2V on a 200 not 250

[Anonymous]

Im guessing just guessing that from the reports Ive seen maybe a 2V head behaves differently on a 200ci. Especially If higher rpms are involved.
As a side note its interesting that Ford rated the 250 2V at 170 hp at 4600 but in the test the results were taken at 4800 rpm gear changes.
Bob Santuchini a Ford engineer well known for his work on 250s dyno the 250 extensively in the 70s said that no matter what changes were made to cam, carb and extraction, that power dropped off after 4800 in a 250. (I realise this would be disputed) He believed this was due to its poor rod to stroke ratio.
This is not the case in a Aussie 200 (and possibly American 200). I suspect the 2Vs advantage would be optimised in a 200 at higher revs.
Perhaps there are other factors involved as well.
For me my choice is still a 250 2V its a "grunter" pulls strong right through to 4800. "who needs a V8".
Oh and EXECUTE thanks for the reply. good to see what can be done on a forum like this. Cheers

 

[Asa]

As a side note its interesting that Ford rated the 250 2V at 170 hp at 4600 but in the test the results were taken at 4800 rpm gear changes

the way i understand it, tests are done like that as a way to make sure that no more power is built after the highest RPM. But if you are talking about them saying it was at 4600, but it was 4800, then i'm confused, depends on how you read it i guess...
anyone got a better 'splanation?

 

[Anonymous]

Oh I should have said the above is ment as a reply to someone who queried why Mustangaroos 2V produced such a significant increase on a stock 200. Forget the 4600 4800 business if you like. The point was to compair the way a 200 revs compaired to a 250.

Tim