Flywheel balance on a 4.2
#1
Flywheel balance on a 4.2
Speculative question.
I am contemplating using a FWD 4.2 with a RWD M5ODR1 from a 3.0 Ranger. I know they share a bell housing pattern and I also know the RWD 4.2 uses a Windsor bellhousing pattern.
Since the FWD version never was installed with a manual transmission and the Windsor flywheel is larger than the Duratec pattern, would the 3.0 flywheel mate with the 4.2 crank flange and is the balance compatible?.
I am contemplating using a FWD 4.2 with a RWD M5ODR1 from a 3.0 Ranger. I know they share a bell housing pattern and I also know the RWD 4.2 uses a Windsor bellhousing pattern.
Since the FWD version never was installed with a manual transmission and the Windsor flywheel is larger than the Duratec pattern, would the 3.0 flywheel mate with the 4.2 crank flange and is the balance compatible?.
#2
Well, figured I would try to answer my own question.
Looks like the RWD 4.2 uses the Windsor bellhousing and a 14.25" flywheel. The FWD uses the Vulcan bellhousing and a 11.25" flywheel. 4.2 uses neutral balance as does a 3.0. Clutch size would be limited by the flywheel and bellhousing choice.
Found info on both flywheels at Rock Auto.
3.0 More Information for SACHS NFW1152
4.2 More Information for SACHS NFW1147
The center hole for the 3.0 is smaller at 1.25" than the 4.2 at 1.7". I do not know if the bolt circle is the same size, but both are a 6 bolt flange.
I'm thinking that increasing the pilot hole on a 3.0 flywheel to 1.7 may work. Worst case I would have to redrill the 6 flange holes to the correct circle. I would also have to check the depth of the crank flange and shim as necessary. All this does not seem to be impossible.
The reason for considering this is a potential swap into a 3.0 Ranger and those Freestars are much more plentiful than the F150 version of the 4.2.
Any thoughts?
Looks like the RWD 4.2 uses the Windsor bellhousing and a 14.25" flywheel. The FWD uses the Vulcan bellhousing and a 11.25" flywheel. 4.2 uses neutral balance as does a 3.0. Clutch size would be limited by the flywheel and bellhousing choice.
Found info on both flywheels at Rock Auto.
3.0 More Information for SACHS NFW1152
4.2 More Information for SACHS NFW1147
The center hole for the 3.0 is smaller at 1.25" than the 4.2 at 1.7". I do not know if the bolt circle is the same size, but both are a 6 bolt flange.
I'm thinking that increasing the pilot hole on a 3.0 flywheel to 1.7 may work. Worst case I would have to redrill the 6 flange holes to the correct circle. I would also have to check the depth of the crank flange and shim as necessary. All this does not seem to be impossible.
The reason for considering this is a potential swap into a 3.0 Ranger and those Freestars are much more plentiful than the F150 version of the 4.2.
Any thoughts?
#4
Just out of curiosity have you done much with this idea at all? I'm planning on doing the exact same thing. '04 Monterey 4.2 into a '96 B2300 using custom solid motor mounts. Monterey has a healthy motor but that's it's only redeeming element. I know for a fact the 3.0 M5R1 bolts up to it, but the whole flywheel/starter situation is the only drawback. The 3.0 has 2 locating pins where the 4.2 does not, but from what I can see the bolt patterns are similar. The RWD 4.2 has a 14" flywheel, so I know that wouldn't be able to work. As far as electrical, a PATS bypass module is the only major thing needing to be added. The under-hood wiring is self explanatory..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ddiaz12
1948 - 1956 F1, F100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
7
12-22-2015 09:06 PM
Mid_Mo_F100
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
3
12-16-2005 08:32 PM
rosentr
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
2
02-21-2003 10:35 AM