[J.C.you]

could the flat plane platform be adapted to a Pontiac and what would be the obstacles to overcome?

[WARPed]

getting a cam ground and the crank it self of course, can't think of anything else that wouldn't work with the rest of the engine parts.

[cosgrove]

Probably need to engineer an effective harmonic balancer.

[tom s]

M/T made some pontiac 180 cranks in the 60s.Tom

[steve25]

If it was truly worth the effort and money involved dont you think you would be seing this type of motor used more?

[mgarblik]

Smokey Yunick did a considerable amount of R&D on flat cranks in SBC's in the early 60's. I guess most would call his R&D "cut and try" in those days. In his autobiography he concluded all the effort produced a cool sounding engine that ran about the same and didn't make any more average power than a conventional crankshaft design. That being said, the new Ford Coyote engine uses a flat crank in a couple of HP configurations. The only thing anyone actually says though is how "cool and European" the engine sounds. No real mention of what, if anything it does for performance. In theory. it should rev a little quicker. We had one of the old Yunick SBC cranks laying around my school for years and never did anything with it. Tom may be able to chime in on this concerning the Ford V-8.

[mgarblik]

Here is a little blurb on Ford's current use of a flat crank.
http://www.torquenews.com/106/ford-s...e-v8-explained

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

Smokey Yunick did a considerable amount of R&D on flat cranks in SBC's in the early 60's. I guess most would call his R&D "cut and try" in those days. In his autobiography he concluded all the effort produced a cool sounding engine that ran about the same and didn't make any more average power than a conventional crankshaft design. That being said, the new Ford Coyote engine uses a flat crank in a couple of HP configurations. The only thing anyone actually says though is how "cool and European" the engine sounds. No real mention of what, if anything it does for performance. In theory. it should rev a little quicker. We had one of the old Yunick SBC cranks laying around my school for years and never did anything with it. Tom may be able to chime in on this concerning the Ford V-8.

The Ford Flat Crank system on the Coyote engine was done for more REASONS than just the "sound". If you use a "flat crank" you basically get two 4 cylinder engines.

JC, Here is some info about Flat Cranks posted by one of my Co-workers at Ford: Adam Christian.

Adam and I have worked on several projects together. He is like Kevin Byrd, a real car enthusiast.
(Kevin is also Ford Engineer and a TV Star on the 2 Guys Garage show).

"Maximizing airflow through the engine is a primary driver of the flat-plane crank design, which inherently delivers improved exhaust airflow, because you never have two cylinders on the same bank firing within 90 degrees of crank rotation."

(Also work well with Turbos as you now basically have the two 4 cylinder engines in the same block with each one feeding a Turbo evenly spaced exhaust pulses Tom V)

http://www.motortrend.com/news/flat-...ustang-engine/

Tom V.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Like the write up on that Ford flat crank/engine development. All good, but i ask if there is a vibration strategy to have the pair of 4-cylinder engines phased/timed to null the 4-cyl power-stroke induced block rocking?

Smoother than a NEWS cranked V8?

[jusjay]

Pontiac made flat plane motors in 61-63, all were 4 cly Tempest,!

[Jack Gifford]

The article in Torque News (link in earlier post) only gives ONE(!) advantage of a flat crank V8- less counterweighting, thus less polar inertia. The rest of the article is incidental stuff- such as a shorter stroke, which has nothing to do with flat-crank fundamentals.

Here's some irony: the flat-plane Moldex billet for my blown-alky hemi 4-banger is now up to 89 pounds! Before my full-round modification it came from Moldex with eight counterweights, weighing ~85 pounds.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Originally Posted by Jack Gifford

The article in Torque News (link in earlier post) only gives ONE(!) advantage of a flat crank V8- less counterweighting, thus less polar inertia. The rest of the article is incidental stuff- such as a shorter stroke, which has nothing to do with flat-crank fundamentals.

Here's some irony: the flat-plane Moldex billet for my blown-alky hemi 4-banger is now up to 89 pounds! Before my full-round modification it came from Moldex with eight counterweights, weighing ~85 pounds.

Still gonna rock at idle.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Jack Gifford

The article in Torque News (link in earlier post) only gives ONE(!) advantage of a flat crank V8- less counterweighting, thus less polar inertia. The rest of the article is incidental stuff- such as a shorter stroke, which has nothing to do with flat-crank fundamentals.

Except for the Pontiac Stuff, Mickey Thompson 421, etc and the 4 cylinder Tempest stuff 195,
stuff, the Ford has a larger stroke vs anyone using the technology today.

Like I said earlier, the flat crank firing pulses work well with Turbos.

Tom V.

ps the only thing better might be this engine for a street car

A quad-turbocharged 6.0-liter V12 (with 4 turbochargers) that cranked out an estimated 720 horsepower in the early 90s. Each turbo fed by 3 cylinders.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Except for the Pontiac Stuff, Mickey Thompson 421, etc and the 4 cylinder Tempest stuff 195,
stuff, the Ford has a larger stroke vs anyone using the technology today.

Like I said earlier, the flat crank firing pulses work well with Turbos.

Tom V.

ps the only thing better might be this engine for a street car

A quad-turbocharged 6.0-liter V12 (with 4 turbochargers) that cranked out an estimated 720 horsepower in the early 90s. Each turbo fed by 3 cylinders.

Tom,
Was the FORD 255 DOHC V8 Indy engine a flat crank? I do know that they had the exhaust in the center of the "V".

Also didn't someone many years ago offer headers for the "FE" where tubes ran under the engine to change sides to tune the pulses?

Stan

[Tom Vaught]

Question #1: Was the FORD 255 DOHC V8 Indy engine a flat crank? No.

Question #2: Didn't someone many years ago offer headers for the "FE" where tubes ran under the engine to change sides to tune the pulses?

Yes, several Header companies made "Pan Warmer" headers that crossed some of the Header Tubes from one side to the other side of the engine. The idea was to even out the pulses in the exhaust and possibly improve scavenging of the next cylinder firing in that collector.

Tom V.

ps It did have a three oil pump Dry Sump system 1 Pressure and 2 scavenge pumps

[Tom Vaught]

Some additional info on flat cranks from SPEEDTALK for people who do not have a membership:

"Larry Salisbury wrote:

TurboRay wrote:
The "God Father" (AFAIC) of 2-valve American-engine ingenuity, Henry "Smokey" Yunick, had a flat crank in his SBC-powered "draw-thru turbo" Indy car way back in the mid 70's, lol. I was able to personally witness that crank when Smokey had the pan off during a "special-access" pit tour with C.J. Baker, as co-tech editor of Hot Rod Magazine, at the now-defunct Ontario Motor Speedway.

That 209 CI motor was also a "L/H rotator". "About a thousand horsepower", said Smokey (rumored to be more like 1200, but DUNNO). When I asked about the flat crank, he responded that it was merely a safeguard against damaging something in one bank of the motor late in the race, so his driver could limp to a finish.....BUT, I'm sure there was more to it than that, lol. Not the least of which was maintaining even/equal pulses to the twin turbos. Image




That particular 200cid SBC Indy motor was originally built by Indy winning engine builder Frank Schmidt as a feasibility study for Goodyear in 1968. The major tire companies (Goodyear & Firestone) were at war and supplying motors to Indy race teams back in the 60's for using their product. It was starting to get expensive for them. Goodyear was seeking a less expensive alternative. Goodyear hired Schmidt as he was the go to man for de-stroke work back then. Schmidt explained to me that he was instructed by Goodyear techs to use "off the shelf " factory GM blocks and heads for the build. Schmidt decided to use the 4 bolt 327 Corvette block and "double hump" heads that he ported himself. There were three versions of that motor. Version one utilized a conventional style crank, version two utilized a single plane crank, and version three was an improvement of version one. Version three was designed, but not actually constructed. Schmidt completed the feasibility study on two of the motors before returning them to Goodyear. Goodyear then forwarded the motors to GM/Chevroloet. GM then sent the 200in motor to Bruce Crower for further refinement. Crower could not expand upon it and returned it back to Chevrolet. Chevrolet then sent it out to Smokey to work his genius to it.

Schmidt sat me down one day some time back and explained the particulars of that flat crank 200 inch Indy SBC. Fortunately, I did take notes on the conversation. The 200ci (actually 201ci) SBC Indy motor originally had a 4in bore and a 2in stroke. Reciprocating weight was kept as light as possible. Light weight pistons and titanium wrist pins were used with very long custom Carrillo rods to augment accelleration. The flat crank throws were one up two down one up The crankshafts were custom manufactured for Schmidt by Ricardo in England. The firing order determined by the orientation of the crank throws was 1,6,2,5,8,3,7,4 . Schmidt explained to me that the firing order was set to the furthest cylinders. Those motors had to operate at 9000rpm with min operating rpm of 8000. This was due to the devastating/catastrophic harmonics discovered in the 5000 - 6000 rpm range (5600 rpm specifically). The motor had to accelerate as fast as possible to get through the 5600rpm frequency to the operating range of 8000 - 9000rpm's. Goodyear test drivers were instructed to stay out of the 5000 - 6000 rpm range and to accelerate/decelerate through that range as fast as possible to prevent damage. Those motors were equipped with a single Rajay turbo and Hilborn injection. Boost was set to "3 atmospheres". Those high winding Indy SBC's produced 875HP at 9200rpm. Torque was 650 lb-ft (I didn't write the rpm down). According to my notes the soft action Schneider camshaft had an intake duration of 330 degrees and exhaust duration of 333 degrees (seat to seat spec). LSA was 110 degrees (I/E) and lift was .500in. Cosworth soon arrived with their DFV & later DFX motors instantly rendering the Chevrolet motor obsolete. The rest of course is history.

Larry

Tom V.

[mgarblik]

Great post, Tom Thanks

[J.C.you]

Tom v, is there any current ohc ford head that has approximately the same bore space as the Pontiac?

[Tom Vaught]

Current Head, NO.

The OHC heads are either based off of the old 427 SOHC Bore centers (SVO stuff) offered by Robert Pond and others or the small block Modular Engine bore centers or smaller.

The 427 SOHC heads would fit a Traditional Pontiac if you drilled the holes in the deck in the SOHC locations after having Bob and Frank add the cast iron or aluminum material in those spots. I do not think the deck by itself would be strong enough to hold the head bolts properly.

Tom V.

[J.C.you]

Btt, checking to see if anyone has done a Pontiac flat crank yet? I see GM has one in the new Vette motor