Pics from the Climax 2,7 FPF

Hello!
I search pictures from the ´Coventry Climax 2,7 FPF engine, or pics with the engine in the Tasman series ( here it was 2,5 FPF) how much HP generate the 2,7? The 2,5 generate 240 HP? Was the engine built until 1969?

thank you in advance

Thomas

It might have still been in use in 1969, but the FPF was a late 1950's engine, so I the enlarged versions, used in the 1960's were modified original engines, and not "new".

I don't have a HP figure available, but a quick calculation, with the 2.5 power figures in mind, gives about 260 HP.

Originally posted by Rainer Nyberg
It might have still been in use in 1969, but the FPF was a late 1950's engine, so I the enlarged versions, used in the 1960's were modified original engines, and not "new".

I don't have a HP figure available, but a quick calculation, with the 2.5 power figures in mind, gives about 260 HP.

The last of the GENUINE FPF cylinder blocks were machined and supplied by the original REPCO Research Ltd when they were still being used in the TASMAN Series down-under.....

Thank you both for your input! Really what a amazing engine story, design from the fifties, they built the engine in licence by Repco late in the siexties!! With cabs (Weber 58?). I hope the engine was reliable and cheap?

Thomas

Some info here :

http://www.imps4ever...h/cov_clim.html

some 2.5 pics here

http://www.race-cars...109781224pp.htm

It's well worth getting hold of Des Hammill's recent book on Climax engines - there are lots of pics and dyno sheets in there as well as a very thorough development history. Available fairly cheaply from amazon.co.uk... can't remember how much it had about the 2.7s but it is pretty thorough!

For what it's worth, there were two distinct types of 2.7 FPF:

1/ The two experimental engines built for the 1961 Indy 500. They were the first "2.7" produced by Coventry Climax.
These were bored and stroked. They were actually closer to 2.8-liter (2785cc) These two have a different numbering system beginning with "ET-892" instead of "FPF". I verified this by measuring the bore on the chromed liner compared to that supplied by Tony Mantle. Can't remember the figures now. The crankshaft is different and after we purchased one from Moldex to the assumed standard spec, found that the stroke was too short. So we had a new one made after measuring the broken original part. As far as I know, only two such engines were ever produced.

2/ The subsequent limited production engines for Formula Libre and sports car races, with only the bore increased to an even larger bore. They are 2.775cc. All these are numbered "FPF-XXX" and use the same crankshaft as the 2.5's.

Many of the 2.5-liter blocks were later converted to the 2.7 configuration, but the 2.7 blocks had received some extra strength in the casting so most of the bored 2.5 sawed themselves in halves when over-stressed as they were really at their limit already. Generally, the # 2 cylinder liner would begin vibrating and the tubular rod would exit the block in catastrophic fashion. The engine would then be barely held together by the camshafts...

The blocks cast by Repco in Australia appear to have caused less problems than the original Climax blocks from what I gather, but I have no real proof of this.

In the link supplied above, there is an error about the carbs, which of course were not 38mm but 58DCOE. The expensive kind, sand cast jobs.
Hope this helps.

T54

Unfortunetly the foundry that cast the REPCO made cyl blocks closed it's doors many years ago, so the patterns went to the dump along with a lot of other motorsport treasures...

Originally posted by T54
For what it's worth, there were two distinct types of 2.7 FPF:

1/ The two experimental engines built for the 1961 Indy 500. They were the first "2.7" produced by Coventry Climax.
These were bored and stroked. They were actually closer to 2.8-liter (2785cc) These two have a different numbering system beginning with "ET-892" instead of "FPF". I verified this by measuring the bore on the chromed liner compared to that supplied by Tony Mantle. Can't remember the figures now. The crankshaft is different and after we purchased one from Moldex to the assumed standard spec, found that the stroke was too short. So we had a new one made after measuring the broken original part. As far as I know, only two such engines were ever produced.

2/ The subsequent limited production engines for Formula Libre and sports car races, with only the bore increased to an even larger bore. They are 2.775cc. All these are numbered "FPF-XXX" and use the same crankshaft as the 2.5's.

Many of the 2.5-liter blocks were later converted to the 2.7 configuration, but the 2.7 blocks had received some extra strength in the casting so most of the bored 2.5 sawed themselves in halves when over-stressed as they were really at their limit already. Generally, the # 2 cylinder liner would begin vibrating and the tubular rod would exit the block in catastrophic fashion. The engine would then be barely held together by the camshafts...

The blocks cast by Repco in Australia appear to have caused less problems than the original Climax blocks from what I gather, but I have no real proof of this.

In the link supplied above, there is an error about the carbs, which of course were not 38mm but 58DCOE. The expensive kind, sand cast jobs.
Hope this helps.

T54

T54, yes this helps! Astonished about the difference between the Indy 2,7 and the Formula Libre
engines. Yes the cylindre walls by only bored to 2,7 was than very thin. And the Indy engine had lower rpm cause they have more Hub (96 x 95,5 ?) . The FLibre had 100 x 88. I will buy the Climax racing engine book, cause it´s for me very interesting.

Thank you in advance

Thomas

I have in personal notes that the first outings of the AAR Eagle ran a 2.75 FPF.
which engine would that have been ?
And what about the 2.7 John Love used in the 67 SAfr GP ?

The same Marocan! It´s the same engine, you note why i´m so astonished and excited? They used an engine for the f1 based on which had the cooper and drove almost to an victory 1967!

thomas