Engines with exhaust and intake on the same side?
- Thread starter Vikas
- Start date
- Status
Its a jeep thing.... you are starting to understand
Cross flow heads create more power, but sometimes have packaging issues, on the jeep the rockers and pushrods are all the same, reducing parts complexity
Also realize that the Inline engines jeep ran have a lineage that runs all the way back to the early 60s back then simple was best
Cross flow heads create more power, but sometimes have packaging issues, on the jeep the rockers and pushrods are all the same, reducing parts complexity
Also realize that the Inline engines jeep ran have a lineage that runs all the way back to the early 60s back then simple was best
Jeep thing? NO!
- Dodge slant 6?
- Ford 240 6
- Ford 4.9L Six ?
- Dodge slant 6?
- Ford 240 6
- Ford 4.9L Six ?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Jeep thing? NO!
- Dodge slant 6?
- Ford 240 6
- Ford 4.9L Six ?
Old British cars,
Volvo B 16s 18s and 20s. They finally went OHC and crossflow with the B 21
Jeep thing? NO!
- Dodge slant 6?
- Ford 240 6
- Ford 4.9L Six ?
Old British cars,
Volvo B 16s 18s and 20s. They finally went OHC and crossflow with the B 21
It can be a space saving and packaging solution, it can be a historical leftover, or many other reasons.
Not optimal from a heat management POV but not the end of the world, either.
Example of the Mk4 Golf/Beetle - 1.8 was counter flow and the 2.0 was cross flow, both used the same HG, difference was in the rods and pistons.
Anyhow, the common upgrade was to put the 1.8 head on the 2.0 block, instantly get more CFM.
Even after careful working of both heads (full on, proper, CNC stuff) the 2.0 head could only match the 1.8 head, never exceed it.
So flow is not always compromised in the counter flow style head.
Not optimal from a heat management POV but not the end of the world, either.
Example of the Mk4 Golf/Beetle - 1.8 was counter flow and the 2.0 was cross flow, both used the same HG, difference was in the rods and pistons.
Anyhow, the common upgrade was to put the 1.8 head on the 2.0 block, instantly get more CFM.
Even after careful working of both heads (full on, proper, CNC stuff) the 2.0 head could only match the 1.8 head, never exceed it.
So flow is not always compromised in the counter flow style head.
My Midget 1500 has intake and exhaust on the same side. Pretty sure the 1275 and earlier were the same way.
The AP 1.6 / 1.8 and 2.0 from VWB (80's/90's Fox) aren't cross-flow, either. Same side in and out. Intake above the exhaust outflow.
Last edited:
I got tired of looking at the 150° IAT's on my Jeep (and the #3 injector overheating issue) and wrapped my exhaust manifolds in DEI Titanium exhaust wrap. IAT's rarely exceed 15 above ambient, and #3 never starts any [censored].
Most of the four and six cylinder OHV engines had the intake and exhaust on the same side. I think it was easier with that arrangement for locating the pushrods. When the OHC engines came along, so did the current arrangement which is more conducive to better combustion chamber filling and scavenging.
Majority of old OHV had counter flaw head configuration. It was used (among others already mentioned things) to quickly heat up intake manifold and carburettor.
Edit: Also OHV engines didn't rev well so restricted flow wasn't an issue.
Edit: Also OHV engines didn't rev well so restricted flow wasn't an issue.
Last edited:
"Cross flow" is a bunch of hooey. No such thing.
Air and fuel go down the piston hole and then ex barks out 3 stroked later. No CROSS FLOW per se.
Now, having EX and IN ports on opposite side can keep both EX and Intake cooler by improved coolant management.
Then came 4v DOHC ...
Air and fuel go down the piston hole and then ex barks out 3 stroked later. No CROSS FLOW per se.
Now, having EX and IN ports on opposite side can keep both EX and Intake cooler by improved coolant management.
Then came 4v DOHC ...
My '29 Ford Model A has the intake and exhaust on the same side.
Originally Posted By: Vikas
how was the ford 2.3 engine used in Pinto?
I don't understand, what do you mean how?? All were carbed & RWD, as were '74-'78 Mustang II & '79-'86 Mustang/Capri... T-bird got a EFI Turbo version in '83 thru '88 as did SVO Mustang for '84-'86...
AFAIK all the Ford inline 6cyl had ports on same side of head(or block)... That goes all the way back to the flathead six introduced just before WW-II...
In '52 Ford introduced their first OHV 6cyl at 215cu in, was soon upped to 223 and as large as 262 in trucks... This "big six" was replaced in '65 with the larger 240 & 300(4.9L), these 4.9L versions lived on through '96...
The new for 1960 Falcons got a "small" 144 & 170 6cyl that was increased to 200 in '64 & 250 for '69 model year... I believe last of these engines(the 200) were used in Fairmont in 1983... Replaced by Ford's POS Essex V6...
Webber carbed 300...
how was the ford 2.3 engine used in Pinto?
I don't understand, what do you mean how?? All were carbed & RWD, as were '74-'78 Mustang II & '79-'86 Mustang/Capri... T-bird got a EFI Turbo version in '83 thru '88 as did SVO Mustang for '84-'86...
AFAIK all the Ford inline 6cyl had ports on same side of head(or block)... That goes all the way back to the flathead six introduced just before WW-II...
In '52 Ford introduced their first OHV 6cyl at 215cu in, was soon upped to 223 and as large as 262 in trucks... This "big six" was replaced in '65 with the larger 240 & 300(4.9L), these 4.9L versions lived on through '96...
The new for 1960 Falcons got a "small" 144 & 170 6cyl that was increased to 200 in '64 & 250 for '69 model year... I believe last of these engines(the 200) were used in Fairmont in 1983... Replaced by Ford's POS Essex V6...
Webber carbed 300...
The 2.3L & 2.0/2.5L(Ranger) OHC Fords are crossflow, which is a better design as it allows for better breathing intake & exhaust ports... They are somewhat based(but nothing is interchangeable) on the German 1960s Ford OHC 2.0 but use hydraulic lash adjusters vs mechanical...
- Status
Similar threads
