200 no longer usable, building replacement 200 or 250

[62Ranchero200]

Greetings Ford Six Fans,

The 200 in my '62 Ranchero had unknown mileage and was in unknown condition when I purchased the car. Hoping to get more life out of the short block, I had the head rebuilt and replaced many critical parts, like the oil pump, timing set, water pump, etc. I also installed a Clay Smith cam.

Last couple of weeks I had a mysterious oil leak that was leaving oil spattered all over the driver's side of the block. Sunday night it finally became crystal clear: oil droplets were leaking from any available orifice due to excessive blow-by. So, the short block obviously needs attention. While I could pull the head off with the engine in the car and see if any piston(s) are worse than others, I'd rather not cut corners. Going to locate a 200 or 250 and build up a durable short block. Going to try to find something locally, to save shipping cost, but if I can't I'll ultimately find one wherever I can.

This process may take many months ... just the rebuild on the head took maybe 6-8 weeks. If I don't post here for a time, it's not because I'm no longer devoted to the Ford six.

Bob the Builder

 

[Gene Fiore]

Been there, done that. That's what happens when you get excessive pressure in the crankcase due to broken/cracked pistons and/or rings. Most likely you were blowing oil out the dipstick tube.

 

[bmbm40]

Good luck on your new build. Are you near any wrecking yards that have old Ford stuff, they turn up in there occasionally, picnpul has been my favorite. A guy in Las Cruces had a 250 a few weeks ago for $350.

 

[F100_SWB]

I purchased a complete 250 with c4 out of a maverick for $250 a couple months back. The guy had his maverick project already sold on craigslist and was tickled that I'd even think to ask him about the engine that he had taken out. Seems like a lot of fellas don't know what to do with these fine motors when they swap them for v8s. Found another one for $50 out in the sticks somewhere in Arkansas. Guess what I'm trying to say is that creativity and patience are your friend since you already have a good idea about what you want.

 

[62Ranchero200]

I purchased a complete 250 with c4 out of a maverick for $250 a couple months back. The guy had his maverick project already sold on craigslist and was tickled that I'd even think to ask him about the engine that he had taken out. Seems like a lot of fellas don't know what to do with these fine motors when they swap them for v8s. Found another one for $50 out in the sticks somewhere in Arkansas. Guess what I'm trying to say is that creativity and patience are your friend since you already have a good idea about what you want.

There's a complete 250 with a C4 flexplate on Houston craigslist for $200. The owner says it was pulled from a '74 Maverick that had 45,000 original miles and that it will turn over once the spark plugs are removed. IF this is true, this should make a very good platform to rebuild. I won't be able to see internal damage, but I will certainly double-check that it is a 250 and not a 200 before I hand over the cash (many people don't seem to know how to identify the various Ford sixes).

Bob the Builder

 

[First Fox]

Sorry to hear about that Bob. As an important side note and a dash of salt in the wound, if you go the 250 route you will have to locate a trans also. I believe the 250 uses the SBF bellhousing.

If this is not your daily driver, why not rebuild what you have now? You already have the forged rods in yours if it is original and are ahead of the game there. If were to deal with a decent machine shop and you do your part as far as locating parts quickly, you should be able to have a bread and butter 200 rebuilt and re-installed in a couple weeks, 30 days tops.

 

[Jakes66snake]

Not to hijack.... but can you feel the difference between a 200 and 250? Looking at the dyno results there isn't much or any difference in hp or tq. I'm trying to figure out what will be going in my 66. I have a 69 250 and a 67 200. First thought was go big, but is the 15 ft lbs of tq worth the required mods for the install. And looking at track times and dyno pulls a mod large log 200 seems to be the ticket.

 

[xctasy]

Yes, the torque is always worth it, its a proportional 25% improvement. Its under a lot less stress than the 200 because of that factor alone. On a 250 with an aftermarket head with big 1.625" ports, like the 2V 250 or Classic Inlines head, is really made for the 250, it works best on that engine size. Its because you gain back a huge amount of street drivability and a lot of low end torque that a high spinning 200 2V or Aluminum head CI 200 engine won't have. That is the back drop to its true worth. An especially easy to find engine since its in the worlds most ignored cars. The L and C code 250's from 12 years of Rancheros, Mavericks, Monarachs and Grannies. You find those under any spreading tree or urban breaker that hasn't smeltered the iron for WallMart cans or drill presses. In its first year it was rated strong, but the combo wasn't as good as its power rating. In any case, the L-code got rated as 155 to 145 hp gross verses 120 or 115 hp T-code , or the C-code 99 hp net verses the T and B code 85 to 92 hp. The 250/4.1 is always a slightly more powerfull than 200 engine that lookes the same but is a lot more sublime than its little brother.

Checked neagatives against it:
The Power increase on a stock 250 verses a stock 200 isn't proportional, its only 9% at best. Case for case for any similar engine combo. US 250 vs US 200, Aussie 250 verses Aussie 200, Same if its cross flow, 3.2 or 3.9 OHC, turbo, Classic Inline headed, and certainly the case when the stock air flow limited head is used.

When the 9% boost in power is Factored against the 6%to sometimes 12% weight increase, most of it over the nose, some of it over the tail, the weight then makes the steering heavier, requiring power assistance for some people, the engine 460 pounds verses 385 pounds, but with the better transmissions and diffs and suspension and braking quality required to contain the grunt, your looking at well over 150 pounds of extra mass. So that 9% potential power boost driven through a 250/C4 is no advantage over a 200 with T5. Proven many times

I have an example, a good T-5 3.3 did 17.9 sec 1.4 mile in a Aussie 1980's Falcon, but only 18 secs for an auto 4.1. On their 2-bbl engines with 2v 250 intake flow rates of 145 cfm at 25"H20, thats 121 hp verses 131 hp. Average US Miles per gallon for the 3.3 was 27.2 mpg, but only 22 mpg for the auto 4.1 which was often 12% heavier with extra appointments (a/c, auto, power steering)

The 250 is sort of like a 2V Windsor 351 or 400 Ford compared to the 289 or 302, an engine unresponsive to small modifications compared to the 200. But when its given a free flowing cylinder head like Mikes, a good triple hole intake manifold, proper pistons deck to block clearance, and its then cammed, carbed up and exhasted properly, it then becomes a standout engine, and the weight, size and donkey minded stubburness is made up for by its strength. 100 pounds of extra block, gearbox and diff are nothing. Then it shows its true mettle. With the head, pistons and rods are upgraded, this long stroke best with a turbo upgrade can get proportional 25% power boosts because big engines love turbos more than little ones. It is then propable one of the worlds most responsive engine to cam changes, they just lap up longer durations cams that really shouldn't work. Check out Cortina 6, or XD/XE/XF Falcon or Fairmont turboon youtube. 11 second 2600 to 3600 pound turbo and Xlfow machines galore. That's why the Aussies make any turbo or 4-bbl or EFI 250 into such a potential sub 11 second animal;its the cam and the ability to get those heads to flow that make those birds fly. Same applies to the US 250, as its got a heart of pure steel.

The only real negatives are the cast rods, the 103 thou piston to cylinder head short fall, and the extra 1.67 inches of deck height in the engine that make it such a pest to package...Weight and the rest is easy to cope with.

 

[62Ranchero200]

Sorry to hear about that Bob. As an important side note and a dash of salt in the wound, if you go the 250 route you will have to locate a trans also. I believe the 250 uses the SBF bellhousing.

If this is not your daily driver, why not rebuild what you have now? You already have the forged rods in yours if it is original and are ahead of the game there. If were to deal with a decent machine shop and you do your part as far as locating parts quickly, you should be able to have a bread and butter 200 rebuilt and re-installed in a couple weeks, 30 days tops.

Hi FF,

I've already upgraded to a V8 radiator, and in the process cut the core support to move the radiator forward as much as possible. Also, the Ranchero already has a C-4, so I believe I can keep that transmission and just replace the bellhousing (I believe the 250 accepts a SBF bellhousing). So, I think the only fitment issues I would have with a 250 are the steering centerlink rubbing on the starter (there's a fix for that in the Falcon Six Handbook) and the taller engine, resulting in less hood clearance. I already have one of Mike's low profile carb hats, but if even that doesn't clear I can order some kind of fiberglass hood with a hood scoop, or just cut the steel hood I have and add a hood scoop. That would not be a priority, I could run it without a hood for a while if necessary. It's not my daily driver and I don't take it out in the rain or leave it parked anywhere except cruise-ins.

To me, having to pull the engine and rebuild or replace it is a very large project, so after all that work I don't want to go back with just a bread and butter build ... at a minimum, I'd like to use main and head studs, ARP rod bolts, flattop pistons, and have the rotating assembly balanced. I'm also flirting with the idea of ordering forged pistons (I don't mind the $800 price much, it's the 4-6 week delay I don't like). I already have an Autolite 2100 carb, Clay Smith cam and DUI ignition I could put into the 250.

Also, I have always believed that low RPM torque is the key to driveability and driving enjoyment on any street car, and the 250 is bound to have more low end torque than the 200 in any trim. I'm not going to build a high RPM race motor with either package; the motor will probably always be limited to 5,000 RPM for maximum durability.

All that said, if the 250 deal falls through, I would certainly consider rebuilding the 200 that I have, or buying a built-up 200 short block if I could find one of those.

Thanks
Bob the Builder

 

[bmbm40]

Yep the 250 accepts sbf bell so you have lots of trans choices, for me that was the reason for pulling my 200. The 200 was a great motor, really seemed to rev easy.
At least in my particular situation my stock 1969 250 with DSII has way more torque than the 81 200 with points. For me it is more driveable with the low end torque and the five speeds versus the old 200 three speed, just give it some gas and keep shifting gears, no need to rev real high. It just so happens that the low end torque was beneficial for the way I drive this particular vehicle. So based on how you drive where would you like your max torque to be? Have you considered an aod? Wrecking yards are probably full of them and the od is nice on the highway.