Hi,
I am new to the classic Lancia world, and I am currently looking for "my" Fulvia Coupé.
Recently, I have been offered a 1968 1.3 HF. The body is in good condition, aluminium doors and bonnets are there, interior is nice and well-maintained. Everything looks like a genuine 1.3 HF - apart from the numbers that do slightly confuse me.
The chassis number is a 818.340 (as should be), the cylinder head is numbered 818.140 and the block 818.302. From what I had learnt, the latter should actually be numbered 818.342. The guy who has offered me the car and who had the engine compeltely overhauled using a reworked block (the 818.302) says that there was no technical difference between the 818.342 an the 818.302 block.
I that correct? Can anybody give me more info on this? Actually, what is the technical difference between the 13. HF and the 1.3 s engine, since there is no difference in bore and stroke?
Thanks a lot!
Joerg
1.3 HF? Matching Numbers?
-
william vd Sman
Re: 1.3 HF? Matching Numbers?
The cilinderhead of the 1300HF has the number 818.140 cast in it. This does not mean the head is the same as the 1200HF or the normal 1300s which have the same number. The ports in the 1300HF head are larger and are polished to a mirror finish. The rockers should also be polished. valves are the same size as 1300S engines 33 and 37 if i'm correct. the enige block has casting 302 as it is the same as a series 1 1300ralley which were build at the same time. I've never seen a 342 engien block. Carburators are Solex 35s with choke 31 (same size as 1300S). Flywheel is made some 2kg's lighter
camshafts are the same but the compression ratio of the HF is 10,5:1 compared to 9,5:1 for the 1300S.
This is due to pistons with a larger dome. Conrods are slightly polished and shotpeened for extra stress resistance. The cranckshaft is nitrided which is some kind of heat treathment in a saltbath which in the real world means that officially lancia offered no undersize bearings. All these mods give 101 over 93 Hp. This indicates that the original design was already very good.
A lot of these mods however can not be checked when the engine is in the car. The only things which could be checked are the the date of manufacture on the head. (exhaustside near cyl #1. just below the rockercover and the HF stamping number near the distributor. located there, should be a number (usually two digit) indicating the special threatment this head had recieved (ports, valves).
Be very carefull because there a lot of fakes around. The fact that the Fulvia was almost raceready out of the box means that most special parts were just modified standard items. If they could do that then, someone can do it now...
camshafts are the same but the compression ratio of the HF is 10,5:1 compared to 9,5:1 for the 1300S.
This is due to pistons with a larger dome. Conrods are slightly polished and shotpeened for extra stress resistance. The cranckshaft is nitrided which is some kind of heat treathment in a saltbath which in the real world means that officially lancia offered no undersize bearings. All these mods give 101 over 93 Hp. This indicates that the original design was already very good.
A lot of these mods however can not be checked when the engine is in the car. The only things which could be checked are the the date of manufacture on the head. (exhaustside near cyl #1. just below the rockercover and the HF stamping number near the distributor. located there, should be a number (usually two digit) indicating the special threatment this head had recieved (ports, valves).
Be very carefull because there a lot of fakes around. The fact that the Fulvia was almost raceready out of the box means that most special parts were just modified standard items. If they could do that then, someone can do it now...
-
Joerg
Re: 1.3 HF? Matching Numbers?
Thanks, William, for your very clarifying comment!
Regrads
Joerg
Regrads
Joerg
-
P. de R. Leclercq
Re: 1.3 HF? Matching Numbers?
I would just add that the 1.3HF had the same V angle as the 1232cc engines, (75 x 69.7) whilst the normal 302 engines had the same V angle as the 1216cc engines (76 x 67) There is only a tiny difference as given in the Technical Data Book, but I have always been curious about this. Of course as the crankshaft is offset by double the angle of the V, the special nitrided crank is also different in this regard.
Nitriding is not a salt bath process; it is acheived a the relatively low temperature of around 500°, the part being exposed to ammonia. It is a slow process and can only be applied to steels special smelted for the purpose. The combination of the heat and the ammonia causes very hard nitrides to be formed on the surface which causes the part to "grow". After the process is complete (typically to a depth of .030" - about 0.75mm) the crank is then ground to size in the usual way. The low temperature helps to reduce the risk of distortion and nitriding has been the standard procedure for competition and high-performance crankshafts for many years. Indeed I have it on good authority that current F1 engines have nitrided crankshafts, althought he steel used is vacuum smelted for absolute purity.
I have, in nearly 25 years of Fulvias, never seen a 1232cc engine!
Paul
Nitriding is not a salt bath process; it is acheived a the relatively low temperature of around 500°, the part being exposed to ammonia. It is a slow process and can only be applied to steels special smelted for the purpose. The combination of the heat and the ammonia causes very hard nitrides to be formed on the surface which causes the part to "grow". After the process is complete (typically to a depth of .030" - about 0.75mm) the crank is then ground to size in the usual way. The low temperature helps to reduce the risk of distortion and nitriding has been the standard procedure for competition and high-performance crankshafts for many years. Indeed I have it on good authority that current F1 engines have nitrided crankshafts, althought he steel used is vacuum smelted for absolute purity.
I have, in nearly 25 years of Fulvias, never seen a 1232cc engine!
Paul
-
william vd Sman
Re: 1.3 HF? Matching Numbers?
dear paul,
I have bought at an autojumble in Italy a brand new 1231cc engineblock with pistons 75mm. This engineblock has got the casting 302 on it meaning it is basicly a 1300 block with smaller bore. The engine V angle is the same as the 1300s. So is the crankshaft. This engine came out in the berlina GT and 1200Coupe' in 1967. The same year the 1300 ralley was launched.
There is fonfusion about V angles though because in the official Lancia Fulvia data book there are only two angles, 1600 and the rest were in other books there is a differenciation between 67mm stroke and 69,7mm engines. only if it is just 8 minutes 12deg45"28' (69.7mm) 12deg53"28' (67mm).
In the real world I think the difference is neggliable. I've never found the Fulvia engine vibration free. Surely not at high revs.
I have bought at an autojumble in Italy a brand new 1231cc engineblock with pistons 75mm. This engineblock has got the casting 302 on it meaning it is basicly a 1300 block with smaller bore. The engine V angle is the same as the 1300s. So is the crankshaft. This engine came out in the berlina GT and 1200Coupe' in 1967. The same year the 1300 ralley was launched.
There is fonfusion about V angles though because in the official Lancia Fulvia data book there are only two angles, 1600 and the rest were in other books there is a differenciation between 67mm stroke and 69,7mm engines. only if it is just 8 minutes 12deg45"28' (69.7mm) 12deg53"28' (67mm).
In the real world I think the difference is neggliable. I've never found the Fulvia engine vibration free. Surely not at high revs.
-
P. de R. Leclercq
Re: 1.3 HF? Matching Numbers?
William,
As I said the difference is small. The casting would of course be the same, the difference being acheived when the boring was done. Obviously the crankshaft would be different (probably by grinding the forged blank).
My question is why? Why trouble to vary the specification by such a small amount?
On the subject of vibration, a friend of mine bored a 1300 block to 82.4mm to accept 1600 pistons. Obviously the angle had to be changed; initially this was to 11° 20'. The resulting 1482cc engine used a 1300 crankshaft. This meant that first the firing was not occurring at the correct time and second, that the theoretical balance would be incorrect. However, the engine was turbine-smooth - far smoother than any 1600 I have ever known; with rally cams 1600 valves Kugelfischer injection and a special home-made exhaust manifold, it made at least 140HP. I remember driving at 115mph in my Dedra whilst he easily sailed past me waving his hand with a big grin on his face. This of course was before the block cracked!
I suspect that shorter strokes may be the key to making Fulvia-type engines smoother. I would love to build a 85 x 70 engine (1591cc) but this would require the lottery win.
Paul
As I said the difference is small. The casting would of course be the same, the difference being acheived when the boring was done. Obviously the crankshaft would be different (probably by grinding the forged blank).
My question is why? Why trouble to vary the specification by such a small amount?
On the subject of vibration, a friend of mine bored a 1300 block to 82.4mm to accept 1600 pistons. Obviously the angle had to be changed; initially this was to 11° 20'. The resulting 1482cc engine used a 1300 crankshaft. This meant that first the firing was not occurring at the correct time and second, that the theoretical balance would be incorrect. However, the engine was turbine-smooth - far smoother than any 1600 I have ever known; with rally cams 1600 valves Kugelfischer injection and a special home-made exhaust manifold, it made at least 140HP. I remember driving at 115mph in my Dedra whilst he easily sailed past me waving his hand with a big grin on his face. This of course was before the block cracked!
I suspect that shorter strokes may be the key to making Fulvia-type engines smoother. I would love to build a 85 x 70 engine (1591cc) but this would require the lottery win.
Paul
-
william vd Sman
Re: 1.3 HF? Matching Numbers?
I wonder if the 1300 block would be able to last longer with 80mm pistons giving 1401cc. Wall thickness would be increased with 1mm.
Why did your friend had to change the angle? is it to compensate for the 1600 pistons which would have a slightly less tilted top? Or is it to keep the barrels far enough apart near the crankshaft?
Why did your friend had to change the angle? is it to compensate for the 1600 pistons which would have a slightly less tilted top? Or is it to keep the barrels far enough apart near the crankshaft?
-
P. de R. Leclercq
Re: 1.3 HF? Matching Numbers?
Another friend has done this. He ordered the 80mm pistons from Evolution Engineering (we had them made in the U.S.). The car is competely reliable. He too changed the angle slightly - to 12 degrees I think.
The reason for the change is the overlap between the pairs of cylinders. If the bore is increased the gap becomes longer. Obviously if it is too long, then the bottom piston ring will suffer!
The friend (who posts here sometimes) did a computer drawing to work out the various angles. The other problem when drastically over-boring a block, (80mm is no problem, but of course you need a special head gasket) is the question of core shift in the casting. My friend's second attempt with the angle at (I think) 12 degrees, failed quickly. He had the bottom of the block sawn off so we could see inside. It was obvious that the new bores were not parallel with the cylinder walls. So over-boring is a bit of a lottery - it depends on the individual casting.
I did plan another special: the idea was to bore a 1600 block to 85mm which I think would probably be OK. Obviously special pistons would be needed. The pistons would have an additional 8mm height and I would machine 4.3mm from the bottom of the block. All this is because a 1600 block is 12.3mm taller than a 1300 one. I would then use a 1300 crankshaft and rods. The result would be a 85 x 69.7mm engine - 1581cc from memory, but with 7% more piston area than a normal 1600 so I would expect about 7% more horsepower and torque!
As usual, no money, but I think it would have worked.
Paul
The reason for the change is the overlap between the pairs of cylinders. If the bore is increased the gap becomes longer. Obviously if it is too long, then the bottom piston ring will suffer!
The friend (who posts here sometimes) did a computer drawing to work out the various angles. The other problem when drastically over-boring a block, (80mm is no problem, but of course you need a special head gasket) is the question of core shift in the casting. My friend's second attempt with the angle at (I think) 12 degrees, failed quickly. He had the bottom of the block sawn off so we could see inside. It was obvious that the new bores were not parallel with the cylinder walls. So over-boring is a bit of a lottery - it depends on the individual casting.
I did plan another special: the idea was to bore a 1600 block to 85mm which I think would probably be OK. Obviously special pistons would be needed. The pistons would have an additional 8mm height and I would machine 4.3mm from the bottom of the block. All this is because a 1600 block is 12.3mm taller than a 1300 one. I would then use a 1300 crankshaft and rods. The result would be a 85 x 69.7mm engine - 1581cc from memory, but with 7% more piston area than a normal 1600 so I would expect about 7% more horsepower and torque!
As usual, no money, but I think it would have worked.
Paul
-
Joerg
Additional Question: Windows
Gents,
thanks for the valuable information.
An additional question: I find it somehow difficult to identify the lateral windows as plexiglass. The windows I had inspected felt like rather "ordinary" glass. Is the haptics of HF plexiglass windows unique enough so one would be able to tell immediately? Can the engraving serve as an indicator? The engravings of the windows I just inspected were "Securit" on the rear window and lateral triangulars, "Saint Gobain" on the left and "Sicursiv" on the right door. The door windows had definitely been replaced whenever.
Thanks
Jörg
thanks for the valuable information.
An additional question: I find it somehow difficult to identify the lateral windows as plexiglass. The windows I had inspected felt like rather "ordinary" glass. Is the haptics of HF plexiglass windows unique enough so one would be able to tell immediately? Can the engraving serve as an indicator? The engravings of the windows I just inspected were "Securit" on the rear window and lateral triangulars, "Saint Gobain" on the left and "Sicursiv" on the right door. The door windows had definitely been replaced whenever.
Thanks
Jörg