Trident team
New member
My current project is to finally get back on with building an engine that has been waiting for ages to happen.
It is going to be a creation of a collection of parts that I have had laying around and need to be assembled.
The block is a 120E 6015 T1 fom a push rod 1500.
It has been crack tested and ultrasonically tested to establish that it was able to be bored to twin cam sizing.
It was deemed suitable so that was done.
The cylinder head is from a Twin Cam Escort engine that suffered a catastrophic bottom end failure.
Head was overhauled and was fitted with new guides, valves, seats, buckets and springs.
Cams were reground and treated.
Jackshaft is from the pushrod engine with the # 1 journal having a total of 4 ''slots'' machined into it to provide cam shaft
lubrication as original spec. and a sprocket spacer will be fitted.
The crankshaft is the 4 bolt type with the Lotus flywheel. The conrods are 116E as per the early engines.
It will have the correct sprocket to ensure correct chain path alignment.
I obtained an oil slinger that carries a different part number than the push rod item but appears the same, is that
correct? Is there a difference?
I am using the original main bearing caps from the push rod block that have been crack tested and were found to be
serviceable.
I have been advised by reliable sources that the decision to use these will be acceptable as the engine will only
ever be used in a road car and not for competition and there bottom end strength will be maintained.
In the gasket kit, the paper gasket that is fitted between the timing case back plate and the block was not included,
will a smear of silicone be OK or should the correct paper one be made and fitted?
The water pump and the timing case assembly including the relative parts will be renewed.
Please advise me if there is anything I may have missed need to
It is going to be a creation of a collection of parts that I have had laying around and need to be assembled.
The block is a 120E 6015 T1 fom a push rod 1500.
It has been crack tested and ultrasonically tested to establish that it was able to be bored to twin cam sizing.
It was deemed suitable so that was done.
The cylinder head is from a Twin Cam Escort engine that suffered a catastrophic bottom end failure.
Head was overhauled and was fitted with new guides, valves, seats, buckets and springs.
Cams were reground and treated.
Jackshaft is from the pushrod engine with the # 1 journal having a total of 4 ''slots'' machined into it to provide cam shaft
lubrication as original spec. and a sprocket spacer will be fitted.
The crankshaft is the 4 bolt type with the Lotus flywheel. The conrods are 116E as per the early engines.
It will have the correct sprocket to ensure correct chain path alignment.
I obtained an oil slinger that carries a different part number than the push rod item but appears the same, is that
correct? Is there a difference?
I am using the original main bearing caps from the push rod block that have been crack tested and were found to be
serviceable.
I have been advised by reliable sources that the decision to use these will be acceptable as the engine will only
ever be used in a road car and not for competition and there bottom end strength will be maintained.
In the gasket kit, the paper gasket that is fitted between the timing case back plate and the block was not included,
will a smear of silicone be OK or should the correct paper one be made and fitted?
The water pump and the timing case assembly including the relative parts will be renewed.
Please advise me if there is anything I may have missed need to
