Falcon Handbook head info?

[bmcgc1960]

The engine I bought with the Weber adapter and carb has a C9DE-6090-M head on it.

According to the Falcon Handbook that should have the 1.75in carb opening.

I pulled the carb off today and the head has the 1.5in carb opening.

Is the Falcon Handbook in error or do I have a bastard head?

Now Im rethinking my plans. The plugs show that the engine is running rich, the smaller carb opening probably has something to do with that.

The D0 head that is in the car would be a better choice for performance and the bigger carb.

 

[Mr Comet]

For what it's worth my C9 head has the 1.5 carb. opening.

 

[stanyon]

There is plenty of room there that would allow you to enlarge the opening, Stuff a couple of oil soaked rags into the log, remove the excess metal from the log with a die-grinder, then vacuum up all of the filings and continue vacuuming as you remove the rags.

 

[xctasy]

The Falcon Six Performance book above is the best written source. There was apparently a mid 1969 model year change, with US 155 hp L code 250's getting the big hole, and then the 200 getting it later on.

The evidence I have is that C9 castings don't have a 1.75" hole. It is contrary to the generalizations in the book, but that doesn't mean the book is wrong, because there are a lot of C9 heads the world over.Our Aussie ARC9 DE 6049 B head from my 1972 XY/XA Falcon 3.3 liter engine has the smaller 1.5" hole. So are others like it, and they have a kidney shaped combustion chamber too. This is contrary to GB500 excellent information, and but that doesn't mean he's wrong, just that its a lucky dip, but Fords in the 60's to 70's are variable. Some C7's have split exhaust port dividers, some have AIR tubes, some have all sorts of other crap, it its a does your head in trying to figure out the absolutes.

Its doesn't mean we are trying to screw things up and make it difficult, but evidence is evidence.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72002

I just crunched the numbers on my head, i was under the impression my motor was all original and only ever had the head off for unleaded petrol upgrade (hardened seats) my head numbers are C9DE6049B, from what i can tell its a 1969 head, has the flat log but unsure if a mid year head when they swapped to 1.75” intake bore, my other obvious concern is that its not a 200 head. The advantage i have is the flat log and easier for adapter etc, but would like to know if my combustion chambers are what i thought they would be or different.

There are no absolutes with Ford castings, within that C9 casting there are also 1.75" hole castings with other revision numbers. It should generally be the case that the C9 castings are 1.75". My But the emerging evidence is different.

Hope that doesn't sound too wishy washy.

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy Back bmcgc1960 and All:

"Is the Falcon Handbook in error or do I have a bastard head?"

Yes, and Yes. The Handbook is in error in that we did not include a prominent warning about not using words like, "never" and "always". Although we said it here many times we did not include information about FoMoCos "Empty bin" policy. Additionally, FOMOCO is famous for making running changes in parts. This along with the "Empty Bin" policy, the practice of using up in-stock parts before putting the latest version on the assembly line makes definitives like "Always" and "Never" impossible We will add that disclaimer in the next edition.
We have added a caution to always measure and verify for yourself.

The "1969" year is part of the difficult years to define parts. Because of EPA pressures on FOMoCo to reduce emissions and to improve mileage changes came rapidly. From 1969 to about 1975 is very difficult to define what's what. We did the best we could considering.

So, that being said, I would say that you have an unusual head. HOpe that helps.

Adios, David

 

[cr_bobcat]

Ford was definitely doing some funny stuff. I have an oddball crank in my block. The bolt that holds the damper on is a different size than any crank that Mike had ever seen in a 200. I ended up having to go with a grade 8 bolt from the local tractor supply store. I never did find an ARP bolt that matched it. Curious as to what i may find in there in a couple years when I finally get to pull that one....

 

[bmcgc1960]

I bought the engine from a guy doing a V8 transplant. When I saw it was a C9 head I assumed that it was the 1.5 carb opening. Later when I read about the M heads being 1.75, I thought that I got lucky.

The head in the car is a D0, so I still have the large opening, but since I would rather mount the carb directly to the log, I guess it really doesn't matter.

On another note I bought a set of valve spring keepers Sealed Power p/n VK144. Are these the correct ones for my 200?

http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinf ... cc=1403255

 

[CNC-Dude]

There is no such thing as absolutes when discussing casting numbers or forging numbers, whether its Ford, Chevy or Chrysler. There will always be those discrepency's that pop up occassionally that challenge what the manufacturers have published in their data. So if this is the first instance that has been brought to your attention since the book was written, your doing real good and did your research well. And this is likely just a transition part number that started out as one size in the beginning of production and was changed later on and just not noted or updated in their database to note this change.

 

[xctasy]

That's so true. But we've tested out them Arizona boy's, and they still keep giving rock solid info.