hop up 200 6 cyl

48fordnut

Well-known member
I am serious about finding a fairmont or zephyr for a daily. I am collecting parts as we speak. I have the h/w 5200 adapter, throttle linkage ,an alum v/c,for looks and my tires and wheels. I want a nice looking car and eng compt. I am a eng builder and know my way with the wrenches. would like some advice on getting better mpg and some better performance. will be starting with :D a good running 200 in a 78-83 car. I have seen the recommended valve size to go with 1.75/1.50, what about milling the head for more comp? how much ? I will be opening up the intake for the h/w. will be removing all the smog piping. I plan on using the present dist, maybe some port work on the exhaust side. any recommendations on cam for mpg, or is the stocker good enough? thanks for the response. jim.
 
Jim,

I have a 1968 mustang with the H/W carb, 2.79 rear gears and a 3.03 trans. depending on where I am driving, I tend to get 21-26 mpg,

I was pretty steady at 23-24 mpg when running a 3.20 rear.

Personally I would like a little more pep, but then I drive at 4500' and haven't played with jetting very much yet, I notice a huge change when I go down toward sea level... guess I gotta play with the jetting again...
 
Howdy 48 Ford nut:

You've got a nice project idea and goal. The Fox based 200s have some barriers to performance and economy as well as some assets. Before going into details, I have some questions for you. Is gas mileage the goal or ecomomy? For example, IF you are spending $2,000 building an engine and drivetrain, It will take you many many miles to recoup at say 29 mpg as opposed to 23mpg. Although, still a darn sight cheaper than buying a new econobox.

If you have a plan that begins with assessing what you have and optimizing it, and then carefully selecting the most cost effective upgrades from there, you will be more economical. Given that, do you have plans to do only what rebuilding is needed? Or start with a Valve job? rebuild block?

What trans will you be looking for? Manuals get better mileage than autos.

There are subtle, but important differences between building an engine for performance as opposed to economy. For example, Heat. On a performance engine holding heat in check helps performance. For fuel economy, generating, holding and using heat increases mileage. Ever notice that you will get better mileage in the summer then in the winter?

The short comings of these engines are 1) carburetion, which you already have a good plan for resolving. The H/W are very tuneable and efficient. for economy and driveablility. 2) Cam timing. The stock cam has timing advance built into it for several reasons.- reducing emissions and to incease low end torque. Selecting and upgrading to an aftermarket cam with slightly more duration then stock, but with a fatter profile and increased lift to about .400" will help a bunch. The goal will be to increase efficiency while maintaining cylinder pressure and high vacuum. 3) Compression- these engines are reduced to 8:1 CR. For economy, a properly managed 9:1 is a worthy goal. This can be achieved in several ways depending on your plan. 4) Exhaust. Depending on what year and what EPA systems your car will have, all are crippled and crutched to accomodate emissions control stuff that actually hurts mileage, even when it was new and working. This can be addressed in several ways also, from retro fitting a '68 vintage exhaust manifold mated with a 2" exhaust system and a 2" turbo muffler to headers and system.

The pluses for these engines are the best air cleaner system you can find. I was called the Climatic Control System. It should be adapted to your H/W and maintained. The best production cylinder head every from the factory. A specific rebuild is all it needs. A very good ignition system called a DuraSpark II. All in a lightweight, safe, liveable vehicle package. A good starter choice for your goals. Keep us posted on your project.

Adios, David

Adios, David
 
thanks david, this is what I am looking for. i hope to have an automatic. will be adding a shift kit and new fluid. i would like to get aprox 23-4 mpg. I can be satisfied with that. I am also thinking of changing the r/e gear to a better than 2.79 that most come with. I would think a 3.08 or 3.20 would help the car move better. not so much of a struggle with the low torque. I will probably use the earlier exhaust instead of the header,but with a low restriction muffler,no cat.I will also be going with a manual steering. I further plan on removing the smog pump and all piping. the dist will get recurved. the only problem I'm having is finding a suitable car close to me. don't want a 500 dollar road trip for a 500 dollar car.lol. the good is I have most of the parts. will be rebuild as needed.not just because.jim.
 
8) as david pointed out so well, there is a fine line between building for performance, and building for economy, however you can with in reason do both. with the proper selection of parts that compliment each other, you will gain both performance and economy. as long as you are not looking for a 12 second 30mpg economy car, you can succeed in getting the performance and economy you are looking for. since this is a street engine, pick parts that work in the off idle to 4000 rpm range. you can fudge the rpm range a bit one way or the other, but dont go too far, no more than say 1000rpm.
 
Howdy Back Jim and All:

FYI- the Fox Fords use a veriation of the C4 auto. THe C3 from '74 to '87 behind 4 and 6 cylinder engines. It is a very lightweight, light duty trans. The C5 version was used from '82 - '86. It's big difference is a lock-up torque converter and a specific valve body for improved efficiency. I use to know the visual differences of the pan, but don't recall now. Something to consider when shopping.

Either trans can work fine in your situation. Keeping trans fluid cool and clean will extend the life of either. Also changing to a 3:1 rearend ratio will lessen stress on the converter.

FYI- the Fox based vehicles came with either the quick lite cat, which is attached to the oddball exhaust manifold or a more typical exhaust manifold. The best choice for you would be the later. The early cat systems were low on flow and low on effective life. Even the more normal exhaust manifolds of this era are horribly cobbled with EGR systems and air injection taps and bulges. You could get by with the regular 2" outlet type and adding a 2" exhaust system and free flowing muffler. This should likely be your first big ticket item.

Your first steps should be to assess what you have and to optimize it. Lighten, lubing, aligning, tuning, and refining won't cost too much depending on what you buy, but can return a bunch.

In the areas of basic maintainance, switching to synthetic oils can return good mileage gains. The increased initial cost can, in time be returned. Most likely a one time cost for trans fluid and rearend. I've mitigated the increased cost of synthetic oil by extending oil changes to 5,000 miles or annually, which ever comes first.

Finally, avoid cold starts, shorten warm up time, never, ever idle, coast often, plan ahead, and drive as if gas cost $3.50 A GALLON!!!!!

If you decide to stick with the stock cam, you can still improve combustion efficiency when doing a valve job. When you're ready for that let me know.

Adios, David
 
the c3 trans only need a clutch pack out of a c4 to hold up. I have used them in a 10.90 falcon I had. clutch pack is the only major chg i am told by the trans shop. that may be a moot point, as I am looking really hard at a original 4 speed car. would rather have auto, but this is avail. Will be going with a early, non egr exhaust manifold. I have a complete 3.42 ,7.5 re for the project. that would be good with the overdrive 4 speed. the car is running well now ,so i won't be going into a valve job, unless i break some bolts doing the exhaust swap.Being a eng builder I have my own oil set up, and after 500 plus engs I won't be changing. never a bearing failure. :D keep the info going as I have never had a gas mileage car.
 
48fordnut,

You ask some good questions. I've been adding a little bit here and there to improve my HP/Tourque over the years. I couldn't give you the specifics on milling, porting and polishing, but thats one way to get some of the gains you are looking for. Another, external add on, that helped out was the dual out headers. Both Mike @ FSP and Clifford Performance offer dual out headers. I started out with the Flame thrower module in my dizzy and Flame Thrower coil. That gave me a significant improvement. Last year I installed the DUI dizzy and the difference was like night and day. I can't tell you what my MPG was since my odometer hasn't been working since I bought the car back in 2002. I drove 20+ miles 5 days a week to and from work. I also drove the car everywhere else I went because I love driving my car. :D When I first got the car (with the log head) a tank of gas lasted me two to three weeks. With the Oz head, port and polish, dual out headers and DUI dizzy, a tank would last me three to four weeks. Now that I have my TOM Tom, I could give you much more specific MPG #'s.
Please keep us updated on your setup and progress. I'm always looking for improvements.
Ted
 
I am thinking the EGR manifold is the way to go. Compared to my early style (flat gasket) manifold, the EGR piece has a much bigger runner and a much bigger outlet. I took the EGR tubes off and just installed brass plugs in their place. :lol:
 
I was told the 68 non egr would be good. i can clean off the junk on the present one,and delete the air pump.I really would like to use a oz head or the alum one but this is a daily and I think a gear chg would be as good ,for the street.. I have options on gears 3.42, 3.73 and what ever is in it now. I don't plan on a header. i will limit my self to the h/w, a diff exhaust ,gear chg ,and possibly a cam chg. If I chg the cam the head will come off for a 3 angle v/j and a mill.
 
Howdy All:

Eric- the early flat gasket, small outlet exhaust manifolds were in service from 1960 -'62. These are not the ones to use for performance or durability. Most in the recycle bin will be cracked or broken. These have a 1 3/4" outlet or less, depending on casting and machining.

The later style, donut gasket manifolds began in 1963 and went through several versions, adding metal, gussets and reinforcements to be less prone to warpage and cracking. All have a 2" outlet. Some '67 & '68 castings have taps for EGR stuff, but beginning in '69 casting got very distorted with bungs, taps and bulges for more loops and connections.

Jim- the '68 non EGR manifold would be great. Check it carefully for cracks before investing any time or money on it. Yes, cleaning up what you have and plugging taps is an option.

For mileage, even with a OD trans, I would not suggest going any lower than about a 3.25:1

What vehicle are you looking at? What rear gear does it have?

Adios, David
 
thanks for the info on the manifold. I am looking at a fairmont with a 4 speed. a 200 6 cyl is struggling any way, and to put a higher numerical gear makes sense. I don't know what it has now, but i have several options. this will primarily be a local car with a few 100-200 mile trips.
 
Howdy back :

What year? This is, potentially a mileage making machine. A manual is not as easy around town as an auto, but more fun in my opinion. I have a 4 speed OD in my '65 Ranchero with an 8" rear and a 3:1 ratio. This combo makes 1st gear more flexible and useable and the highway OD is a treat.

Adios, David
 
its a 80 .its getting 23 mpg now, just don't know if i want to shift gears after 25 yrs. that was my last one. a real mpg machine a 8o zephyr, all manual 4 cyl box top. i used to get 28-9 mpg. wish i could find another. I would accept the 4 speed in that combo.
 
Here is what I will be doing on my 80 fairmont 200 6 cyl. I have a new h/w carb and adapter, plugging the egr ,removing the smog pump, removing the power steering, going manual, as large as possible ,single exhaust into a series 40 flow,exiting out of the rt side in ft of the w/w. getting the dist curved ,and for looks I have a alum v/c. new wires of course. All this as I am trying to get my ft eng dragster back on the strip. its fun being retired, no off days,or sick days. thanks for all the help. will post pics as soon as all this comes together.jim.
 
Howddy Back Jim:

The only downside to retirement is that you have no vacations. You have to have a job to take a vacation! We do take lots of trips though.

Am I to assume that you bought the '80 Fairmont? Start by bumping the initial advance by an additional 5 degrees over stock specs. Getting the H/W fine tuned will take some effort. Sounds like a good plan.

Adios, David
 
Back
Top