A
Anonymous
Guest
Any way to use some strong aftermarket rods in the 200? Or is that just overkill?
Dan
Dan
A
Anonymous
Guest
Easiest option I have found is to use 2.3L rods. Actually, the stock 2.3L rods are a nice upgrade alone - thicker beams, 3/8" dia bolts, and a better rod ratio.
A
Anonymous
Guest
How much difference is there in the length??
I would assume he means the HSC motor. the ohc motor has a 5.2" rod in it.....and it is a metric engine.
Memorize this chart
http://www.fordracingparts.com/download/charts/151.pdf
http://www.fordracingparts.com/download/charts/151.pdf
A
Anonymous
Guest
I am looking at this list and I do not know what pistons I need to fit up to the 2.3 rods. Has anyone done this before?
Dan
Dan
MandarinaRacing
Famous Member
Wassup Dan! IIRC John (Inliner) had some special Argie pistons for that rod, they had a shorter height.
Alex
Alex
Ipels, forged, 1.04" compression height. Nice!
In a heavy pro-steeter Mustang, with low mount 1981 engine, only drag-200-stang had proplems, and that was at 450 hp, turbo charged. He changed to easily replaceable alloy Carillos or somesuch with spiro- locks, but this won't work on the street. They'll last about 6 months of hard use, and then fatigue.
Best source is the 70-73 Pinto 2.0 rods, which are 5.00" but can be adjusted to 4.96".This is about 250 to 290 thou taller than the stock 200 rods. They are very strong.There are stock ones with 0.945" gudgeons, and aftermarket with the good old standard Small Six, Small Block 0.912" rods.
In order to stop the stock ring land galling on the top of the block, you need to add two head gaskets and one 250 thou plate to the block. Then you can use the stock Ford Six or 2.3HSC overhead valve pistons.
The stock 2.3 hsc and aftermarket 3.3 pistons have 275 thou before the ring land goes over the block. Normally, the rods streatch 25 to 30 thou at rpms above 5500, so as long as the ring land is at least 40 thou away from the top of the block, then you can use the Pinto rods.
The crank need to be reground to suit the stock 2.0 rod bearings.
The Pinto rods can cope for 30 minutes of wide open throttle 400 hp turebo racing at 8500 rpm. At 100 hp per piston. Unless you expect to get more than 300 hp from your 200 Ford, then stick with the stock rods.
I've checked my information, and my stock 1966 200 rods are forged, and have an oil hole to splash lube the piston and cylinder wall. They look good enough in the beam to cope with extreme loads. The worst ones seam tobe the later rods. In aussie crossflows, about 400hp is all they can take in a turbo'd race car with good detoation control. These engines are 250 cubes, the stroke and rod are all about an inch longer, and subject to more stress.
In a heavy pro-steeter Mustang, with low mount 1981 engine, only drag-200-stang had proplems, and that was at 450 hp, turbo charged. He changed to easily replaceable alloy Carillos or somesuch with spiro- locks, but this won't work on the street. They'll last about 6 months of hard use, and then fatigue.
Best source is the 70-73 Pinto 2.0 rods, which are 5.00" but can be adjusted to 4.96".This is about 250 to 290 thou taller than the stock 200 rods. They are very strong.There are stock ones with 0.945" gudgeons, and aftermarket with the good old standard Small Six, Small Block 0.912" rods.
In order to stop the stock ring land galling on the top of the block, you need to add two head gaskets and one 250 thou plate to the block. Then you can use the stock Ford Six or 2.3HSC overhead valve pistons.
The stock 2.3 hsc and aftermarket 3.3 pistons have 275 thou before the ring land goes over the block. Normally, the rods streatch 25 to 30 thou at rpms above 5500, so as long as the ring land is at least 40 thou away from the top of the block, then you can use the Pinto rods.
The crank need to be reground to suit the stock 2.0 rod bearings.
The Pinto rods can cope for 30 minutes of wide open throttle 400 hp turebo racing at 8500 rpm. At 100 hp per piston. Unless you expect to get more than 300 hp from your 200 Ford, then stick with the stock rods.
I've checked my information, and my stock 1966 200 rods are forged, and have an oil hole to splash lube the piston and cylinder wall. They look good enough in the beam to cope with extreme loads. The worst ones seam tobe the later rods. In aussie crossflows, about 400hp is all they can take in a turbo'd race car with good detoation control. These engines are 250 cubes, the stroke and rod are all about an inch longer, and subject to more stress.
A
Anonymous
Guest
import killer":z23k6tme said:
Hey Dan,
BDJ66 is using these 2.3L rods and Iapel pistons w/thin rings in his '68 mustang. Check out this thread he started about his SP. His sig outlines his current setup.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Woops. Forgot to mention that to use the 2.3L OHC rods you need a shorter piston like the 1.04" Iapel.
bdj66's motor seems to really like this combo!
bdj66's motor seems to really like this combo!
A
Anonymous
Guest
I have TRW Forged L2217F pistons that are for a 200/250 - -
what year rods are the best 200 rods to have rebuilt???
what year rods are the best 200 rods to have rebuilt???
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hey Linc,
I believe pre '74 blocks had forged rods.
DB
I believe pre '74 blocks had forged rods.
DB
A
Anonymous
Guest
SP AluminumHead":iqstem0o said:
Thanks DB,
It might be hard for me to find some....
I have a 1970 170 cu in from a Maverick, would those rods be the same or different? (lighter duty?)
Versatile brand swathers/windrowers (farm equipment) from the late 70's and early 80's had "Industrial" 200's/3.3's and I can find plenty of those....
I wonder if they went with "good" rods in the Industrial engines or if they were regular passenger car parts?
IIRC they didn't put 170 engines in the Ford Maverick, they either were a 200 or 250 inline six or the 302 cu.in vee-eight. Unless someone retrofitted yours to a 170?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I bought the pair from an elderly couple that bought them brand new, on the same day....
The VIN #'s were:
OK91T
and
OK91U
But I don't remember which was which. The 170 was 95 hp and the 200 was 105.
I still have the engine from the 170 car, but I don't have the 200 car anymore, someone made me an offer I couldn't turn down. I miss it, it was a fun, light car.
The VIN #'s were:
OK91T
and
OK91U
But I don't remember which was which. The 170 was 95 hp and the 200 was 105.
I still have the engine from the 170 car, but I don't have the 200 car anymore, someone made me an offer I couldn't turn down. I miss it, it was a fun, light car.
Mustangaroo":2odfd366 said:
The 170 was the base engine when the car was introduced.
I had a 1970 Maverick Grabber with a 200 six I got new in 1970, later they beefed it up adding the 250 and 302, I didn't ever see a 170 Maverick? Sorry my Bad! 
Sure wish I still had the Grabber it was BOSS Mustang Yellow too! 8) Had the same wheels as my Mustang does now! 8)
Sure wish I still had the Grabber it was BOSS Mustang Yellow too! 8) Had the same wheels as my Mustang does now! 8)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Linc's 200":1hulyuzt said:
.
Linc's 200":7wvohii6 said:
The 170 was a seven bearing variant of the original Falcon Pursuit 170 engine. It had odd ball longer rods, about 4.805" in 1961 to 1964.5 for the 170, and 4.855" for the 144, and swung on a 4 bearing crank. I think the 144 and 170's were shorter deck engines, which were designed around the early 3 frost plug block.
Come April 17, 1969, and the Maverick got a seven bearing block and it was basically a 180 narrower bore, a 186 mthou shorter strokeshort stroke 200. Some guys here noted it had the same amount of frost plugs as 200 engines. The rods should be 4.805" too. This will push the stock piston up another 95 thou into the head, which is too close for comfort unless you get the forged piston shaved down to 1.4" from the stock 1.53" compression height.
Any Ford rod is a little bit spindly for over the 400 hp mark. 144'S, 200'S, 250's all have the same sectional modulus, and there is little difference in bending strength between a 200 and 250 rod. Both are highly loaded by the crank to rod ratio, 1.5:1 when Chrylsers and Holden sixes were up in the 1.62:1 ratios. In Aussie, Ford six pistons seam to start be a risk past the 350 hp mark. That's where they guys in Australia drew the line in the early 1980's. When AIT, Mike Vine, Bensons and Ray Hall started doing Garret T03/60 split pulse turbo conversions to the Aussie 4.1'S, 350 HP was it for a street engines. An external wast gate version will do over 370 hp, and I'm guessing the rods were the limiting factor.
