Adding some modern zip to a 200
- Thread starter KISSArmy
- Start date
I agree with wsa111. I installed a DSII distributor on my stock 66 mustang with a Duraspark ignition. Smooth idle and better throttle response.
Depending on the condition of your carb, you might want to install a rebuild kit on it (new gaskets, fuel filter, etc.)
I also replaced the stock exhaust manifold with a single outlet header and a 2" exhaust pipe with a flowmaster 40 muffler. The car runs great now.
Tom.
Depending on the condition of your carb, you might want to install a rebuild kit on it (new gaskets, fuel filter, etc.)
I also replaced the stock exhaust manifold with a single outlet header and a 2" exhaust pipe with a flowmaster 40 muffler. The car runs great now.
Tom.
Howdy KISSArmy:
And welcome to The Forum. The answer to your quest for more power/performance will require the answer to some questions before we can get specific for you. Such as engine condition? Any mods in place? Auto trans or stick? rear gear ratio? Budget? Long term plans? Daily driver or weekend cruiser? Where are you located (elevation)?
FYI- the good news is that you have a pretty good point type distributor that utilizes both vacuum and centrifugal advance and a Carter YF with a ported vacuum source for the vacuum advance. IMHO the first money spent should be for a service manual for your vehicle. They are typically about $50.00.
The suggestion to upgrade to a DuraSpark II ignition system is a good one. It eliminates points, can give a more precise and hotter spark. WSA111, aka Bill, recurves the mechanical advance for more spritely performance and better economy. The system includes the distributor, plug wires, coil, module and wiring harness. Many of us started with a recycle yard upgrade but later went for the recurve upgrade.
It would be a good idea for you to do some reading on the various options, then create a plan that you can live with. In the mean time here are a few suggestions to get you started.
Start with a real good ignition tuneup. Set the initial advance with an additional 5 degrees of advance. If your engine calls for 5 degrees set the initial at 10. Get a vacuum gauge to adjust the low speed idle screw on the carb to the highest vacuum. Also get a good compression reading on all cylinders to help to determine engine condition. These two suggestions alone can make a noticeable difference.
Please make sure your vehicle is as safe as possible. Brakes, Steering, suspension and exhaust.
Again, Welcome and keep the info coming so we can be more specific with suggestions.
Adios, David
And welcome to The Forum. The answer to your quest for more power/performance will require the answer to some questions before we can get specific for you. Such as engine condition? Any mods in place? Auto trans or stick? rear gear ratio? Budget? Long term plans? Daily driver or weekend cruiser? Where are you located (elevation)?
FYI- the good news is that you have a pretty good point type distributor that utilizes both vacuum and centrifugal advance and a Carter YF with a ported vacuum source for the vacuum advance. IMHO the first money spent should be for a service manual for your vehicle. They are typically about $50.00.
The suggestion to upgrade to a DuraSpark II ignition system is a good one. It eliminates points, can give a more precise and hotter spark. WSA111, aka Bill, recurves the mechanical advance for more spritely performance and better economy. The system includes the distributor, plug wires, coil, module and wiring harness. Many of us started with a recycle yard upgrade but later went for the recurve upgrade.
It would be a good idea for you to do some reading on the various options, then create a plan that you can live with. In the mean time here are a few suggestions to get you started.
Start with a real good ignition tuneup. Set the initial advance with an additional 5 degrees of advance. If your engine calls for 5 degrees set the initial at 10. Get a vacuum gauge to adjust the low speed idle screw on the carb to the highest vacuum. Also get a good compression reading on all cylinders to help to determine engine condition. These two suggestions alone can make a noticeable difference.
Please make sure your vehicle is as safe as possible. Brakes, Steering, suspension and exhaust.
Again, Welcome and keep the info coming so we can be more specific with suggestions.
Adios, David
KISSArmy":1cmgwfdv said:
It is just parts.
Modern control systems on an old 200 work great. How far you go in the modernisation process is up to you. Even millionairs have to be budget orientated.
$2500 always gets you 13.5 second quarter miles, even with an old automatic 3.3 with a 400 dollar turbo.
Igntion. Followthesameguy for an EDIS6 update.Its the best system you'll get, testimony to Fords smarts when it comes to igntion. Any Duraspark II will do a similar job for a lot less money.
Exhaust. You can get an 18% power gain by fitting a tubing header and twin GT exhaust with an H or y pipe. Problem is a header is mutually exclusive of other things that we like.
The real problem is nobody respects the customer enough to have any headers A/C and air pump compliant. I PERSONALLY wouldn't even consider any header made anywhere in the world. They all require you to remove your emissions air tubes, or relocate your air conditioning pump or even your alternator.
Mind you, a good stock U tube on an existing header could make a 335% power boost with with 13 to 20 psi boost and a T3 60 series turbo. Or T44.
The cheapest exhaust verses hp benefit is therefore First Fox, Does10s, 66Sprint6 and Lincs200's turbo exhaust modification.
Going from a 87 hp 65 rwhp ploddder to a approx 300 hp, 225 rwhp firebrand is just that, a 335% power increase. Still running a C4/C5 auto
Fuel pump. Follow
http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... g%29/page1
http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... g%29/page2
Matt (66Sprint6) wrote a post on using the 350 Chevy fuel pump, a M4891 Carter fuel pump with a converted 200 Ford rocker arm as a performance pump. It pushes too much pressure and volume for a stock 200, but with an 804 regulator, it would be fine.
Two options, electric or conventional fuel pump. An 804 holley regulator works with each. Does10s ran an efi pump with a regulator and return line for his 450 hp 250.
Radiator. 64 200 ranchero found an old Nissan Maxima radiator for his early Falcon 200.
Those give you options.
For me, I'd recommend you go for:-
Durapsark I or II igntion off 1975 to 1983 3.3 Ford six.
Get the 1980-1983 Casting no EOBE 9430 KE cast iron header.
Its
1. space efficient,
2. compatible with Air Con,
3. and a lot better than stock 1960-1979 factory header.
4. For the years it was around, it made an extra 9 net flywheel hp over the earlier 2" outlet exhaust, and
5. has provisions for Secondary AIR and EGR.
This was found on a lot of the 1980-1983 Fox bodies, and for one year, the 1980 Monarch and Granada with the 250 engine.
Its a funny looking 4.25" iron exhaust header. If you can find it still equipeded with the "primary light off" catalyst (they are normally stamped E1 BE 211 with a letter suffix A, or E for secondary AIR. On the 1980 X cars [Mercury Monarch/Ford Granada], its E0 DZ 5E212 A or E [for secondary AIR]
You cut the cat up, and have it welded to a twin 2-1/8" outlet header adaptor using two down pipes.
If your stuck for how to do the adaptor, a replacement cat is around from Catco, who still make a #66991 version for 80-83 3.3's and 1980 4.1's..
See /viewtopic.php?f=1&t=74163&p=570082#p570082
Duplicate the stock down pipe twice, side by side this way.
A hacked up stock cat downpipe would look like this
BCOWANWHEELS
Well-known member
best and cheapest is to go 250 engine
BCOWANWHEELS":1h1rcnb3 said:
True in a modified engine sense, if you can find one. But stock, a 250 is always a bit of a heavy dessert, taking up stomach space, not making any extra urge after meal time. Its tall, heavy and its stock arrangement takes the induction work you've decided on doing Bob to make it work better.
The fact is that the 25% increase in capacity doesn't make even a 10% increase in actual hp wih the 250, despite the factory rating.The 1968 to 1971 ratings were paper ratings, not real. They all suffered the Shelby verses Boss effect...each hp added was sucked up by more weight, to a point where it took away more gain that it gave. People say for straight line go, go cubic inches, but weight and heft sapped any extra reserve. This was especially so in the Maverick. 1972's net power ratings were 7.8% different between the two engines.
The book values of Thriftpower Horspower verses capacity are thus.
200 120 hp gross verses 250 155 hp gross 29% increase claimed 1968 introduction coincided with the power reduction by emmission equipment
200 115 hp gross verses 250 145 hp gross 26% increase claimed
72-83 200 91, then 85, then 87, and 91, 94.5 and 87 respectively hp net .For 72-80 250 98 hp to 99 hp net. 16.5 to 4.8% increase claimed.
Best testimony is the 1972 170, it had just 82 hp. It was 47% smaller than the 250, but had 84% of the 250's power. As the engines got bigger, there specific outputs nosedived like a fly in the frost.
In practice, the 250 has no more accelerative power than the 200 as the engine never got the power it claimed.
As a potential power adder, its heaps more responsive to the right gear than the 200, but it takes a lot of headwork.
Howdy KISSarmy and All:
You can take X's HP comparisons with a grain of salt. Those HP ratings are from the FoMoCo advertising side of the cooperate offices not the engineering side. And add in more invasive EPA crutches as well as the federally mandated requirement to state rear wheel HP rather than higher flywheel HP ratings and it ends up comparing apples to elephant.
While it is true that the 250 is taller, wider and heavier it is also torquer than the 200. And the Maverick was, some what, designed to use a 250 engine as an option. Another downside of the 250 is the huge deck clearances of the pistons which made it somewhat prone to pre-ignition.
KArmy- you asked about modernizing- which I've given a lot of thought to, and came up with only two factory pieces that don't require major adaptation. The first is the DuraSpark or DuraSpark II electronic ignition system, mentioned earlier. The second would be upgrading to a later D8xx to E0xx cylinder head, which will have bigger intake valves, 1.68" to 1.75" and hardened valve seats. It would require some specific machining, commonly used in a valve job to increase flow, raise CR and increase efficiency.
Unfortunately, many of the "modernizations" after 1971 were more related to meeting the ever increasing requirements of the EPA rather than performance and efficiency.
While your 71's head is adequate, it is down on CR, 8.2:1 IIRC. For performance and economy something around 9:1 is preferable, depending on your locale elevation and your driving requirements.
As for the exhaust, I am skeptical of the benefits of X's adaptation of the cat exhaust manifold. I'm curious if anyone has ever done it and more curious about how well it worked. If all that is wanted is a dual exhaust manifold, OK, but how well does it work at improving performance? At this point I'm thinking it is a long stretch for a short gain. Please, someone prove me wrong. For a less involved improvement think about replacing your stock muffler with a turbo type such as the Walker DynoMax along with a 2" head and tail pipe system.
Again, all of this will depend on a plan. What's your plan?
Adios, David
You can take X's HP comparisons with a grain of salt. Those HP ratings are from the FoMoCo advertising side of the cooperate offices not the engineering side. And add in more invasive EPA crutches as well as the federally mandated requirement to state rear wheel HP rather than higher flywheel HP ratings and it ends up comparing apples to elephant.
While it is true that the 250 is taller, wider and heavier it is also torquer than the 200. And the Maverick was, some what, designed to use a 250 engine as an option. Another downside of the 250 is the huge deck clearances of the pistons which made it somewhat prone to pre-ignition.
KArmy- you asked about modernizing- which I've given a lot of thought to, and came up with only two factory pieces that don't require major adaptation. The first is the DuraSpark or DuraSpark II electronic ignition system, mentioned earlier. The second would be upgrading to a later D8xx to E0xx cylinder head, which will have bigger intake valves, 1.68" to 1.75" and hardened valve seats. It would require some specific machining, commonly used in a valve job to increase flow, raise CR and increase efficiency.
Unfortunately, many of the "modernizations" after 1971 were more related to meeting the ever increasing requirements of the EPA rather than performance and efficiency.
While your 71's head is adequate, it is down on CR, 8.2:1 IIRC. For performance and economy something around 9:1 is preferable, depending on your locale elevation and your driving requirements.
As for the exhaust, I am skeptical of the benefits of X's adaptation of the cat exhaust manifold. I'm curious if anyone has ever done it and more curious about how well it worked. If all that is wanted is a dual exhaust manifold, OK, but how well does it work at improving performance? At this point I'm thinking it is a long stretch for a short gain. Please, someone prove me wrong. For a less involved improvement think about replacing your stock muffler with a turbo type such as the Walker DynoMax along with a 2" head and tail pipe system.
Again, all of this will depend on a plan. What's your plan?
Adios, David
BCOWANWHEELS
Well-known member
my 70 250 engine is 155 hp stock. no substitute for cubic inches
BCOWANWHEELS":1d09ibdq said:
No its just 102 hp net. The 200 is 93 hp net. 10% different. And horsepower governs top speed, 60 foot times, eighth and quarter mile times and 0-60 times, not torque.
/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72173&p=554236#p554236
I agree with adding a ds2 and recomend that you have wsa111 re-curve it for you to suit your engine. A cool thing about the duraspark is that they hook up to MSD units very easily which would also allow you to run a hotter coil. i have done it and it is very noticeable, if you plan on adding nitrous or a turbo, you can also install a timing retard control to the MSD. the nissan radiator requires that you cut the radiator support, but it is totally worth it if you decide to add electric fans.
here is the radiator that i used.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RADIATOR-FIT-19 ... p1&vxp=mtr
the electric fans
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Summit-Electric ... 0M&vxp=mtr
msd with timing retard to ds2
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
radiator install
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
here is the radiator that i used.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RADIATOR-FIT-19 ... p1&vxp=mtr
the electric fans
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Summit-Electric ... 0M&vxp=mtr
msd with timing retard to ds2
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
radiator install
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
a ratchet shifter and a shift kit helps too for an automatic. i also recommend an electric fuel pump with a switch in the cab and a pressure regulator, i have had stock fuel pumps fail on me and when the diaphragm fails, it sends fuel into your oil pan and through the oiling system.
BCOWANWHEELS
Well-known member
torque always has and always will do the work. that's why all tall deck engines are always in hi work vehicles.
If having cooling problems getting the entire system flushed including the heater core might be the solution. Older vehicles have lots of time to start collecting gunk that decreases cooling efficiency. The radiator may need to go to a radiator shop.
