LocostUSA.com

What fits what.

It seems there are so many very sure people with contradictory replies. I'm not interested in the Zetec or any other Ford engine, but I've been following the thread cause you never know what tomorrow might bring.

I feel like Linda Blair in the Exorcist, well except for the projectile vomiting bit. My head is spinning tho.

_________________
mobilito ergo sum
I drive therefore I am

I can explain it to you,
but I can't understand it for you.

Okay, here goes.

Rewind your "'way back when machine".

When Ford introduced the Pinto with the OHC 2.0, it had a unique bellhousing pattern. That pattern was used all through the Escort production. The same pattern was used in all of the Taurus pushrod engines and the original 3.0 SHO SHO. The pattern was also used in the Tempo engines and was carried over with the Vulcan 3.0 (from the Taurus) when it was used in the Ranger.

I think the differing Escort bellhousings are not bolt pattern differences, but thicknesses to accommodate different flywheels. This pattern is very similar to, but definitely different from, the bell pattern used in the 2.3 Lima family of engines as well as the other V6's used in the Ranger.

So it looks like this:
2.0 PINTO BELLHOUSING PATTERN
2..0 Pinto
Escort CVH
Zetec 2.0
All Vulcan 3.0
Taurus 3.0 SHO
Taurus 3.8
Taurus 2.5
Tempo 2.3

I think that's got it.
Bill

I have not actually taken a look at a Zetec/Pinto/Escort motor in person, but I am almost positive they do not share a bellhousing pattern with the SHO/Vulcan/HSC.

You also left out the 3.8L Essex motor, the FWD ones shared a bolt pattern with the Vulcan family. The RWD ones have a different pattern (Windsor I believe) so don't count on bolting a RWD 3.8 tranny to a SHO motor or a Zetec.

Thanks, I edited my post. I think we did a pretty good job of nailing down the Zetec/Pinto/Escort - SHO/Vulcan/HSC relationship.

Bill

basically, all of Fords 4 cylinder engines from ~ the 70s on (did Ford even make a 4 Cyl before then?) along with a few V6s share the same bellhousing pattern. the only 4cyls from Ford that dont, that i can think of off hand, are the Duratec (which is actually a Mazda MZR) and the Sigma (Zetec SE). Obviously, there may be a few other exceptions to this that we havent nailed down yet.

_________________
Owner of TZT Performance

Not quite. The Lima (2.3, 2.0 and 2.5 SOHC) family has a different pattern. But it can be made to work with the others. Another exception would be the huge four that was made for Mercury Marine. It was one bank of a 460, but was never sold as an automobile engine. Wouldn't that make your Locost throb?

The first 4 cylinder Ford to be made in this country for auto use after the demise of the Model A was the 2.3 Lima.

Bill

See, i knew i forgot one exception.

_________________
Owner of TZT Performance

They made the 1000cc kent non-cross flow 4-cylinder in the Anglia in the late '50s (Or was it 933cc?).

Anyways back to the topic at hand.

So the list of transmissions that will bolt to a Zetec:
-Type E with Pinto/EAO bellhousing (Sometimes called a Rocket transmission)
-Type F with Pinto/EAO bellhousing
-Type 9 with a Type E's Pinto/EAO bellhousing (Sometimes called a Sierra transmission)
-Quaife reproductions of Type E or Type 9
-Caterham's transmission (I dont know what it is...)
-Different Bellhousing manufactures/retailers (www.rwdmotorsport.com or www.quad4rods.com ...) to T-5 BorgWarner

Incase you missed it the Type E is the 4 speed version of the Type 9. Transmission parts: http://www.taylor-race.com/subcat2.cfm?category=Transmissions&subcategory1=Quaife

Am I missing anything that will bolt up (neglecting automatics)?

The Vulcan Ranger M5R1
Also, one of the PInto EAO bellhousings might allow hookup with a T5. I mention that because the guys that are stuffing the Ford 2.8 into Sunbeam Alpines are using a 4 speed bell that is used with the 2.8 in the Mutt II. I think they are using the "Rocket" version. In any case, the tranny they use is related to the T4 which is the Daddy of the T5. They have issues making the hookup, but are transmission input shaft related and are routinely conquered. The bell housing bolts up without incident. The same should hold true with the EAO pattern. This just occured to me as I was typing the answer, but would be worth looking into.

Bill

I dont think I follow your "Rocket is similar to T-5" reasoning. The Type E/Rocket is the four speed version of the Type 9 found in the XR4Ti, and both are made by Ford. The T-5 was designed by BorgWarner and *probably*(?) didnt share a transmission to bellhousing bolt pattern. I'm not sure what a Mutt II is but if they had a EAO and a T-4 then I could see how you could get the bellhousing to mate to a T-5 (but it wouldnt have much to do with a Type E/Rocket).

I have a '72 Type E sitting in the garage and can take measurements or pictures if you'd like for the purpose of discussion.

My confusion.
Its been a while since I last dealt with this stuff and got confused. It seems the transmission used in the V6 Mustang II (Mutt II) was the RAD4, which is of the T4 family and apparently, never used in conjunction with the EAO. Of course you are correct about the Rocket-Type 9 connection.

Bill

Here's a site that I found useful dealing with all of this. http://www.burtonpower.com/technical_1/type_e_gearbox.aspx Just adding their information to the "collective Locost Cannon", so to speak.

So is the Capri and Granada that is talked about on that site the same as our US Capri and Granada? I kind of doubt it, but they might be.

Tom

_________________
Sometimes, I'm as confused as a baby in a topless bar.

My short term memory is absolutely horrible and so is my short term memory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG16m2e4O6I

My head just exploded.

_________________
He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has.

So you understand my moment of confusion??

Bill