1964 Econoline upgrade

[Econoline]

would need the later doghouse as well (see vintage van dot com under the blue oval)

That's not nessecarily true. I don't have the 250 in my 64 just yet but I've done some measuring and I think the 250 will fit just fine. I got a 65 doghouse from a yard in Spokane, but then realized there is more to it than just a height difference, they changed the shape as well under and behind the drivers seat it's wider. Looks like a lot of work or a hack job to get it in. He will run into a problem going with either a 200 low mount or a 250 with needing a hump for the bigger bell. And the extra weight off the 250 and torque on those sheet metal hangers. Maybe driveshaft mod needed as well.

A 200 high mount is the way to go for you, unless you want to start cutting things and adding crossmembers. Preferably a late 70's or a '69 on 200. I would have gone with a 200 myself, but I wanted to swap to an automatic and going with the 250 gave me the option of using an AOD and having overdrive, so I went that route, got a 170 x-member out of a 65 and aftermarket tranny member w/ 8" drop. 9" rear end from a 65. Like I said 64 was the first year of an auto option and it's a unique configuration, easier for you to stick with it unless you just gotta have overdrive.

 

[RichCreations]

would need the later doghouse as well (see vintage van dot com under the blue oval)

That's not nessecarily true. I don't have the 250 in my 64 just yet but I've done some measuring and I think the 250 will fit just fine. I got a 65 doghouse from a yard in Spokane, but then realized there is more to it than just a height difference, they changed the shape as well under and behind the drivers seat it's wider. Looks like a lot of work or a hack job to get it in. He will run into a problem going with either a 200 low mount or a 250 with needing a hump for the bigger bell. And the extra weight off the 250 and torque on those sheet metal hangers. Maybe driveshaft mod needed as well.

A 200 high mount is the way to go for you, unless you want to start cutting things and adding crossmembers. Preferably a late 70's or a '69 on 200. I would have gone with a 200 myself, but I wanted to swap to an automatic and going with the 250 gave me the option of using an AOD and having overdrive, so I went that route, got a 170 x-member out of a 65 and aftermarket tranny member w/ 8" drop. 9" rear end from a 65. Like I said 64 was the first year of an auto option and it's a unique configuration, easier for you to stick with it unless you just gotta have overdrive.

Using Stock mounts/bell, he can bolt in a high mount 200, using a v8 bell (or a 250) will require modifying the doghouse to make a hump in the back (like the later vans)

 

[Econoline]

yep

 

[chad]

funny - both of us went with the transmission (sorta) B4 the motor… I (anyway) wanted the falcon (tq in a 4L or less) but a 'truck' transmission…
250 has the SBF bell.
The 200 is more of a pep than tq motor (isn't it pretty much a 'square' design?) no?
Tops for haulin would B the 240 or 300 but not sure how that would fit an early Econo.
One forum on here claims it to be a race motor…

 

[Econoline]

65-67's had an option for a 240, the 'Super vans', 'Heavy Duty' Vans and most Falcon Vans all came with 9" rear ends and 240's after '64. That's why they changed the dog house. The 240 vans also have a larger radiator, which is currently obsolete. 61-64, the 'Heavy Duty' vans came with 170's and 9" rears LOL

 

[chad]

then THAT must B Jeff's. (the classy "8 door').

Do Econo & RC have that model, boys?

Didn't the late 60's make em all heavier duty (E100, etc )?

 

[RichCreations]

then THAT must B Jeff's. (the classy "8 door').

Do Econo & RC have that model, boys?

Didn't the late 60's make em all heavier duty (E100, etc )?

In 65 the frames became thicker, and most had the 240... Heavy Duty means 3/4 ton, most were 1/2 ton.

I have a '65 6 door window van, Ex Bell telephone service van. Mine has the small 6, 9" rear, and HD suspension/brakes (an odd combo in '65, likely special order for ma bell).

 

[chad]

one of our long time members over at FTE (lives in Reading, MA) has that rig but in a pick up (a Bell utility body I think, but could B an F100 w/ a 240)
pretty kouwell.

 

[cr_bobcat]

Someone on M6A facebook has a comp 260H with lifters for $140. Might be a good choice for the van

 

[RichCreations]

Someone on M6A facebook has a comp 260H with lifters for $140. Might be a good choice for the van

Not as good as a Schneider 256H would be...

 

[TheAardvark]

OK, I got a donor 1980 Fairmont Wagon with a 3.3 (200) in it. Going to swap it over, change to a header and get rid of the air pump, etc, get rid of the PS/PB pumps, but use the wiring harness, EI and alternator.

Doing a compression test, and if it comes up peachy, we'll just swap it in. If there is an issue, we will probably do a rebuild. At which time I may consider a cam, etc.

Anything on this year of engine that is a quick, cheap and easy HP upgrade? Is the 2bbl upgrade worth doing?

 

[chad]

may B take that head & work it while the motor has the other head on?
Work the truck for income to put into machining the head & 2V direct mount.
Replace the bolts w/studs so when the head is done ($300 - 6) U can just pull
the 1 and drop it on?
Oh, wait a sec - a 170 on the 200 may not go up & down the hills.

3 angel valve job, back cut valves, etc, etc
if all that doesn't give U what U seek - a cam (springs, etc) but I'd be surprised
if ur smile wasn't big enuff after the 170 to 200 change (is not enuff).

 

[TheAardvark]

So, this kit would allow me to mill the intake manifold and adapt the 2 bbl, right? And this is the 2bbl of choice? Electric choke?

http://www.webercarbsdirect.com/product-p/wk663.htm

And then its just reworking the throttle linkages...


So, if I had to choose one modification, header or carb? I'm probably going to do both... but if just one, which one?

 

[Econoline]

Does that '80 have a high mount starter?

 

[RichCreations]

Does that '80 have a high mount starter?

I believe all 200s after 78 are low mount, and won't work...

 

[Econoline]

I've read that some were and some weren't. If it has a c4 he may be a able to swap the bell housings and be ok, but that could lead to other problems like bell clearance w/o a tunnel in his 64.

 

[TheAardvark]

Pretty sure it is a high mount... weren't the low mounts only on the 250's?

 

[cr_bobcat]

I think most folks use the DGV instead of the DGEV. Might want to check. There's a feller on here by the handle xtasy that has written volumes on the tuning of these Webers. Might want to peruse those threads and see what has been done out there.

Then I would just get the adapter: http://www.vintageinlines.com/#!product ... e13c682eb8

Maybe the linkage kit: http://www.vintageinlines.com/#!product ... 290030d1e2

I know Matt has a complete conversion kit for sale but I think it's the adapter and not direct mount. Might give him a call to find out whether or not he's able to package things up differently. I know he expressed an interest in creating packages that folks can just buy for staged upgrades.

Good luck and keep us informed!

 

[RichCreations]

Pretty sure it is a high mount... weren't the low mounts only on the 250's?

I thought the "FOX" platform ('78+) 200s were low mount...

 

[Econoline]

The last generation of the US 200 block was a low mount with a different, partial sbf, bell housing. Better check that block b4 you pull the trigger.