170 Insane mod ideas

[Anonymous]

OK.I bet this one has been beat to death.Heres the question.If a 170 has a bore of 3.500" and a stroke of 2.940" can it be overbored to 3.742" safely?If I'm figuring this right,provided it can be done safely, that would bring the 170 up to 194CID.Then take it and mill the head .020 to bring the compression back up closer to when it was out of the factory,cause of these thicker head gasketswe have now,and have an ESTIMATED CR of around 9.7:1.If I need to bring the CR down a little I can always use dished pistons right?That and here's a wild one to throw at you.In the 70's they got rid of the 7 mains and went back to 4 on the 200 right?If thats the case are the crank and rods from a 70's model 200 interchangable with an earlier,say '65,170?If thats possible would that lengthen the stroke to 3.126 like the 200 instead of 2.940 as stock for the 170?LoL I know this is some wild and crazy mickey mouse horse....road apples but is it possible?

 

[Anonymous]

It would be easier if you found yourself a 200 at the junkyard and rebuilt that. The 200 has the same external dimensions, no modding necessary.

 

[Anonymous]

what's the fun in that?

 

[StrangeRanger]

Spending the same amount of money on parts to build a really strong 200?

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah but how often do you hear of a 184 Stroker?Or something like that?

 

[63redtudor]

All 200 that I know of (in the states anyway) after '65 had 7 mains that I know of. I've heard of the the supposed later 70's 200s with 4 mains, but thats it. I think they may be an urban myth. The '63-4 200s did have 4 mains though. If you look carefully you can one of these motors. A while back there was one of these cranks on e-bay. I'm not all that sure that a 170 block could take a .242" over bore safely. By the time that ford came out with the 170 the thin wall casting proccess had been perfected. However, the EARLY 144s tended to have a bit more meat on them as ford was still working out the casting proccess. These early blocks can be bored to at least .100" over.
One thing you might consider is finding one of the early, 4 main 200s & putting in a 144 crank, destroking it to about 160ci. Why? Well, hotrodders discovered that the litttle 2.5" stroke made the 144 a real screamer, even with the 4 mains. This motor wouldn't have much torque, but could be spooled up pretty tight. Probably wouldn't do very well in a regular car, but would probably do great in a T-bucket or something simular. Just some thoughts.
Edwin

 

[Guest]

Here's a novel idea. Put one of your high reving 200 destrokers into a Factory Five Racing Shelby Cobra kit. I think it might fit although I have never seen it done. Before the "Shelby Cobra", the car was known as the AC Ace. AC Aces origionally used ford inline sixes. A hopped up six in a cobra chasis could have a really excellent power to weight ratio, especially if you made efforts to keep the weight down. Oh and another thing (I have never had one apart), but weren't the 170's 5 main bearings? My only experience with ford sixes is with my dad's '72 Maverick and a customer's 65 mustang with a 200. Neither one has ever been rebuilt or modified though.

 

[FastRonald]

8) I agree.....start with a 200

 

[StrangeRanger]

AC Aces origionally used ford inline sixes.

The AC Ace originally used an engine of AC's own design. By the 60s they were using a Bristol engine. If they ever used a Ford 6, it's news to me.

 

[xctasy]

The delicate, spunky AC Acea,and Ace tourer was fitted with an undersqure 65 x 100mm six. This was based on the 1919 engine, and only gave 85 to 100 hp in its 44 th year.

AC's customers demandedmore, so optioned up the the Ford Zephyr six from 1958 to 1964. This was a 2.6 liter, 155cube six. With triple SU H6 carbs from the Andrews tuning concearn. It gave 155 hp with the stock four-bearing six.

It dated back to the 1951 inline 2.262 liter, 138 cube six and 92 cube Consul four, and was no relation to our Falcon engines. It did have a restricted exhast and single carb in stock form, but with a nasty 9 port head. It was quite an advance unit in that it was the first engine in Europe not to cow-tow to the RAC bore taxation restriction which created cars like the small bore V8 '60' engines in Ford Pilots and early Ford V8's. It was the first of the short-stroke engines, of which the 144 Falcon and 950 cc Anglia engines shared a design ethos of very shallow engines with wide bore spacings. These are the characteristics which have ensured the Falcon XK design is still with us in 4.0 liter DOHC form in 2004!

Even in the Zephyr, the little 155 cube engine had a 3.25" bore, and 3.00" stroke, and spun like a top! Last engine was made in 1964 for AC, but was also used in the Reliant Scimatar predeccesor in 1966. Ford of England and Europe had by then gotten bitten by the 60 degree V4 and V6 engines, and the Zephyr engine was scrapped after 16 years service

By which time the AC had sercumbed to the motion of expert snake chalmer Carrol Shelby. 221, 260, 289, 427 and then 428. Ah, the sound of GUNS!!!!!!!

 

[Guest]

That would make sense since the book I was reading was european. Oh well, I still think you could make a cool cobra with a falcon engine if it could be done. Might be a good idea with the destroker engine.

 

[addo]

A Cobra replica with hybrid power would be funnier! The only one built for mileage! :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Still, the myth persists.
De-stroke it for higher RPM... and less power, more $$$, more breakage.

Why do you think the single rule that exists in all classes and forms of racing is DISPLACEMENT?
Because the biggest motor wins.

Please, spare the usual "but what if...?", and single-exception comments.

 

[MustangSix]

I have to agree. The stock 200 already has a relatively short stroke and will rev easily if you can make it breath. I just don't think there is any comparative advantage to spending lots of money to build a big bore 200 out of a 170.

One old mechanic mentor taught me that the four cycle gasoline piston engine operated on the principle of suck, squeeze, bang, blow...... and that to make more power you needed bigger bangs, better bangs, more bangs, or more bangs per minute.....or any combination thereof, but the easiest by far was simply bigger bangs.

I suppose that if the operating condition were sustained high rpm, a short stroke engine might be more desirable than a long stroke engine of equal displacement (extended journey on the Autobahn? Salt Flats?) But most of us don't really drive that way and on the dragstrip, that isn't always optimal either.

 

[addo]

The Argentinian 188 is a 170 five main crank in a 200 block, and was/is popular for the TC series of racing. That over the larger 221 motors. I'm not sure why this is so - maybe the rod ratio (at higher RPMs) was more reliable.

There has to be an amount of ego in high RPM too. Torque generated at lower speeds doesn't seem to have the same appeal.

 

[Anonymous]

If this was a displacement-limited class, I would immediately vote for largest bore, then shorten the stroke to just make the limit (especially where head flow is not ideal).
However, an indifferently-shaped port does not do well at high RPM regardless of CFM vs. displacement because rapid flow reversals accentuate port shape errors.
The 170 stroke should be capable of higher RPM than the valve gear will tolerate (the usual 4K limit = 8170 RPM), but the spring pressure needed for reliable operation at that speed will give a big hit to the budget (no stock parts used) and the cam/rockers/stem tips/lifters won't last very long.
For those who enjoy math: the Lanchester formula:
http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/no-scale.htm