weight are the aluminum cylinderr heads which weigh 38 lbs. a pair, compared to 68 lbs for a competitive 3.8L V6 engine's cast iron heads. They are cast of 326F aluminum using semi-permanent molds at Ford's new Windsor, Ontario [essex casting] and Monterrey, Mexico aluminum casting plants. [which was done through the end. I've pulled apart at least two motors that had one head marked Essex and the other Mexico].... The combustion chamber is of the classical wedge design with the spark plug as close to the center of the chamber as the valve seats permit...

Head bolt torquing involved considerable development, the difficult being the differential expansion of the aluminum heads and steelbolts, augmented by different clamping loads resulting from two bolt lengths... The objective was to tighten the bolts with automatic torquing machines to provide an axial load of 10,000 to 12,000 lbs without initiating yield, which occurs at approximately 13,500 lbs. with the 11 mm bolts used. It had been assumed that steel washer would be required to protect the aluminum head form being scored by the bolt during torquing, however, this added interface contributed to the friction variation. [interesting if you compare to some of ARP's technical documentation] A "UBS" bolt, with a washer-like surface formed into the head, was evaluated and did not mar the head surface even after repeated retorquing. The automatic torquing sequence that was developed consists of:

• Install UBS head bolts and torque to 72 to 87 Nm to equalize the thread friction and to set the gasket.
• Back the bolt out 2 turns.
• Retorque the bolts to 72 to 87 Nm

The production automatic torquing machines have torque sensors and recorders. If a bolt is not torqued within the specified range the operator is signaled and the suspect bolt is replaced. If a problem is encountered...the torque applied to each head bolt on that engine can be obtained from the records.
A mattress type head gasket...

[taylor0987]

Intake Manifold
-----
Key to the success of the engine was to design a single plane intake manifold with excellent distribution and low restriction to flow which could be manufactured by the low cost aluminum die-casting process. The design shown in Figure 5 met all objectives. It consist [sic] of two die castings electron-beam welded together...

A major concern was the ability to achieve good air/fuel distribution, performance, and fuel economy without the mid range dip in the torque curve typical of v8 engines with single plane intake manifolds. While the design was being initiated, competitive 2.7L [who made a 2.7L v6 during that era??] and 3.8L V6 (buick) engines were modified to receive various intake manifold an carburetor configurations as shown in Figure 6. Tests were conducted with both equal spaced ports and unequal spaced ports... the manifold configurations were rated as follows:
1. Three single barrel carburetors with over and under manifold runners and equal spaced ports [that would have been sexy]
2. Two barrel carburetor with over and under runners and unequal spaced ports.
3. Two barrel carburetor with single plane runners, longitudinal wall in central runner and unequally spaced ports.
4. Two barrel carburetor with single plane runners, longintudinal wall in central runner and equal spaced ports
5. Two barrel carburetor with octopus single plane runner configuration and unequal spaced ports
6. Two barrel carburetor with over and under runner and equal spaced ports.
...
Manifold no. 3 was selected as the best compromise, mainly becasue of its excellent low speed and mid range volumetric efficiency... [weight comparison to 3.8L v6 and ford v8]

Exhaust Manifolds
--------
In keeping with the lightweight and high reliability objectives the exhaust manifolds are cast of high strength 70-90% nodular iron...

[taylor0987]

Crankshaft
-----
The 90* engine cannot be fully balanced as can a 90* V8 or inline 6, but has inherent horizontal and vertical primary and secondary unbalanced couples. The relative horizontal or vertical magnitude of the primary couple may be varied by reorienting the counterweighting at the front and rear of the crankshaft. A major engine, chassis, and vehicle development program was undertaken which minimize the vibrations received by the vehicle occupants through engine mount and crankshaft design revisions and, for some applications, the use of an engine roll damper.
The design of the crankshaft is critical in obtaining the minimum possible engine length and weight. Minimum cylinder bore center distance was established by adding to the cylinder bore (96.8 mm) the minimum space between bores that would permit coring of water passages (9.7mm). This established the distance between pin journals along the crankshaft. The design task was to provide adequate arms between the 30* offset pins and between the pins and adjacent intermediate main bearings while providing acceptable bearing size and length/diameter ration. The compromise achieved resulted in 2.5mm wide arms between pins and 15.6 mm wide arms from pin to main bearings, with deep fillet rolling of the main journal fillets required to provide an adequate safety factor. Minimum overall weight was achieved by providing balance weights only in the arms adjacent to the front and rear main bearings plus 28.2 or 32.2 oz of external balance in the flywheel and harmonic balancer. The differences in external balance are required by the different vehicle lines to match engine mount and vehicle structural characteristics for minimum vibration.

[tell THAT mouthful to the next fool who tells you the 3.8 is just a chopped off (5.0|351W|351C)!!!!]

[taylor0987]

Covers and sealing
-------
[glass filled nylon valve covers, aluminum timing cover, use of RTV vs. gaskets in different places]

[taylor0987]

Lubrication System
-------
...The oil pump body, pressure relief valve bore and oil passages are formed as part of the die cast aluminum engine front cover. The oil pump cover also serves as the oil filter adapter and permits orientation of the filter to meet engine component space limitations...
----

Cooling system
----
The cooling system is conventional except the extensive use of aluminum in the engine requires careful selection of coolants
...
----

Accessory Drive
----
A single six rib, poly-vee belt is used...
As shown in figure 12, the six small vees on the inside of the belt drive the grooved accessory pulleys, with the exception of the water pump which is driven by the flat back of the belt. The flat surface allows the belt to float fore-and-aft thus eliminating wear which might result from minor misalignment of the close coupled crankshaft and water pump pulleys...