Upgrade from 170 to 200 -- worth the $$$?

[page62]

I have an opportunity to buy a freshly rebuilt 1966 200 from a local machine shop. It's done right by people who know what they're doing -- hardened valve seats, etc. And I can get the engine for less than the cost of a rebuild.

But I already have a recently rebuilt 170 in the Ranchero. It's a good engine with no known issues to speak of. Except it doesn't have hardened valve seats, so I know it's gonna need some head work in the next few years. Having said that, it's a good engine I could probably sell for a few hundred bucks.

Finally, I should mention the wife wants me to install A/C. (Ain't she sweet?) I'm concerned about the ability of the 170 to handle the A/C compressor and still have enough pulling power.

So...should I take the plunge and get the 200? I'm awfully tempted...

 

[Bort62]

I would. The 170 is a performance dead end.

That depends on your goals, however.

 

[Anonymous]

keep the motor incase the rebuilt one craps out. and do the head on it,

 

[Junk-Falcon]

200 is the way to go if ya have the cash n dont care if its stock ,, the 200 is way better ,, the 170 is ok but the 200 i like , just cant kill it ,, if its a stock rebild id throw in a better cam befor the swap

 

[Patrick66]

if i were in your position i would, but then again im not concerned wiht keeping my car stock.

 

[falcon fanatic]

yep, get the 200 and slip in a cam before the install. The stock cam is just awful. Take it from a guy with an extensively modified engine that still has a stock cam.

 

[rbohm]

8) these days the hardened valve seats are not required as there is a lubricant additive in the fuel these days. as for going with a 200 vs a 170, i also would go with the 200. you get 30 extra cubic inches, and a better torque curve with the longer stroke, and of course the larger bore. i also would slip in a slightly larger cam to fatten up the power curves. remember that the less throttle pressure you use, the better your fuel economy will be.

 

[CZLN6]

Howdy Back Page '62 and all:

The answer to the question, "Is it worth the Money?" Can only be answered by you. But, If I had a good running 170 in a '62 Roo, I'd be hard pressed. Yes, the extra 30 cubes are nice and very impressive in a lighter round boddy. The longer, by over an 1/8" will give a significantly torquer feel to the car. Both engines, from the factory had 9:1 CR, but since both are rebuilds, both could be down on CR and efficiency.

Your stock three-on-the-tree tranny is marginal, as far as durability goes with a 200. If you make the swap be sure the trans and rear have fresh lube, and that you fully disingage the clutch before shifting. The U-joints will also be stressed by the bigger engine.

AC was available as a dealer add on in '62, with the optional 170 engine. So your 170 could handle the load. Gotta love that wife!! Both engines are incredibly durable and can be quite economical.

I'm looking forward to hear what you decide to do.

Adios, David

 

[rbohm]

8) good point david, but having had a couple of 170's, i can tell you that they do lack for power in some driving regimes, and you have to push them harder than you would a 200.