Jump to content


Photo

Would Ford have anticipated the 105E and later derivatives being used in motor racing?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 ed holly

ed holly
  • Member

  • 387 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 18 December 2014 - 20:56

The 105E seems a bold step for Ford to design and use in mainstream car production at a time when longstroke engines were the norm. Is there any evidence that this was done anticipating or to facilitate it becomeing one of the most iconic engines of the late 1950s and early 1960s.as a basis for Formula Junior initially and later Lotus Twincam and BDA as well as FVA and DFV etc. Of course it spawned a number of companies such as Cosworth, Holbay and others.

 

The fact that it did become such a widely used engine in racing in all its forms certainly would have done Ford no harm at all.



Advertisement

#2 GMACKIE

GMACKIE
  • Member

  • 13,011 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 18 December 2014 - 21:23

After being restricted to 'small bore' engines by that crazy RAC horsepower tax thing, the 105E seemed a bit of an 'over-reaction'. What a great little engine it turned out to be. :up:



#3 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 79,955 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 18 December 2014 - 22:12

Formula Junior was a local Italian formula when the 105E was being designed...

The fifties saw a rash of conversion of engines from undersquare to oversquare, and to put it into Ford perspective, at the same time as the 105E was in the pipeline the 144 Falcon engine was on the drawing board in America. There are a lot of similarities, with (perhaps) their most advanced features being more advanced than were being used in V8s at the time.

Looking at it from that point of view, you could possibly draw the inference that a four or a six was easier to design or build than a V8 should it not work out so well.

Both engines were extreme in their bore to stroke ratios, both seem to have deliberately been designed that way so that increases in stroke only would bring capacity increases. The 105E, as is well known here, grew from 997 to 1498cc without the block having to grow taller, the 144 Falcon engine I'm not so sure about, but I think it went to the 200ci size or maybe 221 without block height changing.

As the 1172cc side valve engine was extremely popular in racing at the time, as well as the A-series BMC engine with its siamesed ports, there would be little doubt that looking to the performance and racing applications held some sway in designers' minds. Remembering that production cost would have been the biggest determining factor, the bean counters wouldn't see much to scream about in the changes that were necessary to bring the 8-port improvement, especially with the projection for 1340cc and 1500cc versions in the wings.

#4 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 9,389 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 18 December 2014 - 22:58

Piston area. I'm sure that Ford anticipated that they would be used for motor racing, after all, the side-valve engines were, in huge numbers, but I doubt it played any part in the design process, Ford aren't that altruistic, come to think of it, they're not at all altruistic, they are in the business of making money, the cars are a necessary part of the process - It' a long, long time since companies like Ford made cars because they wanted to...



#5 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,036 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 18 December 2014 - 23:46

Formula Junior was a local Italian formula when the 105E was being designed...

The fifties saw a rash of conversion of engines from undersquare to oversquare, and to put it into Ford perspective, at the same time as the 105E was in the pipeline the 144 Falcon engine was on the drawing board in America. There are a lot of similarities, with (perhaps) their most advanced features being more advanced than were being used in V8s at the time.

Looking at it from that point of view, you could possibly draw the inference that a four or a six was easier to design or build than a V8 should it not work out so well.

Both engines were extreme in their bore to stroke ratios, both seem to have deliberately been designed that way so that increases in stroke only would bring capacity increases. The 105E, as is well known here, grew from 997 to 1498cc without the block having to grow taller, the 144 Falcon engine I'm not so sure about, but I think it went to the 200ci size or maybe 221 without block height changing.

As the 1172cc side valve engine was extremely popular in racing at the time, as well as the A-series BMC engine with its siamesed ports, there would be little doubt that looking to the performance and racing applications held some sway in designers' minds. Remembering that production cost would have been the biggest determining factor, the bean counters wouldn't see much to scream about in the changes that were necessary to bring the 8-port improvement, especially with the projection for 1340cc and 1500cc versions in the wings.

The pushrod 1 litre engine was used in 100 E too.

144 was oversquare but not a lot, even 250s are a longstroke engine.

Though the small block Chev in 55 and by about 61? the 260 Ford were both short stroke engines, due to get bigger bores,,, and eventually longer strokes. Especially the Chev. One basic deck height for 262-400. And the ratios got smaller too. 305 is 3 3/4x 3.48 and 400 is 4 1/16 x 3 3/4. And neither really great engines.



#6 Dick Willis

Dick Willis
  • Member

  • 1,106 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 18 December 2014 - 23:58

If they had designed the 105E for racing they wouldn't have put a hollow cast iron crank in it.



#7 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 79,955 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 19 December 2014 - 00:09

There's a lot of deficiences in there if you look, Dick...

Lee, the engine is 105E and yes, I know it was used in the last of the Prefects.

My point about the 144 and so on was that the stroke increases brought the capacity increases, so naturally they finished up long-stroked.

#8 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:41

Ford only engaged Cosworth to develop the FVA and DFV at the request of Colin Chapman. With out Colin it appears highly unlikely Ford would have thought about building let alone acquiring the naming rights to a Formula One engine.  



#9 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 79,955 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:47

They weren't slow to capitalise on racing successes of the 105E, though...

I'm sure I've seen advertisements for Anglias with Formula Juniors in the background.





.

Edited by Ray Bell, 19 December 2014 - 01:47.


#10 Pat Clarke

Pat Clarke
  • Member

  • 3,023 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 19 December 2014 - 07:34

Lee, the Ford Prefects with the OHV engine were the 107E and 108E.   100Es were all sidevalve.

 

Pat



#11 Pat Clarke

Pat Clarke
  • Member

  • 3,023 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 19 December 2014 - 07:48

My Dad was workshop foreman at a Ford dealership when the 105E was released, and soon afterwards he had a lemon yellow one.

 

At the time, the styling was what people were talking about, but there was a huge brouhaha at the time in Ireland regarding what insurance category it fitted into. Ireland too was afflicted with the RAC horsepower rating thing, which was based on cylinder bore only, as Greg has already mentioned.

 

The little yellow Anglia was the car I learned to drive in, even though too young for a licence.

 

Soon afterwards, when tuned versions of the same engine as our yellow Anglia started winning races in the back of Jim Clark's Lotus 18, I was rapt :-) Great memories.

 

A few years later, the 105E was replaced by a 109E Consul Classic, this time in pale blue. Didn't have the magic of the Anglia though.

 

Pat



#12 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 2,263 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 19 December 2014 - 16:16

Presumably the main reason for the large bore was to simplify the production of the larger engines (1340 & 1500cc)?

It's relatively easy to make a block taller (if necessary) than it is to make a variety of bores (unless using wet liners - even then there would be more to change) - you could even use the same patterns but with a taller top deck.



#13 David Birchall

David Birchall
  • Member

  • 3,291 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 December 2014 - 19:31

I would think that cost was the over riding concern, not suitability for racing.  The aforementioned ability to change capacity with only a change in stroke, the use of the hollow crankshaft etc.  Ford was in the forefront of engine casting technology-the Ford small block V8 was far lighter than the equivalent Chevrolet.



#14 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 19 December 2014 - 21:23

ISTR that Ford  came up with their Ford Performance Car marketing exercise in 1962/63 along with the FordSport club - I still have my badge. We saw it in the GT variants over here, and I am sure there were suitably hopped up version of their cooking models in the US, when the Falcons became Sprints and the Mustangs arrived. The fact that the 105E was so  tuneable and cheap was  pure bonus for them, as  the race idea seems to have evolved on its own, although Cosworth et al were driving forces. Bear in mind over here that Chris Craft was a Ford employee gifted his Anglia for racing against Doc Merfield in 60/61.  Rallying seems to have been their prime field until  the Willment etc connections started here and Gentleman Jack started racing with BML9A with all the US stockcar mods.  Perhaps Peter Sachs and **** Kelsey in the Chevy11 and Dan Gurney in the Impala back in 61 prompted Ford to jump on board. Also there had been some serious restrictions on the NASCAR power around then, single carb size limits etc, cars with 405HP painted on their bonnets, so perhaps Ford were just moving arenas to a more acceptable idea of safe performance for the emerging youth/baby boomer demographic.

I agree with Peter and David, above, about the manufacturing side. Also, if they were looking to make a competition-useful car with the 105E they would not have had that huge gap from 2nd to 3rd gears, even the all synchro box had that gap until the 2000E, excluding the  super close Lotus Cortina box, although all the Ford boxes were class leaders,  and the   Anglia Super 1200 would have had discs not small drums with them as homologated options on the 997cc cars, surely.

Roger Lund



#15 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 79,955 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 19 December 2014 - 21:47

Originally posted by David Birchall
.....Ford was in the forefront of engine casting technology-the Ford small block V8 was far lighter than the equivalent Chevrolet.


That was what I left out of my first post, post No 3...

This engine along with the Falcon 6 were the beginnings of Ford delving into the 'thin wall' casting techniques. They emerged later, in 1962, in the small block V8 which was introduced that year for the Fairlane. Same methodology, taller blocks would come as the stroke was increased to take it from 221 to 351ci.

Roger, I don't think the Ford of the day was as light as the Chevrolet of the day, 1959 was still in the Y-block era.

And when it came to production savings, Ford seemed to be leading the way. The input shafts on the GT gearbox and the Lotus Cortina box were the same even though they meshed with a different layshaft gear, one having one tooth fewer than the other!

#16 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,036 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 19 December 2014 - 22:17

Lee, the Ford Prefects with the OHV engine were the 107E and 108E.   100Es were all sidevalve.

 

Pat

Splitting hairs,, a 100 E with an OHV to most of us is a 100E! And in the day were fairly common.



#17 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,698 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 19 December 2014 - 22:25

Ford did compete in motor sport with works cars before the 105E came along -  Gatsonides won the Monte with a Zephyr Mk1.  They also raced the Zephyr Mk2.

I suspect that the 105E was designed to be efficient rather than specifically with racing in mind.  However the selection of an exact 1000cc engine may well have been influenced to fit a possible racing class as well as a taxation class in some countries.  Ford would have realised the problems of being just over a common capacity limit as the 2553cc Zephyr and the Consul engines were.



#18 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,036 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 19 December 2014 - 22:53

That was what I left out of my first post, post No 3...

This engine along with the Falcon 6 were the beginnings of Ford delving into the 'thin wall' casting techniques. They emerged later, in 1962, in the small block V8 which was introduced that year for the Fairlane. Same methodology, taller blocks would come as the stroke was increased to take it from 221 to 351ci.

Roger, I don't think the Ford of the day was as light as the Chevrolet of the day, 1959 was still in the Y-block era.

And when it came to production savings, Ford seemed to be leading the way. The input shafts on the GT gearbox and the Lotus Cortina box were the same even though they meshed with a different layshaft gear, one having one tooth fewer than the other!

Y blocks are very heavy! And old fashioned really in comparison to a Chev. Strong enough though. And the basis of the FE engine used until the 70s. Again a heavy lump!

The Windsor is a TINY little thing, really too small. Very short deck, very short rods and early versions were decidedly fragile too. HiPo 289s had a lot of strengthening proving the fragility of the original motor. And are heavier blocks. By the time they made the 302 in 67 the piston skirts were protruding out the bottom of the block nearly to the oil ring. The reason most of them go glunk glunk at idle as several skirts are in the sump!

Later engines [probably mid 80s] resolved the worst of these problems and with better pistons never have a problem

I have built several and the later blocks and reputedly the Mexican made blocks are the way to go. The later heads are far better too. As is the general finish of everything,, and Chevs got worse! God awful castings that got thinner and weaker. Though really no production Ford or Chev [orHolden or LA Mopar] is safe over an 030 bore after about 1970 as they tried to lighten everything.

 

The Windsor has two basic deck heights. Up to 302 uses one a the 351 is an inch? taller and uses longer rods and near 3" main bearings. The 351 has a different firing order too, the same as the Clevo/ M engine.

 

Boss 302 was a modified engine with special blocks with 4 bolt mains and use the [nearly] interchangeable 351 4V Cleveland heads and a unique intake. As a standard engine were ok but as a race engine a bit of a grenade.  And having driven one I can atest  a bloody awfull engine under about 3000 rpm as the huge ports just have no air speed. As a race engine a very willing thing when it stays together. Modern components and lubricants help a huge amount in that respect.

Many aftermarket engines are built using the Aussie 302C heads which have smaller ports and are considerably more tractable. The standard [later] heads though surprisingly really are a nicer deal under about 4000 rpm which for a road car is where it is all about.

 

Windsor oiling is ok, not great but if all in good order quite ok. The Chev though is far better.  351W with its huge mains have a lot of velocity and fry the oil. Modern oils resolve this for the most part.

Most of the Ford [SVO] or aftermarket  performance blocks use the 351 deck height but 302 main size. There is a few variations on deck height in this area.



#19 Dale Harvey

Dale Harvey
  • Member

  • 417 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 19 December 2014 - 23:36

Lee,

All that info on various V8 engines may be fine but, it has nothing to do with the thread's topic. That being the 105E engine, which is completely different. :confused:

Dale.



Advertisement

#20 Patrick Fletcher

Patrick Fletcher
  • Member

  • 775 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 20 December 2014 - 10:33

Interesting that the 106E was the left hand drive Anglia with 105E engine.



#21 Rupertlt1

Rupertlt1
  • Member

  • 3,038 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 20 December 2014 - 11:33

They weren't slow to capitalise on racing successes of the 105E, though...

I'm sure I've seen advertisements for Anglias with Formula Juniors in the background.

.

 

The slogan was "Sisters under the skin."

This film about Formula Junior (not FF) shows that Ford trumpeted the racing connection in 1961:

 

 

RGDS RLT



#22 brakedisc

brakedisc
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 21 December 2014 - 21:27

My first car was a 105e Anglia registration number 321 FVA. Sadly it went for scrap 42 years ago but I kept the number plates until the other day.



#23 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,572 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 21 December 2014 - 22:23

There is an interesting section in Part 1 of Don Barrow's "Photographic Autobiography" about how a lot of the rally 105Es from an early date err...weren't 105Es.

I can't seem to post a link (any more than I can get quote to work on this weird site) but it can be found easily enough.

 

Interesting to note that (when these days there is so much invective posted on the internet about the MSA controlling non-homologated cars in UK non-International rallies) that in the "old days" national events were run to Appendix J (and hence the lengths to disguise 109E, 120E etc. as 105Es).



#24 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 79,955 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 21 December 2014 - 22:31

Don't be sad about it, brakedisc...

The car achieved its purpose, it made money for Ford. That's what they're all built for.

What happened to the number plates?

Edited by Ray Bell, 21 December 2014 - 22:32.


#25 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 79,955 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 21 December 2014 - 22:34

Originally posted by RS2000
.....I can't seem to post a link (any more than I can get quote to work on this weird site) but it can be found easily enough.....


Where are you making your mistake?

I do everything just as I always did, basically, I don't have any problems.

#26 cooper997

cooper997
  • Member

  • 3,848 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 22 December 2014 - 00:21

Here's a feature that should be of some interest to this subject. By Blunsden, on Duckworth & Cosworth 105E in a late 1961 Ford Times.

 

1961_Ford_Times_1.jpg
pc screenshot

 

1961_Ford_Times_2.jpg
gif upload

 

1961_Ford_Times_3.jpg
free picture upload

 

Stephen



#27 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,581 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 December 2014 - 07:17

I can't seem to post a link (any more than I can get quote to work on this weird site) but it can be found easily enough.


The only way that I (and many others here, I believe) can now do quotes, insert links etc is to toggle the 'light switch' icon in the top left of the reply box. This turns the WYSIWYG format into a much more basic format which will now accept quotes and links. When trying to do quotes you need first to check that your reply box is set, via the 'light switch', to the basic format before pressing the 'quote' button in the relevant post.

#28 robjohn

robjohn
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 22 December 2014 - 07:50

Graham Robson's 1982 book Escorts, in the series "The Sporting Fords", reinforces the view that the Ford planners had no sporting aspirations when they designed the 105E engine.
As he wrote, "there were no sporting derivatives in the Type 105E Anglia line-up, and... Ford had no aggressive high-performance image to support". He did mention the occasional rallying success but said "Ford's participation in racing and rallying... was much more of a sideline in the 1950s than it became later".
Many of us remember the wonderful (well, sometimes) Ford Specials and tuned 100E Anglias with the 1172cc side-valve engine in the 1950s, but they weren't machines that resonated with the Ford hierarchy or marketing people.
It was probably the same in the early years of the ohv engine, and it seems that it was only during the development of the Cortina that Ford saw the potential in motorsport.
Robson confirms that the 'Kent' engine "was always intended to be built in a variety of sizes" with the same bore.
Rob B


Edited by robjohn, 22 December 2014 - 07:51.


#29 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,538 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 22 December 2014 - 15:10

The 1959 UK Motor Show was the first time that most car enthusiasts encountered the 105E Anglia. At the same show, they met the Triumph Herald and the Mini. All three were new models in roughly the same price bracket, but only the Ford had a brand new engine. French and Italian manufacturers had new small models in the pipeline too.

 

The 105E with strut suspension, that engine and aggressive styling was the most "new". Or maybe the Mini was newest for obvious reasons. Only the Herald was a bitsa special, but Triumph somehow made the backbone chassis (necessary because they didn't have the tools to make a unitary body) into a virtue. All three models contributed a lot to motor sport and popular culture. All three manufacturers put into those cars the best technology and design available at the price.

 

At any car manufacturer, you'll obviously meet engineers who enjoy motor sport. Sometimes those engineers convince others to incorporate features in sedate saloons that can be tuned up. Even the bean counters understand that a manufacturer has to leave some development potential in a design; as production techniques improve, unaffordable things become commonplace.

 

Did Ford Executives intend that the 105E engine became the basis of a racing engine? Probably, no. Did they anticipate that tuners would make it more powerful? Of course! Ford made an efficient wide bore/short stroke engine and put it into a cheap family car. They anticipated hot rods rather than single seaters.