My solution the the clearence problem, miracle air cleaners

Jett's_Pony

Active member
Hey,
I've had a couple of questions on how I solved the clearence problem between the forward air cleaner and the hood. First of all, I used Mr. Gasket Co. 1 and a half inch air cleaners, with a six inch diameter. Part number 1491. I got them from Amazon.com, and for only 14.00 each. :roll: I had to make adapters to fit them to my autolite 1100s. (The two outer carbs are off a 170 ci '64 truck, and the center is off a 240 ci '66 truck, with the load-o-matic disabled). The autolites had a diameter of 2 and 3/16, but the air cleaner was 2 and 5/8. A quick trip to the local home improvement store resulted in three PVC 2 inch pipe fittings. After a lot of cutting and grinding, I was left with three adapters that fit amazingly well.
PICT0214.jpg

My amazing adapters.
Then, I had to lower the base of the air cleaner. Translation, I flattened it.
PICT0215.jpg

That still was not enough for the front or center carb, so I had to grind a small indent into the base to lower it further.
PICT0216.jpg

Then there was the simple matter of mounting them, and taking pictures. I lowered the center air cleaner just to make it look even, they slope down from rear to front to look even.
PICT0222.jpg
PICT0223.jpg

So maybe they aren't magical quick-fix air cleaners, but they work quite a bit better than the ones I butchered on. Hope this helps anyone with the same problem. I reccomend the three autolites, take this for example. My car with the stock 200 had a 0 to 60 of 23 seconds. Now it is a much quicker 11.5 seconds. Go me. :D
Jett
P.S. Be VERY careful with the extra horespower. On the first day of my Senior year, I spun the car out into the curb. Not very proud of myself. I drove through that corner all last year on a stock 200, and could not spin a tire. Go figure. Oh well, three days and $600 later, I'm back on the road, wiser and $600 further from that paint job.
 
wait, it had a 0-60 of 23 seconds stock? Whats wrong with your engine? my sunbird weighs about the same, has a crappier engine, and makes 0-60 in about 13 to 14 seconds. Strange, that looks pretty bad ass though, someday maybe i'll put a tri carb setup on my falcons 200.
 
That fuel log setup is quite the deal. Is it fed by the stock fuel pump? And what kind of fitting is that at the rear, a 90* or a capped one?

And what kind of throttle linkage? Cable?
 
wow that is pretty awesome... but yeah 23 seconds is really slow just to 60
 
Hey
Yes 0 to 60 is quite slow. That is why I am glad that I found this website and the Falcon handbook.
1967 California 200 motors have a couple of major performance robbing items built in at the factory. Low compression pistons, small carb off a 170 and some other small items that all add up to a pretty slow car :( . Add in a truly worn out junk carb that the previous owner had bought from one of the chain autoparts store and it adds up to a car that would not get out of its own way :cry: . I did the 0 to 60 times just to give a base for my improvements. I also did some runs up a steep local hill and the car went from 43mph and 46 seconds to 66+mph and 30 seconds at the top. On the 66+ run I had to lift off the throttle at the top, I was way over the speed limit and things were getting exciting near the top :shock: . I did the final runs on a day when it was over 100 degrees outside. Thought I was going to get a speeding ticket for a couple of seconds 8) . My car used to struggle and sounded really strained at 65 on the freeway. Now it runs all day at 70+ with very little throttle and still pulls pretty hard when I nail it.
The fuel pump is stock and keeps up just fine. The rear fitting is a 90 to feed the rear carb.
The whole fun of building one of these sixes is getting some performance out an early 60s design and the suprised looks at the local car show. My Dads ACR Neon gets a lot more hp out of 2.0 liters with all the fuel injection and computers. Cars have gotten more efficient and complicated with time.

Jett
 
i guess the 67s were worse then the 65s, cause my 65 was running on five cylinders with sludge for oil and the carb was missing all its floaters when i bought it. That thing was still faster then my modern car *shrug*.

Yeah though man, god that makes me want a three carb setup so bad, but that will have to wait a while till i have more money. Actually though the biggest issue is machining the intake on. Other then that my friend could probably find me 2 more restorable autolite 1100s for cheap if not free. Thats one thing i've been lucky to have, a buddy who is good friends with a ford junk yard owner :).
 
Jett, just wondered what ratio you are running in your rear axle??? to drive at 70mph - as my falcon has 3.25.1 and its still happiest around 50mph - unfortunately

thanks

Bob
 
Hey
Sorry but I do not know what my rear end ratio is :oops: . The car was stock and struggled to stay at 65. The cam and later head with the big valves made the motor breath much better and pull the higher speeds much easier. I will check when I install the new rear springs in the next week or so. I put in some cut down V8 performance coils in the front and need to balance them by adding stiffer rear springs. It seems to be a bit rich still and I need to find smaller jets, has anyone tried the ones on Ebay?
In other news the beast got a bath today, it looked so good that I had to post a pic. Apologies in advance, I really need to do the bodywork and paint it. My little shunt into the curb cost me a good chunk of my paint job fund.
PICT0241.jpg

I am sorry that I did not answer what the carb linkage was. It is the progressive linkage that came with the Offy manifold kit. I bent up a Studebaker headliner rod, (stolen from dads 4x4 Stude project) :twisted: , to mate it with the stock throttle linkage.

Jett
 
Back
Top