223 "performance" expectation management

[xctasy]

peeeot, this ones for you, and it confirms the grunt out of corners anecdotals of the others in the above posts. Great advice is about the poor mans overdrve automatics and especially the T18 over drive manual gearbox.

And I haven't ever seen an in line six overcarburated yet...



Like I said to dkp_cobra, in "200 vs 223 vs Ford Zephyr 6" Post #6 by xctasy » Fri Jul 13, 2018


viewtopic.php?f=18&t=78549

"If its on questions in a public format, then that is a much better way....that way you get more feedback, and sometimes one person isn't always right".

On the bigger Ford sixes, the stock 1-bbl engine baseline was a low end torque engine with a huge drop in air flow at about 3500 rpm from the 1-bbl carb and the Load-O-Matic ignition. Off the traffic lights, even a 3 on the tree manual gearbox 223 will get out of the whole real good for the first 50 yards, then it looses its ablity to make power and revs. The manual gearbox adds what seams like 25 hp at the back wheels between off idle to about 2800 rpm, then any Cruisomatic Y block starts to erupt forward by comparison. Those old manual i-6's were really strong off the line compared to a v8 slush box, even a good one like the 312 Y was.


With a modern ignition system with a proper advance curve, a bigger set of dual Deuces or a 4-bbl, a nicely reworked 223 with headers and a better cam won't loose any low end torque at all over a stock 223; and past the 2800 to 3500 rpm segement, it'll gain on most smaller Y and FE V8's.

The main handicap to the I-6 is the stock Cruise-o-matic gearing. A wide ratio AOD-E or EAOD gear set would help a 4000 pounder off the line, but the best improvment is the old T18 with overdrive. Wide ratio 1 st and 2nd, direct 3rd, and a nice 0.78 or so over driven top is perfect for a 223 cube six with "benefits" like a proper cam, carb and exhasut system.


In line sixes with manual gearboxes are always very good in the first 60 foot times, and as long as you "stick with a stick shift", you'll then be able to make up gains by having a proper 2 or 2 x 2-bbl, or 4-bbl intake manifold and you really cannot over carb an in line six if the car has a good set of gear ratios and a manual gearbox.

Probably a single 4-bbl 650 double pumper is still able to work on a well modified 223 engine. The old I-6's have lots of port area, and Ford engineers decided to tune them down as entry engines with 1-bbl Holley 1908 or Autolite 1100/1101 carbs just to stop them making a Y block or 332 FE look bad. Air restricted engines always last longer than an engine opened up, so the Ford guys first rule was to restrict I6 air flow. The first rule for perforamnce V8's was to add air flow. Triple dueces, twin Fours, or Paxton Superchargers, and the radical R code 312 camshafts, Fords Y and FE engineers did it all. They never didn anything to any I-6 inthe USA untill about 1987 when the Fuelie 4.9 F truck and E van engines came out, and those engines generally outperform any 5.0, 5.8 off the mark...unless those EFI 4.9's came with the 2.47:1 gear set axle...and a few did. They pull those gears supprisingly well too if they have a 5 speed gearbox

See lasitter's 31 mpg truck with ZF 5 speed and 2.47 gears. It tows! viewtopic.php?t=77441

The 223 and 262's, they are bascially like a Jaguar 3.8 or 4.2 DOHC engine when worked. Plenty of those old twin Cam twin or triple SU or Stromberg CD175 carb engines with autotmatic gearboxes could make 4000 pound Fat Cats move along just as well as a 4000 pound 332 or 352 FE.

In terms of air flow through the cylinder head, even with those crazy four port heads, the old 223 I-6 block engines were very well designed, and they just needed better carburation, some die grinder work, and some better exhaust pipes to open up the flow rates. The worst thing you can do is stick with tall 3.10:1 gears and a stock automatic Borg Waner Modle 8 based MX gearbox...it'll need a looser torque converter and a wider set of ratios if your going to stick with an FMX based gearbox. Factory overdrives were always in the 3.70 to 3.89 ratio axle range.


Basically what works is old late 70's and early 80's General Motors THM 200-R style gearing, with wide lower ratios, and if possible, an over driven 4th gear in the 0.67:1 zone.

The wide ratio electronic gear sets from AOD-E's and 4W70's can be fitted into an old used AOD case, and its FMX length and just needs an adaptor to fit. Then you use 3.89 or 3.7:1 axle gears, and you can run with the de Ville....

 

[peeeot]

Xcstasy,

I am not sure exactly what the torque multiplication of the Cruiseomatic converter is, but assuming a conservative value of 1.5, when I floor my Fairlane from a stop I calculate a total multiplication of 11.16 with a 2.40 first gear and 3.10 final drive. A stock 3-speed car has a total multiplication of 11.00 with a 3.09 first gear and 3.56 final drive. If the converter's maximum multiplication is about 2, then total multiplication jumps to 14.88, higher still than the manual with a 3.89 final drive (which gives 12.02 total). The cruiso's 2nd gear is a 1.47 vs 1.92 for the manual trans, so the spread isn't quite as evenly spaced but again the converter multiplication can make up some of the difference. So, if the Cruiso beats the manual for torque production, is the hindrance just in the power it consumes in friction losses?

With regard to the under-carburetion of the stock sixes: what about the Holley 1960? I don't have any flow data for it but if I run the massive 1.4375" venturi through this calculator https://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculato ... dvanced=on I come up with an estimated 189.6 CFM at 1.5" Hg. This calculator approximates known flow values of other carburetors I tested it on so I think this is a fairly close number. The usual CFM formula assuming VE of 0.8 (perhaps generous for a stock 223?) and max rpm of 4000 calls for 206 CFM. Road testing my stock engine today, I was getting down to 1.5" Hg at WOT with the stock 1.25" venturi Holley 1904. In the case of a stock-cammed 223 with stock valves and rockers, is there such a thing as too much from a single barrel?

I really need to get that 1960 together and installed on my car so I can get a real-world sense of the change it makes. Speaking of the real world, I revisited my valve adjustment a few days ago and found that the exhaust valves had tightened up quite a bit since my last adjustment. It was a bit disconcerting because I haven't logged more than a few thousand miles. Still, there was a huge improvement in idle quality and manifold vacuum with the adjustment.

I have tried to establish a performance baseline so I can tell whether anything I change makes a measurable improvement. To that end, I have made several 0-60 runs from a dead stop on a local country street, always starting at the same spot and heading the same direction. A stop watch in one hand and the car's wavery speedo needle may not be the most accurate way to measure, but I came up with a pretty consistently poor time of about 19.5 seconds! After the valve adjustment, I made a couple runs and saw at least a 0.5 second improvement.

One last thing to mention: in trying to control my blowby, I looked into a device marketed somewhat dubiously here: http://www.envalve.com/ I studied the patent and concluded it is just a vacuum regulating device. I had an old BMW that had a closed crankcase with manifold vacuum applied through an orifice and I thought, why not try that on my 223? Just to experiment, I plugged the breather and dipstick tube and applied full manifold vacuum to the crankcase. The result was about 10" HG measured at the dipstick tube at idle, complete consumption of the blowby gases, and no evident downsides. I plan to fabricate a liquid-vapor separator inline before the intake manifold, and possibly an orifice or other means of reducing the maximum crankcase vacuum, and then run this crankcase ventilation setup on every old car I have. Sure beats the road draft tube!

 

[xctasy]

Torque converter slip isn't the same as a fixed ratio from a numerically lower first gear. Its like using a clutch that slips, so the power loss is not just a factor of 1.25 from the engine to the tires like a manual gearbox is. An automatic, no matter what the gear ratios, is loosing the noraml 1.25 factor a good manual gearbox, 9" axl and a set of tires losses from flywheel net hp to rear wheel horspower. The torque Multiplication is just a word....the stall ratio below the nearest to lock up is about 3.09:1 on a 1650 rpm stall FMX, and 2.53:1 on a 2350 rpm performance C4 or C6. Its slipping an extra 25%, or that 1.5 loss factor common to automatics, all of it happing mostly at part throttle, then still a greater than manual trans loss.

Improving the mechincal advantage be lowering gear ratios and wideniong the total gearing allows better around town response, and you don't have to run steeper low numerical axle ratios if you've got an overdrive, or a poor mans overdrive.


The wide 3.06/1.63/1.00/0.67 steps are optimum, but if three speed auto, adding lower 2.92 and 1.69's instead of 2.40/1.46 or so for 1st and 2nd helps if your not able to go for manual Overdrive stickshift.


That extra at thw wheels 25 hp loss at 85 mph with the hammer down with an automatic is also about a 12 lb-ft to 25-lb-ft loss off idle to about 3000 rpm.

It all comes back to how an I6 hooks up, and how to harmonise with the torque converter. I've seen rear wheel measured losses of 1.63 of the factory net horsepower and torque figures, or as little as 1.33 with some automatics. A typical Ford C4, C6 or Detriot Gear/BW based FMX or AOD will selttle in at 1.45, but it depends on torque converter characteristics, and what kind of method you use to measure rear wheel hp and lb-ft. Dynos with counterweights lshow losses greater than a 60 feet, 660 yard and 1320 feet dash and the terminal speeds at each point. That's how you know the dyno figures are true or false.


Back to carbs. Any carb can work okay if the right manifolding delivers fuel equally....flow efficency for 1-bbls is always pretty poor, and with extra velocity, air fuel ratio goes haywire to cylinders 1, 2, 3 4,5 and 6, and its the changing seats on the Titanic. Someones gonna loose big time.


Flat, even fuel delivery is the preserve of more points of discharge, and the only reason the 1-bbl works is because there was never any other option for an American Ford I6. The best option is just going to anice big YFA or Holley, and then making sure the acclerator pump shot artificially spikes fuel supply enough to stop a big stutter. Power Valve Channel restrictions, squirter jets, and other mechanisims are artifical spikes to make sure all six pigglets get the norishment they need without any major squabbles. The reason 1-bbl I6's don't idle nice is the air fuel ratios are being swung, and the delivery times and time of concetration varies under idle and off idle conditions.


An EFi engine is snatch free from idle to any point off idle. Australians Broadmedoes Ford engineers aced the class in 1983 previewing a 149 hp EFi 4.1 liter six verses a Weber 2-bbl 131 hp 4.1 litrer six. Torque differences were 240 lb-ft at 2800 rpm and 225 lb-ft at 2200 rpm. Even with taller gearing, the four speed Australian Falcon would pull right down to 650 rpm in top gear at 16 mph, while the lighter Fairmont 4.1 carb 2-bbl wouldn't take 900 rpm at 23 mph without pig rooting.

And that's how it is with one point feeding six pots, or 1 carb feeding four legs that then feeds six cylinders. At various points, hp and torque loss is substaintal, and the looses are worst from idle to maximum rpm. Fuel economy suffers, and so does idle. With wilders cams, the losses get worse with 1-bbls, and less so with more points of fuel dispersal.

 

[curts56]

This will also perk up a 223.

You just have to keep the boost down around 8lbs, or you'll probably send a connecting rod out the block. How would I know that.....

 

[xctasy]

This will also perk up a 223.

You just have to keep the boost down around 8lbs, or you'll probably send a connecting rod out the block. How would I know that.....

A turbo is the cheapest performance modification if done right. A blow trhough turbo using enough excess fuel to ensure each cylinder doesn't lean out allows a truley lovely mid range response that will mack your face look like an early human rocket pilot.


The 223 is as strong as an ox, you just gotta Feed It right, and it'll go like Grease Lightening.

If it were me, I'd look at three YFA Carters, and put a nice US postal Letter Box around them, and have it FED Xtra air via a turbo. Keep the auto, and have some fun. There are sodium cooled valves that fit the head (ex 262, IIRC), and as long as the pistons, cylinders and ring gaps are adjusted to suit a 350 hp engine under 9 pounds of boost, you could take the engine into a 215 hp/245 lb-ft before turbo combo with a good aftermarket Schneider cam grind, and then add a 1.6 boost ratio, and be right on 350 hp and 400 lb-ft.

 

[peeeot]

Xctasy, thanks for another thorough response! So torque converter “multiplication” is just a word? Why do they make the claim that a torque converter multiplies while a plain fluid coupling does not? I get what you’re saying about it not being the same as a manual gear, just not really sure what it IS.

I have some information to update with my (very slow, incremental) experimenting. First, perhaps not performance-related, I added a cyclone separator meant for a bmw x-5 to the crankcase ventilation line. The part was $8 and works like a charm! I have a mason jar to collect the oil and liquid it separates out of the crankcase vapors and judging by the volume it has collected it is pretty effective. Spark plugs look cleaner too. It may not be necessary on a tight engine but it seems like any engine would benefit.

So, I have been trying to follow Ak Miller’s path in the Horsing Around article to some extent. He started by re-jetting the stock carburetor because it was too lean and found some extra HP. I know for sure my stock-jetted carb was too lean as there was NO carbon soot in the exhaust manifold or the rest of the pipe. It ran hot at highway speeds and the fire ring on the plugs was clean. The stock jet was a 60 (carb is Holley 1904) so I went up to a 62 to start. I could tell a slight difference in general liveliness but nothing remarkable. I put a narrow-band oxygen sensor in my exhaust right after the manifold to get a better idea whether I was still running too lean and these were my results:

with 62 jet and sealed crankcase, voltages are:
Idle: 0.6-0.8
Decel: 0.8-0.86
Level cruise: 0.1-0.7
Climbing cruise: 0.02-0.1
Power valve on: 0.85

I also observed fuel economy over 1 tank of gas driving in traffic as well as 69-70mph cruising, just the normal commute drive, and my observed economy was 17.6 mpg.

I didn’t like the way the mixture leaned out under part throttle load, like when climbing a grade at 60 mph, so I wanted to try more jet. The only other jet I had available was marked 50 but had been drilled out to something bigger, not sure exactly what size, but bigger than 62 and smaller than 72. So I gave it a try.

With “50” enlarge jet (0.063-0.072”) voltages are:
Idle: 0.7-0.8
Decel: 0.6-0.75
Level cruise: 0.71-0.83
Climbing cruise: 0.71-0.83
Power valve on: cruise+0.02 ish

Observed fuel economy: 14.3 mostly traffic/70 mph commute

There was a definite improvement in power, responsiveness, and highway temperature regulation with the “50” jet. It no longer felt likely 70mph/3000rpm was the end of the power reserves. Engine seemed smoother and quieter at highway speeds, and if I mashed the throttle it would accelerate the car rather than just make noise. The fuel economy was worse (based again in 1 tank) and the old, used oxygen sensor I was using seemed to be degrading. I thought it may have been oil-fouling due to my crankcase ventilation (before cyclone was installed) so I added the cyclone and got a new sensor. Then, based on Ak’s recommendation of a 65 jet for the 200 six, I ordered some new jets to try. First in line was a 66. Here are my notes:

-driveability, power, responsiveness, smoothness, temperature regulation all noticeably improved with 66 jet compared to 62 jet.

With 66 jet and new oxygen sensor voltages are:

Idle: 0.74-0.83
Decel: 0.87-0.89
Level cruise: 0.86-0.88
Climbing cruise: 0.87-0.89
Power valve on: 0.88-0.9
*all values lower, 0.76-0.82, on drive home
*spark plugs still look clean down in the hole, light tannish deposits at tip

Observed fuel economy: 15.7 mostly traffic/70 mph commute

So the limitations of the narrow band sensor may be a hindrance here but it looks like the 66 is always richer than stoichiometric. The fuel economy was somewhat improved over the “50” jet and nothing was lost in perceived performance. I am thinking for this carburetor (1.25” venturi, 1 9/16” throttle) that a 64 or 65 may be the best jet on my combo.

Here are my 0-60 times with each change. I ran these with a warmed-up drivetrain on the same length of road each time. I did at least 2 runs for each to get some consistency. I used a stopwatch and the stock speedometer most of the time, but I tried a gps-speedo too with no change. I started at a dead stop and did NOT hold the revs up for launch—just held the brake with my left foot, released it and floored the gas at the same time I started the stopwatch.

Acceleration 0-60 baseline:

19.5-20s initial
19-19.5s valve adjust
18.5-19s 62 jet
18-18.5s “50” modded jet
18-18.5s 66 jet

I think I have gotten all I can out of the 1904, so the next step I will try is installing the 1 7/16” Venturi Holley 1960 with the 66 jet. The 1960 did not have a spark control valve; it had a simple plastic check ball in the distributor air passage and it is missing on my unit so I plan to use the 1904 base with SCV on the 1960 body to retain spark advance characteristics. This could get interesting because the much larger Venturi should give a different “speed sensing” vacuum signal than the 1904, so distributor recalibration will probably be needed.

Can’t remember if I said this at some point, but I also recurved the load-O-matic somewhere in this process. Base timing is 20 degrees, anything over 0.5”Hg vacuum brings in 15 more degrees to 35, and then the highest vacuum signal (something like 6 or 6.5”Hg and up) brings in 5 more for a maximum of 40.

I’m sure 350 hp would be a lot of fun, especially from an in-line six, but this experiment so far has shown me that I will probBly be satisfied with what can be gained by improving volumetric efficiency. Assuming the 1960 doesn’t get me there, I love the idea of adding 4 CV motorcycle carbs since the intake has 4 runners. If I have heard anything X has said it’s that all these old inline sixes were choked by their venturis! Ak certainly showed it making 35 extra hp while still running a 1-bbl with load-o-matic, with a larger throat.

Speaking of Ak, 10 hp came from adding headers. I don’t want to buy the Clifford split header so I have 0 header options. Currently I have 1.75” pipe for about 4 feet after the manifold, then 2” crush-bent to the tailpipe. Is anything to be gained by going 2.25” mandrel-bent from manifold to tailpipe? Manifold outlet is still 2”. I have also considered splitting the stock manifold...

 

[peeeot]

I have a quick update.

Installed the Holley 1960 carburetor. It was an Autoline “rebuilt” carb and required some extra work. The idle fuel restriction was partially clogged with the plug material they used when overhauling the main well assembly, so it wouldn’t idle until I removed their plug, cleared the restriction and replugged. Also the check ball in the spark passage was missing so I just used the SCV-equipped throttle assembly from the original carb.

Initially I used the 66 jet but the O2 sensor showed extremely lean voltages and the car was very sluggish. Swapped up to a 70 jet since factory specs called for 68-69. I thought performance felt a little livelier than it had been before the carb swap, but the proof was in the 0-60 run: my best runs with the 1904 carb were 18-18.5 seconds, but with the 1960 I got 17-17.5 seconds! I haven’t driven enough to be sure whether the 70 jet is the best or not but so far sensor voltages are in the 0.76-0.81 range so it’s gotta be close.

I need to verify the changes in the vacuum advance signal and possibly recalibrate the advance curve for this carb, but it seems clear that the larger Venturi has increased power without hurting driveability. Jury’s out on mpg until I log some more miles.

 

[peeeot]

Since last post, I changed out the 70 jet for a 68 and recurved the distributor for the significantly weaker vacuum signal generated by the Holley 1960 (due to its larger Venturi). The mixture looks better with the 68 because it shows lean at part throttle cruise and rich when the power valve opens up. No appreciable loss in responsiveness with this jet and I still clocked a 17 second 0-60 time. Fuel economy over 1 tank of gas with the 68 jet was 16.2 mpg in urban driving. I think steady highway would yield close to 19-21, especially if it was at 60 mph.

This motor is very tired at over 100k original miles and it’s starting to leak at the head gasket and make a mess, so I am retiring it and preparing my spare 223 to swap in. Very curious to see how a fresh engine performs relative to a worn-out one.

 

[peeeot]

I have just finished replacing all of the 1.75” exhaust pipe and a portion of the 2” with 2.25” with mandrel bends. I was able to do 2.25” straight off the manifold and took it to about the midpoint of the car. From there, I used an adapter to connect to the existing 2” pipe with stock-style muffler. The transition isn’t ideal for performance, however I figure there should still be a significant benefit removing the 1.75” drinking straw closest to the engine.

I took a test drive. If there is an improvement, it’s all at the upper RPMs. I do believe the engine felt stronger north of 3k, however I’d probably need a dyno to prove it. I wasn’t expecting more than 5-8 Hp/tq from the bigger pipe anyway.

One thing I found unexpected: my acceleration run was back up to 20 seconds. Again, I do not elevate engine rpm to launch when making this test. I just take one foot off the brake and floor the gas while starting the stopwatch. My oxygen sensor was reporting consistently richer(higher) voltages than I previously recorded for this setup. The engine also seemed less eager to get up from idle to about 2000 rpm, but seemed to pull harder once it got going.

Could the slower launch, richer mixture and longer 0-60 be due to the new exhaust, or is it more likely due to warmer, humid summer air vs cooler, drier fall air? Should going from 1.75” to 2.25” require any alteration to jetting, advance curve, etc?

 

[bubba22349]

Yes for sure whenever changes are made to the ignistion timing, intake, or exhaust systems so that the engines effecancy is improved you would then need to go back and retune the carb again to take advantage of these improvements. Good luck

 

[peeeot]

To investigate my slow launch, I started by confirming a good strong accelerator pump spray. I get some flow from the pump nozzle with even a very slight throttle movement so I think the accelerator pump is doing all it can.

Next, I tried jetting up to a 70 from a 68. As before, my oxygen sensor reported consistently rich (>0.8V) values at all speeds and loads with this jet, even flooring it from a stop. Despite this, off-the-line was still slow until the engine reached higher rpms. So an over-lean mixture isn't the problem here.

I have not yet tried timing adjustments, but I had already set the curve up as aggressively as I could before doing the exhaust work. Last I recorded, initial timing was 20 BTDC with another 3-7 degrees coming in fast.

Maybe I am just butting against the 3.10 final drive and super-low 1300-1500 rpm stall speed of the converter. I need more torque....

I will say that the power and responsiveness on the highway are pretty good with the current calibration.

 

[bubba22349]

Do you happen to have a vacuum gauge on your car to? If so what kind of vacuum readings do you get at steady cruse speeds? Being too fat / rich can make it quite lazy on take offs also so try to dial that in a little better. Yes you may be getting close to the limits of your combo with 3.10 gear and stock torque converter. The other thing that is likely holding you back is the stock Load O Matic Distribitor there's only so much you can do without having the better centrivical advance system of one of the newer Distribitors. Besides adjusting the LOM advance system or installing a Pertronix Ignitor and the hotter Blaster coil that's about all there is for the Mod's. After that better results can be had by swapping in a 300 six Point Distribitor or even better the DuraSpark II ignistion which is an excellent upgrade. Good luck on the tuning

 

[peeeot]

Last weekend I swapped in a rebuilt 1963 223 to replace the tired original. This engine has the silent lash cam which has 0.019” less lift than the normal 223 cam. It is bored 0.030”, otherwise totally stock. It came with standard rockers, not the silent lash rockers, and after some research I decided to set it up with 0.005” hot lash. The head gasket is a new old stock steel shim which I sealed with Permatex copper spray.

I am amazed at the improvement in performance! I suppose it shouldn’t be such a surprise, but it was to me! The car is much more fun to drive now. The engine has much more power, revs more freely, and idles silky smooth. I’m looking forward to seeing what kind of MPG it will deliver!

It’s so much better that (so far) all of my original complaints with this drivetrain have been addressed. The only thing I’d really like different would be to change the transmission shift programming so that it would pull out of low speed turns in second gear instead of third. Still, makes me wonder what a hop-up would do on top of this stock baseline.

 

[bubba22349]

congrats on getting your car to run so much better! As far as the trans completes I believe I mentioned this before in an above post but here's a refresher. Since you have the Cruse O Matic trans you can get a shift kit from TransGo that will address those problems and improve the performance of it. If the trans is still orginal to the car the kit you would get is the SK3.

http://www.transgo.com/products.php?prd ... ntview=Yes

Another thing you could do is to add a small transmission cooler. Your valve lash setting is a bit on the tight side (it could cause damage to cam) in my opion you should set it at .015 hot. Best of luck