I am impressed with the 250

[powerband]

Some have said they were able to install the tranny with the engine and the 250 would fit in early Falcon with out any firewall interference. I needed to form the firewall on the '61 to fit the 250 on original 61 motor mounts and have enough clearance to fit SBF bell/adapter and T5. It was very easy with engine out to push in the firewall where needed with BFH and can't see it once engine is in place.

"No replcacement for Displacement"

Powerband

 

[bigblue91]

A friend picked up a 70 1/2 falcon 4 door with a 250 and C-4 and after driving it I really liked that motor,it seemed to move it real well and when I got on the highway it got up to 65 with no problem. I can imagine that motor in a first generation falcon would seem like a V8 and my next daily driver might be a fairlane with one or might do the early falcon swap.

I hear all the time from guys trying to get me to swap a v8 but I tell them that little six can get up and run. I've never drove any of Ford's other six offerings but those little 250's have enough power for me, especially in smaller cars as the falcon,maverick, etc.

 

[drag-200stang]

For the guys that have 200s, I am confident a similarly modified performance 200 will move out just as fast as a 250 with the same equipment. Especially if its in one of the light weight models and geared properly behind a T5. It will also get better gas mileage. There is no doubt a 250 is easier to get a heavy duty clutch behind it. But for most builds, a beefed up 9" clutch should work fine.

No one has proved yet that a 250 is faster. If you look at the ET list, you'll see some of the 200s going just as fast as the 250s. We need more builds to verify it. There is no doubt a 250 in a heavy vehicle would be a better daily driver especially behind an inefficient automatic.

What I'm trying to say is, don't throw out your 200 just to get a 250.

 

[rommaster2]

I agree whole heartedly, if you look at the power numbers once they switched to net the 250 does not have too much more power then the 200. the reason for this is they both have the same head and intake restriction. Pretty much all its gaining power from is 50 more cubes and since it won't rev as due to the long long stroke the 200 in a lighter model with a stock would be a better candidate for a naturally aspirated build using a stock bottom end apart from cam IMO. The extra torque though does feel really nice . However in a quarter mile its HP that makes the difference as gears can me changed to match torque on the way up to the horsepower.

 

[MustangSix]

For the guys that have 200s, I am confident a similarly modified performance 200 will move out just as fast as a 250 with the same equipment. Especially if its in one of the light weight models and geared properly behind a T5. It will also get better gas mileage. There is no doubt a 250 is easier to get a heavy duty clutch behind it. But for most builds, a beefed up 9" clutch should work fine.

No one has proved yet that a 250 is faster. If you look at the ET list, you'll see some of the 200s going just as fast as the 250s. We need more builds to verify it. There is no doubt a 250 in a heavy vehicle would be a better daily driver especially behind an inefficient automatic.

What I'm trying to say is, don't throw out your 200 just to get a 250.

I think that's largely because of the limits of the log head. You are up against airflow that limits power output regardless how big the displacement gets. If you kept the same head and were able to somehow double displacement, power output would not go up because you can't flow enough air. With either the Aluminum head or a Crossflow adaptation, that changes and you could get a proportional increase in power.

 

[CobraSix]

I agree with Jack.

Just because you have a bigger container, doesn't mean more power if you are sucking through the same sized straw.

Open up that breathing and you'll see bigger gains. I would not swap out a log head 200 for a log head 250. But with an OZ or AL head, you should see some significant gains since the head is not the limiting factor it once was.

The reason I would go with a 250 is about where the power is made. I don't like to rev up engines. In my experience, high revs = short engine life. Even now, my engine is rev-limited to 4500. I'd rather have low end grunt.

Also, more displacement doesn't have to mean less mileage. That's where vehicle weight and gearing make a difference. For example, the Gen II explorers with the 5.0 have the same mileage as the Gen II explorers with the 4.0 in observed conditions (not EPA estimates). Just has to do with where the power is. YOu don't have to rev the 5.0 to get the car moving as fast.

But I do love the 200 and the options available for it. I've already got a modified bellhousing with a cable clutch, so I can fit better clutches. I'm not going to go hunting for a 250, but if I find one that has been recently rebuilt and is close by for a good price, it may find it's way into a mustang.

 

[powerband]

For the guys that have 200s, I am confident a similarly modified performance 200 will move out just as fast as a 250 with the same equipment. ... No one has proved yet that a 250 is faster. If you look at the ET list, you'll see some of the 200s going just as fast as the 250s. We need more builds to verify it. There is no doubt a 250 in a heavy vehicle would be a better daily driver especially behind an inefficient automatic.

What I'm trying to say is, don't throw out your 200 just to get a 250.

I agree and the only reasonable and simple answer is to build at least one of each displacement. 8)

Powerband

 

[FalconSedanDelivery]

I 'll Prove it in May , My 250 will be the fastest Non Boosted Engine ( inthe 144-250 group ) and I'll do it without the Aluminum Head , so Stay Tuned !! , I do have some experience , in the area, I dont just rehash Magazine articals or talk without the www.zoocrewracing.net/newage/profile.php





quote="drag-200stang"]For the guys that have 200s, I am confident a similarly modified performance 200 will move out just as fast as a 250 with the same equipment. Especially if its in one of the light weight models and geared properly behind a T5. It will also get better gas mileage. There is no doubt a 250 is easier to get a heavy duty clutch behind it. But for most builds, a beefed up 9" clutch should work fine.

No one has proved yet that a 250 is faster. If you look at the ET list, you'll see some of the 200s going just as fast as the 250s. We need more builds to verify it. There is no doubt a 250 in a heavy vehicle would be a better daily driver especially behind an inefficient automatic.

What I'm trying to say is, don't throw out your 200 just to get a 250.[/quote]

 

[balaso]

I agree and the only reasonable and simple answer is to build at least one of each displacement. 8)

Powerband

Lol, I am starting to think this is the proper answer for the issue!

 

[bmbm40]

Lots of interesting views on the 200 and 250 engine. I kept the 200 I had in my Bronco because my next project will be an early six cylinder Mustang or Maverick I hope. Before the swap my intention was to modify the 200 but I would still have the inadequate three speed transmission. I reasoned at the time that a 200 modded to have the torque of the 250 would have involved a cam, modified log head including porting and three angle backcut valves and so on. Probably 1.5" exhaust valves also. Not to mention the time and work. Costs estimate 1200-1500 dollars. Since I found a good running 250 for $100.00 I just bolted on the torque increase and spent the $1500 on the five speed trans. The 250 feels well suited to a heavy Bronco used for occasional slow speed offroad use. On road that bottom end torque feels relaxed and almost effortless going through the gears.
It seems that many people feel that identical upgrades on a 200 and 250 do not yield higher torque and horsepower on the 250 if I understand correctly. A little disappointing to hear this but it was still worth it for the sbf bell housing pattern allowing more trans choices.