New 200 build - please give me your opinions

[wblundell]

I have studies the Ford Inline Six Performance Handbook, as well as read almost every article on the sponsors web site and now I think I'm ready to proceed.
I have a 200 engine from my automatic 1966 Mustang. The engine was rebuilt a few years ago, bored .030. I have acquired a head from a 1982 Granada.

I am planning on the following modifications to this head:
- hot tank, magnaflux'd, and pressure tested
- Use original (non-adjustable) rocker arms
- larger valves (175/150) and valve seats
- new guides and seals
- back cutting, and a three angle valve job
- mill the cylinder head a total of .075"
- port and polish the intake and exhaust ports
- modified to accept the 2V conversion adaptor

And the addition of a 264/264-110* hydraulic cam, new lifters and 302 springs, along with a new dual roller timing chain. DUI distributor and new plug wires will also be added this year.

My carburetor choice is an Autolite 2100 with a 1.14 Venturi (already had this...) with the 2V conversion adaptor.

I will have to wait until next year for new exhaust and a header ($)

Please let me know if you think this is a decent combination. Is this too large of a carb for this application? Would this cam provide a fairly smooth idle?

Thanks.

 

[rbohm]

looks like a good combination to me. i assume that you intend to direct mount the two barrel carb rather than use a bolt on adapter through the 1v opening. the carb you have will work just fine with your combination. the cam will provide a smooth idle, and decent low end and mid range power. i think you have a well thought out combination here.

 

[wsa111]

With the 110 L/C cam a looser converter would help your idle.
With a stock converter the 112 L/C camshaft would have been a wiser choice.
I would also recommend adjustable rocker arms, in case you bottom the lifter plungers.
What is your rear gear ratio???

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy W:

Welcome to The Forum. it looks like you've done your homework. I would have liked more information about your goals and intended uses of this engine in your Mustang, but based on what we have the only suggestion I have is that you consider having the lower assembly balanced, if at all feasible.

I'd be leaning toward a Dura Spark II ignition system for several reasons (Sorry Mike). Check it out.

Keep us posted.

Adios, David

 

[rocklord]

You should consider having the DSII recurved. The DSII advance was originnaly setup for emissions and fuel economy.
With your build increasing efficiency and performance, it would be money well spent tweeking your ignition system.

There are several members on the forum who can perform the recurve, wsa111 is one of them.

 

[wblundell]

Thanks for the input.

The read axle ratio is the stock 2.83:1.

I have a Dura Spark II and the ignition module out of the same car that the head came from. CZLN6, why do you prefer it to the DUI ignition? It would save me some money that I could put towards a header and exhaust.

My hope is to have an engine that idles fairly smooth but adds a little off the line power. I would eventually like to get to the point where this car is my daily driver for the summer months (we only get a couple of those here in Saskatchewan). I don't want to completely sacrifice fuel economy either, but I would like to give the little car some much needed power.

 

[rbohm]

Thanks for the input.

The read axle ratio is the stock 2.83:1.

I have a Dura Spark II and the ignition module out of the same car that the head came from. CZLN6, why do you prefer it to the DUI ignition? It would save me some money that I could put towards a header and exhaust.

My hope is to have an engine that idles fairly smooth but adds a little off the line power. I would eventually like to get to the point where this car is my daily driver for the summer months (we only get a couple of those here in Saskatchewan). I don't want to completely sacrifice fuel economy either, but I would like to give the little car some much needed power.

the big reason is cost for the duraspark. the DUI is a great ignition package to be sure, and if you have a cost if no object build, then by all means go with the DUI, i would. but as with most builds, you are looking for cost cutting measures, and the duraspark fits the bill nicely. for older installs i like to hook a chrysler ignition box to the duraspark distributor as well as an msd blaser lll coil. that combination was a big help with my old 66 falcon. it would light off first try in 30 degree weather.

one suggestion is to swap the rear gear ratio to a 3.20 or so gear for a little better push off the line. you sacrifice perhaps 1 mpg, but it pays many benefits overall.

 

[wsa111]

Thanks for the input.

The read axle ratio is the stock 2.83:1.

I have a Dura Spark II and the ignition module out of the same car that the head came from. CZLN6, why do you prefer it to the DUI ignition? It would save me some money that I could put towards a header and exhaust.

My hope is to have an engine that idles fairly smooth but adds a little off the line power. I would eventually like to get to the point where this car is my daily driver for the summer months (we only get a couple of those here in Saskatchewan). I don't want to completely sacrifice fuel economy either, but I would like to give the little car some much needed power.

Email sent.
viewtopic.php?f=86&t=71929

 

[rocklord]

If you purchase a DUI system from anyone else than Classic Inlines, it will more than likely have to be recurved for your application.

An upside of the DSII is that you can go to any auto parts store and purchase replacement parts over-the-counter.

 

[WerbyFord]

I had a few minutes this AM, interested in your plan as I might do something similar, so I keyed this into the WerbyFord Gonkulator, a computer program I wrote which is fairly well wrung out against other builds and road tests. Here is what it said about your plan:

I started with a 1969 Falcon, 200-c4-2.83, Motor Trend May 69 road test:
20.40 at 67mph
4.8 0-30
15.4 0-60
I had already developed a Gonkulator file to match this road test so it was a good start.

Convert to your 66 Mustang (weight & aero)
19.46 at 67.9
4.3
14.18 0-60mph
It’s kind of a dawg but you already know that.
Faster than a VW BreadBox if that helps…..
(If your car is still together I would go out and get some "before" times with it, either stopwatch or GTECH or IPhone or dragstrip, data you will never be able to get again, I always regret when I don't do the "before" tests) :!:

So here is your engine build as planned, I get a CR=9.2 but you should check all the numbers.
The WerbyFord Gonkulator says you should have about
Torq 161 at 3700
Powr 136 at 4800
(This is stock drinking straw exhaust & WITHOUT headers)
Shifting at 5200
3.06 60ft
12.74 at 57.3 1/8 mile
19.59 at 71.7 ¼ mile
5.28 0-30mph
13.83 0-60mph
Note it is SLOWER than stock in some areas.
Obviously not the place to stop, but just to give you an idea of what weak links (exhaust and gearing) can do to a build!

Ok so now get a few more $$$ and add headers and say 2” duals (plenty)
Torq 188 at 3800
Powr 165 at 5100
This is about the same as adding 80hp to a big block v8 just by adding headers. That tiny stock iron exhaust was choking off all your work inside.
Shifting at 5400
2.86
11.70 at 62.8
17.92 at 79.2
4.45
10.80 0-60mph
It will feel like a totally different car when you add the headers & duals.
I’d actually do this FIRST, before the engine mods, but whichever order you prefer!

Since you mentioned idle, here is a different cam option, instead of the 214-214-110 LSA cam, Erson has a 208-208-110 cam just as an example:
Torq 187 at 3700
Powr 160 at 5000
2.84
11.67 at 62.66
17.91 at 78.8
4.38
10.80
Note this smaller cam is quicker just about everywhere it matters. Of course the Gonkulator is just a computer so you might say the difference is too close to call between the two cams, but I always err on the side of smaller cam if it’s a daily driver, haven’t been sorry yet! If the car sees the dragstrip every week it’s a different matter, but big cams can be annoying in cold or wet weather.

Finally, I got to the trans & rear, an AOD trans with 4.11’s in an 8” rear:
2.58 (finally, this would beat me or my bicycle across the intersection!)
10.98 at 64.1
17.16 at 79.0
3.45
9.67 0-60mph (under 10sec used to be “fast” back in the 1950s…..) :mrgreen:

And for some added fun, add a 2500 stall, I’d try to keep the lockup so you could still hope for 25mpg or so on the road:
2.36
10.66 at 64.3
16.82 at 79.1
3.05
9.27
You could surprise a few stock 289 cars with this combo, and yet it is totally streetable and a low nuisance factor with the 208-208-110 cam and autolite 2bbl on top.
The trans and rear aren’t cheap either but a full second in the ¼ mile is, again, like a different car.

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy back W and all:

The price difference is #1, the fact that you already have a DS II makes it a no-brainer. I'm put off by the bulkiness of the DUI as it has the coil pack on top of the distributor. It sits taller than a DS II. Get your DS II recurved to your combo and go. That's my two cents, for what it's worth.

Adios, David

 

[wblundell]

Thanks everyone for the replies.

Is recurving a DSII really as simple as documented at http://www.classicinlines.com/DSIIswap.asp#Recurve ?

I will certainly consider doing it myself it it is the case, saving me enough money to buy a header this year

Is there any reason why I wouldn't want to use the Ford ignition module from the 82 Granada that I have over a Dyna Module or MSD-6A? I have a Pertronix Flame Thrower coil I could also use in this setup.

Thanks again for the advice - and special thanks to WerbyFord - your calculations and insight are very interesting.

Warren

 

[rbohm]

Thanks everyone for the replies.

Is recurving a DSII really as simple as documented at http://www.classicinlines.com/DSIIswap.asp#Recurve ?

I will certainly consider doing it myself it it is the case, saving me enough money to buy a header this year

actually yes it is that simple. to get the most accurate results though, you should put the distributor on a machine to make sure the advance curve is what you are looking for.

Is there any reason why I wouldn't want to use the Ford ignition module from the 82 Granada that I have over a Dyna Module or MSD-6A? I have a Pertronix Flame Thrower coil I could also use in this setup.

Thanks again for the advice - and special thanks to WerbyFord - your calculations and insight are very interesting.

Warren

the ford duraspark module is fine. it does its job well, and is inexpensive. if yours is working, then go with it, no need to spend money you dont have for a bit of technology that does a similar job.