Crossflow build

[Stiggolas]

As it was nice on Sunday, I had a day in the garage. Years ago I bought a freshly rebored 1700 crossflow block. I hava an old engine to be stripped for donor parts (crank, rods etc). The thing is, using the main shells from the old engine (just for a test fit) the crank doesn't sit fully into the block. The shells are marked 0.015 o/s and are original Ford ones. Is it possible the old block has had its mains bored out at production and oversized shells fitted?
as far as I can tell, the crank has standard sized Journals and the big end shells were marked A_A.

[Auntieroll]

Measure the bores / journals and find out! The crossflow hasn't been produced in years so unless someone is dealing with them on a regular basis the knowledge about variations in production will be hazy at best, what do the specialist publications available say about the scenario you find yourself in?
If you don't have them, I would advise buying them, failing that try tinterweb.

[Sardonicus]

Its not unheard of for Ford engines of that era to have over-sized main bearing housings line bored larger from the factory get them measured

[one eyed mick]

Was a regular repair backin the days of old usually after mains had spun in housing ,the shells appear thicker than std commonly called thick backs localy . Am told even some new engines came out like this and certainly Ford recons did , no probs with the correct shells

[Stiggolas]

Thanks for the replies, I'll be using the standard sized caps with the new block, the original post was purely for interest.
We have some pretty fancy measuring stuff here at work. Going to bring two caps in and measure them

[Pumaracing]

All the Ford 4 pots from the Crossflow through the Pinto, Cosworth and CVH regularly had 0.4mm oversize main housings from the factory when the first line boring op didn't pass quality control measurement checks. I'd say I used to see it in maybe 1 in 10 or 15 blocks on average so not at all uncommon.

As to why it was so common for the first boring op to fail on Ford engines I have no idea because it was very rare to see on VWs, Peugeots and other stuff I regularly worked on.

Possibly Ford worked on the basis that it was cheaper to spend less time constantly checking tool wear and settings on the first op and just rebore the ones that came out the wrong size but who knows. Or maybe they cast the housings so close to target size to save a bit of metal at the foundry that not all of them would clean up fully. Ford were always buggers for cutting things right to the bone to save a penny here and there which was why there were so many reliability issues on everything they did until maybe 15 years ago when they finally got things right on the Focus, Mondeos etc.

Anyway as you've seen the shells will always be marked 0.015" or 0.4mm o/s and the wrong sized shells won't align perfectly with the split line in the block.

Some 20 and a good bit years ago I did a ported Cosworth head for a numpty off a council estate that the local rolling road had passed on to me. A couple of months later I was at the rollers for something and idly enquired if it had made decent power. "Haven't had it back yet" I was told. "He got the bottom end back together by himself and the head on but no oil pressure. Pulled it apart, bought another new oil pump, rebuilt it again and still no oil pressure.

It was another couple of months later still when I found out it had taken him three rebuilds to finally realise it was a line bored block (or that such things even existed) and he'd been fitting standard shells. There generally ain't much oil pressure in an engine when the main bearing clearance is 17 thou instead of 2 thou.

[S0 What]

Ford never really got a handle a consistant sand casting till the mid 80's, that's the main reason the pinto 205 is better than the 2.0, i've seen some awfull bore shift in early pintos and Xflows, would that have an impact on it ?