Finally found it!

[DustyLBottoms]

Well folks, long have I been talking about head swaps and engine upgrades for my sweet Essex Continental.

I believe I have finally found the answer, thanks in Part to Pro-Five-Oh.

Last time I posted about this, saying I planned to use Windstar heads & intake Pro asked me why not use the Freestar 4.2?

Well check this out! I AM going to do this. My Sweet Essex will be one of a kind. Clicky over to the link for the 3.8 liter Mecca.

http://www.moranav6racing.com/category.html?CategoryID=16

[MichiganTeddyBear]

looks sweet, but after the quick once over I gave the site, I would make SURE to ask them if they have FWD v-6 kits... the crank and cam are about 1/2" or an inch longer than the RWD cranks... because of the balance shaft and its drive gear.

[DustyLBottoms]

looks sweet, but after the quick once over I gave the site, I would make SURE to ask them if they have FWD v-6 kits... the crank and cam are about 1/2" or an inch longer than the RWD cranks... because of the balance shaft and its drive gear.

Oh, I'm all over that. ;)

I've been going back and forth in my head about whether or not they might have the FWD. And what I can use if they don't have the block I need. I know that the pistons, connecting rods, heads, & cams are the same (sorry - it's true). I'm not so sure about the crank - still need research.

http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/ar90134.htm

[MichiganTeddyBear]

Dusty, the FWD cams are longer on the drive gear end. they drive the balance shaft off the cam. The crank is longer because the block is slightly longer to accomodate the extra gear in the front of the engine, therefore the crank is needs to be longer too.

Also, the FWD and RWD blocks have different bellhousing patterns to the best of my knowledge and research. if someone can tell me with 100000% certainty they are the same, then I do NOT get rid my parts car engine, as the cougars 3.8 is getting tired.

The heads, pistons, rods, are probably the same, the cam grind varies I am sure, but thats not a problem.

Just looked at the article you have linked, the very first pic shows the 4 main cam designs they used, and you can see they are NOT the same. That article is very good reading, and is the one I could not remember the location of, as it explains a lot about the different 3.8's over the years. However, after going over it with a fine tooth comb, it says that the RWD 3.8's (only from 89-95) used a spacer to replace the balace shaft drive gear. so, they may use the same cam.

now, it also points out a lot of differences on the outside of the FWD and RWD blocks.. they are NOT interchangable... :(

[DustyLBottoms]

Dusty, the FWD cams are longer on the drive gear end. they drive the balance shaft off the cam. The crank is longer because the block is slightly longer to accomodate the extra gear in the front of the engine, therefore the crank is needs to be longer too.

I agree, but note that in 1999 the Balance shaft was added again to the RWD engine. They are lighter though because the pistons & rods are lighter.
Also read at the end of the article; A cam spacer was used on the 89-98 RWD's to take up the slack where the gear would have been to drive the deleted balancer shaft.

Also, the FWD and RWD blocks have different bellhousing patterns to the best of my knowledge and research. if someone can tell me with 100000% certainty they are the same, then I do NOT get rid my parts car engine, as the cougars 3.8 is getting tired.

No argument there. I was never saying I could use a RWD block on my FWD car.

Just looked at the article you have linked, the very first pic shows the 4 main cam designs they used, and you can see they are NOT the same. That article is very good reading, and is the one I could not remember the location of, as it explains a lot about the different 3.8's over the years

The four main cam designs vary by YEAR, not by application (RWD vs. FWD). Part numbers for some of the cams are the same (at least according to the article - I've done parts for too long to trust that by itself though) My only concern is with the 89 & higher cam....and from what I've read there is some interchangebility.

[MichiganTeddyBear]

Dusty, after re-re-reading that article (while you were posting even), I agree, it looks like the 89-up cams will work in either application.


one thing that pops up that may or may not be a problem, the FWD has reversed (compared to RWD) coolant flow, therefore needs different head gaskets (holes are different). could be an issue with rwd heads, but not sure.

one thing that I would be worried about if you start getting too much ooomph outta the 3.8.... there is a fairly lightweight part (well, pile of parts) between the crank and the ground.. the trans...

[pro-five-oh]

Wow, that website (and this thread) is Solid Essex Machine Gold info!

Considering the 4.2 found its way to the Freestar, that specific crank and camshaft can easily find its way into one of their conversion kits. Since there are so many versions of this motor, its gonna be a challenge to make sure you get all the right parts, but it'll be worth it!

So I guess this means you're stayin' ESSEX and gonna pass on a late-model Lincoln LS?

[Steve Moran]

Can I say this is old news, to me anyway?
This is why my 4.2 conversion has hit the skids, if I could find a complete 4.2 freestar things would be much better but I cannot.

When I snooped around and even cracked the books looking into things such as connecting rods and found out about the "cracked rods", piston pin height differences between years, Connecting rod lengths between years and all the fun it will entail I have had to come in at a different direction.

The mill work to get the crank in the 3.8 block and all I have had done has been an eye opener, I will not give up but it sure has thrown out the anchor on the project.

Then to top it all off I still have to work out the intake situation for the blower and pulley configuration that has me stumped.

The guy that had posted the picture of the blower in the conti hear a year or so ago only had the blower sitting on the manifold in a totally wrong config due to the fact it was a rear wheel drive intake so the T stat was on the wrong side of the engine.
All those things need to be worked out and it is not going to be an easy task.

I don't want to poop on anyones parade, maybe we can even work on the problems together and do the old two heads are better then one thingy and see where this goes.

[DustyLBottoms]

Can I say this is old news, to me anyway?
This is why my 4.2 conversion has hit the skids, if I could find a complete 4.2 freestar things would be much better but I cannot.

When I snooped around and even cracked the books looking into things such as connecting rods and found out about the "cracked rods", piston pin height differences between years, Connecting rod lengths between years and all the fun it will entail I have had to come in at a different direction.

The mill work to get the crank in the 3.8 block and all I have had done has been an eye opener, I will not give up but it sure has thrown out the anchor on the project.

Then to top it all off I still have to work out the intake situation for the blower and pulley configuration that has me stumped.

The guy that had posted the picture of the blower in the conti hear a year or so ago only had the blower sitting on the manifold in a totally wrong config due to the fact it was a rear wheel drive intake so the T stat was on the wrong side of the engine.
All those things need to be worked out and it is not going to be an easy task.

I don't want to poop on anyones parade, maybe we can even work on the problems together and do the old two heads are better then one thingy and see where this goes.

I agree! Let's all work together on this. Anything can be done with enough time and money.....just depends on how much we want to spend. Suuure we could all just break down and buy a Mark or something with its modular motor. But imagine in a year or so easing your car into a stop on the power tour....

People will snicker to themselves as you roll along with the rest of the Lincoln crowd into your parking spot. As you get out of the car some Mopar guy walks up snorts and says sarcastically "that's some hot rod lincoln there buddy!" You smile to your self as you raise the hood and proudly display your stroked out 4.4 liter v6.

I mean seriously! Who's done this yet? And remember that old capitalist saying "Where there's a market, there's a way.

We can do this.

Who's with me?

:gears:

[pro-five-oh]

People will snicker to themselves as you roll along with the rest of the Lincoln crowd into your parking spot. As you get out of the car some Mopar guy walks up snorts and says sarcastically "that's some hot rod lincoln there buddy!" You smile to your self as you raise the hood and proudly display your stroked out 4.4 liter v6.

We can do this.

Who's with me?


I'd never snicker at a Lincoln Essex machine. One love, baby. :p

You guys figure this out for the community and I might buy one, whenever I become independently wealthy, that is.

[DustyLBottoms]

So I guess this means you're stayin' ESSEX and gonna pass on
a late-model Lincoln LS?

No way! I'm doing both!

You gotta have something to drive while the other's in the stable! :workout:

[DustyLBottoms]

one thing that I would be worried about if you start getting too much ooomph outta the 3.8.... there is a fairly lightweight part (well, pile of parts) between the crank and the ground.. the trans...

How about this then? I got this off of Wikipedia....

AX4N

The AX4N is a beefier version of the basic AXOD, and is far more reliable. It is nonsynchronous, meaning that it can skip gears if needed. It was originally used in the Taurus SHO, but found its way into some 1994 and newer Vulcan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Vulcan_engine)-powered models. It was standard on Duratec-powered models. It became standard with both engines in 2003. Applications:

1994–2006 Ford Taurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taurus)
1995–2000 Lincoln Continental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Continental)
1996–2005 Mercury Sable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Sable)The data plate code is "X."

[pro-five-oh]

If the AX4N can handle a 4.6L Conti's motor, it can pretty much take whatever you can do to an Essex.

[DustyLBottoms]

Well then - there's billions of those sitting around in junkyards all across America. :D

[pro-five-oh]

Course those are all tired and probably are the reason Contis get junked these days, only rebuilt and 2002-ish models had the beefy versions.

Course, there's a good chance the 4.6L Conti and 3.8L Conti use the same bellhousing...i.e., you could put a V8 in an Essex Conti!

[DustyLBottoms]

looks sweet, but after the quick once over I gave the site, I would make SURE to ask them if they have FWD v-6 kits... the crank and cam are about 1/2" or an inch longer than the RWD cranks... because of the balance shaft and its drive gear.

Check this out!!!!!

Hello Dustin,
Our Stroker Kits are compatible with your FWD Lincoln.
If you have any other questions, feel free to email us back.
Tom Morana,
Morana Racing Engines

[pro-five-oh]

This is just stupid cool.

Gotta make it a sticky!

[DustyLBottoms]

Thanks! I'm am SO doing this. I don't how on earth I'll get the wife to agree to it - my old standbye of "it's a safety item" isn't gonna cut it this time. :boohoo:

[pro-five-oh]

Sure it is...you need the extra cubes for highway passing!

[DustyLBottoms]

Sure it is...you need the extra cubes for highway passing!

There is that.....

I wonder how much hp/torque would come from the 4.4 stroker? If I only knew the changed stroke & combustion chamber volume (if any) and if the compession ratio stays the same.

[pro-five-oh]

Odds are they can put whatever compression piston you need. And it also depends on the cylinder heads...odds are if you use the stock heads (not milled down) you'll easily keep it in pump gas territority. Thicker headgaskets always help too.

I don't see why you couldn't build a low compression 4.4L (9:1 or so) and make it ready for a Super Coupe blower @8-10psi.

[DustyLBottoms]

Odds are they can put whatever compression piston you need. And it also depends on the cylinder heads...odds are if you use the stock heads (not milled down) you'll easily keep it in pump gas territority. Thicker headgaskets always help too.

I don't see why you couldn't build a low compression 4.4L (9:1 or so) and make it ready for a Super Coupe blower @8-10psi.

True,

On a side note I'm having some trouble figuring out my current 3.8 compresison ratio. Bore is 3.81 inches, stroke is 3.39.

If swept volume of one cylinder is:

3.14xR2xS

(where 3.14 is pi, R is the radius of the bore in inches squared, and S is the stroke in inches)

I get 38.62 cubic inches. (38.62x6=231.72 = 3.789 liters)
Now, combustion chamber volume is 3.75cu.in. per cylinder.

the formula for finding the compression ratio is:

V+v/v

(Where V is the swept volume of one cylinder & v is the combustion chamber volume.)

so we take 38.62+3.75= 42.37 Divide that by 3.75 and we get 11.29

Doesn't that sound crazy high?! 11.3:1 ?

Now, the only thing I can think of is not taking into acount the thinkness of the Head gasket or the dished/raised space on the pistons themselves. Does anyone have that sort of info so I can add it into the calculations?

[cason1]

True,

On a side note I'm having some trouble figuring out my current 3.8 compresison ratio. Bore is 3.81 inches, stroke is 3.39.

If swept volume of one cylinder is:

3.14xR2xS

(where 3.14 is pi, R is the radius of the bore in inches squared, and S is the stroke in inches)

I get 38.62 cubic inches. (38.62x6=231.72 = 3.789 liters)
Now, combustion chamber volume is 3.75cu.in. per cylinder.

the formula for finding the compression ratio is:

V+v/v

(Where V is the swept volume of one cylinder & v is the combustion chamber volume.)

so we take 38.62+3.75= 42.37 Divide that by 3.75 and we get 11.29

Doesn't that sound crazy high?! 11.3:1 ?

Now, the only thing I can think of is not taking into acount the thinkness of the Head gasket or the dished/raised space on the pistons themselves. Does anyone have that sort of info so I can add it into the calculations?


Boy, if that ain't a mouthful.:D

[pro-five-oh]

Now, the only thing I can think of is not taking into acount the thinkness of the Head gasket or the dished/raised space on the pistons themselves. Does anyone have that sort of info so I can add it into the calculations?

Yup, you must factor in combustion chamber size of the heads otherwise you're gonna get a wrong answer. No way that thing makes over 9:1, that's pretty much the standard of mid-80s engineering. 5.0HOs are 9:1, btw.

I'd like to know about the different stroker kits as far as wrist pin to oil control piston ring clearance. Specifically, does the 4.4L have poor oil control like a lot of 5.6L stroker windsor V8s? It might be a safer bet to get the 4.2, as that's what Ford uses to pass their durability tests. If Tom Morana says the 4.4s don't burn oil after 20,000+ miles, that should be acceptable.

[DustyLBottoms]

Yup, you must factor in combustion chamber size of the heads otherwise you're gonna get a wrong answer. No way that thing makes over 9:1, that's pretty much the standard of mid-80s engineering. 5.0HOs are 9:1, btw.

I'd like to know about the different stroker kits as far as wrist pin to oil control piston ring clearance. Specifically, does the 4.4L have poor oil control like a lot of 5.6L stroker windsor V8s? It might be a safer bet to get the 4.2, as that's what Ford uses to pass their durability tests. If Tom Morana says the 4.4s don't burn oil after 20,000+ miles, that should be acceptable.

Agreed, I did factor that in ( combustion chamber volume is 3.75cu.in. per cylinder.) though I guess it's not the "true" volume because I don't know the thickness of the gasket or if & how much the pistons are domed/reliefed.

[pro-five-oh]

Yeah the gasket thickness will throw things off, and I donno how reliefed the pistons are. Either way, its gonna be somewhere around 9:1.

If you want to go crazy with a blower in the future, or safely runs on 87 octane, keep it at 9:1.

[DustyLBottoms]

Good point, also a wise idea from the headgasket history point of view for the 3.8

I mean, it's supposed to be taken care of with the new torque specs & gaskets. But why tempt fate? :)
(especially if I drop $4 grand on it)

[pro-five-oh]

Mustang guys tempt fate all the time when they swap to aluminum heads on those iron-block Windsors. Its not a big deal with the right gasket, IMO.

Question is, what do you want from your motor?

[DustyLBottoms]

Mustang guys tempt fate all the time when they swap to aluminum heads on those iron-block Windsors. Its not a big deal with the right gasket, IMO.

Question is, what do you want from your motor?

Sorry it's been so long to respond - work's been a real biatch.

So...what do I want from it?? Loads of Torque. :cool:
Rock solid acceleration, a low sound from the exhaust at idle -
but when I put the pedal to the floor I want a Roar. ;)
And I want to not have to worry about cooling issues (ie. the head gasket syndrome).

I suppose that the new block & heads from Tom Morana & the correct gaskets/torque specs are going to take care of the leakage issue...*shrug*:dunno:

[pro-five-oh]

With such a pricey motor, I'd recommend getting an aluminum radiator for insurance. Go with the biggest motor he recommends, if the 4.4 isn't an oil burner, go for it. And then the beefy transmission is necessary...it never ends!

[Steve Moran]

So...what do I want from it?? Loads of Torque. :cool:
Rock solid acceleration, a low sound from the exhaust at idle -
but when I put the pedal to the floor I want a Roar. ;)
And I want to not have to worry about cooling issues (ie. the head gasket syndrome).


Sounds as if you are looking for this. http://www.lincolnsonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43426

[DustyLBottoms]

Ouch! And I thought you were on my Essex-loving side!

:meanie:

[DustyLBottoms]

For anyone following this, I joined http://www.v6power.net/ , they have a very nice forum devoted to stroking out the 3.8 v6. These guys are making some serious power, one of them is making 443HP at the rear wheels (not SAE) with 12psi on a stock block!

Check out the thread at http://www.v6power.net/vb/showthread.php?t=27249

[DustyLBottoms]

Just an update & bump.

I've been doing serious research on this for the last month now. I found some guy over at the Taurus Forums who actually did this swap. If you wanna read up on it take a click!

http://www.taurusclub.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15749&hl=stroker&st=0

[DustyLBottoms]

Another cool thing. Kenny Brown had a supercharged Windstar. I know the Windstars have Waaaaaay more clearance under the hood - but I still thought the pics and the article was nice.

Here's a quote from the article (dated 1/1/99)

As of this writing, Brown's Project Industries shop is planning to make many of the components available for those wishing to enhance their Windstar just a little bit - or a whole lot. And while the supercharger unit is a one-off, Brown said he'd commit to producing it if there's enough demand. He's also considering a naturally aspirated 4.2-liter V6 engine upgrade in case a customer would prefer having more cubic inches and torque in lieu of supercharging.





http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=44288

[Nick]

What is so great about the V6 Continental? I must be missing something. If I find one in nice shape, I'll have to take it for a test drive to see from where the infatuation stems. Do they even handle OK?

[Steve Moran]

If you place SHO bars on them they do well. Gotta love 4 wheel independant suspension.

[DustyLBottoms]

What is so great about the V6 Continental? I must be missing something. If I find one in nice shape, I'll have to take it for a test drive to see from where the infatuation stems. Do they even handle OK?

*shrug* It's the v6 mojo - the sweet essence of Essex. :yum:

[pro-five-oh]

I must be missing something.

Go drive a '89-91 SHO. The early (1988-1990 maybe) Contis handled way better than a stock Fox Conti, and all the Taurus goodies interchange. If you don't get the Conti tuning thing then, better give me your Fox Conti too. :)

[Nick]

But what about a Fox Conti with LSC suspension bits and LSC wheels? Some day the car will get finished right. Right now, other, faster cars are beckoning.

[pro-five-oh]

But what about a Fox Conti with LSC suspension bits and LSC wheels?


Exactly. If you can appreciate that, you can certainly appreciated a SHO'd out Essex Conti.

Its not a big jump, trust me...I took it. :)

[DustyLBottoms]

Tom Morana finally replied to my e-mail!!



Hello Dustin,
The hp/torque varies on the camshaft, compression, valve size etc...but you can expect approx. 300 hp or so(in other words 75 hp and up)
We'd use a Ford Windstar block, if doing the long block.
As far as "if someone has stroker their FWD" yes we've sold kits for the FWD engines before-it's the same motor/stroker parts...only for block is different.
Tom Morana,
Morana Racing Engines

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dustin Clark" <dustinlc@gmail.com>
To: <info@moranav6racing.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: MORANA Stroker Kits

> Tom,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply!
>
> I was wondering what kind of HP/Torque would I see from your stroker kits?
>
> Also, what kind of FWD block would you use if I was to buy a Long block
> from
> you? Would it be one from a Ford Windstar, or one of the earlier
> Continental
> blocks? Last question; have you ever heard of someone stroking out the FWD
> 3.8 before?
>
> Thanks in advance!!
>
> -Dustin

[pro-five-oh]

Sounds like he can build the motor any which way you want it.

Unless you're thinking supercharger, I'd go with 10:1 compression or so, ported heads/intake, headers and a moderately aggressive street-biased camshaft. That'll make for a fun cruiser on high octane gas.

[DustyLBottoms]

Sounds like he can build the motor any which way you want it.

Unless you're thinking supercharger, I'd go with 10:1 compression or so, ported heads/intake, headers and a moderately aggressive street-biased camshaft. That'll make for a fun cruiser on high octane gas.

Sounds like a plan! Only thing lacking here is funds......our baby is due in 3 1/2 weeks. I'm hoping to take some money from our tax return next year to make this a reality!

:gears:

[pro-five-oh]

Baby's come first, that's for sure. LOL

[DustyLBottoms]

Well, the guy at the Taurus Forums beat me to it......but it's still pretty cool.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l306/reserved50/Taurus/pict0114.jpg

[Nick986]

We havn't heard from that guy in awhile, but the swap was still cool. I think he was having trouble closing the hood though. Oh and the forum is now at www.realtcca.com for some reason.

[pro-five-oh]

We havn't heard from that guy in awhile, but the swap was still cool. I think he was having trouble closing the hood though. Oh and the forum is now at www.realtcca.com (http://www.realtcca.com/) for some reason.

Yeah what's up with that?

Funny you mention it Dusty...I talked to one of the Taurus guys at my college (FFVVulcanPowah, or something like that) and he said that intake doesn't only clear the stock hood, it doesn't clear a cowl induction hood without modifications!

I'm thinking the stock intake ported like mad will do the job fine.

[Nick986]

Yeah what's up with that?

Funny you mention it Dusty...I talked to one of the Taurus guys at my college (FFVVulcanPowah, or something like that) and he said that intake doesn't only clear the stock hood, it doesn't clear a cowl induction hood without modifications!

I'm thinking the stock intake ported like mad will do the job fine.

I'm Nick lol but close enough. Yea, he's gona have a problem. I hope he can figure something out because that car will haul some major *ss! Ill post a reply in the thread and PM the guy and see what he says.

Did you ever meet up with Mark and his Root Beer colored Taurus?
/end thread jacking

[pro-five-oh]

I know you're Nick, I was trying to talk to Dusty in the same thread. :)

I met up with root-beer brown Mark on Wednesday at school. His Taurus is very impressive, I was surprised at the exhaust note, the ride (with lowering springs) and the craftsmanship.

He seemed to like my Mark VIII after I took him for a spin in it too. :)

[Nick986]

I know you're Nick, I was trying to talk to Dusty in the same thread. :)

I met up with root-beer brown Mark on Wednesday at school. His Taurus is very impressive, I was surprised at the exhaust note, the ride (with lowering springs) and the craftsmanship.

He seemed to like my Mark VIII after I took him for a spin in it too. :)
As I was entering the thread I saw the starter's name...where's the dope slap smiley? :rofl: Sorry Dusty...

Kinda suprising that a semi base Taurus sounds and looks pretty nice. :cool: Got some pics of your car?

[pro-five-oh]

Yeah, if you saw Mark's car you'd like it. Its hard not too.

Hmm, I just washed my car, maybe I should take some pics of it.

[AZLincolnMercury]

Hmm, I just washed my car, maybe I should take some pics of it.
DO IT! :)

[DustyLBottoms]

Yeah what's up with that?

I'm thinking the stock intake ported like mad will do the job fine.

I'm inclined to agree with you - though I'd still like to try it with the later version of the windstar intake, it seems to sit lower.

http://i16.ebayimg.com/02/i/08/d9/37/99_3.JPG

[pro-five-oh]

Hmm, they changed the intake! The runners look bigger.

Now that I think about it, check out the part numbers between a 4.2L Freestar and the 3.8L. If it clears, that intake is the one you want.

[DustyLBottoms]

Hmm, they changed the intake! The runners look bigger.

Now that I think about it, check out the part numbers between a 4.2L Freestar and the 3.8L. If it clears, that intake is the one you want.

For the sake of anyone following this thread I'm re-posting info from another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pro-five-oh http://www.lincolnsonline.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.lincolnsonline.com/forum/showthread.php?p=576629#post576629)
Whoa...the thing that connects the engine to the radiator support? That's a huge upgrade for these cars!

http://67.15.66.118/south_pics/2FMZA52276BA62935/DCP_9431.JPG

You got it! Also - look at that intake.....a lot flatter than the Windstars. You're right about it being the one we want.

[Martin38]

I had a supercharger idea once. Why couldn't ya just run the SC with an electric motor hooked up to a pressure gauge instead of a wastegate? You could put it whereever you wanted that it would fit. Course then again you have to beef up that alternator.

I love taking my continental through the Ozarks, except for when the wifes along, I have to slow down then.:)

[MichiganTeddyBear]

I had a supercharger idea once. Why couldn't ya just run the SC with an electric motor hooked up to a pressure gauge instead of a wastegate? You could put it whereever you wanted that it would fit. Course then again you have to beef up that alternator.

I love taking my continental through the Ozarks, except for when the wifes along, I have to slow down then.:)

the electric motor driven SC has been thought of before. biggest problem with that idea (on any vehicle) is the SC takes a LOT of power to spin. you will need a motor in (guesstimates here) the range of 15-30 HP to spin the SC. to put that in perspective, the starter motor is only 1.5-3 hp! Yea, the starter is a low rpm high torque motor, where as the SC would need a high rpm lower torque motor, the end result is the same, it still take a bunch of power to spin it. even if you had an sc that only required 1 horsepower to spin it, in a perfect world it would require 62 amps to run (746 watts=1 hp, 12 volts supplying, 746/12=62.something amps, using ohms law). again, thats a perfect world, with 0 losses anywhere. Now, if your doing it on a drag car, where you only need the power for a short time, and dont have to keep a battery charged... well.. maybe.. but still not as good as driving it from the crank, where the boost level will increase with engine speed (usually desired).

and the purpose of the waste gate is to limit the boost to prevent engine damage, or limit output power (therefore preventing engine damage). a pressure gauge in place of it would do no good.

Now, to the conti specific problems, I believe it has been discussed that the SC wont fit under the hood, and probably not enough room for the belt drive on that end of the engine.

[Steve Moran]

I will attest to all the above comments. as an ex-electrician, wrench turner, Owner of a SC's Super Charger and the un-dieing urge to have it stuffed under the hood of one of my Conties.
I have not given up but I have put it on hold for the time until I can find a way to get passed the set backs.
I also know the Conti's Tranny is a weak link but the Windstars is better, Finding one in a salvage yard around here is not easy.

[DustyLBottoms]

Check it out.

[Steve Moran]

Alternator mounted backwards? Interesting idea.
I don't know if it is something I would do but it seems to work.

[pro-five-oh]

Check it out.

Now that's a cool picture!

[Maranello]

Hey i have an essex continental, what things can i do to it? It's a 93 with 75 thousand miles and a new motor, the air ride was removed for a regular suspension. As far as it runs, it just needs new mufflers and i don't want to put stock back on, i want some performance mufflers, and add some other things later, headers/cold air intake etc.

[DustyLBottoms]

All kinds of things! It just so happens I'm selling a 1992 Conti with all kinds of things already done.

http://www.lincolnsonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67441

I'd prefer to sell the whole thing, but if you want parts off it I'll consider.