LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently May 25, 2020, 10:09 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: September 28, 2009, 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 6, 2008, 11:15 am
Posts: 1049
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
If you can find a removable bell housing that bolts up to the Zetec, I can make an adaptor that will bolt that bell housing to a T-5, like I've done with the SHO.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 28, 2009, 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 23, 2008, 2:07 pm
Posts: 137
Location: Louisville Ky
if the M50D does indeed bolt to the Zetec then whats the point? the M50D will support at least 300HP, more than anyone on here is likely to put through it from a Zetec. (the Zetec is capable of more than that when built properly, but in a light weight locost even 300 isnt needed).

_________________
Owner of TZT Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 28, 2009, 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 6, 2008, 11:15 am
Posts: 1049
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
The M50 is a top shifter and the T-5 is a tail shifter. The difference in gear shift position is 8". The T-5 also weighs less and is smaller and can be rebuilt by just about anybody.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 28, 2009, 11:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: September 27, 2006, 11:12 am
Posts: 349
Location: Darboy, WI
Well I put some time in trying to figure out the bolt patterns for the zetec and the 2.3 SOHC Pinto
Image

The picture shows some basic proof that the 2.3 SOHC Pinto block doesnt share a bolt pattern with the Zetec.

I am still wondering if the 2.3 Pinto block in my '77 Capri is different from your average 2.3 pinto. After a quick cursory look, there doesnt seem to be much difference between the bellhousing from a different 2.3 (presumable from '72 Ford product from the ID tag) and the one in my car.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 28, 2009, 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: January 14, 2009, 2:24 am
Posts: 505
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
striker2 wrote:
it seems like the M50D from the Ranger even uses the same 1" x 23 spline input shaft so the Zetec flywheel and clutch setup might even be able to be used.



In case it's still relevant, I can confirm that the M5OD does have a 1" x 23 spline input shaft.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 28, 2009, 11:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
There are no 1972 2.3 Pintos. The 72's were either the 1600 pushrod engine or the 2.0 SOHC engine from Germany. The 2.3's arrived in 74. The early 2.3's were dual drilled. I think the bell you have is for the 2.0 and should bolt up.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 29, 2009, 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 23, 2008, 2:07 pm
Posts: 137
Location: Louisville Ky
RossD wrote:
Well I put some time in trying to figure out the bolt patterns for the zetec and the 2.3 SOHC Pinto
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2577/3964277677_d200a82fe4_b.jpg

The picture shows some basic proof that the 2.3 SOHC Pinto block doesnt share a bolt pattern with the Zetec.

I am still wondering if the 2.3 Pinto block in my '77 Capri is different from your average 2.3 pinto. After a quick cursory look, there doesnt seem to be much difference between the bellhousing from a different 2.3 (presumable from '72 Ford product from the ID tag) and the one in my car.


yeah, the Zetec is the same as the 2.0 Pinto (EAO engine) and the 2.3 in the Capri 2 (also an EAO) the 2.3 from the Capri 1 was a Lima engine which is different. the 2.3 from the Pinto is the same 2.3 from the Capri1 so its a Lima engine as well.

_________________
Owner of TZT Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 29, 2009, 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: September 27, 2006, 11:12 am
Posts: 349
Location: Darboy, WI
I think I need to flip one of the layouts on my picture since mcsorely's pictures probably have them correctly orientated. oops :oops:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 29, 2009, 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
striker2 wrote:
if the M50D does indeed bolt to the Zetec then whats the point? the M50D will support at least 300HP, more than anyone on here is likely to put through it from a Zetec. (the Zetec is capable of more than that when built properly, but in a light weight locost even 300 isnt needed).

There are indeed some valid reasons to use the M5. The T5 used in the four bangers has a very steep low gear, 3.97 in order for the small engine to get a heavy car rolling. The M5 is somewhat better, 3.73. Second and 3rd gears in the T5 are 2.3 and 1.46. The M5's are 2.20 and 1.5. Both are straight through in 4th. Both have a .79 5th. I'm currently using an M5 behind a Pinto 2.0 in an Alpine and the ratios are great. In a light, powerful car, you'd probably be making a lot of 2nd gear starts with either unless the rear drive was pretty tall. But that's what choices are all about.

A remote shifter of any length can be pretty easily made, I've made one for my Duratec M5. The M5 is big and heavy (80 pounds) and especially tall. I think if you were designing a car it could be accommodated.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 29, 2009, 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: September 27, 2006, 11:12 am
Posts: 349
Location: Darboy, WI
BBlue wrote:
There are no 1972 2.3 Pintos. The 72's were either the 1600 pushrod engine or the 2.0 SOHC engine from Germany. The 2.3's arrived in 74. The early 2.3's were dual drilled. I think the bell you have is for the 2.0 and should bolt up.

Bill

BBlue: I'm guessing you know your stuff, so I'm not going to argue with you there. :) I guess what I should say is the guy I bought my Type E transmission had it attached to a 2.3 SOHC and then he said he swapped in a T-5 from 4 cylinder mustang in its place. He used the combo in some Ford '40s pickup truck.
The tag on the Type E says:
72 WG AE
FOG 3 J 04G

(So I'm guessing its from a '72 ford of some kind, probably a product of Ford Of Germany [FOG])


It appears to be the same pattern as the 2.3 SOHC Pinto in my '77 Capri, and looks very similar to the bellhousing Burton Power sells for the Zetec E (part number BH3) (looks like theirs has a smaller starter, though, probably for a zetec one)
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 29, 2009, 12:58 am 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
Quote:
yeah, the Zetec is the same as the 2.0 Pinto (EAO engine) and the 2.3 in the Capri 2 (also an EAO) the 2.3 from the Capri 1 was a Lima engine which is different. the 2.3 from the Pinto is the same 2.3 from the Capri1 so its a Lima engine as well.


I'm not sure what your saying, so I'll say this: Ford never made the EAO larger than 2.0 and none were imported after 1974. Ford referred to the 2.3's as the OHC and were popularly called the "Lima". The EAO and OHC had no parts in common other than the starter.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 29, 2009, 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 23, 2008, 2:07 pm
Posts: 137
Location: Louisville Ky
BBlue wrote:
.
Quote:

yeah, the Zetec is the same as the 2.0 Pinto (EAO engine) and the 2.3 in the Capri 2 (also an EAO) the 2.3 from the Capri 1 was a Lima engine which is different. the 2.3 from the Pinto is the same 2.3 from the Capri1 so its a Lima engine as well.


I'm not sure what your saying, so I'll say this: Ford never made the EAO larger than 2.0 and none were imported after 1974. Ford referred to the 2.3's as the OHC and were popularly called the "Lima". The EAO and OHC had no parts in common other than the starter.

Bill


your right. Im not sure what i was looking at or thinking when i typed that. Image for me.

_________________
Owner of TZT Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 29, 2009, 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: September 27, 2006, 11:12 am
Posts: 349
Location: Darboy, WI
I'm now skepitcal of everything on the internet. :x


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 29, 2009, 11:44 am 
Offline
Toyotaphobe
User avatar

Joined: April 5, 2008, 2:25 am
Posts: 4837
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
I'm SOOOOOO CONFUSED!

_________________
mobilito ergo sum
I drive therefore I am

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: September 29, 2009, 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 28, 2009, 11:09 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Connersville, Indiana
carguy123 wrote:
I'm SOOOOOO CONFUSED!

About what?

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JBinMD and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY