Talk:Ford Kent engine

Camshaft bearings

As used in the 1971-1973 Pinto, the 1600's camshaft bearings are all different sizes, with the smallest at the front of the head. Thus to remove the camshaft, either the entire engine must be removed or the head must be removed from the engine. From 1974 through 1981, the Pinto used the 2.3L with a camshaft that used bearings all the same size. Bizzybody (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

By "Pinto" I presume you mean the US car, not the OHC engine? I'm no expert on US cars, but didn't this Pinto car use the Pinto OHC engine, not the Kent OHV?

I can't remember the bearing sizes for the Pinto camshaft, but it was removed quite simply (every time I can remember) by dismantling the cam carriers from the head. This was possible with the head in situ, at least on European vehicles. The Kent engine has its cam in the block and as is usual in that case, the bearings are stepped in diameter, just so that it can be pulled from one end without having to slide every bearing through every shell. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Formula Ford engine correction

This article (Ford Kent engine) states that the Lotus Twin Cam engine was used in all Formula Fords from 1968 to present. This is incorrect. The engines used in the early Formula Fords was the Ford Kent OHV Crossflow.

Triva >> "reluctant to start in damp weather conditions"

This claim needs a source or corrections if it is to stay. I have owned over 10 Kent powered vehicles and have never had a moisture in the dizzy problem despite living in a moist city. I've also never heard of it being a problem on Kents any more than any other points dizzy car. Of course all the Lucas electrics problems can plague UK Fords of this era, but nothing as far as I'm aware to do with the source of the alleged problem, ie positioning of the dizzy. Further, the claimed position of dizzy being "tucked at the back of the engine beneath the inlet manifold", is incorrect for at least the 1968-on (ie X-flow) Kents anyway; it is at the front under the manifold. Tartanperil (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ford Kent engines

Searching on the web for "Ford Kent" finds many many articles and threads, including this on on Wikepedia. Common to all the articles is the suggestion that the name Kent was in use from the days of the 105E engine onwards. I do not believe that this is correct. Even within the Ford Motor Company where I was working at the time the term "Kent" only appeared when the new cylinder block 711M appeared. The previous blocks has weak rounded main bearing caps and it was quite common for the centre main cap to break. The new 711M block had much stronger main bearing caps that were square in section and this block was known as the "Kent" block. As far as I am aware this was the first time that the term "Kent" came into use. I believe that someone got this wrong many moons ago in a book or article and this has spread so far that it is generally accepted as the truth, even though it is incorrect.

Another point on Formula Fords, the first Formula Fords were equipped with 1500 Cortina GT engines, the first one ever being delivered to Ford Competitions Department at Boreham Airfield in 1967, I was there at the time! Almost immediately Formula Ford adopted the crossflow 1600 engine, but this was not called the Kent. The Kent came later. Gungebucket (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel this info provided by Gungebucket should be reflected in the article. If someone could talk to his/her GrandPa who is familiar with Ford Kent engines, please verify that the original use of the name Kent applied only on those engines with 711M block (with square looking main bearing caps) or newer. You could edit the article, or just report it here by adding your comment. Thanks. Yiba (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. A peripheral thought that supports your contention that IF it was named because an Executive Engineer was commuting across the Thames from the county of Kent to the county of Essex, THEN it would have been >difficult for him to do that each day before late in 1963 which is when the Dartford Tunnel opened. Earlier than that he would either have had to detour through central London or commute via Gravesend using the Tilbury Ferry which involved queues and often delays. Effectively the Dartford Tunnel opened up possibilities for commuting between those bits of Kent and Essex that had not existed before, which presumably is why it became noteworthy when Alan Worters, the company's Executive Engineer, took to doing it. So yes, highly unlikely - at least if the reason given for the "Kent" name is right - that it could have been called "Kent" back in 1959 when they launched it in the Ford Anglia 105E. Regards Charles01 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Claimed Horsepower and Lotus TwinCam

Wonder if Cosworth engines with Kent block are considered Kent engines. If so, Hart BDT-E produced 500 bhp. If not, then Lotus TwinCam may lose the reason to be included in here. Yiba (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the scope. In a racing paddock. a Cosworth twin cam next to a factory Kent isn't going to be described as a "Kent". However in an article on the history of the Kent, then I think anything that uses the block (not necessarily the crank either) should be included. Even if the design of the block was used, but made of better materials, that would deserve inclusion. Obviously such uses need to be explained, not just bundled in as the "500hp Hart Kent engine" - that would be very misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I see your point, however, I just went through Cosworth types and see at least 42 different kinds many on 116E block. They are Mk.I through Mk.XVII, MAE, SCA, SCB, SCC, FVA through FVD, BDA through BDT-E. This is a lot to talk about even if I group them into say 5 groups. I kind of doubt describing them would be relevant to the history of Kent engine, especially when Cosworth article doesn't talk about many of these engines. What do you think? Yiba (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd go for it. This engine did just have a very long career and a lot of derivatives. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Anybody else with an opinion on this? I'd wait a while for other opinions, as I have to gather more info, and think about how to incorporate them in Cosworth article first. Yiba (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been following your exchange, but didn't have anything useful to add. However, please don't think you're alone! And probably I can muster some thoughts by way (I hope) of encouragement.

From what you write, there's usefully more information on highpowered Kent derived engines that you are willing to contribute. You look as if you have the knowledge to make a good job of it. Please do it. Should it be part of the Kent engine entry or part of the Cosworth entry? I'm not sure it matters so much, as long as it's well flagged/linked from one to the other. If you've enough information, and time to lay it all out with sources etc, maybe the best approach would be to copy what's already there (both existing entries) into a sandbox, fashion it into a coherent entry in its own right, add the info that needs to be added. Then set up a separate entry, put a simple five line summary para into BOTH the Kent engine entry AND the Cosworth entry about the Cosworth derivative engines, then edit out the duplicate stuff from those entries and use a link or a "main article" template or both to the new entry which you just created. The you'll probably feel the urge to go back and chip away a bit more at the new entry you just created. That's roughly what I just did recently to set up a new entry on the Ford Taunus TC. But it's only one approach. The more important thing is that you capture the information somewhere, while the ideas are freshly brewed in your mind and you're ready to go. I guess that's maybe what Andy D had in mind with "I'd go for it". But if it's not, he can tell us himself.

Incidentally, I'm not an engineer and don't have a definitive opinion to share on whether or not these Cosworth derivatives count as "genuine" Kent engines or not. No doubt you could argue it either way if you were a lawyer, but I'm not, and I'm not convinced that it matters too much. If someone comes with an opinion masquerading as a rule on this then ... well, he's probably wrong. But if you set up the links in the entry, and redirects in the event an obvious alternative name for the entry if any arises, then you can cater for more than one set of preconceptions as necessary.

Success Charles01 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Excellent ideas. I would probably go for the separate article approach. Totally agree with "It's more important to capture the information somewhere.". Wikipedia will never going to be perfect, and that is the very source of its power. Yiba (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I planned on creating a separate page, but ended up editing the Cosworth article to include Kent block engines. In the process, I have come to the realisation that calling Cosworth BDA a "Ford Kent" engine could well be disgraceful to the talent and effort on the part of Keith Duckworth, Mike Costin and especially Mike Hall, who designed the BD series, where about the only Kent part used was the block, which does not apply in the case of BDG and later aluminium block engines.

If a large part of the reason why Cosworth SCA, FVA and BDA were successful stems from the block, then I can see giving that much credit to Alan Worters and the Ford team, but that seems not the case. In the case of Lotus TwinCam (this is the name given to the engine by Chapman), the initial batches did use Kent block, crank and conrods, but the block was later cast specially for Lotus according to the thicker wall thickness specified by Lotus (possibly by Mike Costin), and the 'Kent' blocks used by Cosworth were almost all these Lotus spec blocks with the exception of 105/107/109E blocks. In the case of FVA, you know how successful the design was on DFV without the Kent block.

While appreciating Andy Dingley's logic, I am now against including Cosworth engines and Lotus TwinCam (credit should mostly go to Harry Mundy, with the rest to Chapman on this) as Kent engines.

I changed the note on the 190 bhp Power output claim from TwinCam to Cosworth, as no production Lotus TwinCam made that much power, but I now feel the figure should be changed to 111 bhp or so. If you can live with the statement "Kent cylinder blocks were used successfully by Lotus and Cosworth on Lotus TwinCam, Cosworth SCA, FVA and BDA series. (may be with a note that all early Cosworth types were based on Kent or TwinCam)" then I could delete the Lotus section and rewrite it. Otherwise you are on your own. Sorry guys for the disappointment. Yiba (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection, provided mention of Kent origins is retained (both places). Something of the common parts might be of value, too, but maybe that's the hot rodder in me. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Zetec RoCam merge

These sections of the Ford Kent and Ford Zetec articles are almost identical, so should be merged into one:

Ford_Kent_engine#Zetec_RoCam

Ford_Zetec_engine#Zetec_Rocam_.28duratec_8v.29

Does this need a vote? John a s (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

'Kent' Name

Just supporting the premise that the name 'Kent' was not used (within the public domain at least) until the introduction of the crossflow variants. I took a close interest in all things Ford at the time.

It was used initially to designate the 1600 cc crossflow/bowl-in-piston/heron head engine, when introduced for the Mk 2 Cortina and later the 1300cc variant for the Mk 1 Escort.

The use of 'Kent' to designate the earlier pre-crossflow engines is a 21st century adoption.

Howard Evans