5.3 Cylinder liner bore specs

Thank you. 123456789

1 Like

Norman, is that 9.027" deck height an exact figure? I.e. 228.286mm?

(12/25/19 Edit: This figure is wrong. It’s 229.286 mm as pointed out by Mark below. I must have transcribed it erroneously from my calculator. Use the +1mm error to correct the math below).

The reason I’m asking is some of the calculated numbers don’t match up for the 5.3L HE - (maybe it’s just wrong piston comp height numbers.)

Examples:

Deck Height + Gasket Thickness > 1/2 Stroke + Rod Length + Compression height.

Deck Height 228.286mm
Rod Length: 5.96" or 151.4mm
Cometic Gasket Thickness are available in 1.1mm and 1.5mm compressed heights

Math:

pre-HE
Stroke 70mm
Listed Compression Height: 1.56" or 39.62mm
35mm + 151.4mm + 39.62mm = 226.02mm = 2.24mm down from deck
3.4mm w. 1.1mm gasket.
V= πr2h = 21.63 CCs not including annulus, dish, or valve cavity.

5.3L HE
Stroke 70mm
Listed Compression Height: 1.78" or 45.21mm
35mm + 151.4mm + 45.21mm = 231.61mm <— this is hitting the head even w/ a 1.5mm gasket.
Could that compression height be 1.708" which I had written down from some other source? I.e 43.38mm? That’s even coming too close to the head even with the 1.5mm gasket though… it would leave only 0.006mm quench clearance.

6.0L HE
Stroke 78.5mm
Measured Compression Height: 26mm + 1/2 wrist pin of 23.8mm = 37.9mm
39.25mm + 151.4mm + 37.9mm = 228.55mm <-- Workable 1.264mm clearance / quench w/ 1.1mm gasket.

Is my math wrong here? Help! The 5.3L HE numbers look wrong!

~Paul K

1 Like

Correction, HE CH should be 1.68"/42,67mm. Not 1.78"

2 Likes

Norman I have a crank from a 6l V12, can I fit this into an ‘86 block with or without modifications? Thanks.

I"m sure Norm will confirm, but you’ve got a few problems.

  1. The 6.0L crank was designed for a lip seal, which only 89’+ and up 5.3L blocks have
  2. The nose of the crank is different requiring a different balancer setup
  3. The oil pump drive is different requiring the later 6.0L oil pump drive.

That’s all AFAIK.

~Paul K.

Paul’s right, crank will not fit. Different rear seal.

Thanks Paul & Norman. I hear the 5.3l blocks can be modified to a lip seal. Can the 5.3l block be modified suit the 6L crank lip seal?

Anything is possible if you have enough money.

1 Like

I’m not sure either of these is true. The newer balancer lacks the split cone but it’s my understanding it still fits the same diameter section on the crank. And Jaguar commonly sold the newer oil pumps to owners of the older engines along with a kit of some sort to make them fit.

It’s true, though, that the seal area at the back is a problem. If you were trying to make the newer crank fit the older engine you might be able to machine that seal land off. Moreover, you can machine it to provide a smooth land for the newer rubber lip seal, no spiral groove.

1 Like

Gah… I’m looking back through old photos. I don’t have hands-on this stuff ATM or as easily as I used to.

Kirbert, you may be right, or at least, describing the situation more accurately.

Re the nose of the crank. My photos are limited. My impression was that one of the key-ways was eliminated which might be a problem going in one direction but not the other. Then again I could be totally wrong about that. The pump drive is different, and I can’t remember, nor do I have photos, of what that part looked like.

Yes, you’re right, Jag did offer a kit to go to the newer style oil pump, so that must work IF you have the parts. Can the 5.3L oil pump be fitted on the 6.0L crank? I don’t know. I’ve seen reports elsewhere on the forums that the later 5.3L Marelli balancer w/ cone can be fitted to the 6.0L so… good chance.

As I recall, the newer 6.0L pump is on the left in this picture:

And there, the backside of the 6.0L pump:

I think this is a 6.0L nose but not turned so we can see the keyways:

And the nose w/ keyways of I believe a 5.3L crank:

~Paul K

by that time , FORD had taken over Jaguar and put some of Ford engineers on reengineering the V12!
that makes sense to me!
lets be fair here Ford electronics saved jaguar from extinction!
ron

1 Like

and on the cylinder sleeve thing i would look into DARTON sleeves, a leader in sleeve technologies!
i have used some in different engines!
if you are gonna bore the block anyway, thats what i would do!
ron

Just in case anyone is checking the maths …

9.027" is 229.286mm, not 228.286 as has been written in the above examples …

That makes the clearance 3.28mm on a Pre HE, 0.23mm on an HE and 0.75 on a 6.0L (all without gasket allowance)

Assumes deck height is the same on all models, and all rods are 151.38mm (5.96").
Assumes CH is 39.62mm on Pre HE, 42.67mm on HE and approx 37.9mm on 6.0L

2 Likes

Thanks Mark! I must have transcribed that wrong from my calculator. I’m not sure how I managed to do that more than once, but apparently I did. I edited it above so that folks who get that far will immediately see the needed correction. Thanks again.

~Paul K.

And FAR better QC, coupled with much more funding to do developmental work than Coventry could afford.

1 Like