Ford 105E Formula 3 engine

This engine totally dominated the 1-litre F3 era, in it's Cosworth MAE version. Those famous tuners, Holbay, Novamotor, Lucas etc - did they tune the Cosworth engine or the 105E in it's original version?

I have slowly started to build up a F3-results bank, similiar to my F2-site. Is there anyone of you gentleman, who has some F3-info stored somewhere? Any help would be much appreciated. I am now most interested in the 1964-1970 era, but also 1971 where most of the work is nearly finished.

Any book suggestions about F3, except the German DEKRA F3-guide and Paul Sheldon's books?

Stefan

Was the MAE a 105E, or was it a 5-bearing engine, which the 105E never was?

In Ken Wells book "Cosworth" the MAE is described as the Modified Anglia series E Ford 105E engine. 1 litre capacity. It was made in "large numbers" in 1965, but from 1966 very few complete engines were made. However many kits and parts were sold to other engine specialists.

It's a good book, but it doesn't cover the early years of Cosworth in any depth.

That may well be the case, too... I seem to recall something about the additional friction of the second and fourth main bearings being good cause to leave them out.

The story is that MAE stood for Modified Anglia Engine, which fits in with Cosworth speak of the time (e.g. DFV = Double Four Valve). This was the F3 engine, previously Junior engines had been called something like Mark 4 (different marks had different power outputs/specs.).....

They used either 105E (Anglia) or 109E (Classic) blocks - these were 3 bearing and both had the same bore (just under 81mm) the extra capacity of the Classic engine was achieved by longer stroke crank.

In Formula Junior they had to retain the original head (and stroke) but for F3 they could use their own heads - by the end these had the inlet ports repositioned so that they could use downdraught carburettors (only single choke being allowed in F3 - which in most cases meant half a Weber).

Both Formula Junior & F3 engines used very little else of the Ford engine - the crank & rods were replaced with steel ones (in most cases, some of the lower spec engine used Ford parrts) and steel bearing caps etc. even the timing chain was thrown away and replaced by gear drive, and the camshaft was completely different since they used a different firing order to Ford!
Apart from the 2 big cast iron lumps they probably only used the water pump!

Ford made 5 bearing engines later (than Junior, during F3 period) but the short stroke of the Anglia engine meant there was no need to use 5 bearings (the crank was stiff enough) and that would have led to increased friction (and increased bearing area would presumably have increased the possibility of lubrication problems).

Due to short supply these days some historic racers use 5 bearing Junior engines, of course they are very careful not to use the extra 2 bearings (despite the fact that 5 bearing standard cranks are plenty strong enough & a lot cheaper than a steel crank........).

Apart from Cosworth, Holbay supplied a lot of F3 components (and blank cylinder heads) these would have been used by various British engine builders, I don't know whether Novamotor etc produced their own components as well (I expect they did).

I don't think you can use a 3-bearing crank in a 5-bearing block at all... not without milling out the second and fourth bearing webs... obviously they would do this...

Of course they mill out the webs - far less work/cheaper than finding a 3 bearing block!

Actually one important reason for using the more recent blocks is that it is hard to find an early block that will bore out to the 85mm that an 1,100 cc junior engine needs. The modern blocks are far more likely to have even wall thickness around the bores (due to both lack of corrosion and improved core location during casting).

I don't think you can use a 3-bearing crank in a 5-bearing block at all... not without milling out the second and fourth bearing webs... obviously they would do this...

Conversely, it seems as though 5 bearing cranks into three bearing blocks poses few, if any, problems?

James

I was always lead to understand that MAE stood for Modified 'A' Engine, as the 'A' referred to the particular series of Ford blocks, as in SCA(single cam A) BDA(belt driven A) FVA(four valve A) etc. and does DFV not stand for Double Valve V (as in V8)?

105E/109E blocks are not that hard to find, although Peter's comments about corrosion and casting thickness in old blocks are well founded. Some later twin cam F3 engines used the five bearing block with two webs machined out to reduce friction but these were very slow reving restricted units where block distortion did not seem an issue. In this case special steel three bearing cranks were made with the five bearing length stroke. However quite a lot of work is required blocking up oil ways if two webs are removed from a five bearing engine, to prevent pressure loss, this would also apply to the crankshaft were a five bearing crank to be fitted to a three bearing engine and why would you want to do it. I would think a five bearing crank would be inherently week across the 'redundant' journals.

Conversely, it seems as though 5 bearing cranks into three bearing blocks poses few, if any, problems?

James

Both choices involve blocking oilways...

I was always lead to understand that MAE stood for Modified 'A' Engine, as the 'A' referred to the particular series of Ford blocks, as in SCA(single cam A) BDA(belt driven A) FVA(four valve A) etc. and does DFV not stand for Double Valve V (as in V8)?

105E/109E blocks are not that hard to find, although Peter's comments about corrosion and casting thickness in old blocks are well founded. Some later twin cam F3 engines used the five bearing block with two webs machined out to reduce friction but these were very slow reving restricted units where block distortion did not seem an issue. In this case special steel three bearing cranks were made with the five bearing length stroke. However quite a lot of work is required blocking up oil ways if two webs are removed from a five bearing engine, to prevent pressure loss, this would also apply to the crankshaft were a five bearing crank to be fitted to a three bearing engine and why would you want to do it. I would think a five bearing crank would be inherently week across the 'redundant' journals.

I thought it was Modified Anglia Engine, but you are right about the A being common to all the early Cosworth engines - but the FVA, BDA used different blocks which were presumably the basic Ford block in their repsective periods so it could well be that it was the A series block (but could that not have caused confusion with BMC products) as in the current basic Ford block.

One issue that Stuart Rolt pointed out to me recently is that in the 80s, when historic junior racing took off, the engines were half as old as they are now, so corrosion and silting up of blocks & heads is far more of an issue than it was at that time. Stuart said he now has blocks chemically cleaned and it is amazing how much silt etc comes out of them these days.

I also agree about the 5 bearing crank issue, of course it can fit in a 3 bearing block but why would you want to go to the trouble of closing the oilways (with the associated potential problems) and swinging the extra metal around when a 3 bearing crank is available, especially as the 3 bearing one would be cheaper to buy - the only reason that comes to mind would be if you already had a 5 bearing crank and didn't want to buy another crank.

this would also apply to the crankshaft were a five bearing crank to be fitted to a three bearing engine and why would you want to do it.

I wouldn't want to do it, but am intrigued that it is done these days.

I'm guessing that MAEs were all on three bearing blocks back in the day, not sure though.

I don't suppose Stuart has a spare Holbay rocker cover kicking around in his shed to suit a 105E head?

James

I wouldn't want to do it, but am intrigued that it is done these days.

I'm guessing that MAEs were all on three bearing blocks back in the day, not sure though.

I don't suppose Stuart has a spare Holbay rocker cover kicking around in his shed to suit a 105E head?

James

Could simply be an issue with the availablity of cranks? Maybe 3 bearing ones weren't available or 5 bearings were cheaper or made from better material...

When did 5 bearing blocks come out, I don't think they were available in Junior times and presumably not early F3 days?
Apparently 3 bearings lower friction meant they revved more freely so they were preferable in period, no doubt someone would have tried to do it differently so there could have been a 5 bearing F3 engine but it didn't trouble the record books!

I doubt Stuart even has a Rolt rocker cover kicking around!
If you could borrow a Holbay one it could be reproduced rather easily these days and there are a few people looking for them...

Could simply be an issue with the availablity of cranks? Maybe 3 bearing ones weren't available or 5 bearings were cheaper or made from better material...

When did 5 bearing blocks come out, I don't think they were available in Junior times and presumably not early F3 days?
Apparently 3 bearings lower friction meant they revved more freely so they were preferable in period, no doubt someone would have tried to do it differently so there could have been a 5 bearing F3 engine but it didn't trouble the record books!

Did Formula Junior at 1100cc come into being in 1961?

I think it got replaced by the 1000cc F3 on 1 Jan 1964?

Miles Wilkins reckons the 5 bearing Consul (Cortina) engine was released in May 1962. (So, conceiveably a Junior motor could have been built on a 5 bearing block - Wilkins reckons that Colin Chapman, Steve Sanville and John Standen had been to Ford at Avely, obtained a block and built a Twin Cam motor around it by 14 May 1962).

The five bearing crank that's a 50 mm throw that we have was ground/etched with a year of manufacture by Laystall in 1965.

I don't know when Laystall started grinding cranks, but I presume they were grinding cranks for Coventry Climax in the very early sixties if not before. Therefore, any customer within cooee could have, within reason whatever they liked back then.

I don't know the spec of the period three bearing junior cranks (material, that is, I gather they were approx 48mm throw) and that the 1100s were big bore motors, 997s retaining a small bore.

I imagine that as the three bearing ones back in the day did the job, there was no need to risk higher drag with 5 bearing ones.


I think the three bearing blocks are a tiny bit shallower and back in the day you could get them to bore large just as easily if not more so than the five bearing ones - so for a 1000/1100 motor you didn't gain anything going to a five bearing block and conversely you may have paid a weight penalty.......

Sorry to edit this bit in, but as a Formula Junior motor would have to have retained it's original stroke, then 5 bearing motors were miles off - as an aside a similarly stroked motor - the SCA, bobbed up in 1964 on a five bearing block.

It would be interesting to know what Ford blocks were being employed in the late sixties in F3.......

Edited by SJ Lambert, 19 September 2010 - 12:39.

Not wanting to muddy the waters but there were also Holbay five bearing camshaft blocks - the fives identified with oil pump & distributor drive from the front of the block. The extra journals were welded in requiring alternative positions for the drive of oil pump and distributor, as a bearing journal took the place of the driving gear.

Edited by Patrick Fletcher, 19 September 2010 - 13:01.

Did Formula Junior at 1100cc come into being in 1961?

I think it got replaced by the 1000cc F3 on 1 Jan 1964?

Miles Wilkins reckons the 5 bearing Consul (Cortina) engine was released in May 1962. (So, conceiveably a Junior motor could have been built on a 5 bearing block - Wilkins reckons that Colin Chapman, Steve Sanville and John Standen had been to Ford at Avely, obtained a block and built a Twin Cam motor around it by 14 May 1962).

The five bearing crank that's a 50 mm throw that we have was ground/etched with a year of manufacture by Laystall in 1965.

I don't know when Laystall started grinding cranks, but I presume they were grinding cranks for Coventry Climax in the very early sixties if not before. Therefore, any customer within cooee could have, within reason whatever they liked back then.

I don't know the spec of the period three bearing junior cranks (material, that is, I gather they were approx 48mm throw) and that the 1100s were big bore motors, 997s retaining a small bore.

I imagine that as the three bearing ones back in the day did the job, there was no need to risk higher drag with 5 bearing ones.


I think the three bearing blocks are a tiny bit shallower and back in the day you could get them to bore large just as easily if not more so than the five bearing ones - so for a 1000/1100 motor you didn't gain anything going to a five bearing block and conversely you may have paid a weight penalty.......

Sorry to edit this bit in, but as a Formula Junior motor would have to have retained it's original stroke, then 5 bearing motors were miles off - as an aside a similarly stroked motor - the SCA, bobbed up in 1964 on a five bearing block.

It would be interesting to know what Ford blocks were being employed in the late sixties in F3.......

Junior actually started around 1958 (in Italy) lasting until 1963.
It was for 1100cc production based engines (block & head from an FIA recognised touring car), but 1000cc cars could weigh 360kg rather than 400kg, and they had to maintain the original stroke and camshaft position.
Gearbox also had to be from a production car (with free choice of ratios & number thereof).
Brakes had to be the same type (e.g. disc or drum) as the car the engine came from.

So a 5 bearing Consul based engine would have been legal if it appeared by 1963 and the Consul was homologated, but it would appear to not offer any advantage - 48.41mm stroke was short enough that crank flexing doesn't seem to have been a problem and the friction advantage presumably won the day.
Some early Anglia based engines used the original hollow cranks, albeit highly polished! And plenty used the standard solid production crank.

Boring the Anglia block out to 85mm for 1100cc was pretty marginal, you need to find a block where the core was very well centred/with even wall thickness around the bore and the production tolerances at the time were far greater than today so the majority of blocks you find today aren't upto it with the only option being to use liners which aren't popular (apparently the block gets quite flexible if you liner it).

Laystall started making cranks before the war - supplying Bentley in the mid-20s for example, so they were definitely available in period (they presumably supplied Climax with them for FPFs from the mid/late 50s).
Presumably your 5 bearing Laystall crank is for something like a short stroke twin-cam or similar of around 1300cc??

Presumably 3 bearing Anglia blocks were still common enough by the late 60s that they would still have been the first choice for F3 blocks?

Incidentally I think F3 rules also required the production based cylinder head, so how were downdraught heads cast by Holbay (for example) legal?

Not wanting to muddy the waters but there were also Holbay five bearing camshaft blocks - the fives identified with oil pump & distributor drive from the front of the block. The extra journals were welded in requiring alternative positions for the drive of oil pump and distributor, as a bearing journal took the place of the driving gear.

They would have been legal because the rules were that the camshaft had to remain in its original position, you were free to rework the block & head (as long as they were the production items).

Incidentally what is pretty much the only other engine rule was that you weren't allowed to change the number of crankshaft bearings - so converting a block from 5 to 3 bearing would have been illegal.....

I recall seeing a forged 5 bearing crank fitted to a 3 main block and the two unused journals had never been machined or drilled-indicating the crank was not a conversion but intended for such use. I recall it was used in a FJ but this was in the early eighties so could have started out in an F3.

The 117(?) 1390 linered down from the Consul CAPRI was used because as David rigfhtly says brakes had to come from the same engined car and the afore mentioned horror had front discs. It was a terrible device in original 1390 form and knocked it's bottom end out regularly. I sprinted a TVR for a bloke and it was a shocker even with twin Webers and all the other gubbins.

Incidentally I think F3 rules also required the production based cylinder head, so how were downdraught heads cast by Holbay (for example) legal?

I don't know what they did later on, but in perriod they used standard 105e heads and brazed in downdraft ports.

The Consul Classic 1340cc 109E blocks were produced from 1961 and are three bearings. The five bearing 1498cc 116E block did not appear until 1962. The 997, 1198, and 1340cc engines were all the same using various con rod length to allow the changes. In fact I seem to remember some people boring the 1340 to 85mm and ending up with a three bearing near 1500cc unit. (I think Chris Craft may have run one in his Anglia in 1962).

I seem also to recall Lotus (Cosworth?) running what was refered to as a sleeved down Classic in the Formula Junior race that supported the French GP at Rhiems in 1961 and I think this may have been the first showing of the 1100 version of the 105/109E unit. They also ran larger rear wheels/tyres to account for the gearing on the long straights. I suspect that this engine was in fact an 85mm bore 105E and in fact the scrutineers didn't catch on, but the ruse would have allowed for disc brakes. I don't know if I have the Autosport to check my memory about this story but perhaps some kind TNFer could look it up.

Early down draught heads were only modified production unit and I recall Ted Martin showing me one of his Formula Junior D/D heads as early as 1962, I think prior to the Racing Car Show so that would have been January. Special castings came much later. However this may bring up an interesting point. Could it be possible that down draught heads were at some time homologated for Anglias, Broadspeed ran them on there BSCC cars so maybe that would legally allow there use in F3 and maybe even late Juniors?

Red face, 1340 not 1390 and 109E not 117. Rest of remarks still apply.

It can be tough with Fords ...

E93 and prior
100E side valve 1172cc
105E ohv 997cc Anglia
107E ohv 997cc Prefect
109E\112E ohv 1340cc Classic\Capri
115E ohv 1198cc Anglia
122E ohv 1498cc Cortina

source Ford advertisment Motor Sport page 720 September 1963

e&oa

There was no shortage of bored out Capri engines in openwheeler racing in Australia before the 5-bearing engines arrived...

Were they not run at 1475cc capacity?

I never got a set of Cosworth 85mm pistons until the 5-bearing engine arrived = 1650cc
No doubt a few of the favoured ones got a few 85mm pistons to get their 1340 up to around your suggested capacity - but if they were using the old blocks a lot of white metal had to be flowed in to seal up the porous cylinder walls! Tarz Sims spent hours on mine and the lovely old guy hardly ever charged me for the extra work he put in.

As an erstwhile F3 mechanic (the clue's in my login name!) I built and re-built a great many Holbay F3 engines from 1968 to 1971 (yes, the 1-litre F3 Torneo series in Brazil was in January 1971), but ageing memory being what it is I may have a few gaps in my recall of the engine. However, I believe the following to be true:

1. The Holbay block had five bearings and steel main caps, with the crank being machined from a single billet of EN45 steel. Rods were steel, and pistons were short-skirt (slipper). I think the pistons had 3 rings all above the gudgeon pin.

2. The cylinder head had 4 inlet down-draught ports machined into the head, with the manifold and single-choke Weber (with slide throttle, not butterfly) sticking up in the air above; the engine was mounted at an angle in the chassis to allow the carb and manifold to sit vertically. The head was torqued down to over 100 lbs/ft using high-tensile Allen bolts and had 2 studs to replace the bolts displaced by the downdraught ports, with nuts tightened up through the core-plug holes in the side of the block. Roger Dunnell of Holbay told us to tighten these nuts "until it hurt" .

3. Camshaft was gear-driven, off which the distributor and dry-sump oil pump were driven. Cannot remember how many bearings the camshaft had, but the pump and distributor were side-mounted, not front. The distributor had no advance/****** mechanism, but still used contact points. The water pump (which may well have been standard) was driven by a rubber toothed belt. No dynamo or alternator obviously.

4. Rocker gear was non-standard with steel pedestals supporting the rocker shafts, pushrods and rockers may have been standard. I believe the cam followers were strengthened versions, but still were prone to surface cracks from the vicious cam profile. Valve springs were double and harmonically designed to reduce valve bounce; these often broke when a driver missed a gear and took the revs over 12,500 rpm. Valve clearances were critical to optimise the narrow power band and were checked after every practice and race.

5. The flywheel was lightened and balanced along with the crank, and the clutch was a single sintered copper and steel plate with an immensely powerful pressure plate. The clutch was either on or off, slipping took a great deal of practice.

All in all, a remarkable engine producing an amazing performance at ludicrous rpm. It was a big let-down when the F3 formula changed to the strangled 1600 twin-cam.

Presumably your 5 bearing Laystall crank is for something like a short stroke twin-cam or similar of around 1300cc??

It's for a Holbay S65 1150cc circa 1965 vintage engine fitted to an Elfin type 300 Sports Racer - I've banged on about it under a thread referring to Holbay - John Reid and his engines, to a considerable degree.....

I understand that Vegantune offered one stroked to 50.2 mm (versus our 50.65mm one) in 1969 for their 69 FLG Twin Cam motors aimed at an 1100cc Formula 'C'. The FLG was said to rev "very freely" in their promotional material. Don't know how many of either ever got turned out.

Edited by SJ Lambert, 22 September 2010 - 09:39.

Fark 12,500 rpm - great post F3 Wrench

Let´s see if we can make sense out of the permutations and combinations of the non-crossflow Ford Kent engines.

The original 3 main bearing 105E came out in 1960 with a b/s of 80.96 by 48.41 for a capacity of 997 cc

The F Jr guys quickly found out that with luck you could bore them out to 84.96 to get 1098 cc.

Not long after Ford came out with the 3 main derivative, (109E), that used the original 80.96 bore with a 65.07 stroke to give 1340 cc. (In fact at the beginning I think that this block was really the 105E block re-numbered).

The smart guys married this longer stroke to the 84.96 bore to give 1475 cc when they raced things in the 1500 cc class.

Later Ford came out twith the first of the 5 main bearing blocks, (116E), with a b/s of 80.96 by 72.746 for a volume of 1498. Interestingly these were never faster than the 1475 derivatives the day for two reasons. Firstly the two fewer mains reduced internal losses providing for more power to the flywheel. And secondly, the bigger bore of the 1475 allowed better breathing if the valve sizes were the same or larger valves to be utilised.

The 1498 cc 116E was easily bored to up 82.55mm for a capacity of 1557 cc. Some blocks were able to be taken to 84.96 that then gave the 1650 cc size.

There were a few odd balls thrown in which were of not much use to racing such as the mid stroke 123E which was 1198 cc.

Hope this let a few people their heads around what Ford in line manifold block allowed you to what.

Regards

We used 997cc F3 spec downdraught engines in F4 in the late 70's, all the engines we used had 3 bearing cranks.

For the 1978 season the team bought a spare engine from a well known racing car dealer the engine a Holbay R70 had been rebuilt in there workshop, the engine cost the team £450.00.
As our number 1 engine would not be ready for the start of the season I was told to fit the spare R70 in the car I was running, after fitting the engine I ran it in the workshop for few minutes
all looked fine. We took the car to Silverstone the next day & as I warmed up the engine it seized. After removing the engine I took off the sump the centre main, 2 & 3 con rods were bright blue ( no oil )
We returned the engine to the dealer & after a fight got our money back.

Later that week another Holbay R70 was addvertised in Motoring News, rebuilt by a well known engine builder & dyno tested. I pick this engine up on Good Friday £450.00 again.
Fitted this engine & back to Silverstone on Easter Monday, as I warmed it up for practice it seized, by now every one was blaming me. I pulled the engine out & took the sump off centre main and
2 & 3 con rods bright blue again.

I spoke to the engine builder the following week they said it ran fine on the dyno, then added that after dynoing they had changed the bearings in the bottom end (why do engine builders do that).
Then spoke to Holbay, on the R70 they used larger bolts for the centre main to strengthen the bottom end, these larger bolts blocked the oil way to the centre main (which also feeds 2 & 3 big ends).
A new oil way had been drilled to the oil gallery on the other side of the block, so you needed to drill a hole in the centre main bearing shell to line up with this new oil way.


What are the chances of buying two engines with the same fault within 10 days.

Edited by John Saunders, 20 September 2010 - 16:17.

Originally posted by Joe Bosworth
Let´s see if we can make sense out of the permutations and combinations of the non-crossflow Ford Kent engines.....

What I can't remember about these engines is from the FF days...

FF began with the non-crossflow engine and quickly changed to the crossflow when it came out.

At that time, the term Kent engine was applied to the new crossflow engines, as if the former engines weren't Kent engines. I don't recall whether or not some other term was used for the earlier engines, but I think it was.

Can we have that clarified, please?

However this may bring up an interesting point. Could it be possible that down draught heads were at some time homologated for Anglias, Broadspeed ran them on there BSCC cars so maybe that would legally allow there use in F3 and maybe even late Juniors?

The Anglia was only competitive in the BSCC in the years the BSCC ran to Group5 regs (or the RAC's version of Gp5). Pretty sure no alternative head homologated in Group2. One of the main differences in the then Gp5 from Gp2 was freeing up heads. (Gp5 later on became more or less what was then Gp6 but it was just a freer version of Gp2 then). That's not to say there wasn't some sort of "recognition" under the then RAC "based on Gp5" BSCC regs - but not under proper Appendix J.

What I can't remember about these engines is from the FF days...

FF began with the non-crossflow engine and quickly changed to the crossflow when it came out.

At that time, the term Kent engine was applied to the new crossflow engines, as if the former engines weren't Kent engines. I don't recall whether or not some other term was used for the earlier engines, but I think it was.

Can we have that clarified, please?

In Graham Robson's series on "The Sporting Fords" (Cortinas and Escorts) he states that the basic engine introduced for the Type 105E Anglia was always known as the 'Kent' design at Ford even though it has always been built at Dagenham in Essex. He goes on to say though it was always intended to be built in a variety of sizes, the same cylinder-centre spacings were envisaged throughout from the outset.

I don't suppose the Kent engine was known by a different moniker in the early Anglia days, or was differentiated later on with the advent of the Corsair? Not sure how much clarification has been provided!!!

James

Ray Bell wrote above, ¨FF began with the non-crossflow engine and quickly changed to the crossflow when it came out.

At that time, the term Kent engine was applied to the new crossflow engines, as if the former engines weren't Kent engines. I don't recall whether or not some other term was used for the earlier engines, but I think it was.

Can we have that clarified, please?¨

I wish to provide some more detail from my memory as it seems almost impossible to gather meaningful documentation. After having been involved with various derivatives of 105, 109 and 116 Fords in Oz for most of the sixties I was involved with F Ford from before its inception in the US.

I don´t believe that FF ever existed as such in the UK and certainly in the US as other than with the 1600 cc crossflow; initially in the UK from 1967 and then in the US from 1969.

There undoubtedly were roots of FF in England with the 1500 cc inline manifold engines. These were school cars as from MRS which were downbuilt F3 cars, usually Lotus 51 but certainly from other name chassis builders as well. For instance, it has been recorded that there were even 6 or so BT18 Brabhams so built.

But, and this important, FF did not exist from my memory as a so-named formula until Ford itself seeded the class in 1967 with offering the 1600 cc crossflow engines to builders at a very attractive price but with the agreement that the class would carry their name into perpetuity. This was all tied up with Brands to put on races f0r such a class of cars.

This was the start of Formula Ford as a racing class rather than as a school car.

The Kent reference derives from old Ford convention to refer to engine families by their factory reference. Examples being the the V6s from Essex and Cologne, V8s from Cleveland and Windsor. All of the 105E derivative engines came from the same factory.

Rewgards

Was the MAE a 105E, or was it a 5-bearing engine, which the 105E never was?

Ray. My absolute best guess is that the MAE was a 105E engine.

I've not found an authorative cast iron answer in published print, but both TNFer BRG and Graham Robson in his book, "Cosworth, The Search for Power" say (and in Robson's case, all but say)

and I'm quoting BRG here:-

"that F3 WAS about in the sixties. It was orignally for production-based 1000cc engines such as Cosworth's earliest major effort, the MAE or Modified Anglia Engine - this was a racing version of the 1 litre Ford Anglia 105E pushrod engine, modified with a "downdraft" head"..........

Robson quotes Keith Duckworth apparently recalling events sometime before or around 1962 talking about a variety of modified 105E engines for FJs, Sports cars & even as options for Lotus Seven Road Cars.

"We gradually changed over from 1 litre to 1100cc, by which time we were having special cranks made, mainly by Laystall.....by the end of the programme....only the block and the head castings were not special - and that was because the rules didn't allow us to do those."


A few pages later the new 1 litre son of Formula Junior is mentioned and for Cosworth this is said to have meant a reworking of the existing Formula Junior design - ie the Modified Anglia Engine (MAE) which could rev beyond 10000rpm. The strongest intimation is that it's the culmination of the 105E in terms of development. I don't think there are many/any people around who'll insist that Cosworth produced 5 bearing FJ engines?


I've not ever inspected one, or seen an article on the MAE, but, in simple terms I gather that the evolution went Mkii, Mkiii, Mkiv (1961 -1st 1100cc),Mkxi,Mkxvii (first Cosworth downdraft FJ engine 1100cc) and then back down to 997cc MAE.

I'm guessing that the big bore Mk xvii had more breathing and power per litre potential than the MAE, and that perhaps the real development in the MAE was gear driven camshaft? I don't know whether the Mk xvii was gear driven or chain driven, but am guessing that it was chain??

Would love to hear what other differences there are between the two, however subtle.

It would seem that Duckworth developed and released the SCA (5 bearing F2 motor) prior to releasing the MAE.

Edited by SJ Lambert, 21 September 2010 - 12:50.

In Graham Robson's series on "The Sporting Fords" (Cortinas and Escorts) he states that the basic engine introduced for the Type 105E Anglia was always known as the 'Kent' design at Ford even though it has always been built at Dagenham in Essex. He goes on to say though it was always intended to be built in a variety of sizes, the same cylinder-centre spacings were envisaged throughout from the outset.

I don't suppose the Kent engine was known by a different moniker in the early Anglia days, or was differentiated later on with the advent of the Corsair? Not sure how much clarification has been provided!!!

James

If my provenly dodgy memory serves the Corsair was powered by, (not even trying to remember type no) the V4 engine

Edited by Sharman, 21 September 2010 - 11:41.

Joe, the 1967 engine was a single-sided engine... the crossflow didn't eventuate until 1968, unless I'm very much mistaken...

My memory is telling me that the first FFs here had the 1500 engine, I don't know why that wouldn't have followed the British beginnings.

If my provenly dodgy memory serves the Corsair was powered by, (not even trying to remember type no) the V4 engine

Yep, Corsair is a V4, just looking for reasons to come up with another pet name for the Kent, don't know if Corsair engines were built in Dagenham or not.

If my provenly dodgy memory serves the Corsair was powered by, (not even trying to remember type no) the V4 engine

I think the first Corsairs may have had thesame in line 4 as the Cortina (116E?). But it is only a think.

I think the first Corsairs may have had thesame in line 4 as the Cortina (116E?). But it is only a think.

Correct the first ones had a GT spec 1500 then went over to the V4 .

Robson quotes Keith Duckworth apparently recalling events sometime before or around 1962 talking about a variety of modified 105E engines for FJs, Sports cars & even as options for Lotus Seven Road Cars.

"We gradually changed over from 1 litre to 1100cc, by which time we were having special cranks made, mainly by Laystall.....by the end of the programme....only the block and the head castings were not special - and that was because the rules didn't allow us to do those."

The above comment attributed to Keith Duckworth must have been referring to the FJ engines as they were the ones that moved around that time from 1000cc to 1100cc under the FJ regulations (with a car weight increase requirement).

The part of the comment that is interesting is the statement that the Cosworth FJ engines had no special head castings (as the FJ rules prohibited this). There has been considerable debate (especially here "down-under") on the special Richardson cast heads that are used by a number of FJ competitors (with resultant performance gains). These more recently cast heads were allegedly based on the "special" period Cosworth heads - however it appears there were no special Cosworth heads.

Ray, I will comment regarding your quotation above:

Joe, the 1967 engine was a single-sided engine... the crossflow didn't eventuate until 1968, unless I'm very much mistaken...

My memory is telling me that the first FFs here had the 1500 engine, I don't know why that wouldn't have followed the British beginnings.

If you will Google something like ´Ford 1600 crossflow¨ you will get refernces to things such as Cortina Mk2 that say,

¨A stripped-out 1200 cc version running the engine of the Ford Anglia Super was also available for certain markets where the 1300 cc engine attracted a higher rate of tax. The 1500 cc engines were at first carried over, but for 1967, they received a new crossflow cylinder head design, making them more efficient. At this time, they became 1600 cc in size, with the Lotus Cortina continuing with its own unique engine.¨

There is no doubt that the 1600 crossflow came out in 1967. I think that if you will dig deeper that you will confiirm my comment that the Formula Ford desgnation as a racing class came about in 1967 when Ford UK signed Brands Hatch to run a series for the 1600s that Ford provided at an introductory price of something like a 100 quid to competotors. Before that there were 1500 cc race cars but not known as Formula Ford.

As far as Oz was concerned back in those days CAMS might have called anything by some name as they always have had a history of bastardising classes and designations and class rules. But I( won´t go there will I?

For others, the MAE followed a year after the SCA. I have a 1967 period article that confirms that the SCA was built on the 116E 5 bearing block. I believe that it logically follows that the MAE was also built on the same block but I would not totally swear on that fact, only using the logic that they were closely inbred engines.

Regards

Well, there might have been something to do with CAMS in there...

But I am certain we started with the 1500 engine and after just one year switched over to the crossflow. And I'm sure there was a simple name given the 1500 engine just as the 'Kent' name was used for the crossflow. But it was all old hat in just a few months and wafted off into the mists of time.

It could be we started with the 1500 because we had that engine in new cars here right through 1967. I don't have a 'Dealers Guide' or anything, but if I did I could tell you when we switched to the 1600 in the Mk 2 Cortinas. At the same time they changed the detail on the bottom of the front struts (calipers to the rear instead of front? Mount different?).

Ray, I think we are now being pedantic here but I think that it iss important for historical accuracy and for any others in the future who might be using TNF as a factual source to carry this discussion one more step.

I think that in the absence of anyone refuting my version of the birth of Formula Foed in England and its growth into the US with the crossflow engine we can nail that down as fact.

So now we are debating FF´s birth in OZ.

I will refer to historical notes from the Formula Ford Australia web site. They state, ¨Its links with this country go back to the original series in the UK, the 1968 Guards Championship, which was won in an outstanding fashion by young Australian driver, Tim Schenken. Schenken was the first of many driving superstars to cut his teeth in the competitive category en route to Formula One.

The first Australian Formula Ford race was held at Sandown Raceway in 1969, won by Richard Knight in an Elfin 600, a precursor to his victory the following year in the inaugural Australian Formula Ford series.¨

If you are correct then two years after FF existed and well after the Cortina Mk2 was available in OZ, people at Sandown in 1969 were using the inline manifold 1500 cc 116E engine in their FF. Some how I doubt that but anything is possible in a CAMS world!

I still have a 1969 original of the Ford derived data sheet showing the blue print limits for every part of the 1600 cc crossflow engine to meet the FF specs of the day.

Not much to do with a 105E engine but.....

If you are correct then two years after FF existed and well after the Cortina Mk2 was available in OZ, people at Sandown in 1969 were using the inline manifold 1500 cc 116E engine in their FF. .

Without question at least some (if not all) of the FF cars did have and run the proper FF xflow engine in 69. While at the start of 69 in Aust a xflow head was probably still a rarity by the end it was far more common. Take a look at RCN of Dec in 69 for a FF article featuring Aust built cars plus I know of three cars of which 2 are 69 FF's that there is no doubt were to correct FF spec at this time and a 67 ANF2 car that was wearing a xflow head by April of 68.

I just uploaded it at the below link for those who care to read it.
http://www.formulacl...N-Dec-69-FF.pdf

Edited by giffo, 22 September 2010 - 04:43.

Two F.Ford engines were available and as per the current CAMS 5th category rules
and the F.Ford asociation rules from the period these are as follows.
This may be where the confusion arises .

Engine . All vehicles must use either the Ford Cortina 1600GT crossflow engine [ original engine]
or the Ford Capri XL 1600 crossflow [ updated engine] . etc. etc.

The first of those two engines only lasted a very short time , perhaps 12 months or so , then
nearly everybody updated , I have no specific knowledge of the differences , however we have
recently logbooked a Lotus 61M ex the USA still fitted with it's original Holbay F.Ford engine and that would
be of the early type.

Bryan Miller.

The above comment attributed to Keith Duckworth must have been referring to the FJ engines as they were the ones that moved around that time from 1000cc to 1100cc under the FJ regulations (with a car weight increase requirement).

The part of the comment that is interesting is the statement that the Cosworth FJ engines had no special head castings (as the FJ rules prohibited this). There has been considerable debate (especially here "down-under") on the special Richardson cast heads that are used by a number of FJ competitors (with resultant performance gains). These more recently cast heads were allegedly based on the "special" period Cosworth heads - however it appears there were no special Cosworth heads.

Hatrat and Ray, and all - "Eureka"! Poring over some more period materials has led to shedding more "confirmatory light" on the Cosworth MAE (and associated heads) question.

Autocar 1 June 1967, an edition marked "Racing Cars", contains an article on page 29, by Michael Scarlett headed "Motor Racing Ironmongers" dealing with Cosworth, Hewland, Serck SMS, Specialised Mouldings Ltd, TDC Components and VW Derrington.

It says in part

".....so far, 360 Cosworth-Ford MAE formula 3 engines (highly modified ohv Ford 105E)..... have been built. Sketchily following the 997 cc MAE unit through its making gives some idea of Cosworth's methods. Having bought very carefully selected block and head castings from Ford and machined crankshaft forgings from Laystall Engineering, the fettling polishing and machining is carried out in a comprehensively equipped machine shop. The engine is bolted together and put on one of three Heenan and Froude brakes, run in for three hours and then tested for maximum power, which must be not less than 105 bhp at 9500rpm. Units that meet this figure are then partially stripped to inspect bearings, cylinder walls and valve gear and, if satisfactory, re-assembled for sale at 625 sterling each."

At the point of writing, Scarlett says that three DFVs had thus far been built. (And 40 FVAs)

Edited by SJ Lambert, 22 September 2010 - 08:43.

Fascinating thread.

So where I see a F3 engine given as a Broadspeed or EMC or Felday or Holbay or Lucas or Novamotor in contemporary race results, are these likely to be Cosworth MAE engines tuned and/or rebuilt by the companies mentioned or are they likely to be engines built from Ford parts in the same way that Cosworth worked? Or, to ask the question another way, should I regard these engines as MAEs or not?

Not all of them, by any means...

Holbays would not have been MAEs and I'd doubt that Holbay ever did any MAE servicing or development. I might be wrong, of course, but I do doubt it.

Some of the others, yes. Just like Brian Hart produced some very good Lotus Twin Cams, and they were called Hart engines despite their clearly being a modified version of the Elan/Lotus Cortina unit.

Fascinating thread.

So where I see a F3 engine given as a Broadspeed or EMC or Felday or Holbay or Lucas or Novamotor in contemporary race results, are these likely to be Cosworth MAE engines tuned and/or rebuilt by the companies mentioned or are they likely to be engines built from Ford parts in the same way that Cosworth worked? Or, to ask the question another way, should I regard these engines as MAEs or not?

Undoubtedly, Cosworth were the absolute gurus and ultimately, with their engines of the mid to late sixties led the field in innovation, but, I think that you should regard a Novamotor engine as a proprietary Novamotor, a Holbay as a Holbay etc.... I think there were back then, and now, plenty of fields did not contain a single MAE. There's no doubt that similar principles were used throughout and that in reality they were all variations on the same theme.

David Vizard in his book "Theory and Practice of Cylinder Head Modification" provides an outline of how to reposition inlet ports in order to downdraft a 105E head, Vizard then goes on to say the downdrafting is a bit beyond the scope of the average enthusiast, but if required, can be done by such firms as WRA Engineering, Holbay or Broadspeed.

Cosworth would frown on any of the other modified Ford motors being described as an MAE.

Edited by SJ Lambert, 22 September 2010 - 11:08.