1980 200 - is it worth buying?

[Anonymous]

Last week I came across and ad for a completely rebuilt 200. I finally got ahold of the owner last night. It's from an '80 fairmont wagon- he had it built to put into another car but sold it, so it's been sitting outside on a stand under some tarps" for about 4 years. Work done included bearings, cam, cylinder bore (he thinks it was bored to max. allowance but not sure- looking for paperwork) valves, etc. He spent $900 but is willing to sell it for less.

How big a risk am I taking? I'm concerned about internal rust- not just in the cylinders, but bearings and bottom end and valves. Turning the motor over will tell me it's not frozen, but won't too much rust in the cylinders cause break in troubles? With the continual bad luck I'm having with the rest of the stuff I'm doing on the falcon (rear bearing seals for the third time now :x ) I'm really hesitant to take a risk like this- even if it's just a few hundred bucks. That's a few hundred less I'd have to rebuild my other 200, and I don't have much financial leeway right now.

I also know that since this is a later engine, it will have lower compression and retarded timing, so I'l have to tear it down partway to fix those things as well as ad a port divider and deal with non emissions carb issues with the bigger intake hole. I have another connection on a mildly modded and rebuilt '65 200, which I'd prefer, but that is moving at a snail's pace, if at all, at the moment.

Any advice besides looking in the plug holes for rust? I probably won't see email before I see the motor tomorrow, but any tips are still welcome. Thanks!

Thor

 

[Anonymous]

When my 170 went out I was told any 200 would be a drop in fix and would work with my 2 speed tranny. So we bought a supposedly just rebuilt engine, ended up having to rebuild it, discovered it was a "low mount" 200 and will only work with a c-5 unless modified...so MY journey began. I'm happy where I ended up but be aware...

Oh and my engine was advertised as having been in a Mustang, just rebuilt, and the guy decided he wanted a v8.

 

[addo]

Offer $50. That's all it's worth, unquantified and unproven.

 

[Anonymous]

I looked at it today. Pulled the valve cover off- everything looked well oiled and fresh- no rust inside. I looked in the spark plug holes- I could see the hone marks still fresh on the cylinder walls and no rust inside. Everything, including the valve stems visible through the exhuast ports, was well-lubed.

My main concerns about this, besides the unproven condition, and unknown overbore, is that it's got all of these holes in the intake from all the emissions stuff. One is on the side of the intake right below the carb- probablly the size of a quarter (1/2 - 1/4 in ) for you aussies, and the other on top of the intake log about 1/2 way between the carb and the front of the engine. These would have to be plugged somehow. They are not threaded, if I recall.

He's not in a big hurry, nor am I, so I'm going to look into another rebuilt 200 and see what I can find.

Thor

 

[Anonymous]

I still haven't heard back- what would I have to do to get at least the equal performance of an earlier 200 out of the 1980 motor? I've heard these have less power than the earlier engines due to differant cam timing and compression and such. I think the carb bolt pattern is bigger as well, so there's fewer bolt on carb options. The carb that comes with it is a mess of hoses and vacum fittings and has been sitting in a pile of dirt for 4 years

 

[Anonymous]

Thor,
I have an 80 200 from a Fox Mustang in my 62 Falcon. I had minor problems rectifying the early vs late linkages, smog ports etc. but nothing that a little shade tree ingenuity couldn't cure. The biggest difference that I encountered was the rear sump pan and oil pump pick up. As I recall, I found that my front sump 170 pan and pickup tube would bolt up but that I had to massage the bottom of the pan a bit because the late 200 oil pump held the pickup a tad bit lower. This probably is not a problem for you because you have the early 200 to pick parts from.

The late model log heads have an EGR valve on the side of the intake just below the carb. In my case, I made a block off plate to cover the hole after the EGR was chucked. I also welded a nut on the block off plate to allow mounting of the stock Falcon throttle linkage bell crank which on the early car resided in the same location as the EGR. This took a little massaging of the linkage because it fit a little further out from the centerline of the carb. I adapted the big hole carb mount to a small hole early carb by simply making the mounting holes into slots into the carb adapter plate from an early 200. with a hack saw. I found no other "threadless" ports in the intake that couldn't be easily plugged.

I used the the C3 trans that came from the same car as the engine so I didn't have to do anything at the bell housing. I don't think that it would have been a problem had I had used an early trans because this is a dual pattern block.

All and all, I am very happy with my efforts. The car is much more of a pleasure to drive with the 3 spd auto trans and it has a whole lot more power than the 170.
Mike A

 

[Anonymous]

Falcon 64,

In response to your post in the other thread;

"According to the casting codes, my block is a '79 and my head is a '78. The '78 head doesn't have any holes in the intake for emissions stuff so I can't really help there. There is no large EGR hole in the side because the EGR was incorporated into the carb. spacer when this head was used.

I've never had any major problems with it, though. When it was rebuilt, the mechanic used a thicker composite head gasket along with the original Loadomatic dizzy. Earlier this year, I swapped them out for a steel shim head gasket and '68-73 dual advance dizzy. Big difference! The engine is much more responsive and runs smoother than it ever has.

If you're worried about the '80s emission heads, just look at Mustang_Geezer's great setup. He's using a 1980 head like what you're looking at"


The holley carb you are running- is that aftermarket, or the standard late 80's carb carb for your engine? I'm surprised you got better peformance going to the dual advance (I have this in my 170) over the ford duraspark that came on your engine.

I'm still deciding on carb choices, since the autolites I have are all PITAs, and the one on this 200 I'm looking at is junk. If Holley has a new (not rebuilt) one barrel that is something I have to consider, along with the one barrel webber.

Thor

 

[Anonymous]

The carb. I'm using is a remanufactured Holley 1946, the stock carb. used from '78-up. The '78 and possibly the '79 Holley 1946 carbs don't have all the emission stuff like the '80-up carbs do. It runs great once you can finally get it tuned. I mainly had choke setting problems with this one, but that's all fixed now that everything is set to stock specs.

I didn't swap from Duraspark to dual advance. When the mechanic rebuilt the '79 engine, he used the old Loadomatic from my original engine. That's what I upgraded from.

 

[Falcon62]

If you can pick it up for a couple hundred, it's worth it. What the guy spent on it isn't what he'll get for it. Make an offer, and walk away if the guy doesn't take it. Simple.

As long as the engine is a high mount 200, you should be fine. Swap parts as NorCal Mike suggested and press on. I'd use the DII distributor and find a carb with the 1.75" throttle bore, but without the smog crap. Don't you already have a Lokar cable setup, or was it a Lokar shifter?

Anyway, no need to be afraid of that 200 and it probably has no less compression than any other machine shop built motor. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Phil,

I've got a lokar trans shifter. As far as carbs go, I guess I'd just have to find the earlier model holley as Falcon64 is speaking of. Since the linkage is missing, I really can't tell how it was oriented with the carb and valve cover. I'd just as soon use the earlier style carb as NorcalMike did, so I can keep the stock linkage. I already have a newly rebuilt dual advance '68 distributor in my 170, so no changes needed there.

If I do end up getting this engine, outfitting it with various parts and installing it won't happen untill winter, most likely. I'm kind of afraid of swapping cams, so I might consider one of those rocker shafts that has t he differant ration for more performance. I don't quite understand about the oil pan being differant between the early 170 and 200, Mike- mine both look the same.

Thor

 

[Anonymous]

The carb and base plate I used were from a for 73 Maverick 200. I don't know the carb number. I just went down to the parts house and bought the rebuilt carb for that year.

As for the pan issue, I don't really know what was up with that other than the pan was not bent but when I tried to bolt it up to the block, the sump hit the pick up tube. I had to massage the sump with a ball peen hammer about
3/16" to get the pan to close shut. I used the 80 200 oil pump with the 170 pickup tube and pan. I assumed that the 200 oil pump may have been a bit taller than the 170.

Mike A

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm- maybe I can use the 170 pump, since I have a late '64 170 with the drive shaft that works with the later distributor. But I'm getting the cart before the horse, here.....

 

[hotrodbob]

The 200 you are looking at is a metric motor. Ford called it a 3.3 ltr. Bellhousing pattern will not work with earlier transmissions. Some mount holes are different.

 

[Anlushac11]

8)

I have a 1980 Mustang Ghia with a 200 and a c4. Nothing on my motor is metric and it was all dated 1978 as well.

The EGR an be blocked off with a homemade plate or a 351c fuel pump block off plate.

It does have the larger log.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not a metric motor; 3.3L is just another way of saying 200 ci, that's all. And the bellhousing pattern(s) will work. The '79 block I have has a dual pattern. I even used the old Fordomatic with this block for awhile with no problems.

 

[Anonymous]

Anlushac11,

If your motor/trans are labeled 1978, maybe the 1980 IS differant. Is there any specific way for me to tell, a measurement to take between bellhousing bolts or something, so I'm sure this will work on my '67 c-4?

Maybe hotrodbob is talking about the '81-83 motor with the small block/low mount starter bellhousing pattern? I wish I had an extra c-4 bellhousing to take along and check the pattern. Just found out the rebuilt and modified 200 I was hoping to get is not for sale (well, not without the 63 ranchero it comes in, and no I'm not buying another falcon!) so I'm going to have to give this engine some serious consideration.

Thor

 

[Anonymous]

The motor in my Falcon came from an 80 Mustang Ghia also. I interchanged many parts between it and my original 170 and an early 200 parts motor solots of stuff fits. I can't recall using any metric bolts in it. When I swapped motors between the 80 Mustang and my 62, I pulled parts and bolts off both cars and threw them all in the same bucket. When I was bolting things up, I just pulled stuff out of the bucket indiscrimanetly and bolted it up with no problems. I played around with several water pump/ pully/ balancer combos trying to find the best combo that would allow two fan belts to drive my AC compressor and still have radiator clearence. All these parts bolted up.

My 80 motor is a dual pattern block but it came equipped with a C3 rather than the C4. I have a high mount starter just like the early motors had. My 80 motor also has the large diameter log

When you change from rear sump to front sump pan you also have to change dipstick locations. This was no problem for me because the 80 block is drilled for both locations. I simply knocked out a little plug filling the front hole, installed a front sump dipstick tube and then plugged the rear hole with a dab of silicon.
Mike A

 

[hotrodbob]

I pulled a 6 from an 80 Mustang and when I got it home the starter position and bellhousing pattern were different. I was told then that it was a metric motor, not that it had metric threads and bolts, but that it was called a 3.3 ltr rather then a 200 cu.in. My manual trans bell housing would not fit and there was only one bolt pattern on the back. I should have pulled the bell housing and trans (4speed w/od) with it but didn't and when I got back to Pick your part that stuff was gone. I found a '68 200 and that had a dual pattern for the bell housing. There is mention of this 3.3 block in the Brothers performance book

 

[Anonymous]

I think the 3.3 engine is probably the one with the v-8 bellhusing pattern/low mount starter.

 

[Anonymous]

3.3L is just another measurement of the cid of the engine. It doesn't refer to any specific block. Look up a '65 Mustang in an auto parts store catalog. It shows a 3.3L 200 ci 6 cylinder for 1965.

The block you are talking about with the different starter position is the "Big Bell 200." The starter is low, and it has 2/3 of a V8 bellhousing pattern. These were made in the early '80s and commonly used a C5 automatic transmission. From what I've read and gathered, there was no definite transition date from the high mount block to the low mount block. It just happened whenever all the high mounts were used up.

As long as you find one with the high mount starter, everything should work fine.