Bell Housing Patterns

FALCONAROUND

Well-known member
I upgraded my 200 from a 2.77 to a 3.03... I have a block capable of the bell off the 67 Mustang 200 so I used it.

How much difference is there between the 67 200 adn the 67 289 bell housing wise? I mean is it an entirely different monkey? I've not seen on in 20 years off a 289 so I'm drawing a blank...

I really want to find a way to get me an aluminum flywheel for less than $600 bucks.... My 200 will need every bit of give it can take.
 
Does anyone have the weight of the small flywheel that comes with the little 2.77 trannies? I sold mine last year and didn't weigh it... BUt it's something I need to know...


Gary
 
early ford fan":10zu2pjh said:
289 bolt pattern is the same as the 302 and 250.different than the 170/200.

8) not so fast there, the early 289's had a 5 bolt bell housing pattern. it wasnt until mid 1965 that it was changed over to the current 6 bolt pattern. both bells however will not fit the small six except for the late model 200 with the low mount starter, and even then it requires two holes to be drilled.
 
My next question then would be, would they make an early 289 flywheel in aluminum? and is it possible to fit it to my falcon?

Alas, isn't the 289 externally balanced?
 
rbohm":13q8aqcf said:
early ford fan":13q8aqcf said:
289 bolt pattern is the same as the 302 and 250.different than the 170/200.

8) not so fast there, the early 289's had a 5 bolt bell housing pattern. it wasnt until mid 1965 that it was changed over to the current 6 bolt pattern. both bells however will not fit the small six except for the late model 200 with the low mount starter, and even then it requires two holes to be drilled.

Think he's talking about the flywheel anyway.
 
What it boils down to is I want an aluminum flywheel... The best way other than spending $800 bucks to have one made is to buy a $400 dollar one and have it machined to fit for an extra $100 bucks or so...

I just gotta find a mate...
 
I'm not sure but I think the 2.3 L4 flywheel is your best bet, but this is a total guess. I haven't done any research on it.
 
I'm shootin' from the hip here...the inline 6's are internally balanced = neutral balanced flywheel. I believe, but can not immediately confirm, that the inline 4's are also internally balanced, meaning that, excluding bolt pattern and size, the should be interchangeable. I'd suspect that the 2 are not bolt pattern swappable. You should be able to re-bore the L6 for the L6 pattern.

The SBF 157tooth flywheels are the same size as the 250's, but different bolt patterns (the SBF are irregularly bored so that the 6-bolt pattern only fits one way to avoid mismatching the counterweight to the imbalance of the engine). You can use a neutral balanced aluminum SBF flywheel on a 250 or 200 LM once you rebore it for the L6.

The same should be doable for the L4 flywheel on the L6. I do not know the overall dimensions, but I do know that some of the L4's (turbo 4's) used the same size clutch disc as the early L6's (2.77). This may be a starting point for your search.

Check Summit. Search for Clutch Discs, Ford, L4. They show a few 8 1/2" listings. Select that item and check applications as a reverse reference for potential flywheel candidates.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57267

Also check the above link. Aluminum flywheels came up for this application, about 1/3 the way down.
 
Hmm. The Tempo HSC engine was based off of the 200...lots of things interchange like pistons, etc. So the flywheel bolt pattern MIGHT be the same.
 
I juuuuuust happen to have a 73 Pinto 2.0L Pinto in my 46 Willy's... It's got a Pinto Bell and clutch and flywheel...

I put it in the jeep in 1984.... Never been out since... Now I"m afraid that I'll break it :)
 
FALCONAROUND":1ripsecr said:
I juuuuuust happen to have a 73 Pinto 2.0L Pinto in my 46 Willy's... It's got a Pinto Bell and clutch and flywheel...

I put it in the jeep in 1984.... Never been out since... Now I"m afraid that I'll break it :)

Totally different engine from the 2.3 HSC anyhow.
 
I did not know that about the HSC and HSO's. I always thought they were variants on the 2.0/2.3L that were introduced back in the early 70's. My '79 Bobcat had a 2.3L OHC, indeed, very different architecture. It stands to reason that the HSC might make a usable resource.
 
Back
Top