1964 Econoline upgrade
- Thread starter TheAardvark
- Start date
I think for me a direct mount Autolite 2100 over the header. From what I have read the Weber is difficult to tune and I am not aware of any documented performance increase over the Autolite. It looks cooler though.
If you can get parts off that Fairmount I would get the exhaust manifold. And pipe if it will fit your econoline.
If you can get parts off that Fairmount I would get the exhaust manifold. And pipe if it will fit your econoline.
once tuned they're GRRRRR-eat (remember Tony the Tiger?) ie "set it and forget it" (just like a Ronco, no?)
that one will need it - altho 4 a ford it is 1/2 size 4 a less than 2000cc motor, we need closer to 4000cc - if the 4.1L/250ci).
MAy B find a used one here that's been adapter by our ppl for the 3.3/ or 4.1? That'll B 1/2 priced I believe.
that one will need it - altho 4 a ford it is 1/2 size 4 a less than 2000cc motor, we need closer to 4000cc - if the 4.1L/250ci).
MAy B find a used one here that's been adapter by our ppl for the 3.3/ or 4.1? That'll B 1/2 priced I believe.
TheAardvark
New member
The 9" in the van has 4.11's. The 170 sounds like it is about to fly apart on the highway at 60. Will the 200 handle that better, or should I bring it down to 3.5's or 3.25's now that I have the bigger motor going in? Will a completely stock 200 push the van with a load with 3.25's and the C4 auto?
4.11's are way to short to comfortably drive highway speeds w/o overdrive. 3.25 would be much better for you. You'd lose a little pep off the line but it's a good compromise between highway and town. My 170 sounded like that @ 60 mph w/ 3.5:1 and a 3.03
The calculator on this website can be very helpful in determining the rear ratio you'd like to run,
http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html
The calculator on this website can be very helpful in determining the rear ratio you'd like to run,
http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html
RichCreations
Well-known member
TheAardvark":2geox3h2 said:
I am running 3.00 gears in my '65 with 200, but I have a 3-sp manual.
TheAardvark":2cusbj73 said: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?
That kit is designed for the 4 cylinder import cars and trucks yes those adapters won't fit a Ford 200 head without milling the head. They did work great on the numerous little 4 cylinder import engines that I used them on. If your budget is tight you could just use the late exhaust manafold and 1946 Holley carb thats already on your new engine. Plus it will have the DuraSpark II distributor just bolting it in as is going to be a great improvement over your 170. Good luck
TheAardvark
New member
bubba22349":2vp0ktvt said:TheAardvark":2vp0ktvt said: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?
That kit is designed for the 4 cylinder import cars and trucks yes those adapters won't fit a Ford 200 head without milling the head. They did work great on the numerous little 4 cylinder import engines that I used them on. If your budget is tight you could just use the late exhaust manafold and 1946 Holley carb thats already on your new engine. Plus it will have the DuraSpark II distributor just bolting it in as is going to be a great improvement over your 170. Good luck
If the compression is good and there are no filings in the pan (car was sitting for a while and was seized up, but broke free easily and seems to run well), then I will just polish it up and swap it wholesale, ehaust, carb, ign and everything.
If there is a compression issue, then I'll be doing a rebuild. If I decide to send the head in for service, I'll probably get it milled for the 2bbl... sounds like a pretty substantial increase in power and economy.
Now to find a set of 3.25's for the rear end, and a speedo calibration.
"…Will a completely stock 200 push the van with a load with 3.25's and the C4 auto?…" & 411 rear and ? sz tire?
I'd like U to state what kind of weight you'll haul -
AND
what kind of conditions (pullin a boat outta da water on steep ramp? drivin around San Deago on flat rds w/1 ton of iron to build a new set of kennel cages?) 2 answer that Q…
the C4 is fine, the 200 is fine (1V or 2), even the rear gear is OK… what's the rest of the equasion?
I'd like U to state what kind of weight you'll haul -
AND
what kind of conditions (pullin a boat outta da water on steep ramp? drivin around San Deago on flat rds w/1 ton of iron to build a new set of kennel cages?) 2 answer that Q…
the C4 is fine, the 200 is fine (1V or 2), even the rear gear is OK… what's the rest of the equasion?
TheAardvark
New member
Sorry...
I have 215/75 r14's on the back of the Van, I plan on beefing up the suspension considerably, and will be hauling 1 pallet at a time, 1500-2000 lbs inside the unit. I live in Winnipeg, in the flat of the prairies. No hills at all.
Thanks
I have 215/75 r14's on the back of the Van, I plan on beefing up the suspension considerably, and will be hauling 1 pallet at a time, 1500-2000 lbs inside the unit. I live in Winnipeg, in the flat of the prairies. No hills at all.
Thanks
in my humble opinion I don't believe you need to make any driveline changes beyond those you've listed.
I agree, the suspension should be upgraded or at least checked for soundness (wasn't it built for close to that kind of load anyway?). Wondering if frnt & reaqr sway bars R needed. One ton weight
Lastly - do U know if U have the big bearing rear end or was that later yrs? That will look like an axel tube that has the same diamiter all the way to the break's backing plate.
I agree, the suspension should be upgraded or at least checked for soundness (wasn't it built for close to that kind of load anyway?). Wondering if frnt & reaqr sway bars R needed. One ton weight
Lastly - do U know if U have the big bearing rear end or was that later yrs? That will look like an axel tube that has the same diamiter all the way to the break's backing plate.
TheAardvark
New member
[image]https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13442391_1322097871137939_5843047416285955156_n.jpg?oh=5dcb4a6298caf393004ccd399f505079&oe=57D654DB[/image]
Here is a picture of my naked rear end
Here is a picture of my naked rear end
for shame! TheAardvark
New member
Planning on having the leafs rebuilt and at least one added...
RichCreations
Well-known member
chad":2qzzjfqo said:
Considering that the frame (if you want to call it that) was made significantly stronger in '65, I would be a little worried about trying to put a whole ton in one... (it was a stretch of fords imagination to even call the HDs 3/4 ton)
And then there is the tires, these are not 16" bias ply truck tires we are talking about, but 14" passenger car tires, they won't be rated for that kind of load.
3/4 and 1 ton trucks never have 5x4.5 lugs either, they would at least have 5x 5.5 or even 6-8 lug...
I would be thinking of things like upgraded brakes and such as well...
Think of these as a 1/2 ton that ford already "fudged" to barely make it a 3/4 ton. (Actually, think of it as a falcon with a big trunk, as it has almost nothing "truck" about the suspension/drivetrain)
Just my two cents...
TheAardvark
New member
Wow... yeah, never even thought about the tires/lugs. Sigh. I guess it could pull a trailer with the load on it...
Similar threads
