What are the pros and cons of keeping the 200 in a 66 coupe as opposed to swapping out for a 250. Either motor will have the Aussie head and be completely rebuilt, bolted to a T5. It seams the 250 is a better way to go as it will already have the small block bolt pattern and the extra cubes. Any thoughts, opinions?
200 vs 250
- Thread starter mattri
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
use a 250 crank with 200 rods.
250 head for a cam 250-270
200 head for a cam 270- 320+
250 head for a cam 250-270
200 head for a cam 270- 320+
A
Anonymous
Guest
Huntersbo":2m40vvmz said:
Do what?
The 250 deffinitely has a lot more down low grunt and mid range power. It can also be a PITA to swap. Little things like radiators, coolant hoses, hood clearance, fan clearance, and motor - frame brackets (the 250 is taller and WIDER than a 200) can some times have you scratching your head.
If I had the decission again, I'd keep the 200 just for simplicity (doing the Oz head and T5 on the 200 are just as easy), and go with some type of power adder if I felt the need for more speed.
A
Anonymous
Guest
mattri":386vnwnt said:
Mounts - kind of. The problem is the bolt pattern of the frame brackets where they attach to the frame/shock tower. The early Falcons used one pattern, '65/'66 Mustangs used another pattern, '67/'68 another pattern, then another, another for Mavs, another for Granadas..... So basically, you will have to drill holes in the frame to fit the new mounts. I used Granada 250 mounts.
I used a radiator for a '69 Mustang with a 250. It bolted right into my '68. Hoses were another story. I'm SO glad I worked for a parts store at the time. I ended up piecing 4 oddball hoses together to make 2.
8) i am going to go through the hassle of a 170 to 250 swap in my falcon one day soon, as i want the 80 extra cubic inches. that said, i say it depends on what you are looking for in the swap. a 200 will rev a bit higher than the 250 due the better rod/stroke ratio, but the 250 makes better power down low. you can make up for some of the deficiencies of each engine by changing gearing, performance mods, etc.
Howdy All:
Mattri- The 250s bell housing makes the T5 addition a little easier. Although with the adaptor availabel today, putting a T5 to a 200 is only slightly more involved.
Rbohm- Rod to stroke ratios- The 200 and 250 have identical r:s ratios. The 200= 4.715" to 3.126" bore = 1.508. 250= 5.88" to 3.91" bore = 1.503.
Huntersbo- I do not understand where you're coming from by using 250 crank with 200 rods? The 250 crank will not physically fit in a 200 block. and the rod length to stroke ratio would be pretty bad @ 1.25. Am I missing spmething? Please explain. And, after 1970 the 200 and 250 heads are identical.
The short comings of the 250 are the width at the bottom half of the block. The 250 is wider due to the diameter of the crank throws. That's what puts the engine mounts into a mess. The goal is to get the 250 to set as low and as far back in the engine bay as possible. Clearance with the hood on top and steering links on the bottom makes for a challenge. Is is worth it? I think so. What do you think?
Slotting the mount brackets, frame side and engine side can help to some extent.
The issue of revving is also moot, IMHO. Neither engine should be built for extended use above 6 grand.
The other limiting factor with the 250 is the emense deck height of the 250. It will be in the .150" range. That plus a composite head gasket makes for mediocre combustion efficency. Decking can help to the tune of .050" to .060". Off set grinding the crank can help .010 to .020" depending on the crank. 255 V8 pistons can gain .085". And using the Tempo rods, (2.3 HSC I believe) maybe be helpful. The 1st three options are proven. I don't know of anyone who has used the Tempo rods yet.
All of these solutions to the deck height problem cause the CR to be raised. That can be dealt with by cutting a "D" shaped dish into each piston face, mimicking the shape of the combustion chamber, and reshaping the chamber to unshroud to valves.
Is the 50 more cubic inches worth all this additional trouble and expense? that's up to you.
I can't wait to see what you decide.
Enjoy the journey.
Adios, David
Mattri- The 250s bell housing makes the T5 addition a little easier. Although with the adaptor availabel today, putting a T5 to a 200 is only slightly more involved.
Rbohm- Rod to stroke ratios- The 200 and 250 have identical r:s ratios. The 200= 4.715" to 3.126" bore = 1.508. 250= 5.88" to 3.91" bore = 1.503.
Huntersbo- I do not understand where you're coming from by using 250 crank with 200 rods? The 250 crank will not physically fit in a 200 block. and the rod length to stroke ratio would be pretty bad @ 1.25. Am I missing spmething? Please explain. And, after 1970 the 200 and 250 heads are identical.
The short comings of the 250 are the width at the bottom half of the block. The 250 is wider due to the diameter of the crank throws. That's what puts the engine mounts into a mess. The goal is to get the 250 to set as low and as far back in the engine bay as possible. Clearance with the hood on top and steering links on the bottom makes for a challenge. Is is worth it? I think so. What do you think?
Slotting the mount brackets, frame side and engine side can help to some extent.
The issue of revving is also moot, IMHO. Neither engine should be built for extended use above 6 grand.
The other limiting factor with the 250 is the emense deck height of the 250. It will be in the .150" range. That plus a composite head gasket makes for mediocre combustion efficency. Decking can help to the tune of .050" to .060". Off set grinding the crank can help .010 to .020" depending on the crank. 255 V8 pistons can gain .085". And using the Tempo rods, (2.3 HSC I believe) maybe be helpful. The 1st three options are proven. I don't know of anyone who has used the Tempo rods yet.
All of these solutions to the deck height problem cause the CR to be raised. That can be dealt with by cutting a "D" shaped dish into each piston face, mimicking the shape of the combustion chamber, and reshaping the chamber to unshroud to valves.
Is the 50 more cubic inches worth all this additional trouble and expense? that's up to you.
I can't wait to see what you decide.
Enjoy the journey.
Adios, David
simon
Famous Member
I used the motor mounts that came with the 250 when I shoved that motor between the shock towers of my `65.
I don´t know what application both engine and mounts came from, but I don´t have any radiator/ fan clearance problems.
with a homemade aluminum air cleaner base and a 2" K&N filter element, I can use the original air cleaner lid without hitting the hood.
only problem so far - the front sway bar hits the oil pan. Yet, I don´t know how I can solve that problem, plus I don´t know which sorta oil pan I got.
Since the engine has to come out again soon, I can post some pics of those mystery motor mounts.
I don´t know what application both engine and mounts came from, but I don´t have any radiator/ fan clearance problems.
with a homemade aluminum air cleaner base and a 2" K&N filter element, I can use the original air cleaner lid without hitting the hood.
only problem so far - the front sway bar hits the oil pan. Yet, I don´t know how I can solve that problem, plus I don´t know which sorta oil pan I got.
Since the engine has to come out again soon, I can post some pics of those mystery motor mounts.
A
Anonymous
Guest
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... 7914079598
Includes the mounts. I had this in my 65' Falcon. Hardest part about the swap is really clearance between rad and engine. The engine fit without a fan, so we bought this
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... 7913592107
To put between grill and rad, fit very easily and kept the car cold, never went over 200 degrees.
Includes the mounts. I had this in my 65' Falcon. Hardest part about the swap is really clearance between rad and engine. The engine fit without a fan, so we bought this
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... 7913592107
To put between grill and rad, fit very easily and kept the car cold, never went over 200 degrees.
A
Anonymous
Guest
By the way, don't ask why I'm selling all my six cylinder parts 
.
.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I saw on an aussie chart that said the ford 200 had longer rods than a 250
Thanks to all for your replies. The main reason I'm thinking of going with the 250 is the cubes. The bellhousing is a deffinite plus but I just can't dismiss a 25% increase in CID. I'm torn between the quick cube increase of the 250 and the simplicity of using the original motor. Again, thanks to all for their insights and opinions. If anyone else has anything to add I'm all ears.
Unless the car came with the 250, I'd always look at the 200 first. The 250 (4.1) is much harder to fit. There are severe space limitations on 250 Fords in all unibody Fords. Its a very tall engine that needs a lot of very specialised gear to package it. The gear is around, but it will always be rather expensive.
If your making a killer turbo race car, a 250 is just fine
Generally, the 200/3.3 is the small I6 engine you'll find most often. It has 30 years (1964 to 1984) of service to its name.
The basic 200 cube numbers are hard to beat. The 200 is way lighter by (almost 100 pounds), shallower( by 1.67"), shorter (by an inch or so), narrower (by an inch), and only requires simple, lighter duty axles, gearboxes and four stud suspension parts. It is way cheaper to fit, and if its already there, bolt on mods which take it from 67 rear wheel hp to well over twice that are there to be had.
There is a point of diminishing returns with a 250, because the additional periferal weight of a good gearbox/drive train/axle/suspension/brake combo will take away all the gains. So 25% more capacity doesn't ever give 25% more power on a 250. A better head on a 200 gives it way more power than the same better head and carb does on a 250.
The old addage. For straight line go, go cubic inches or There Is No Substitute for Cubes is not the case when you have a stock 200 with T5 and a 32/36 carb verses a stock 250 with any gearbox and a 2-bbl carb.
A little note. In Australia, circa 1982, the 3.3 5-speed Falcon had a 17.9 second standing quarter and 112 mph, the 4.1 auto had 18 second qaurter miles at 112 mph. A 4-speed 4.1 manual was 17.6 senconds, and 112 mph. The smaller engine gave 27.2 mpg, the bigger one 22.7 mpg. The power gain was insignificant verses the loss of fuel economy, and the bigger engines had a weight penealty (power steering, better brakes, needed).
If your making a killer turbo race car, a 250 is just fine
Generally, the 200/3.3 is the small I6 engine you'll find most often. It has 30 years (1964 to 1984) of service to its name.
The basic 200 cube numbers are hard to beat. The 200 is way lighter by (almost 100 pounds), shallower( by 1.67"), shorter (by an inch or so), narrower (by an inch), and only requires simple, lighter duty axles, gearboxes and four stud suspension parts. It is way cheaper to fit, and if its already there, bolt on mods which take it from 67 rear wheel hp to well over twice that are there to be had.
There is a point of diminishing returns with a 250, because the additional periferal weight of a good gearbox/drive train/axle/suspension/brake combo will take away all the gains. So 25% more capacity doesn't ever give 25% more power on a 250. A better head on a 200 gives it way more power than the same better head and carb does on a 250.
The old addage. For straight line go, go cubic inches or There Is No Substitute for Cubes is not the case when you have a stock 200 with T5 and a 32/36 carb verses a stock 250 with any gearbox and a 2-bbl carb.
A little note. In Australia, circa 1982, the 3.3 5-speed Falcon had a 17.9 second standing quarter and 112 mph, the 4.1 auto had 18 second qaurter miles at 112 mph. A 4-speed 4.1 manual was 17.6 senconds, and 112 mph. The smaller engine gave 27.2 mpg, the bigger one 22.7 mpg. The power gain was insignificant verses the loss of fuel economy, and the bigger engines had a weight penealty (power steering, better brakes, needed).
How do the 3.3 (83 model 200) and 250 compare weight wise and dimension wise. I have installed both in my 63 comet and I had no problems with either, as far as engine height or width. I even used the same motor mounts as the 170 that was in the car to begin with, and hooked up the tranny mount (different mount) in the same place as the original mercomatic. Even the exhaust I had built for the 3.3 fit right up to the 250 headerswith no mods. The only difference was the lenghth, I had to go to electric fan with the 250. I'm assuming that both motors are similar in size and dimensions. With that said, The 200 has 2.3 flattop pistons and 264 Clifford cam and the 250 has 255 pistons with 260 comp cam, (both with around 9.5 - 10 to 1 CR), both used the same head with 2 bbl. attached directly to the log, and dual out headers and I can not tell you I noticed a significant, if any, seat of the pants difference.
Rustang Racer
Well-known member
I put a 250 in my 65 and was very happy with it. It may not be much "faster" as in qtr mile times but it has a lot more torque than a 200. I didn't have any length problems. Keeping a mechanical fan was a tight fit but I did it. The extra weight made the front end sit at just the height I wanted without even having to lower it.
There were plenty of problems to overcome though. The clutch linkage will need to be heavily modified. I did this at first and got it to work but I finally just ripped it all out and went to a cable clutch. I used the original motor mounts and elongated the holes. I had to turn the steering link upside down to clear the pan (I know, I'm playing with fire). Even with with all this the air cleaner touches the hood.
I thought it was a very worthwhile swap but there will definitely be some fabrication required.
There were plenty of problems to overcome though. The clutch linkage will need to be heavily modified. I did this at first and got it to work but I finally just ripped it all out and went to a cable clutch. I used the original motor mounts and elongated the holes. I had to turn the steering link upside down to clear the pan (I know, I'm playing with fire). Even with with all this the air cleaner touches the hood.
I thought it was a very worthwhile swap but there will definitely be some fabrication required.
FloridaRustang
Active member
I also have a 250 in my '65 coupe. The original 200 had crapped out and my dad (this was 13 years ago) had a Mustang guy in Orlando put the 250 in.
They dropped the mounts to avoid the hood clearance issues and I use a stock type air cleaner.
I cannot remember for sure (it's parked in the garage and in the middle of a two-plus year Granada brake swap project - where does time go?) but I believe their solution to the steering clearance question was to flip the inner tie rods upside down and mount the bar up from the bottom to gain an inch or so. It still touched the oil pan at the extreme ends of the wheel turn.
Result? It drove fine, and I sqealed the tires at every light. Very torquey. Decent mileage, 16-20 depending on conditions. I think I have a ~2.8 rear, not sure.
(Then the brake plumbing went bad and we bought a minivan and I took the wife's old car...)
They dropped the mounts to avoid the hood clearance issues and I use a stock type air cleaner.
I cannot remember for sure (it's parked in the garage and in the middle of a two-plus year Granada brake swap project - where does time go?) but I believe their solution to the steering clearance question was to flip the inner tie rods upside down and mount the bar up from the bottom to gain an inch or so. It still touched the oil pan at the extreme ends of the wheel turn.
Result? It drove fine, and I sqealed the tires at every light. Very torquey. Decent mileage, 16-20 depending on conditions. I think I have a ~2.8 rear, not sure.
(Then the brake plumbing went bad and we bought a minivan and I took the wife's old car...)
FloridaRustang
Active member
Lemme correct one thing above, the steering was hitting the starter, not the oil pan.
Umm, xctasy... 64 to 84 is 20, not 30 
Similar threads
All Small Six
250 or 240?
All Small Six
I have a few questions about the 250ci
