which 200ci engine is better

dredrush

New member
Hello all,

I have a 1966 Mustang Coupe with a 200 ci engine in it. The previous owner had to replace the original engine with an engine from a 1978 Ford Fairmont. I have come across a donor 66 coupe and coupe buy the 200ci engine from it to put into mine.

My question is which engine is better? The 1966 200ci or the 1978 200ci?
 
dredrush":3m0lx1h1 said:
Hello all,

I have a 1966 Mustang Coupe with a 200 ci engine in it. The previous owner had to replace the original engine with an engine from a 1978 Ford Fairmont. I have come across a donor 66 coupe and coupe buy the 200ci engine from it to put into mine.

My question is which engine is better? The 1966 200ci or the 1978 200ci?

The 66 engine should have forged rods and the 78 engine will have a better head. Except for some of the accessories (fuel pump, water pump, distributer, harmonic balancer) the engines are the same. The rocker arm assemblies MIGHT be differant but will interchange between either.

I'm currently running a 78 engine in mine and am replacing it with the original 66 200 also.

Later,

Doug
 
Doug's right. The best engine might be a combo. The 78 block will have some additional bosses cast in for accessories, the 66 rods are forged, and the late head has bigger valves and hardened seats.
 
Would the interchangeable parts just bolt on to the other engine? Or would I have to do other mods to change out the head etc?
 
as it's a 200 vs 200 everythign is interchangeable, but I recomend if you go 66 block yous stick with the 66 block stuff, or with the 78.

I have a 78 block and head in my 65 mustang now, when I got the car, it originally had a 68 block 67 head, and 63 parts... oh the headaache. now I have one year so I can ask for that 1 yr... granted they all fit on the same engine, but it made ordering parts for my engine much easier and less to think/mess up about.

the 78head will have hardened valve seats, better for the new gas now-days and they have a higher CFM flow rating when compared to the 66 log.

all the rods are interchangeable, you can put the 66 rods in the 78 block for that extra strength.

If you really want to go crazy and possible AOD for your transmission then the only way would be to find a 81-83 block, they changed the bolt pattern to the v8 style. then discontinued the i6 in 84

Good luck with your rebuild! we are always here to answer questions
 
Just a short word of Cation

Before using any of these 40 to 50 year old parts examin them carefully and get them magnifluxed. You never know what might be on it's last legs.
 
The 78 probably should provide slightly better performance because of the head specs. Do you have a DSII? If you want better performance use the later head with all the mods you can afford.
 
69.5Mav":26iy5t5k said:
Just a short word of Cation

Before using any of these 40 to 50 year old parts examin them carefully and get them magnifluxed. You never know what might be on it's last legs.

Good advice. And I always use ARP rod bolts to replace the stockers. Cheap insurance.
 
dredrush":2ko2f6l0 said:
I am very new to the 200ci world, so how would I know if I have a DSII (that is the distributer, correct?)
Quick and easy. Distributor will have 3 wires instead of one and there will be a square metal control module about 4" square mounted somewhere.
 
The 78 head has larger combustion chambers (62cc) than your 66 engine (51-53cc). If bolted to the 66 engine without milling the head, it would decrease the compression ratio from 8.94 to 8.02, or there about.

The 78 head is definitely the better choice, larger intake log, larger valves, hardened valve seats.
The 66 engine has forged rods, the 78 engine has cast ones.
 
MustangSix":3aechll0 said:
And I always use ARP rod bolts to replace the stockers. Cheap insurance.

Good advice as well. It's far cheaper to replace all the stressed fasteners like rod bolts then to have to sweep your engine up off the track.
 
Howdy Dred:

I'm typing with a cast on my Lt. hand, so apologize in advance.

Q- "Would the interchangeable parts just bolt on to the other engine? Or would I have to do other mods to change out the head etc?"

A- While the parts are directly interchangeable, they are not the same. The '78 engine is down on compression ratio as compared to the '66 head- 9:1 vs 8:1. So, to restore stock performance you will need to mill the '78 head about .050" to compensate. The '78 head has enough advantages to make it worth while. Other differences are the cam- the later cam has more lift; .348" to .372" but is significantly advanced, for more low end torque. The added lift is good,but not the timing change. The '78 will have a Holley #1946 carb that is limited in tuneability. THe '78 ignition is the DuraSpart II system, which includes the pointless distributor, module, and coil. It is a keeper and a direct swap.

So, to answer your questions, "My question is which engine is better? The 1966 200ci or the 1978 200ci?"
I'd have to say, the '78 in most situations. But, it depends on many varibles.

Adios, David
 
My question is which engine is better? The 1966 200ci or the 1978 200ci?

I will throw in my .02 also to all the good answers you have gotten. To answer your question the best 200 C.I. engine will be a combo parts from different years. The good news is you might all ready have many of the better parts between the two engines. You might want to pick up the Falcon Performance Handbook is a good source for answers. Good luck on your build :nod: :thumbup:
 
A little addition to the information about the engines.

The 66 200ci is a Sprint model. Does that make a difference as to which engine is better (the 66 Sprint 200 or the 78 200)?
 
As far as I know the sprint was basically a dress up kit. This included but not limited to full length console, chrome oil breather, air breather , radiator cap, thin pin stripe around the "c" , and wire wheel covers. There are rumors of the engine having more power but from what I have seen and read they are the same as a non sprint 200. This is just my $.02 I am sure that there are others here with more info than me.
 
In the Ford empire, it has to have a different engine code from the normal for an engine to be considered a sports variant. Z, L or T code are the VIN letters for the 170, 200 or 250. There was, unbelievably, absolutely no stove "hot" six cylinder American engines in the Mustang from 1964 to 2009. In the 1981 Mercury Capri, there was a reputed 2v or Variable Venturi carb version on the 85 or 94 hp B code engine in mid 1981 with 95 hp, but no evidence that any ever got sold, probably a miss print in a Car and Driver magazine.

With the exception of the year when the Mustang II got only a V6, Ford always had a bigger vee-eight option. No step up options, no small hp gains via carb swaps or exhast changes. There were not even any high compression versions except for a few "Special" municipal Fords which got seperate 3 and 4 exhast ports and high compression heads. In other countries like Australia, there were L1 and L2 and T1 and T2 versions of the 200 and 250 engines, variously with high compression 9.2:1 ratios in the L2 and T2 versions. The 2V Austrailian Falcon 250 got a different engine code.

The Sprints existance was due to non availibility of the 260 and 289 V8 engine combo, and it was a trim based gap filler like the California Special.

(Ford was in total performance mode, and the American 170/200/250 engines were excluded from the Shelby influenced fray of small and big block options. In 1960, Holman Moody had made inroads to growing ballistic triple carb 144 and 170 sixes, but all Ford could see after the Le Mans years was small block supremacy. For a year in 1969, there was a planned 2V or Mechanical injection head for the 250, as the then competitons manager promised a kit along the lines of the Holman Moody Hilbourn system, but it never turned up. Right at that time, as a consequence of Dearborn turning its back on the lightweight six cylinder Stang, the Mustang line grew increasingly out of touch with a market that started buying Capris, Colts, Celicas and Datsun 240Z's. In 1981, Edsel Ford II commented that the Datsun 240 Z was the car Ford should have made. It made one in 1963, the Cougar II, a two place coupe 260V8 glass back.http://www.rokemneedlearts.com/carsinde ... og/?p=1308
And a revised XP63 Cobra II http://www.shorey.net/Auto/American/For ... bra-II.jpg

The mid engined Mach 2 and Super Cobra were other examples of Fords latent skills. The burgeoning Ghia based De Tomaso offerings were tacit evedience that Ford had shifted its focus to far to the Cobra V8 concept of LDI...Lets Drop In a bigger engine. The doomsday book era of gas crunch scares and the Japanese brought the Dearborn guys back in a screaming halt when a large percentage of the Fox Mustangs ended up using Ford of Europe econo engines, light duty Type B diffs, gearboxes, wheel stud patterns, steering systems and even tires).

In Australia and Argentina, it was a totally different story, sixes got impressive step up options via high compression, and then 2 bbl carb options, but those nations were far more six cylinder focused than the V8 US, and still are today.

Because of Dearborns cold shoulder to in line six performance, FordSix will always be here for us. :wink:
 
Back
Top