1964 Econoline upgrade

TheAardvark":3r14ir9m said:

Yup, 9" rear end. I love these little trucks, they are head turners. Hence the attention to detailing it original, the lettering is hand painted by a local lettering artist, just they way it would have been done in 1964. The AR Torque Thrust II's are just too sweet not to have on there, and the stagger on them makes it even cooler.

I think I'm going to just add the flex fan, flush the rad, make/find a belly pan and pull the head. I have to replace the exhaust manifold anyway, so my brother in law say he can refurbish the head easily. I know the seals are leaking pretty bad (the engine is over 50 years old) and if when we get the head off, the block is in bad shape, then we will do a complete rebuild.

Would far prefer a simple single output header, but it looks like those don't exist anymore... if anyone knows where i can find one...

Jeff
Winnipeg

Click to expand...

I have Vintage AR Torque Thrust on mine, by the looks of them, they have been on there since the 60s

TheAardvark":2e99defj said:

Yup, 9" rear end. I love these little trucks, they are head turners. Hence the attention to detailing it original, the lettering is hand painted by a local lettering artist, just they way it would have been done in 1964. The AR Torque Thrust II's are just too sweet not to have on there, and the stagger on them makes it even cooler.

I think I'm going to just add the flex fan, flush the rad, make/find a belly pan and pull the head. I have to replace the exhaust manifold anyway, so my brother in law say he can refurbish the head easily. I know the seals are leaking pretty bad (the engine is over 50 years old) and if when we get the head off, the block is in bad shape, then we will do a complete rebuild.

Would far prefer a simple single output header, but it looks like those don't exist anymore... if anyone knows where i can find one...

Jeff
Winnipeg

Click to expand...

Well there is still at least one single outlet header being made by Scott Drake (see below link for one example). Good luck

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sdk-c ... /make/ford

"…and the stagger on them…"

Wha?
No capice`.
Never heard that adjective used w/a wheel/tire in this part of the world. Can you detail it's meaning?

Did U explore VintAge-vans.com or the other sites Rich or Econo cited? The 1st has beautiful pic - and I Love Pic! but is for ALL make USA vans.

Big rubber in the back small in the front, old school hot rod look.

Funny how they skipped the 8" and went straight for the 9". Lol. I really like your van

Cali65":2ngiwh94 said:

Funny how they skipped the 8" and went straight for the 9". Lol. I really like your van

Click to expand...

The 9" in these was all about cargo weight (the HD vans are 3/4 ton)

I just came across this drawing of the belly pan if you still want it:

Hi Chad, stagger is the term to describe how circle track racers decide where to install there slicks. Since the outside (right) side tires travel further around the corners a slightly larger diameter right side tire will improve handling and braking. I never heard of it to describe big in the rear and little in the front.

thank U both!
I assume some cross over in language.

Happy Holiday - let's give honor!
and Ask that the last one truly be
The Last One.

So, I think its going to just be a remove/rebuild situation now. I want it to be a reliable daily driver, so no over the top racing mods. But I would like a little more HP, I'm probably going to be hauling 3/4 ton of cargo in the back (will make the requisite changes to the springs).

I'll be sending the block in to be done, should I bore it out? What pistons should I use? I don't think I want to pump up the cam at all, its hard enough getting the carb and dist adjusted, I can't imagine it would be easy keeping them that way with even a mild cam.

Header. of course, 2 bbl? How would that affect mileage?

Thanks in advance.

Jeff in Winnipeg

Some ideas that should increase power and give you roughly the same economy or maybe even slightly better.

Block:
-Only bore as much as necessary to clean it up.
-Have the rods checked and ARP bolts installed.
-Mill to true the surface if necessary.

Cam:
-Just pick something torquey. Look to see what some of the Bronk/Econoline guys have gone with on here.

Head:
-Mill to gain compression as you will lose some with today's thicker head gaskets. You should already have relatively small combustion chambers with the 170 head. In the range of ~50cc if my memory serves me correctly, so you shouldn't have to mill much. A 0.030" or 0.040" pass should be sufficient, otherwise you'll start pushing your compression ratio up into a range you don't want with a stock'ish cam.
-Mill for direct mount Weber 32/36. Good economy and a power increaser as well!
-Complete valve job with back-cut valves. Going to larger intake valves should help with the grunt but new seats will need to be cut and I don't know what you're thinking in terms of budget. In '65, Ford went to larger intake/exhaust valves on the 170, so check the casting that you have. You could upgrade to the stock 200 size of the time, or cut in for the 1.75/1.50" valves. I just don't know that head well enough to say you won't run into wall thickness problems with the 1.75/1.50 route. I'm sure someone else will chime in on that...
-Springs to match the cam.
-Have the valve guides checked. Install new ones instead of knurling.

Ignition:
-This is one I can't offhand recommend. I think your 170 has a different size shaft size than the later 200. You might have to get creative with this one or find someone else who has done this mod. If you go to the 200 you have the options of the DSII, HEI, or '68 later distributor with Pertronix. All would be a huge performance increase over stock wrt consistent spark and starting. I ran a Pertronix for close to 15 yrs before switching to an HEI-style setup.

The machine shop will tell you if it needs bored and by how much, leave it to them, same with wether needs ground or not. I'd go stock with the pistons. I don't think a 2 barrel is needed on a 170. I would change the cam though a little more duration and with more lift than stock will be a good improvement I bet.

Forgot you were keeping the 170 and had to edit this post. Check the block code on your 170, it will be on the DS of the block.

OK, a little more research. It looks like the 200 is a 7 bolt main, while the 170 is a 4 bolt. Is there a huge difference? Should I make that change to the 200? Everything else is plug and play, right? As long as I get a high mount starter 200...

I would recommend the 200. More cubes and should be a drop in. Also gives you better distributor choices over the 170.

You could also go for one with a large log head. You'll get the bigger valves and the larger intake plenum.

The 7-main should dampen out some vibration and in general will make the bottom end more solid. 4 mains is just too few for a crank that long...

"…I would change the cam…"
Then build the engine round THAT. It will give you BOTH mpgs and power compaired to where U R now. Choose by lookin @ the RMPs of 80% of ur drivin time.
I put a CompCams 260 in my 250/4.1 but there R better 1s 4 U (even MORE modern design).
Look at classic inlines tech pages (do not buy frm the site it'll take $ but not ship prts) and (purchase falconsixhandbook.com) for the real scoop on ur Qs.
1) Upgrade to Dura Spark II system so the peppier 2) carb matches that dizzy.
3) The valve and seat cuts. If U can all 4 are a minimum.
That's a great carb choice (holly webber 5200 or Pinto carb - economy on 1V then 2nd opens up only when 'flooring it').

I'd still do this to the 200 if purchasin. Start fresh, low or hi starter. If going w/the 3.3 get the '77 or later head as well.

I do not know if this means anything but if you take a 170 crank and block it up at the ends and hit it with a sledge hammer ,it will break with one hit. A 200 will take 3 to 4 hits. did it on a few , same results.

cr_bobcat":ecbw3wcl said:

I would recommend the 200. More cubes and should be a drop in. Also gives you better distributor choices over the 170.

You could also go for one with a large log head. You'll get the bigger valves and the larger intake plenum.

The 7-main should dampen out some vibration and in general will make the bottom end more solid. 4 mains is just too few for a crank that long...

Click to expand...

x 2

So, if I get a later model lower mount starter 200, I would need to change the bell housing on my C4, but otherwise, it all matches up?

yes or adapt a V8 bell to the late 200 block. I also agree going with a 200 offers a good amount of a performance increase and usually at a low cost. Especially if you stay with the high mount starter so it all bolts back togeather just like your 170.

I do like the 170's too and they do have some good potential. If you can find a 1964 200 4 main crank (which may be hard now days) you could drop it into your existing 170 block and build a hybrid of 184 to 187 cu. in. or more (Depending on the block over bore you go too). I don't know what the stock 170 pistion pin hight is so it might take a custom pistion to do this but you could use all most all of your existing engine plus trans then and it should give it a really nice boost in low end torque. At the time you rebuild the 170 block the distributor hole could be reamed out to the correct size easy enough so you could use a better DSII or HEI distributor. Plus with the swapping in of a 200 oil pump and oil pump drive or just a custom 1/4 to 5/16 inch oil pump drive so you would also be updated on your ignition. Good luck

and finally, the 250/4.1 has a lill more tq to haul the heavier load U mention (1800 #) even @ 1500rpm/city & hill traffic..
(didn't they have the 240 awhile?)
would need the later doghouse as well (see vintage van dot com under the blue oval)