Rough idle + pinging

[thesameguy]

Sorry, still not clear to this mudle head: the C 4 will fit my 'sideways' 4 cyl Ztec (a 2001 Focus)?
Thanks...

The Zetec is not the same as the Duratec. The Zetec was an evolution (more or less) of the old CFI motor from the '80s and '90s Escort (as was the SPI motor used in SOHC Focuses). It was only ever used in front wheel drive transverse applications. The Zetec came in multiple displacements, but the US only ever got the 2.0l. The Zetec was in use from about '95 (Contour, Escort ZX2) until '03 (Focus, Escape).

The Duratec was codesigned with Mazda to be either front wheel drive and transverse (Focus, Mazda6) or rear wheel drive and longitudinal (Ranger, Miata). The Ford version is called Duratec, the Mazda version is called MZR. It's the same basic motor regardless of brand or orientation. The Duratec/MZR comes in multiple displacements, in the US we get everything from 1.8l to 2.5l. For example, the 2004+ Focus gets a transverse 2.0l Duratec, the 2001+ Ranger gets a longitudinal 2.3l Duratec, and the 2009+ Mazda 3 gets a 2.5l MZR. ALSO, the Duratec/MZR was designed to support turbocharging, direct injection, variable cam timing, and balance shafts individually or in combination - a bunch of neat features. Lots of different applications, same basic engine. The Duratec replaced the Lima in '01 (Rangers), the Zetec in some cars in '03 (Focus PZEV), and fully replaced Zetecs in '04. It also replaced the Mazda BP motor in '03 (Mazda6) and '06 (Miata).

Confusing enough?

Neither motor - Zetec or Duratec/MZR will bolt to an old Ford transmission. Each motor has a new, unique bolt pattern that is different from each other and different from anything made in the past. The only transmissions ever made to bolt to a Zetec are FWD. The Duratec is a little luckier, since there are both FWD and RWD (and AWD, for that matter) transmissions that will bolt directly up to it. So, to answer your question, no, you cannot bolt a C4 to your Zetec.

HOWEVER, Quads4Rods sells adapters for BOTH motors to attach them older RWD transmissions, such as a T5 or C4. If you've got an extra $500 in your pocket you could buy an adapter and put a C4 behind your Zetec.

My thoughts are:

The Zetec is less powerful and heavier than a Duratec. It takes a LOT of money to get good power out of the Zetec - several thousand dollars just to approach 200hp. The 2.3l Duratec can make 200hp with a good intake, headers, and cams and save about 100lbs in the process. I was originally considering a Zetec, but I just couldn't justify the expense & difficulty for the final product.

I would like to keep my Falcon an automatic, and I'm not fond of putting a three speed automatic (C4) behind a small displacement four cylinder. Such a transmission would have a really hard time keeping the engine in its power band, and would leave a lot of performance and economy on the table. To that end, I'd really like to use the 4-speed or 5-speed automatic from a recent Ranger. Both are similar, and both based on the A4LD so I think tunnel clearance will be an issue, and of course both are computer controlled so there is that to think about.

I may cave in and go manual transmission, though. The Duratec bolts to a wide variety of modern 5 and 6-speed manual transmissions, but all of them are indirect shift (cable or rod linkage) which kind of sucks. To that end, the Quads4Rods adapter and a T5 is certainly a viable option. The T5 never came with great ratios for a small displacement motor, but at least with five forward speeds you've got a good start, and T5-into-a-Falcon has been pretty well explored.

That's where I am! Hope this helps.


Edit:

Quads4Rods - http://quad4rods.com/

There is also

RWD Motorsport in the UK - http://www.rwdmotorsport.com

These guys also sell adapters for the Zetec and Duratec to "vintage" manual transmissions. The Duratec -> Ford T9 (http://www.rwdmotorsport.com/Bellhousin ... od_20.html) is interesting. The T9 is a VERY compact 5-speed manual transmission that was widely mated to small displacement engines. It has limited power handling but good ratios. You can find the T9 domestically in the XR4Ti. T9 has a dogleg reverse, which would be out of place in a '60s domestic car, but it's otherwise a very nice, quiet gearbox.

 

[thesameguy]

I got the Falcon good and warmed up today, then broke out the leak down tester.

I tested #1 first just to get a baseline. Cyl #1 (100psi) held 92 of 100psi, with a little leakage audible through the crankcase vent, carb, and tail pipe. Nothing unexpected on an old, high mileage motor. Cyl #6 held 10 of 100psi, with billows of smoke from the vent, and good flow from the carb, and exhaust. Pretty much impossible to narrow down what the big problem is... it's all problems. In any case, there is certainly a significant bottom end problem based on the flow from the crankcase vent, so I think it's safe to say if this motor were to come apart a full rebuild would not be wasted.

I have three car projects lined up, two of which are high priority. I'm gonna use that time to shop around for a good used six and a donor Ranger or Miata and see what I come up with first. I am kind of hoping it's a six, 'cause like bmbm40 said, less time fabbing and more time driving is definitely preferable!

 

[chad]

Confusing enough

Not @ all, thank U so much, a real treatise!
I wuz shocked @ all U wrote, then saw it wuz in a PM so even bigger thanks!

A motor that can go AWD, frnt or rear...what a trip! No wonder ur into it. Turbo ! Yeah!!!

 

[thesameguy]

Went out to West Sacramento in the morning with a battery, jumper cables, and a compression tester to check out an expensive, but good used 200ci. First fail was that the starter bolts to the transmission, not and end plate on the motor. No matter, we affixed the starter in place with c-clamps and vice grips. Second fail was that the starter was seized. We tried banging on it with a hammer and hosing it down with WD40 but it wouldn't spin or engage. Just a lot of smoke and sparks when we connected it to the battery. Without a compression test I was leery about buying it, but agreed to go for it for $250.

We drove off to the bank to get some cash, and as we pulled back up got a call, "We got the starter working!" Sweet! Went inside and ran a compression test. On a stone-cold motor (sitting for six months) we got 150-160psi on all six. Not bad at all! Sadly, that meant coughing up another $200, but whatever. It's a good 200ci with a starter, alternator, and carb, and the seller says he had the head redone about five years ago. As we're packing up, I asked how he got the starter spinning - "Oh, I held it over my head and dropped it."

http://www.sacsaabs.org/sacsaabs.org/misc/new200.JPG

 

[bubba22349]

:rolflmao: that's funny almost like if all else fails just get a bigger hammer. Congrats on finding a good engine

 

[thesameguy]

Lacking anything better to do, I went ahead and pulled the engine out of the car today. I'll tell you, after years of pulling engines from multi-valve, turbocharged, fuel-injected engines pulling this engine felt like changing spark plugs. It took a little over an hour, and the slowest bit was waiting for the coolant to drain.

I'm putting together a small parts order for the engine going on - rear main seal, oil pan gasket... stuff I don't want to worry about down the road. I am debating on whether to swap over my recently rebuilt Holley or keep the carb that's already on the motor. Part of my dilemma is I have no idea what carb is on there... I am not that familiar with carburetors in general, but this doesn't look like any Autolite I've seen on a '60s six. Can anyone help?

 

[bubba22349]

Would need some more pic's to id your carb but looks like it might be a 1965 carb. I think if you all ready have a rebuilt one might be best way unless you are planing to rebuild it, any carb that's been sitting for a years is likely dried out and needs to be rebuilt.

 

[Frankenstang]

Eventhough the it has the name 'Autolite' casted on the side, it looks like a Holley 1940. Never a factory installed option as I understand it, but rather a 'service replacement' for purchase through Ford Dealers (ergo the private labeling I guess)...

EDIT: Red circle is where the scv valve (load-o-matic compatible) would go if so equipped, or where it would be missing (no threads) for '68 and later models.

 

[thesameguy]

The engine supposedly came from a '67 Mustang, but of course who knows if it was original or what's been done to it The casting is C8DE. The engine was pulled in running condition last summer and the car got a V8 and a bunch of suspension upgrades. It was stored indoors, so it hasn't been sitting for long or suffered any weather. Pretty sure it was a Texas car - the owner is from there, but stationed in California in the Air Force - so it probably wouldn't have any California emissions stuff. In any case, it's supposedly a working setup so I'm inclined to leave it as-is and see how it goes... I can swap later if need be.

I can't find anything that looks like it on the internet. I spent a good hour or two looking and came up empty handed. The reman tag that's on it - 64-5155 - cross references to an Autolite 1101 but it sure doesn't look like an 1101. The Autolite script itself is cast into the housing, though, which seems pretty extreme for someone to do to some other brand's carb. Quite a mystery!

I will grab a couple more pictures tomorrow - there are a bunch of wires & hoses in the way. I'll get 'em out of there and take some more shots.

Edit: It sure does seem like a 1940:

From carbsonly.com:

 

[chad]

"...I am debating on whether to swap over my recently rebuilt Holley or keep the carb that's already on the motor..."

Choices R definatly nice. Easy enuff (top of the motor) to make choices later.

What's the end goal/over all plan for vehicle?
R U in the Calie "low lands" (topic review mode does not show ur location/I 4got 2 ck. while readin the thread)?

Thanks for your post & esp. the pic!

 

[thesameguy]

Yeah, I'm in Sacramento. The biggest thing we have is ~1000' foothills to the east. Of course, the Sierra Nevadas are an hour away - though it's unlikely I'd ever take the Falcon up there. No real goals for the car other than reliable, trouble-free operation. Despite running on 5 cylinders for 18 months, it has indeed been totally reliable. It's never left me stranded or given me reason to doubt I'd reach my destination. More than I can say for other cars I've owned and/or driven. I just enjoy having something interesting to get around in, so that's why I've got it. I have no designs on quarter miles or car shows. In the end, I have other cars if I want to do that.

Sadly, while pulling the motor out of the Falcon yesterday my water heater sprung a leak, so now I have that to do with. Good times! I think I may go ahead and employ a little credit card to pick up a header from Classic Inlines - I needed to know now what carb I had in case I needed a hot air tube for the choke, which it seems I don't. I'm also thinking about a C4 from a guy up in the foothills who rebuilds them. OTOH, my 2-speed works great, and I hate to get rid of a perfectly functioning transmission. So I dunno.

Really, the car is actually totally fine right now with the 170 and 2-speed, but I think a 200 with headers and a 3-speed would would be great to drive - even if it means going into a little debt for a little while.

I'm going to go ahead and replace the master cylinder with a dual bowl one - I figure with the engine out, there's no better time to mess with brake lines. That's really the last thing on my to-do list for the car in terms of mechanicals... With the new engine (and maybe transmission) I can spend some time worrying about how it looks.

 

[thesameguy]

EDIT: Red circle is where the scv valve (load-o-matic compatible) would go if so equipped, or where it would be missing (no threads) for '68 and later models.

So it looks like I have a '68+ model, as the SCV is not there and the port closed/unthreaded. And that leads me to this:

The distributor on the new motor looks identical to the one on my '62, except the new one has the larger 5/16" drive versus my earlier 1/4" drive. Both have two springs, so both are LoMs, yeah?

 

[bubba22349]

You need to at least find a 68 or newer distributor to go with your carb to have a good working combo or better still find a Dura Spark I or II

 

[thesameguy]

Bah! I was afraid that was the case. I was going to swap my Pertronix over to the "new" distributor, but then started thinking maybe I won't, and I'll just find a Duraspark. At this rate, I'm a month from driving the car anywhere, so hopefully I can scare one up. If not, maybe I'll just run it with points on the LoM for a little while. Won't be optimal, but at least it will run.

Thanks!

 

[thesameguy]

I started this evening on resealing the engine... figure it's on an engine stand, and now is the time to do it.

I am confused about carb gaskets, carbs, and spacers.

The Holley 1909 on my 170ci has:

Heater/spacer plate with a flat flange where it meets the carb
A gasket with a venturi hole slightly larger than the carb's actual venturi

The Holley 1940 on the new 200ci has:

Heater/spacer with a small channel that runs from the venturi towards the mounting stud
A metal shim
A gasket with two holes near each of the mounting studs
A gasket with a venturi hole slightly larger than the carb's venturi, but not the same size as gasket on the other motor

The gasket was of this type, with four holes:

It seems that the spacer/gasket/carb combination is special. I was hoping to use the old 1904 w/ SCV to match the distributor, but use the spacer that's already on the motor since my original one is in very poor shape. Is this going to cause a problem?

 

[thesameguy]

Man, still dredging this thread up.

It only took three months, but I finally got the new to me 200 in the car. Some time was "wasted" designing the EDIS system and gathering up some other parts, but really it was just me moving slowly.

With the engine out, I replaced the torque converter seal on the 2-speed, along with the rear main seal and oil pan gasket on the engine. I moved the Pertronix from the 1/4" drive distributor on my 170 to the 5/16" drive distributor that came with the 200. Both were LoM distributors (with the double spring plate) and that will handle ignition for now, until I gather up parts/motivation for EDIS. I left the Holley 1940 that came with the motor off since it's a non-LoM carb and reused the 1909 from the 170 to have a distributor-carb match. I think the 1909 should be adequate to handle the 200. I found out the hard way the carb spacers are "married" to the carb, as the throttle arm "axle" is very different for each of the two carbs. The old spacer from the 170 was *wrecked* from rust and corrosion, so I just hacked off the vast majority of the coolant passages and left it in the tumbler for a few days. Came out nice and shiny! Since my heater core is in an unknown condition (and the spacer's situation didn't bode well for it) I just bypassed the heater core entirely - it's not like I'm going to need it for a while.

I spent a ludicrous amount of money at Ace Hardware on new Grade 8, Grade 5, and stainless steel hardware to put the whole thing back together. Aside from my mangled radiator (piles of bent fins) everything looks really good in the engine bay. Better than it should considering the rest of the car. The new engine came with t-handle bolts for the valve cover, but I find them ugly and will replace them in the near future. I thought I could live with them, but I can't.

I fired it up yesterday and after a little smoking from everywhere (greasy fingerprints and all the crap I sprayed in/around the cylinders) settled into a very nice idle. I set the idle to 675 rpm (in Park, that's like ~640 rpm in D), ignition timing to 12 degrees (LoM vacuum unplugged), fuel pressure to 4.5psi, and the idle mixture screw is somewhere between 1 and 2 turns out. It's still a little lumpier and richer than I think it should be at idle, but I have no basis of comparison so I don't know what I'm talking about. I have never actually seen a six idling other than mine. Narrow band A:F gauge is a couple bars above stoich as idle, but drops back to stoich or slightly rich under throttle. On a full tank of 91 octane (the best we have in CA) I put about 40 miles on it yesterday on a range of surface streets and it did great. The 200 definitely has more punch than the 170 - I'm sure the bigger displacement is a major factor, but the fact that it has six full cylinders all with good compression isn't hurting anything. It's not fast, but is way more than adequate for getting around. It's faster than my '67 Fleetwood 75, anyway.

It's running a little warmer than the old motor did - temp gauge sat square in the middle, occasionally dropping down a small amount while moving quickly, sometimes creeping up a small amount while sitting in traffic. It was pretty warm yesterday, but the old motor spent most of its time around 1/3rd, sometimes up to 1/2 on extended idling. It's quite possible that those old readings were wrong - the plugged up carb spacer probably wasn't helping coolant flow. The water pump and all the hoses are brand new, and the radiator was hot and the upper radiator hose hot so I am sure water is circulating properly - I may add some Water Wetter etc. to see if that cools it down just a little. The current situation is not a problem now, but might be once ambient temps approach 100 degrees. Although I will probably not be driving a non-air-conditioned Falcon at that point, so maybe who cares.

No unexplained leaks, either. I was concerned about replacing the torque converter seal (the old one was definitely leaking!) and the rear main seal (getting the old rope seal out was a nightmare) but it seems to be holding its fluids. EXCEPT I thought I'd be cool and use one of those push & twist oil drain plugs instead of a traditional bolt, and that thing leaks. Grrr. Once the car has been sitting for a little while it starts dripping - slowly, but dripping. And not from the threads (because I used thread sealant, no doubt), but right out of the middle. WTF? Guess it's back to tried & trued for me.

Only part I am concerned about is the brakes. The pedal is a little mushy - totally positive, but mushy. I switched to a dual master and it's possible the feel is related to that - they are easier to modulate than before, but it seems less initial bite. It's also possible my memory of the brakes is wrong - I haven't driven the car in almost five months! It also pulls to the right under moderate braking force. It's easily manageable, but obviously not desirable. Maybe air in the left front or something? It could also be steering related - the tie rods are old and seriously worn. I should have replaced them when I did the rest of the suspension, but I didn't. I should probably get to that. I am happy to report no leaks in any of my hand made lines, so that's a positive. That is the thing I was really worried about, and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I wasn't doing any aggressive driving yesterday, but there were some reasonably quick stops and the brakes performed admirably.

I have to put some time in on my XR4Ti, but I'm happy to say the Falcon is back on the road!

 

[bubba22349]

Congrats on getting the Falcon back on the road

 

[MPGmustang]

grats man on getting it on the road agian!!! whoohoo!! yeah 30 cubes is a huge difference but 6 cyls are a bigger difference

 

[thesameguy]

The rumbly idle is the only upsetting thing - and I am positive it's just running way too rich at idle. I don't think it's an ignition problem. There are *zero* signs of missing even at higher rpm with the plugs (Motorcraft - whatever is stock copper) gapped at .045. Since the actual distributor is not the same, I can rule out a sloppy distributor or weak advance or anything like that. The 1909 is the only other thing in common between the two motors, so I am inclined to blame it. It cannot be coincidence that the old 5-cylinder low compression 170ci motor ran about as rich as the new 6-cylinder high compression 200ci motor. I need to get my hands on a cheap, known-good, SCV-equipped carb to compare with. Or maybe just wait a couple months and bring it to Fun Ford Sunday in Vacaville to compare (anyone else going?) with some other Falcons. In the mean time, I am going to try and bump the static timing up to 14 or 16 degrees and see what happens. I figure if it's running great at 12 degrees on 91 octane, a couple more degrees shouldn't be a problem. I do have an EDIS-6 ignition coil coming so I can make a bracket. After that, all I'd need is the controller to dump my dizzy entirely.

 

[thesameguy]

Backed off fuel pressure to 3.5 psi and the idle better and overall power improved (is it actually getting "quick?" ). I am convinced something is wrong with this carb. It was professionally rebuilt, and I subsequently adjusted the float (lowered it) but I am certain it is overfuelling the engine. Not sure exactly what could cause that since it's a problem under all conditions, but even at 3.5psi fuel pressure, 12 degrees ignition timing, and .045" spark plug gap it's still way too rich all the time. I do not want to invest money in a carburetor for this car, but I think I am going to.