Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

The Engineering
Resource For
ancing Mobility 400 COMMONWEALTH DRIVE WARRENDALE, PA 15096

F-7,,,,,am

tazza
rth-n7

820112

Ford's 1982 3.8L V6 Engine

D. L. Armstrong
and
G. F. Stirrat
Ford Motor Company

International Congress
& Exposition
Detroit, Michigan
February 22-26, 1982
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

The appearance of the code at the bottom of the first page of this paper indicates
SAE's consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use, or
for the personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the con-
dition, however, that the copier pay the stated per article copy fee through the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., Operations Center, 21 Congress St., Salem, MA
01970 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright
Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collec-
tive works, or for resale.

Papers published prior to 1978 may also be copied at a per paper fee of $2.50 under
the above stated conditions.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of
publication. Direct your orders to SAE Order Department.

To obtain quantity reprint rates, permission to reprint a technical paper or per-

mission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publica-
tions Division.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 0 1981 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

20112

Ford's 1982 3.8L V6 Engine

By

D. L. Armstrong and G. F. Stirrat

Engine Engineering Office
Ford Motor Company

3.8L V6 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

In 1977 Ford planners projected the need for a
lightweight, efficient, compact V6 engine as a re-
placement for the base V8 engine in the mid-size
cars and light pick-up trucks of the 1980's. The
prime objectives were light weight, excellent fuel
economy and reliability. The initial design called for
the maximum use of lightweight components, in-
cluding die cast aluminum block and single plane
intake manifold and aluminum semi-permanent
mold cylinder heads. The 90° bank angle was cho-
sen to provide minimum length and height, lowest
weight and a wide intake manifold which would pro-
vide runner design flexibility for optimum cylinder
to cylinder fuel/air distribution.
The first engines were built in early 1978 and,
with a minimum of development, demonstrated the
ability to meet all objectives — with the exception
of cost. The aluminum block presented no problems,
in fact one engine completed our 50,000 mile truck
high speed durability route with no sign of stress.
The development of a production head gasket to seal
the open deck die-cast aluminum block to the alumi-
num head was one of the more difficult tasks, but
was close to success when the decision was made to
change to a cast iron block.
As detailed plans for a new die casting plant,
casting facilities and dies were developed, costs were
considerably higher than initially projected. This,
plus the ever increasing cost of aluminum, resulted
in the turn-around to a cast iron block.
Other lightweight features that were also deleted
because of cost or unresolvable manufacturing
problems were:
O Cored crankshaft
O Stamped steel exhaust manifolds
* Aluminum harmonic balancer
o Aluminum camshaft sprocket
The first iron block engine was built in February,
1979. Even after the above changes the 3.8L V6 still
is the lightest V6 produced in North America re-
gardless of displacement. It is 117 lbs. lighter than
our 4.2L V8 yet produces more power.

ABSTRACT
The new 1982 Ford V6 overhead valve engine is the lightest weight V6 produced in North America,
regardless of displacement. It has a 90° bank angle, even firing intervals and a bore and stroke of 96.8 x 86
mm for 3.8L displacement. It is released for the Granada, Cougar, Thunderbird, XR-7 and Continental
passenger cars and F-100 light trucks, spanning an inertia test weight range of 3250 to 3875 pounds.
(Figure 1)
This paper is intended to provide a brief overview of an all new engine program with descriptions of the
unique design features and problems encontered and resolved with Ford's 1982 3.8L V6.
0148-7191/82/0222-0112802.50
Copyright 1982 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

1
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

Fig. 1 — 1982 Ford V6 Engine

ENGINE DESCRIPTION outlet, rear cover plate, EGR distribution spacer,

The Ford 1982 3.8L engine is an all-new,
lightweight 90° V6 engine used in mid-size passen-
ger cars and pick-up trucks. Lightweight com-
ponents include aluminum cylinder heads, intake
manifold, front cover, water pump, oil pump, water
2
distributor and carburetor. Weight reduction is also
obtained by using glass-filled nylon rocker arm
covers, nodular iron exhaust manifolds and a single
poly-vee belt accessory drive. (Figure 2A and Fig-
ure 2B).
Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018
Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

C,
C
.E7)
C
W
..1
CO
Cd

CO
N

01
O.

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

Excellent power and torque have been achieved, rate bolt-on tappet gallery. To reduce both the re-
specifically 139 BHP © 4300 RPM and 200 lb. ft. quired facilities investment and component cost it
torque @ 2500 RPM (SAE gross) with Ford's was decided to change to cast iron. The plan was to
7200 feedback carburetor and electronic control. design the lightest iron block possible, let dyna-
(Figure 3) mometer testing and finite element analysis deter-
The bore and stroke are 96.8 x 86 mm for a 1.13 mine the weak points, then add the minimum
bore/stroke ratio. Other significant dimensions are: material necessary for correction. Static testing of
the first prototype iron blocks indicated that cylin-
Bore Spacing 106.5 mm
der bore distortion and camshaft bearing bore
Bank Offset 24.0 mm
misalignment was excessive. This was verified by
Block Deck Height 234.5 mm
Crankshaft Main Bearing Dia. 64.0 mm dynamometer testing which also produced a
Crankshaft Pin Dia. 58.6 mm cracked oil gallery and main bearing bulkhead fail-
ures. Analysis of the static and dynamic test results
Connecting Rod Length 150.2 mm
plus the finite element analysis indicated the areas
Overall Engine Length 660.0 mm
requiring redesign. The use of finite element analy-
Height 520.0 mm
sis may be illustrated by the main bearing bulkhead
Width 619.0 mm
failure, which appeared to start at the main bearing
Compression Ratio 8.65:1
cap notch in the block. Figure 4A shows the finite
Further detail is shown in the Appendix. element analysis in the area of the notch where the
The 50 State Continental and the California Hencky-von Mises stress was calculated to be over
Granada, Cougar, Thunderbird and XR-7 applica- 9,000 psi. The redesign added a rib tying the main
tions have Ford's variable venturi feedback 7200 bearing bolt boss to the structure that supported the
carburetor with electronic control and knock sensor. front cover, reducing the maximum stress to less
The lesser emissions task for 49 State application than 6,000 psi in the notch area. This is shown in
permitted the use of the lower cost Ford 2 barrel Figure 4B. The success of the redesign was verified
2150 carburetor, without electronic control. by static testing which showed excellent bore geom-
The more interesting and unique features of the etry and camshaft and main bearing alignment. No
engine are described below. block structural failures were encountered during
the dynamometer and vehicle durability tests that
ENGINE FEATURES followed and the excellent oil economy verified that
CYLINDER BLOCK — As was mentioned the bore geometry met our objective.
above, the block was originally designed for die cast A problem encountered with early production
aluminum, with cast-in iron bore liners and a sepa- blocks illustrates the value of the extensive "produc-

4,4P 139 BHP © 4300 RPM

140
PUBLISHED GROSS
130 TORQUE
120 200. LB.-FT.
@ 2500 RPM
110 NET W 0
COOLING FAN
100 200
116 @ 4000
90 190
80 180
70 186 @ 2000 170
60 160
40 50 150
40 140
30 30 130
0.
GROSS
20
LL FMEP ET
20 GROSS

10

1000 20DD 3000 4000 5000
ENGINE SPEED-RPM

Fig. 3 — SAE J245 WOT Performance with 7200 Carburetor, MCU Electronics

5
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018
FRONT
MAIN
BEARING
Fig. 4A — Front Bulkhead at Main Bearing
Fig. 4B — Front Bulkhead at Main Bearing
tion validation" program conducted to prove that
the production engine is equivalent to the ex-
perimental and will pass all the functional and dura-
bility tests required of the prototype. Despite every
care to make experimental engines as close to their
production counterparts as possible some differ-
ences cannot be avoided. Although 3.8L V6 "design
verification" engines passed all laboratory, car and
truck testing, a crack was found in an early produc-
tion block when examining the engine after a severe
dynamometer durability test. The crack occurred in
the camshaft bearing bulkhead above the bearing.
To minimize weight large holes had been cast in the
floor of the tappet valley between the camshaft
bearings, therefore, the two sides of the block were
jointed only at the ends and at the camshaft bear-
ings. A narrow rib was provided over each bearing
bulkhead to help tie the two sides of the block to-
gether. This worked well for prototype engines but
when blocks were cast on the production line an
6
occasional barely visible crack was found in the
bulkhead above the bearing and magnafluxing re-
vealed further indications. In several cases these in-
cipient cracks propagated down to the bearing bore
during high speed dynamometer durability testing.
The crack was concluded to be caused by the more
rapid cooling of the castings at production casting
rates. The problem was corrected by increasing the
width of the rib thus providing a heavier section for
slower cooling, as well as a stronger section. The
question of how to replace the blocks on the 5000
engines already built was solved by running the as-
sembly line in reverse, disassembling the engines,
stock piling the parts, then running the line "for-
ward' rebuilding the engines with new blocks. The
final design weighed 105 lbs. with main bearing
caps and bolts, 5 lb. less than a competitive 3.8L V6
engine block.
CYLINDER HEADS — Major contributors to
the low engine weight are the aluminum cylinder
heads which weigh 38 lbs. a pair, compared to 68
lbs. for a competitive 3.8L V6 engine's cast iron
heads. They are cast of 326F aluminum using semi-
permanent molds at Ford's new Windsor, Ontario
and Monterrey, Mexico aluminum casting plants.
Ferrous valve seats and guides are pressed in place,
then finish machined. The seat inserts are pressed in
place, after cooling in liquid nitrogen, with a 0.076
to 0.127 mm press fit. The guides are not cooled
before installation and have a 0.039 to 0.063 press
fit. The separate seats and guides permit the use of
better material than conventional cast iron, thus
better controlling wear and improving durability
and oil economy. The gasketed flat seat spark plugs
and exhaust manifold, rocker arm cover, etc., at-
taching bolts are threaded directly into the alumi-
num, without ferrous thread inserts, however,
thread engagement is equal to two diameters, rather
than 1-1/2 as used in cast iron. The combustion
chamber is of the classical wedge design with the
spark plug as close to the center of the chamber as
the valve seats permit. This results in competitive
burn rates with good EGR tolerance.
Head bolt torquing involved considerable devel-
opment, the difficulty being the differential expan-
sion of the aluminum heads and steel bolts, aug-
mented by different clamping loads resulting from
two bolt lengths. Variations in bolt thread friction
and bolt head to cylinder head contact friction, due
to small part-to-part manufacturing variations, re-
sulted in significant axial bolt load variation for a
specific applied bolt torque. The objective was to
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018
tighten the bolts with automatic torquing machines
to provide an axial load of 10,000 to 12,000 lbs.
without initiating yield, which occurs at approxi-
mately 13,500 lbs. with the I 1 mm bolts used. It had
been assumed that steel washers would be required
to protect the aluminum head from being scored by
the bolt during torquing, however, this added inter-
face contributed to the friction variation. A "UBS"
bolt, with a washer-like surface formed into the
head, was evaluated and did not mar the head sur-
face even after repeated retorquing. The automatic
torquing sequence that was developed consists of:
O Install UBS head bolts and torque to 72 to 87 Nm
to equalize the thread friction and set the gasket.
• Back the bolts out 2 turns.
o Retorque the bolts to 72 to 87 Nm.
The production automatic torquing machines have
torque sensors and recorders. If a bolt is not torqued
within the specified range the operator is signaled
and the suspect bolt is replaced. If a problem is
encountered during hot test, or quality control dura-
bility testing, the torque applied to each head bolt
on that engine can be obtained from the records.
A mattress type head gasket with a solid steel
core and stainless steel fire ring was developed to
match the requirements of the less rigid aluminum
head with its differential bolt expansion.
INTAKE MANIFOLD — Key to the success of
the engine was to design a single plane intake mani-
fold with excellent distribution and low restriction
to flow which could be manufactured by the low
cost aluminum die-casting process. The design
shown in Figure 5 met all objectives. It consist of
Fig. 5 — Intake Manifold
7
two die castings electron-beam welded together.
The lower half is in the form of a simple parallelo-
gram which permits welding in one plane and with
straight lines. Exhaust heat to the mixture is
provided by three pressed-in stainless steel tubes
passing under the carburetor. The heat stove tubes
provide a low thermal inertia heat source that al-
lows rapid plenum warm up during cold start and
minimum heating of the manifold and carburetor
during hot soak conditions. The passage for ther-
mactor air is cast across the rear of the manifold
and covered by a steel plate. The water crossover is
cast at the front with press-in steel nipples for water
bypass and heater connections. The early engines
had a heat control valve mounted in the manifold to
turn crossover heat off when engine operating tem-
perature was reached. This resulted in an increase in
power output of 6 to 7% in the 1000 to 3000 RPM
range, but only on the dynamometer during steady
state conditions. Vehicle tests demonstrated that the
transient nature of car and light truck operation did
not result in sufficient build-up of manifold heat
during normal driving to affect wide open throttle
acceleration performance. The feature was thus de-
leted in the interest of customer cost and reliability.
A major concern was the ability to achieve good
air/fuel distribution, performance and fuel econo-
my without the mid range dip in the torque curve
typical of V8 engines with single plane manifolds.
While the design was being initiated, competitive
2.7L and 3.8L V6 engines were modified to receive
various intake manifold and carburetor configura-
tions as shown in Figure 6. Tests were conducted
with both equal spaced ports and unequal spaced
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

EQUAL SPACING, UNEQUAL SPACING, UNEQUAL SPACING,

OVER UNDER RUNNERS, OVER UNDER, SINGLE PLANE,

TRIPLE CARBURETOR TWO BARREL CARBURETOR TWO BARREL CARBURETOR

EQUAL SPACING, UNEQUAL SPACING. INDIVIDUAL EQUAL SPACING,

SINGLE PLANE, TWO RUNNERS, OCTOPUS, SINGLE OVER/UNDER,

BARREL CARBURETOR PLANE, TWO BARREL CARBURETOR TWO BARREL CARBURETOR

Fig. 6 — Intake Manifold Runner Alternatives

ports. Based on the best combination of volumetric
efficiency and A/F distribution, the manifold con-
figurations were rated as follows:
1. Three single barrel carburetors with over and
under manifold runners and equal spaced ports.
2. Two barrel carburetor with over and under run-
ners and unequal spaced ports.
3. Two barrel carburetor with single plane runners,
longitudinal wall in central runner and un-
equally spaced ports.
4. Two barrel carburetor with single plane runners,
longitudinal wall in central runner and equal
spaced ports.
5. Two barrel carburetor with octopus single plane
runner configuration and unequal spaced ports.
6. Two barrel carburetor with over and under run-
ner and equal spaced ports.
The test results are summarized in Figure 7, with
volumetric efficiency curves and distribution data
for each manifold configuration.
Manifold No. 3 was selected as the best compro-
mise, mainly because of its excellent low speed and
mid range volumetric efficiency. This showed prom-
ise for high torque at low engine speeds, which
would match automatic transmission characteristics
to provide good low speed acceleration or "respon-
siveness." The single plane configuration would also
permit the use of a low height, weight and cost
die-cast aluminum intake 'manifold. Development
continued with improvements in distribution accom-
plished by tailoring of the exhaust crossover tubes
8
locations and size. The resultant maximum A/F
variation was 0.8 at part throttle and 1.5 at wide
open throttle. The intake manifold weight is 9 lbs.
which is 22 lbs. less than the cast iron manifold used
on a competitive 3.8L V6 and 5.5 lbs. less than the
semi-permanent mold aluminum manifold used on
the Ford 4.2L V8 engine.
EXHAUST MANIFOLDS — In keeping with
the lightweight and high reliability objectives the
exhaust manifolds are cast of high strength 70-90%
nodular iron, which is more suitable than grey iron
for the extremes of service that the manifolds must
undergo. For example, they may be heated cherry
red pulling a trailer up a grade, then dowsed in cold
water while coasting down the other side. Our key
durability check is the "Exhaust Manifold Cracking
Test" which consists of 100 Hr. of engine cycling on
the dynamometer, each cycle consisting of 3 min-
utes at 4500 RPM wide open throttle followed by 3
minutes motoring at 2000 RPM. The nodular iron
manifolds have demonstrated laboratory and vehi-
cle durability superior to conventional grey iron
with a weight saving of 4 lbs.
CRANKSHAFT — The 90° V6 engine cannot
be fully balanced, as can a 90° V8 or inline 6, but
has inherent horizontal and vertical primary and
secondary unbalanced couples. (Figure 8) The rela-
tive horizontal or vertical magnitude of the primary
couple may be varied by reorienting the counter-
weighting at the front and rear of the crankshaft. A
major engine, chassis and vehicle development pro-
gram was undertaken which minimized the vibra-
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

EQUAL SPACING, OVER UNDER UNEQUAL SPACING, OVER. UNDER, UNEQUAL SPACING, SINGLE PLANE,
RUNNERS, TRIPLE CARBURETOR TWO BARREL CARBURETOR TWO BARREL CARBURETOR
90 90 90
o9 89.6
86.4

IL
LL
80 80 80
MAXIMUM PORT-TO-PORT
EE
I AF VARIATION

PART THROTTLE 0.92 PART THROTTLE 1.02

WIDE OPEN THROTTLE 0.00 WIDE OPEN THROTTLE
0
-
n
70 70 70
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
ENGINE SPEED — RPM ENGINE SPEED — RPM ENGINE SPEED — RPM

UNEQUAL SPACING, INDIVIDUAL

EQUAL SPACING, SINGLE PLANE, RUNNERS, OCTOPUS, SINGLE PLANE, EQUAL SPACING, OVER/UNDER,
TWO BARREL CARBURETOR TWO BARREL CARBURETOR TWO BARREL CARBURETOR
90 90 90
87.5
85.8
0 82.8
LL
LL

(.> 80 80 80

LU

PART THROTTLE 1.07 PART THROTTLE 0.70 PART THROTTLE 2.77

WIDE OPEN THROTTLE 3.63 WIDE OPEN THROTTLE 2.73 WIDE OPEN THROTTLE 3.06
0
70 70 70
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
ENGINE SPEED — RPM ENGINE SPEED — RPM ENGINE SPEED — RPM

Fig. 7 — Comparison of Alternate Intake Manifolds

coring of water passages (9.7 mm). This established

the distance between pin journals along the crank-
shaft. The design task then was to provide adequate
arms between the 30° offset pins and between the
pins and adjacent intermediate main bearings while
providing acceptable bearing size and length/
diameter ratio. The compromise achieved resulted
in 2.5 mm wide arms between pins and 15.6 mm

PRIMARY COUPLE

SECONDARY COUPLE
wide arms from pin to main bearings, with deep
C, = 1 2.162 COS O+ .290 SIN TI = 5,11.96 COS 2r'- .612 SIN 29

fillet rolling of the main journal fillets required to
C6 = 0 3 1106 COS - 1.94 SIN 0 Cry = 5. ($.96 COS V 1.94 sat 20
provide an adequate safety factor. Minimum overall
C,,. C 6 = VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL L = LENGTH OF CONNECTING ROD
COMPONENT OF COUPLE
weight was achieved by providing balance weights
W = RECIPROCATING WEIGHT OF ONE ASSEMBLY
0 - .9000 294 u2 wR
a - BORE SPACING only in the arms adjacent to the front and rear main
N = ENGINE SPEED
CRANKANGLE OF =1
= BORE OFFSET bearings plus 28.2 or 31.2 oz. in. of external balance
R = CRANK RADIUS
PIN FROM TDC in the flywheel and harmonic balancer. The differ-
ences in external balance are required by the differ-
Fig. 8 — 90° V-6 Engine Balance ent vehicle lines to match engine mount and vehicle
structural characteristics for minimum vibration.

tions received by the vehicle occupants through COVERS AND SEALING — The rocker arms
engine mount and crankshaft design revisions and, covers are injection molded of glass and mineral
for some applications, the use of an engine roll filled Nylon 6. This method of manufacture allows
damper. design flexibility to obtain an excellent stiffness to
The design of the crankshaft is critical in obtain- weight ratio and a better sealing surface. The latter
ing the minimum possible engine length and weight. features a broad flat flange with a groove to retain
Minimum cylinder bore center distance was es- the silicone sealer and an inner drip rail to minimize
tablished by adding to the bore (96.8 mm) the mini- the exposure of the seal to oil. The ventilation baffle
mum space between bores that would permit the is sonic welded to the cover. The weight saving is 2
9
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

lbs. compared to steel stampings. The use of glass
Filled Nylon to contain and seal hot oil on an engine
is an unusual application, however, as the material
is stable to 425°F we felt that we had a comfortable
margin of safety. A thorough engineering analysis
was undertaken to ensure that all potential prob-
lems were considered in the test program. This
started with a "failure mode and effect analysis"
from which a test program was designed to include
the most extreme conditions indicated by the analy-
sis. Vehicle tests were conducted to measure tem-
peratures and material stability under the most ex-
treme operating conditions. For example, one test
consisted of driving the vehicle on the test track at
high speed while gradually reducing the engine
coolant level and observing cylinder head and rocker
cover temperatures. Five of the eleven quarts of
coolant were removed at which point engine detona-
tion became so severe that the test had to be termi-
nated. At that point the rocker cover temperature
had increased from the normal maximum of 280°F
to only 310°F and there was no sign of cover distor-
tion. To include the extremes of temperature, in
addition to our normal high temperature Arizona
and low temperature Minnesota vehicle testing, we
included bench tests which cycled the cover from
—50°F to 350°F. The total program included over
500 engines, 60,000 dynamometer hours and
2,000,000 vehicle miles.
The engine front cover is an aluminum die cast-
ing. It serves to mount the water pump, oil pump, oil
filter, fuel pump and distributor. This arrangement
provides the simplest, shortest block, minimizes the
use of heavy cast iron and maximizes the use of light
aluminum.
Formed-in-place room — temperature — vulcan-
izing silicone rubber sealing is used for the rocker
arm covers, intake manifold end seals, thermostat
housing, intake manifold air passage cover and oil
pan sides and front. (Figure 9) Gasket seals are used
where the formed-in-place silicone might be dis-
placed during component assembly (oil pan rear
seal), where the engine assembly sequence does not
provide full clamping during curing time (water
pump to front cover), where high pressure oil must
be contained (front cover to block), where special
materials are required (intake manifold sides) or for
ease of service (carburetor).
The careful design of sealing joints, selection of
materials and the several in-process plant tests have
resulted in a highly reliable sealing system.

SILICONE SEALER
PATTERN AS SHOWN SEAL
FOR SEALING TAB END ROOVE
OF REAR SEAL WIDTH

VIEW A

ZIG-ZAG
CYLINDER BEAD OR
BLOCK EXTRA MATERIAL
ON JOINT

FRONT
COVER

FRONT
COVER VIEW B

OIL FILTER FRONT OF ENGINE

Fig. 9 — Oil Pan Sealing

10
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

LUBRICATION SYSTEM — The spur gear oil
pump is mounted in the front cover and is driven by
a shaft from the distributor gear. (Figure 10) Spur
gears were used to minimize engine length, pump
friction and pulsations. The oil pump body, pressure
relief valve bore and oil passages are formed as part
of the die cast aluminum engine front cover. The oil
pump cover also serves as the oil filter adapter and
permits orientation of the filter to meet engine com-
partment space limitations. The full-flow filter in-
corporates a bypass valve to allow uninterrupted
flow of oil to the engine if the element becomes
restricted. Drilled holes in the block carry the oil
from the front cover to the tappet galleries which
feed the main bearings. The connecting rod bear-
ings are fed from the mains through drilled holes in
the crankshaft. Piston and bore lubrication is aug-
mented by oil from squirt holes in the connecting
rods. From the tappets, a controlled volume of oil is
supplied to the rocker arms through hollow push
rods. Oil is fed to the fuel pump eccentric, distribu-
tor gear and timing chain through a hole drilled in
the camshaft from the front camshaft journal.
Lubrication requirements were established using
dynamometer engines instrumented with pressure
probes and thermocouples to study the following:
O Main crankshaft bearing and camshaft bearing
shell temperatures.
O Main and connecting rod bearing wear patterns.
O Oil pressure and pressure drops through oil pas-
sages.
O Total oil flow required for proper lubrication.
to Oil pressure at idle.
O Oil pump capacity requirements for engine with
maximum bearing clearances.
O Oil flow required for fuel pump eccentric, distrib-
utor gear and timing chain.
As a result of this development, changes were
made to the initial design to reduce restrictions and
improve oil flow to specific areas, including:
G.Increased diameter oil pick-up tube and cylinder
block transfer passages.
O Added annular groove to front camshaft journal
to provide continuous oil flow to fuel pump eccen-
tric.
The net result is a well balanced design where all
lubrication requirements are met without excess
pump power absorption or system weight.

FRONT
COVER

SPRING
PUMP DRIVE
GEAR
OIL
FILTER
OIL PRESSURE FRONT
ADAPTER
RELIEF VALVE COVER
PLUG
BOLT
GASKET

PUMP DRIVEN
GEAR

Fig. 10 — Oil Pump

11
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

COOLING SYSTEM — The cooling system is
conventional except the extensive use of aluminum
in the engine requires careful selection of coolants.
The water pump body is formed of two aluminum
die castings, the forward casting contains the shaft,
bearing and stamped steel impeller while the engine
front cover forms the back of the pump. (Figure 11)
The aluminum cylinder head and water pump
presented unique cooling system problems due to
the action of the coolant additives on these compo-
GASKET
FRONT COVER
nents. The high temperatures encountered by the
coolant surrounding the combustion chamber will
cause a reaction between the aluminum and the
alkali metal phosphate type inhibitor, found in con-
ventional coolants, to form aluminum phosphate.
The phosphate will then deposit out of solution in
the relatively cool radiator and heater core tubes
producing a significant reduction in heat transfer
efficiency. One answer is to replace the phosphate
inhibitor with a silicate, however, the phosphate in-
hibitor serves to prevent cavitation erosion of the
aluminum water pump so we could be trading one
problem for another. An extensive laboratory and
vehicle program was undertaken to develop new
coolant formulations that provide the water pump
protection while eliminating the formation of com-
pounds that affect the radiator or heater core. This
was achieved by obtaining the proper balance of
phosphate/silicate formulation and coolants with
these inhibitors are now provided with all Ford cars.

ACCESSORY DRIVE — A single six rib, poly-

FRONT vee belt is used to drive the accessories. (Figure 12)
OF ENGINE
WATER PUMP
The elimination of multiple vee belts and multiple
OIL FILTER
ADAPTER vee pulleys reduces engine length and weight. Belt
tension is set with an adjustable idler, this elimi-
Fig. 11 — Water Pump nates the hardware required to adjust individual
components and permits the use of simpler, lighter

A/C COMPRESSOR

A/C
PULLEY

POWER
IDLER STEERING
ADJUSTMENT ".. PULLEY
SCREW
ADJUSTMENT
LOCK-DOWN SCREWS

WATER PUMP
PULLEY
ALTERNATOR
IDLER PULLEY
PULLEY
CRANKSHAFT
SERPENTINE DRIVE BELT PULLEY

AIR PUMP PULLEY

Fig. 12 — Accessory Drive

12
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018
and more rigid accessory mounting brackets. The
low stretch construction of the belt greatly reduces
the requirement for customer adjustment and re-
placement. The belts routinely complete Ford's
50,000 mile high speed durability tests service free.
As shown in Figure 12, the six small vees on the
inside of the belt drive the grooved accessory pul-
leys, with the exception of the water pump which is
driven by the flat back of the belt. The flat surface
of the water pump pulley also allows the belt to float
fore-and-aft thus eliminating wear which might re-
sult from minor misalignment of the close coupled
crankshaft and water pump pulleys. The high
strength, low stretch belts are composed of fiber
filled Neoprene, reinforced with polyester cord and
with flycut or ground vees. This design is the result
of an extensive development program in conjunction
with the rubber companies. The sliding tensioner
has an adjustment bolt which is locked in place
when correct belt tension is set at the vehicle assem-
bly plant. The initial belt tension of 140-180 lbs.
decreases to 130-160 lbs. after a few minutes of
wear-in after which it will operate without slip inde-
finitely.
VALVE TRAIN — The push rod valve train
follows Ford's vee engine practice with stamped
rocker arms guided by and pivoting on cylindrical
fulcrums, which are lubricated through the tubular
push rods. Intake and exhaust valve diameters are
45 mm and 37 mm and lifts are 10.6 mm. Extensive
camshaft development was conducted to provide
good idle quality and low speed torque without
depreciating high speed performance. The initial
design provided better low end and high end BMEP
than the Ford 5.0L V8 engine but was inferior in the
critical 1700 to 2600 RPM range. As good low
speed torque is essential for acceptable automatic
transmission performance, development was di-
rected to improvements in this area. Figure 13
I EXHAUST INTAKE I
+ CAMSHAFT ROTATION - DEGREES
Fig. 13 — Valve Acceleration
13
shows the modifications made to the valve lift accel-
eration profiles to achieve this objective. Valve lift
acceleration rates were increased while simulta-
neously changing the valve events to give the engine
16° less valve overlap and 5° earlier valve closing.
Maximum exhaust valve lift limitations resulted in
the use of a dwell period at the exhaust valve lift
peak. This can be seen in the illustration and is a
feature not commonly found in valve lift profiles, in
fact the flat cam nose prompted many incredulous
remarks when the first production engines were
built. Dynamometer and vehicle testing with the
modified lift profiles confirmed that objectives had
been met. Low speed and mid range torque were
increased and subjective idle ratings were improved
while peak horsepower was maintained. The higher
valve lift acceleration rates required the addition of
valve spring dampers to meet the valve toss objec-
tive of 5300 RPM. Figure 14 illustrates the BMEP
before and after the cam redesign.
OMEP
140
130
3.8L
REDESIGN
120
INITIAL 3.8L
DESIGN
110
5.0L VS
100-
90
oT
10100 2000 3000 4000 5000
RPM
Fig. 14 — Improvement in BEP with Increased
Valve Lift Acceleration
FUEL METERING — The 49 State Granada/
Cougar, Thunderbird/XR-7 and F100 truck appli-
cations use Ford's simple, reliable 2150 two barrel
carburetor. Unique features for the 3.8L V6 are a
cranking air/fuel ratio control, to ensure the correct
ratio for this lower displacement engine, and signal
bleed altitude compensation. The aneroid control
bleeds clean air into the primary and idle fuel sys-
tems at altitudes of 4000 ft. and above.
The 50 State Continental and California passen-
ger cars use Ford's 7200 variable — venturi feed-
back carburetor. Control is provided by the Ford
MCU microprocessor, which also controls the
knock sensor. The 3.8L V6 model is provided with
smaller throttle bores than V8 engines and an all
electric 7.2 volt choke cap.
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018
EMISSION CONTROL — Thermactor air
pumps of 19 cu. in. displacement are used for all
applications with air being fed through a passage at
the rear of the intake manifold. The air travels
through the manifold cast passage to the cylinder
heads, then through drilled holes to the exhaust
ports.
Toe board light-off catalysts plus underbody oxi-
dation and three-way catalysts are provided for all
passenger cars. Truck applications use an under-
body oxidation catalyst only.
Back pressure exhaust gas recirculation control is
provided by the valve mounted to the carburetor
spacer. The latter carries the EGR into the induc-
tion system through slots cut in the spacer bores.
The California passenger cars and 49 State Con-
tinental have a MCU microprocessor to control the
feedback carburetor, knock sensor, ignition, EGR,
thermactor air and evaporative emissions canister
purge.
ENGINE TEST & DEVELOPMENT
Initial program testing started in early 1977
when basic design assumptions for the new engine
were proposed and then demonstrated using com-
petitive V6 engines and Ford 5.0L V8 engines modi-
fied to operate as 90° V6's. The major concerns
investigated and the conclusions were:
o The ability to obtain acceptable fuel and air dis-
tributor with a single plane intake manifold. As
explained in the Intake Manifold section, excel-
lent distribution was developed.
• Whether the uneven firing order resulting from
the use of common, or partly offset, crankpins
would result in engine roughness which would be
detected by the customer, It was concluded that
even firing must be provided.
• Whether the balance characteristics of the 90°
bank angle would affect occupant comfort. It was
concluded that the unbalanced vibrations could
be isolated if the majority of the unbalanced
forces were in the horizontal direction.
Based on the results from this development, the
3.8L 90° V6 aluminum block engine was designed
and the first one built in January, 1978. Initial
dynamometer testing concentrated on durability —
particularly the development of a gasket to seal the
aluminum head to the open deck aluminum block,
No major problems were encountered,
14
In June, 1978 the decision was made to change to
a cast iron block. the first iron block engine being
built in February, 1979. Initial problems were block
distortion and head gasket sealing. When these were
corrected we had an engine that appeared durable
and met our functional objectives, so we initiated
our design verification program in accordance with
Ford establish procedures.
PRODUCT VERIFICATION SPECIFICA-
TIONS — These specifications document in detail
the tests that must he completed to validate a new
engine design for production. These consist of three
major phases:
I. Design Verification — The test program to en-
sure that the engine design meets all functional
and durability requirements prior to allowing
production parts to be built.
2, Production Validation — The test program, sim-
ilar in content to the Design Verification pro-
gram, that must be completed using production
engines before parts may be produced for en-
gines that will he sold.
3. In-Process Testing — Testing of production en-
gines to ensure that the design intent is being
met in production on a continuing basis.
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS
To ensure that the durability test program
includes all conditions that might result in engine
failure, a Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
(FMEA) is conducted for each component, This es-
sentially lists all possible failure modes, their effect
on engine operation and potential causes. Figure 15
is an example, consisting of one page from an abbre-
viated FMEA for the hydraulic valve lifter. The
engineer responsible for the component lists all pos-
sible failure modes, the effects of each failure on
engine operation and all potential causes for each
failure. lie then selects, or designs, a series of tests
which will verify that the design will operate under
all conditions without failure, For example, the tests
must demonstrate that the lifter will operate proper-
ly with the metallurgy, heat treatment and surface
finish, etc., specified by the lifter design and with
the cam lobe taper, material, surface finish and
metallurgy, etc., specified for the camshaft,
throughout the full range of engine operating tem-
peratures and with either new or used engine oil of
the type specified to the customer.
Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

CD
c
8 =0 8 a)
a) I) > a) >
z 3 1-- a 0 o
„ o ,
a 8 .o
0 t- ch a) o m a, 03
it. z ti - 1- "al
0:C Is/ F.- a 73 a 3
2 tti a ..... 0.6 a n0 Pr.
ra o
2 E
u.cc
a
-a it. 1._ cc ...
...
m
I--m o oo
4-” E- 0
ix s a) c.4 t a -a 2 - coa)
W0 T..) z o w- t
>W E o E a a ea' ..y
o 13 t
0 0 RS >, as 0 0 00 ti
Z CC Cr) 0_F- I- 0 .J 0 fr- o
CD I_ > ..- 3 0) 0 ... ta =
r--- 0 CO y-
N
0 0 0 cn 0 r0 ±-
WW
W W LO Cil '- CN N a) N '0)
al- ..--- P 6) , i- . 0a 0
O 0 0 0. 15 0 0 cn 0
0) CO• "0
a) (') 6 (I Cd ,,,
-a
iC5 al 0a °0 0E 0 If, 3
<a I a a),c a)
a z a I _ I 1-
I z3 z
.1.33dA3 0
~ N r asno (")
al ow O ° 111Vc131:1
<a 1 i /1903
C.)
r.
rx •-O '0384 ,- en
cu
"
cu o . a) E
n 8 E
0 8 o o
P a) a. c .c a-,
...., w
_ o m (s)
0"- E 0. (3E a) EA)- -
0 0 E '-•
CD ._ O Ea a
.......=
cli d W aci co C.) C. 0 Li
.0 ,.. m - o° 2 co
L11-1 0 U 0 8 8
ZE *iti 11) TO cn — IS •"" •- a) •-• -
M ft. ° wa
cr 8-To :@ • R ME 2 . (Cn1 a2. 8 C . ifi
a E 5, PI 0
.2 C
a' co
a ° O8 >••-• 2 2 2a 8a a. a) c....
0 Ea
LS' r
_ ...
0 -a ._ 'a;
RI .- f0== at a O
- ..... 0 0sc
c arE c ,c) „, Ems' E E ca 2 i1>12).. a°. o ut2
• • • • • • • • • C)

a)
0 a) C
.....U.I C C
co co ,_ a.)T6 CO
N cc =
o E u) .ca) m ->6 co >
0 co
-0 .0Z a 0n
> 0 .0 u) .0
W r p 4.- ETI. C 0C ct O
uLU. u.,
CC 0 to 0 .,_, a 0 o
a• u.. a) a o -a 0
--(r1:•-•
.0 cr .. •)T
wo .0 8 13 12) r. >.° E k-2." a) 2.)
ct a gitio
5 o
a.
0.) - ° E.a) E
Z to > > u .P...-.C*.E.. m Cu
• • • • • 0
LL
(.50)
W CD
mu, to
m ra CT-
-I 0 ..Y
<E 0
u. .05 iA.
Et
c
`i
e.._.
CID
z ° 0 2 ii
I.•
0
n• fil E Co E
tz I- c) a
0 .0
a c
orI o
a. Z -9--a)_ o °
co -c
E t (t ao)
c
E c •-• :;-- 2
N to = o ,
0a°E N
a)
> cc
2 cc 8.
a0 > 0 el
Z (13 pgg
Z *
5 0 CO
cc ...< m
< Z V.CD "I
la <
a. >,..-- CO
rD0

15
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

DYNAMOMETER DURABILITY — Figure Hot Start and Driveaway and stabilized drive and
16 is a typical list of the dynamometer tests that idle at Arizona, Dearborn and Florida test facili-
must be successfully completed for both the Design ties.
Verification and Production Validation programs. • Engine cooling at Dearborn wind tunnel and Ari-
Ten of the 70 Production Validation engines tested zona test track.
are listed with the tests to be conducted on each O Octane requirements at Dearborn chassis rolls
engine. To illustrate the severity of the dynamo- and Arizona and Florida test facilities.
meter durability testing, the procedures for test No. o Altitude driveability at Denver facility.
33 and 34 of Figure 16 are outlined below. e Acceleration and fuel economy at Dearborn and
Romeo, Michigan and Arizona test tracks.
HIGH SPEED CYCLING DURABILITY — O Emissions and metro/highway fuel economy at
This test consist of 300 hours of closed and WOT Dearborn and Allen Park, Michigan and Denver,
dynamometer testing at various speeds from idle to Colorado test facilities.
12% over maximum power speed. It is intended to
verify the design of the basic engine components
An important tool used by Ford engineers to op-
such as block, crankshaft, pistons, rings, valves,
timize the engine design and calibration is "Engine
bearings, etc. Specifically it consists of repeating the
Mapping." Fuel and emission capabilities of the
following schedule 24 times.
various base engine design parameters (such as
Load Speed Time
compression ratio and valve timing) are acquired
0 550 RPM 30 MM. and analyzed through sophisticated, computer-
WOT 3000 RPM 5 Hr. 45 Min. based techniques. Spark advance, EGR and air/fuel
0 4600 RPM 20 Min. calibrations are generated to achieve maximum fuel
0 4800 RPM 10 MM. economy at constrained exhaust emissions. The first
WOT 4300 RPM 3 Hr. 45 MM. phase of the engine mapping procedure is a parame-
WOT 4600 RPM 2 Hr. tric study conducted on an engine dynamometer un-
der steady-state conditions, where the fuel and
TRANSMISSION SHIFT CYCLE — This test emission capabilities of the engine are determined
is run on an engine test stand but without load. It as a function of RPM, torque, air/fuel, EGR and
simulates a automatic transmission shift cycle and ignition timing. In the second phase, a multivariate
evaluates the effects of the primary and secondary least squares regression is performed on the
unbalanced forces on engine component durability, dynamometer data (8,000 to 10,000 data points).
particularly accessories and brackets and hang-on Next, established optimization techniques are
emission components, such as EGR (exhaust gas applied to the regressed dynamometer data to deter-
recirculating) valve and tube. Two hundred hours mine the engine calibration which produces maxi-
must be completed without component failure or mum vehicle fuel economy at the specified emission
malfunction. It consists of repeating the following constraints. Figure 17 illustrates the type of trade-
30 second cycle 24,000 times. offs that can be evaluated with engine mapping
data. It shows the effect on fuel economy and HC of
Throttle Position Speed different compression ratios and NOx levels at stoi-

Wide Open 600 to 4800 RPM chiometry. For example, the fuel economy gain is

Closed to 2800 approximately 4% for a 0.8 compression ratio in-

Wide Open to 4800 crease, regardless of NOx level, however, an in-

Closed to 2800 crease of 0.6 gm/mi in HC would have to be con-

Wide Open to 4800 tained with the catalyst. It also shows that a 3% loss

Closed to 600 in fuel economy results when going from 2.2 to 0.9
gm/mi NOx at 9.0:1 CR. The final phase is the
ENGINE CALIBRATION — Parallel to the
implementation and verification of the calibration
durability and reliability verification program, de-
in a vehicle.
velopment was proceeding to establish engine cali-
brations to meet vehicle functional requirements The following statistics provide an appreciation
and government regulations. This included: for the scope of the development program:
0 Subzero Cold Start and Driveaway at the o Number of prototype engines built and tested
Dearborn Cold Room and Bemidji, Minnesota. prior to production 500+
16
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

• oo

I
=Ea
16E20 =
tz I ..- 0
Ts= n
AZ

MI=:
.... =
em...,:: ...ma. tz= im
• ••••• ••• " IS .
19E20 .men=
m n'ani
...ma .7:4.22
ob

1111111M 111•111111111111.
assn...
am
-...... °
ow
Z
41am
ca ‘C,-
!LEW
.. on
=11 o
Z A
12 """'II.
19E20 Vs
Fa 1:
II rg I IIM
8 tN
0 r'
•

19E20
..0
t
.:1111111M
a

,ff,
-
m 00
Lb m

• ... inn ='' n

DECO rris'
gm=
,.i
.

ial i I
=
:..
m e%
=s
7..
I.i
ims =
Eit,
..
...s.
— iv

allan?
ve cr,

PH -
n

cn IMO

MMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF
Nb
TZ
r...
7. —
—
z 12E30 ..
I. i =
Nag
.'
da"
a>

...
2 E ii..
..
a. 1 1£20 ri
....
1 0 PH NeNed F
>
0 c,.
..
— ,— ..... — 0

,.. ...
—. n.n
. ..41
...
10E30 F:
= :=2
....s to
tucc
0o 10. Nn
fl•I Z. " NN
... a.. ...
al. E
O
E
cc 0
W
Z
J
0
LU
-I 0 1- >,
to U-1
0
w ItO
, -4
0. 0
io c

M.
Lu
' 0
t n a U
2 c3
0 Z FA tn
2
z E
O
6,
LL

a.
c) 7,
ulm
d =
E - 8
-
Z Z o _, z
r 9 E !-a
0 w fr. ii z2
C: al 2
0wW Z a 0
ILI c, 2 t' :C
0 x g 2 19,' Q1 E, c?. -F0 E 11,.
aro -J Ø a a a c CO •:, 0: = 0
7.1 Z LU I- T. th 63 . ea r:CI °P1
E° a_' to-1
cc t I. I Z
m g o. g E g 0
-o
c c 1:11 2 3 c E 2
<a 6 z
a, cc
E0
qw
LU E = NEN° ° ° 7 7 o 22. -i-T. DiE j .- ° , E m
- = o.
> S° M z to = c, 0 "5 •1C- t7- c9 °6 1- ‘61 2
03 2 13 ant - -6, - 0 - 2 ± -c -o 0c a '16 0 422
g 0
Z Et z = 8 c+ - -0
c a: 15.5 ..c. =2)0 :ci 6 t.)
g .
-
0
oa F--
-J LU 2 56 'aOUDC°5
6 6 12 vj C2 -33 5 1 . -,°, cO °S
T 1
. 1-
4' a
E Oa aE 2 ' IcC °
0. .5 a c D •c o 7.,0 uH :=eal acg. ..f, c9 g
P mLuc') E g, E 2 = 0 u>
. ,:j E „, E, o ci; 8 i T
0 CV k '.2 0 6 a c 0 .9 i o P
= oz 0 z -
_t =
0 cp 2 iji 0 -„,
° 7 00 U ° E
0 W E -- t En- E0 0 6= - °
---' 0 -7 2, o >. th2 z 1:. -
r- LU to o c - 0 E . - c a P. 8 0 - 0
o =,---oceolow<ialf30c.,..
- „, 290tz a 0ri_g
0
Q z r--3 t9 cg E a2-12a a I?)
sweat -o
.- e a a C 1 . g 0
E
Lr, - g, w g z g re, e VI, e °
0' 8 À = a ,
,- cc co E ,-. c, , , .0a L.a' g 1 2 g
0 7 0 ci
g v D '- ta 0 c ca .. ‘P e c p c w E c a
.:, CC D a a - -.e.gwoocg,o- 0- •-
n(130 7•OI}F3L-11 - 2- 2 a>
ata= . 15ThiCior = g ,
1.0
>-
CO CA . 1 0<u.2u. V? V) wri a 3 3 cr) >00E10iE g 0
cac
0
J
uj
-I
U
a
V) N z a -a N tO CO 01 0-
._, -1
._ ,,_ so
._. 0 v N II
NNNN
CO
„ cri V
ca tO
ca co
oc

17
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

BASE
• High speed transfer lines with mechanical feed
2.3
gM/mi
units featured on all metal removal machinery
2%
HC lines.
M-H 2402:1 COMPRESSION RATIO • Automatic, computer-controlled warehousing of
FUEL
ECONOMY 4 ° °
purchased parts.
LOSS
— 1.7 gm/mi HC O Highly-automated engine assembly line with
computer monitored cold and hot test facilities.
STOICHIOMETRIC AIR /FUEL

14.2:1 COMPRESSION RATIO

8%

0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
2.00 2.25
CVS-14 NOx FEEDGAS, grams mi
2,50
Fig. 17 — Effect of Compression Ratio: M-H Fuel
Economy vs NOx CVS-H Feedgas
o Number of engines tested for Production Valida-
tion 70+
0 Dynamometer test hours accumulated 60,000+
0 Number of bench tests conducted 380+
* Vehicle test miles accumulated 2,000,000+
ESSEX ENGINE PLANT
The 1982 3.8L V6 engine is built at the new Es-
sex Engine Plant, located in Windsor, Ontario, Can-
ada. This facility covers 1.6 million square feet, lo-
cated on a 325 acre site. At capacity it will employ
more than 2,000 people and produce 638,000 en-
gines annually for shipment to Ford assembly plants
in Canada, the United States, Mexico and Venezu-
ela.
The manufacturing area covers 1.3 million
square feet and features the latest "state of the art"
technology and machinery, including:
* Programmable controllers for greater reliability
and flexibility.
o Highly automated assembly machines for cylin-
der heads, water pumps and front-cover oil pump
assemblies.
In addition, critical engine components have their
2.75 own in-process testing and checking fixtures to en-
sure high quality production. For example, cylinder
heads undergo automatic leak tests for valve seat-
ing. At the engine assembly line a data gathering
system, A.I.D. (Assembly Integrity Device), tracks
all engines, displays unique parts applications and
then stores engine quality performance data.
The plant is equipped with five totally automated
computer-controlled cold test stands which spin the
engines through a speed profile, automatically time
and balance them, check results and reject if not to
specification.
There are also 26 "hot test" stations in which
equipment is linked to a programmable controller so
that it automatically picks up each engine from the
line, fills it with gasoline and water and connects the
ignition, throttle and choke. It starts the engine and
runs it through a 5-1/2 minute loaded test cycle.
The engine's performance during each stage of the
test is shown on a computer read out and is moni-
tored by the hot test operator. The results, the char-
acteristics of each engine, are then stored in the
computers with each engine identified by serial
number.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their apprecia-
tion to Messr.: F. Carollo, D. A. DiFabio, and J. K.
Mayo for their assistance in preparing this paper.

18

Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

APPENDIX

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
1982 FORD 3.8L V6 ENGINE

Number of Cylinders 6
Displacement, c.c. 3797
Bore, mm 96.8
Stroke, mm 86.0
Bore/Stroke Ratio 1.13
Bank Angle, Degrees 90°
Bank Offset, mm 24.0
Bore Spacing, mm 106.5
Compression Ratio 8.6:1
Carburetor: 49 State — all except' Continental Two Barrel Downdraft
49 State Continental and all California Two Barrel Variable Venturi Downdraft
Valve Lifters Hydraulic
Rocker Arm Ratio (Nominal) 1.73:1
Crankshaft Main Bearings 4
Number of Counterweights 2 plus external
Main Bearing Diameter, mm 64.0
Crankpin Bearing Diameter, mm 58.7
Piston Pin Diameter, mm 23.2
Valve Head Diameter, mm — Intake 45.3
— Exhaust 37.1
Valve Lift, mm — Intake and Exhaust 10.6
Valve Timing — Intake Opens, Degrees BTC 13
— Intake Closes, Degrees ABC 56
— Exhaust Opens, Degrees BBC 66
— Exhaust Closes, Degrees ATC 17
Valve Spring Load, Newtons — Valve Closed 311
— Valve Open 912
Material — Cylinder Block Cast Iron
— Cylinder Head Semi-Permanent, Mold Aluminum
— Intake Manifold Die Cast Aluminum
— Exhaust Manifolds Nodular Cast Iron
— Crankshaft Nodular Cast Iron
— Connecting Rod One Piece Steel Forging
— Piston Permanent Mold Aluminum
— Front Cover Die Cast Aluminum
— Water Pump Die Cast Aluminum
— Rocker Arm Cover Injection Molded Nylon
— Oil Pan Stamped Steel
Performance with 7200 Carburetor:
Maximum BHP at RPM — SAE Gross 139(4)4300
— SAE Net 118(4)4000
Maximum Torque at RPM, Lb.-Ft. — SAE Gross 200(4)2500
— SAE Net 186(4)2000
Firing Order 1-4-2-5-3-6
Oil Capacity, Including Filter, Qt. 5
Oil Pressure, Normal, PSI at RPM 40-60@2000
Weight, Dressed less Starter, Dry, Lb. 351

19
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Saturday, September 15, 2018

NOTES

This paper is subject to revision. Statements and opinions ad-
vanced in papers or discussion are the author's and are his
responsibility, not SAE's; however, the paper has been edited
by SAE for uniform styling and format. Discussion will be
printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact
the SAE Publications Division.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for pre-
sentation or publication through SAE should send the manu-
script or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to:
Secretary, Engineering Activity Board, SAE.
90
page booklet. Printed in U.S.A.

20