strengths and weaknesses of 223ci ford
- Thread starter big blue
- Start date
fmartin_gila
Well-known member
I run a 223. It is used almost every day. Stock configuration. Very reliable in it's present state, I have no plans to do more with it so it will remain as is. If your thoughts are to go wild with it, just keep in mind that there are four Main Bearings instead of seven as the 240/300 has. I don't know what items might be available to enhance the performance, since I intend to keep mine as is.
Fred
Fred
Drumhead_Dan
Well-known member
Mine is bone stock. I have yet to change the earlier model vacuum assist fuel pump, and you can hear it cheerily pumping away at idle. The motor is that smooth and quiet. People talk about only having four mains but I have no intentions of ever making the tires chirp, so I don't really care. There are some drawbacks: The carb heat system clogs if the sprung control valve isn't maintained in the exhaust manifold. The cylinder walls are some what soft from what I understand, so by the time you need rings, you're gonna need a bore too(around 70k miles is what I'm told). The valve train needs to be checked and adjusted about every other oil change. The top end oiling system is a low pressure system, which works great when it does and not at all if it doesn't. It was a common enough problem aftermarket oiling kits are still available. The core issue is a fairly easy fix, though. The only easy later model part I know to put on is the distributor, a 300 dizzy with modified gear, but the intake and exhaust manifolds are on the driver's side, so you're pretty much gonna buy aftermarket stuff specifically for these motors, so some choices to intake and exhaust are limited to whats still offered.
With all that, I love this little motor in my truck. Its the right application according to the door tag, and I've set it up to mimic what Ford called the "Mileage Maker". I don't have the mileage estimates yet, but I'm working that way. Its low compression and small exhaust give nice torque at low rps and from what people tell me the gas mileage is 20 or better in a 64 Ford truck. I find it quite charming overall.
With all that, I love this little motor in my truck. Its the right application according to the door tag, and I've set it up to mimic what Ford called the "Mileage Maker". I don't have the mileage estimates yet, but I'm working that way. Its low compression and small exhaust give nice torque at low rps and from what people tell me the gas mileage is 20 or better in a 64 Ford truck. I find it quite charming overall.
Thanx for the responses. Aesthetically, it's a good looking engine, yet we know that it's what's on the inside that counts. I believe with the modern technology and techniques we have available, any of the older engines can take advantage of them and be better. With the soft cylinder walls I would address that with a torque plate overbore and then deep cryotreat the whole shooting match. I don't view the four main crank as a weakness, the flathead V8 has 3 yet it gets pushed for more power. I'd make a girdle and tie the main caps together, and stud the mains with the high end ARP fasteners. To have to adjust the valves that frequently says to me that the cam design could be better; I would get something ground that has better harmonic control and smoother ramps. I used to own a 140hp Corvair and that cam was so harsh that the valve seats would drop out. I can see with some minor detail changes this engine can be the very best can be, especially for maximum mpg and bottom end torque.
fmartin_gila
Well-known member
I have in hand a full set (12) of the Barker Hi-lift rocker arms that I have yet to install. The reason being that my stock rockers are so worn on the valve ends that I can't get a good setting using a feeler gauge on some of them, and I get some clatter. I got them off EBay before the price went from 50 to 100 per set (6). Some years ago, I changed from the self-locking adjusters to adjuster screws with lock nuts from a V8, and the adjustment seems to hold quite a bit longer than it did previous to the change. I don't really feel that a main bearing girdle would be necessary, as you could only push so much through the crank anyway. The block does seem to be rigid enough. The engine was marketed as a MPG engine and not a HP engine, and therefore I feel the cam is not that radical anyway. That being said, I do not know what the numbers for the cam are. I do get 23 MPG in my 62 F100, but I have installed a T5 behind the 223 and that is with a 3.70 rear.
Fred
Fred
fmartin_gila":3ldu89j8 said:
What, you don't have a purpose-built special feeler that?
On a Y-block, you can set the valves by setting to zero then backing off 90° (1/4 turn). Some wise guy figured the pitch on the adjusting screws and calculated that 1/4 turn comes to within a few tenths of .019". That's what I've done on mine, fast and accurate. Eliminates that groovy problem and renders ground up .019 feelers obsolete.
I'm sure the same thing can be done on anything once the calculations are made. Might not wind up with something so easy as a 1/4 turn but whatever it is shouldn't be too hard to duplicate with practice.
Roger
Drumhead_Dan
Well-known member
I took the original 3:88 out and put in a 3:25. I have the original truck three speed without overdrive. I want to say it turns 2k rpm at 60, but its in the shop and I didn't get a chance to check it before I started working on the floorboards. It feels really tall, but its manageable. I've certainly driven worse. I have no intention of hauling anything with it, I really just wanted something to bomb back and forth to town. I need to pull it out of the shop in the next couple of days, I'll see what the tach says compared to the speedo in another car.
*edit*
From rough calculations I wanted road speed to be 2,000 rpm, and some guys from one of the other ford forums reported that you don't want anything taller.
*edit*
From rough calculations I wanted road speed to be 2,000 rpm, and some guys from one of the other ford forums reported that you don't want anything taller.
fmartin_gila
Well-known member
I had to use an adapter plate in order to put the T5 behind the 223. The ratios have seemed to work out very well with the 3.70 rear. I think the 223 would be lugging too much with a lower ratio. I get about 1850 RPM (cheap tach, don't really know how close it is) at 60 MPH. The ratio for 1st gear has made starts easier on the clutch, along with allowing it to cruise at a lot less RPM which results in a lot less noise and wear over the long run. I believe that the T5, along with the disk brake install I did, really made this pickup into a nice little Daily Driver.
Fred
Fred
Drumhead_Dan
Well-known member
I don't like the 3:25. Its way too tall. I'll try a 3:50 and let you know how it goes. I might just jump back to a 3:75, I think I can put my hands on one of those too.
fmartin_gila
Well-known member
With the 3.25, you are working the clutch pretty good. The T5 has given me one gear a little lower than the 3spd had, and a gear somewhat higher than high gear. This makes life a lot easier on the clutch when starting to move and gives a nice easy RPM for cruising. When multiplied out, with the OD, it comes out to a 2.701 final drive. Normally, it cruises very well in 5th, but occasionally, depending on how steep it is, I do have to drop to 4th. I do not consider that a traumatic experience though. Keep in mind that this is a very stock engine, which is essential for long life. I have a good selection of gears for most all occasions and keep the RPMs in the range of 1200 to 2000. My primary reason for the T5 install was to lower the RPM for longevity. The slight extra mileage was really not planned but was a nice bit of iceing on the cake.
Fred
Fred
