1963 170 to 144 Interchange- Questions

[khughesprime]

Alright. I have a 1963 170 that I want to remove for a 144. I would like to know what all I can use from the 170 for the 144 for rebuilding purposes or spares. Basically I need to know what will interchange. Any help appreciated. Thanks

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy back:

IF I understand you correctly, you want to know what of the 170 you can use on the 144 engine build????

If that is so, know that both are very similiar in design and function. About the only thing that may not be interchangeable would be the connecting rods, because of length.

The stock 144 head, casting #C0DE-A, has a intake tract volume of 850 ccs, intake valve diameter of 1.46", exhaust 1.266" and a chamber volume ranging all the way from a low of 44 to a high of 51 ccs.

The stock 170 head, casting # C3DE-D, has a intake tract volume of 890 ccs, intake valve diameter of 1.52", exhaust 1.266" and a chamber volume ranging from a low of 48 to a high of 52 ccs.

Both came from the factory with a steel shim head gasket with a compressed thickness of .025". These gaskets are no longer available and are rare to find as NOS. This will be an important part of maintaining the stock 8.7:1 advertized compression ratio.

Both have a carb bore hole measuring 1.5". And both used a solid lifter oiling system with adjustible rocker arms. All interchangeable. Both will have the small distributor mounting hole in the block and the smaller drive shaft off of the oil pump, making upgrading a modification effort or big bucks to buy aftermarket stuff to fit.

The '63 will have a better (Less back pressure and less prone to cracking) exhaust manifold with a 2" outlet and a donut type gasket to the head pipe. The 144 will likely have a 1.75" outlet and a flat gasket to the head pipe.

If you're going for economy use the '63 head and maintain the highest manageable compression ratio. For economy the goal is to keep the heat in and manage it.

The stock 144 cam has only 232 degrees of duration, but with an advertized lift of .360". 144 and early 170 cames are interchangeable, but I'm not sure about timing chain and gears. They must be the early, solid lifter type though. Know the 170 somewhere after the '64/'65 model year went to hydraulic lifters and matching cam.

Hope that will get you started.

Adios, David

 

[khughesprime]

Thank you for your time and energy. Yeah I will be putting in a 144 and I needed to know what parts from the 170 I could save as spares. Thank you for the information. I'll be buying the Falcon 6 Performance Handbook soon and I'm sure I'll have lots of questions then.

 

[Griny]

And both used a solid lifter oiling system with adjustible rocker arms

Not all the 63 144's have solid lifters
I read in the Ford Falcon performance book also that the 144's and 170 from 1960 till 1964 have solid lifters
In the 1963 suplement Falcon shop manual this page clearly states that,

And these I found in my engine,

They state in the Falcon Performance book that there wouldn't be a oil channel, there is one is mine though.

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy Back:

Griny- I'd be very interested to know the casting number on your 144 block with Oil channels for hydraulic lifters. Thanks, in advance.

Adios, David

 

[Griny]

I know the son of the previous owner, they said it is the original engine.
Now I did an inquiry before and they confirmed that it is an 63 144.
but here it is anyway,

 

[khughesprime]

I just ordered the book today. Maybe I'll figure out what yall are talkin' 'bout later. Griny- got any spare 144 stuff for sale? CZLN6- Please don't hold up my order on account of an amendment or anything

 

[Griny]

hmmm no, I used everything I ordered from Ebay.
You might wanna shop on Ebay for NOS or new parts. If you have the time, there are still a lot of parts out there! Sometimes graigslist.com has some Falcon stuff too.
Good luck
-Kornelis

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy back Kornelis:

Thanks for the info. You have a very rare piece.

As always with FoMoCo, never say "Never" or "Always"!

Thanks again.

Hughes-I will pursue verification before the amendment gets printed.

Adios, David

 

[Griny]

You have a very rare piece.

Now don't be offended but could you explain the page about the hydraulic lifters in the Falcon 63 supplement shop manual?
I kinda love the idea the engine I have is rare but if they state in the manual that the 63 144 comes with hydraulic lifters, how can mine be rare?
About the rare steel shim gasket, I found one on Ebay the other day, any special care or is the torque the same?
-Kornelis

 

[Hot 6t Falcon]

How's this for the next edition of the Falcon SIX Cylinder Performance Handbook?

Page 8; Right column; 4th paragraph;

"While we aware of a C3DE (1963) block with hydraulic lifters, it wasn’t until the 1964 model year all engines were fitted with hydraulic lifters."

Thanks for the info. We are always ready to learn new stuff and to make changes.

 

[addo]

One of the Aussies here ("yappy") put a hydraulic cam in his solid lifter 170. Apparently the oil passages were exactly as Griny showed; not a thing required to do.

Regards, Adam.

 

[khughesprime]

Thanks for the info Griny. Hey-was the motor ever rebuilt before you got it? Maybe it got tore down and rebuilt to later specs or different and the shop didn't notice or made a little extra. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Griny]

Hey-was the motor ever rebuilt before you got it? Maybe it got tore down and rebuilt to later specs or different and the shop didn't notice or made a little extra

Actually it was rebuilt, I talked to the son of the previous owner, he is the first owner.
He said it was rebuilt in 1972 but they didn't do a great job because they never honed the cylinder walls and put new rings in anyway. The compression was very low. There were some weird scoring marks in the walls in cylinder #4 I was lucky that I could hone it out though.

The only thing they did was some minor head work and piston rings replacement.
The engine has never been in a shop before they claim.

One of the Aussies here ("yappy") put a hydraulic cam in his solid lifter 170. Apparently the oil passages were exactly as Griny showed; not a thing required to do.

I was thinking about changes in that year, the snorkel on the airfilter is one of them.
I have the breather tube going down but I do have a snorkel on the filter. So the change didn't quit make it yet lol
So maybe they were ahead with some of the machine work to the engine.
That explaines Yappy's 170, but then again USA and Ausie Fords weren't exactly the same.

-Kornelis

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy Back All:

Kornelis wrote- "Now don't be offended but could you explain the page about the hydraulic lifters in the Falcon '63 Supplement Shop Manual?"

No offense, It's just that this is another proof that what FoMoCo says, (or prints) and what is reality are sometimes similiar.

Exceptions are more the rule than rules. I have not seen the '63 supplementary shop manual, nor have I seen a '63 144 or 170 with hydraulic lifters- but I'm often surprized.

The difficulty is that from 1963 to 1965 FoMoCos small sixes were going through several evolutionary changes; the 200 was becoming the standard, it was going to seven main bearings, hydraulic lifters were becoming the standard, the size of the oil pump driveshaft was increased, and the hole in the block that the distributor base passes through was enlarged- are just a few of the obvious changes.

So, as I said, with FoMoCo it is very risky to use words like "Always" or "Never".

I'm sure you've checked the bore to verify that this is a 144 or a 170 and not an early 200 with 5 mains and plumbed for Hyd lifters. 1964 was a major change-around year and the "E" suffix makes me suspious.

I think you can safely say you have a "rare" piece.

Adios, David