Who's running the 144? And a 170 piston question..

[ontheroad68]

I just bought a 62 Falcon that has been sitting in a field for 30 years. I pulled the original 144 with plans to build up a 170 but I'm starting to reconsider. It doesn't seem like many people here are running the 144, are they that bad? Here's what I have in mind for the 144:

2V conversion W/Weber
mild(ish) cam
DUI
headers(possibly)
bump the CR (possibly)

This is originally what I had planned for a 170, but now I'm thinking that these mods might make the 144 a decent driver. BTW, I have no experience with I6 motors at this point, so I really don't know how much power to expect from a 144 or a 170. Obviously I'm not going drag racing, but I do need the car to get out of it's own way and have "some" power. The car will have a T-5.

My falcon only weighs 2300 lbs (i think), so it shouldn't take too much to make it go, right?

Also, I'm primarily interested in engine/combustion efficiencies not just moving more air, so this is where the DUI and CR come in, but I'm also considering a full roller valve-train, thought that may prove cost prohibitive.

As for the 144 pistons, I didn't see any listed on this site, I know the 144 has the same bore as the 170, do they use the same piston? is the wrist-pin placement the same? Flat top?


Soo.... is the 144 that bad? Who here is driving them?


Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[rbohm]

8) the 144 is a good economical engine for the early falcons, but there are issues that you need to understand when hopping one up. most of the modifications that can be done on a 200 or 250 can also be applied to the 144 and the 170, but there are compromises you make, such as;

rougher idle
poorer low speed performance

part of the problem is the very short stroke of the 144. at 2.5 inches the pistons dont move in the cylinders as far, and thus intake and exhaust velocity suffers, especially at low speeds. and when you add larger carbs and larger cam lobes, you hurt that velocity even more. so you have to be very careful with your mods, and choose wisely.

the 170 having the longer 2.94 inch stroke is less affected by the changes you desire, and would be a better choice. as such the 170 piston is going to be shorter than the 144 piston given that the rod lengths are the same but the stroke are as different as they are. given that you want to modify your engine for more power, my advice would be to build a 170 or 200, and save the 144 in case you decide to sell the car you can give the original engine to the next owner in case they want to restore it to factory specs. or use the 144 block to build a 170 by getting the crank and pistons from a 170.

one other option you have if you really want to build the 144 is to turbocharge the engine. that way you mitigate many of the drawbacks to modifying the 144 with cams and large carbs, and you can still make pretty good power as well, perhaps as much as 140 for a decent daily driver.

 

[chad]

I just bought a 62 Falcon that has been sitting in a field for 30 years. I pulled the original 144 with plans to build up a 170 but I'm starting to reconsider. It doesn't seem like many people here are running the 144, are they that bad? Here's what I have in mind for the 144:
2V conversion W/Weber
mild(ish) cam
DUI
headers(possibly)
bump the CR (possibly)
This is originally what I had planned for a 170, but now I'm thinking that these mods might make the 144 a decent driver. BTW, I have no experience with I6 motors at this point, so I really don't know how much power to expect from a 144 or a 170. Obviously I'm not going drag racing, but I do need the car to get out of it's own way and have "some" power. The car will have a T-5
My falcon only weighs 2300 lbs (i think), so it shouldn't take too much to make it go, right?
Also, I'm primarily interested in engine/combustion efficiencies not just moving more air, so this is where the DUI and CR come in, but I'm also considering a full roller valve-train, thought that may prove cost prohibitive.
As for the 144 pistons, I didn't see any listed on this site, I know the 144 has the same bore as the 170, do they use the same piston? is the wrist-pin placement the same? Flat top?
Soo.... is the 144 that bad? Who here is driving them?
Thanks in advance for any advice.

I'd run it as is
/OR/

TURBO TURBO TURBO -etc-


(see ideas on that forum here)

 

[64falconsix]

X2 .... 200 with the mods...... a 200 will bolt right in where the 144 is and you will be 52 ft lbs of torque ahead without the mods.

 

[chad]

"...bought... a 62 Falcon..."

I really like that body style.
Even better than the '64 or whatever the yr. of the next iteration (more chrome? deeper "door dents" for the next 'run' ?).

 

[bmbm40]

A guy on here named iceman is doing some stuff to his 144, a t5 and DSII so far. Sounds interesting to me a hopped up 144. Apparently there are limitations to what can be done to a 144. I have seen a couple of free 170s on classicbroncos.com those guys take them out of Broncos and put in v8s. You could possibly drop a 170 head and carb on your 144. The 144 head had real small log volume may not be a problem I don't know. I read in the Falcon Performance Manual a 170 carb on the 144 is a performance boost. Get a copy of it very interesting reading.

 

[xctasy]

For straight line power, go cubic inches.

If loosing 39% to 74% of your potential engine capacity over a 200 or 250 is your thing...well, more power too you.

The little 144 has a 2.5" stroke, and loves to rev. Four bearings weren't a handcap at all, as the crank was pretty strong.

8400 RPM wasn't uncommon in the old Hydroplane six Amal carb engines bored out to 155 ci. It has lots of block thickness in the bores, perhaps enough to over bore 125 thou or more with out scrapping the block, although it depends on if the block has been frozen and is free of thermal cracks from loenly nights out in the cold when water may have been in the block.

The main issue is the engine mounts and the oil pump, cam, and its small size count against it. Pluses are nice long forged con rods, very good rod to stroke ratio, thicker wall construction than the later sixes, and the fact that any later head bolts up as long as you broach the block to clear the larger intake and exhast valves and you'd probably have to use the 3.68 bore head gasket off a 200.

The cam is a 240 degree tractor tech item, and your on your own if you want to update to later seven bearing oil pumps and hex drives...the seven bearing stuff is sized to suit the seven bearing crank, and the later 200 and 250 cams are relieved to suit the longer stroke.

If reving the wee out of it is your idea of a good time, go for it. Its probably like doing a 221, 260 or 289 five bolt Windsor block. Nice engines, sweeter than six sugared coffee, but a later 302 or 347 would walk over it. Same with the bigger 200 and 250, they are better engines, but if you wanna do it, you won't be restricted in any way.

 

[powerband]

... it all depends:

I run a hot rodded 250 that provides stomp the pedal fun and provides hours of fun to keep running in top performance shape. But, my daily driver is a '63 Wagon with a 170 driven many miles with simple maintenance. The 170 is fine for daily driver use as is a 144. Both were squeezed to provide the best $/economy possible - for the consumer and Ford who spared no cost cutting in it's production. With simple help - mods, the 144/170's can keep up to modern driving needs.

2V conversion W/Weber
mild(ish) cam
DUI
headers(possibly)
bump the CR (possibly)
I do need the car to get out of it's own way and have "some" power. The car will have a T-5

The Overdrive tranny you mention is a key factor in modern driving upgrade and works great with typical low geared OEM rear gears.


'could make a fine driver with that build, IF you want pedal stomping fun ability, the suggestion to start with a 200/250 makes simple sense.





< . >


'63 Wagon w/ miles per’formance six: OEM C8DE Ford 170, Precision Machine worked D7 Head . Oversize intake valves/1.50 exh with- silicon springs and HD retainers, . Milled head w/ Steel Shim Gasket. CR= 9.5:1. H/W 5200 - 2.8 series (32/36) progressive 2Bbl carb., Exhaust ¾ siamese port divider, Re-Curved Duraspark electronic distributor, Champion racing spark plugs, Diaphragm Clutch. T5 Adaptor/5speed tranny, Short throw Hurst Indy shifter, OEM 3.50: rear, Shelby sway bar, , Fabricated subframe connectors / crossmember, Hooker 6601 dual out longtube headers. Shoulder belts front and belts for three in rear, Dual chamber master cylinder, OEM wide-wagon brakes, dual line rear air shocks, 14” wheels & tires, Countersprung Tailgate, Original tube radio …

 

[chad]

"... I'm not going drag racing, but I do need the car to get out of it's own way and have "some" power..."
X, he said - not a racer
no cam upgrades available?
strong block!
Turbo, Turbo

(engine/combustion efficiencies not just moving more air, so this is where the DUI and CR come in, but I'm also considering a full roller valve-train, thought that may prove cost prohibitive.)

 

[chad]

OK, no turbo

"14 inch wheels, 3,50 gears, D7 head, tranny you mention is a key factor in modern driving upgrade and works great with typical low geared OEM rear gears. "

I'll accept that. Whaddaya think 'questioner'?

 

[ontheroad68]

Hey Guys sorry for the delay, have been out of town for the holidays.

I've done a lot of research (over the last 24hrs) and I'm now thinking supercharged 144 W/ carb., cam and DUI. If you think the lower end will hold up.

The Eaton supercharger used on the SLK and CLK 230 series Mercedes looks to be the right size, easily adaptable and inexpensive. I've seen people put these on Subarus, Hondas, whatever. I'm thinking forced induction not necessarily to make big power, but to overcome the induction issues with the log head and get a little more power. And honestly, because it's cool. I'm not looking for sheer HP, if I were I'd just drop a 460 in it and call it good. I want to do something interesting, fun and different. I've always been a fan of small cars and small engines. I seriously considered putting a Red Block Volvo engine & tranny in this car before I settled on the I-6.

A good friend of mine is a Turbo fiend and doesn't understand why I don't bolt one on. But turbos are complicated, I don't like the off-boost lag, and the supercharger would be much more period correct even if it was from a 96 Mercedes. I'm even hoping to run a double V-belt instead of a serpentine if I can get that to work. Will look much better. I'd gear it down a bit, just looking for 3-5 lbs. boost. Then maybe I don't do much (any?) work to the log head.

The kicker for me is that the 144 is what came in this car originally, and it's what's sitting on my garage floor. So work with what you've got, right???
Whatda think?

 

[ontheroad68]

I posted a reply to this thread (which I started) 24 hours ago but it has not appeared online. i am not able to contact the moderator (azcoupe) is there a problem????

 

[rbohm]

I posted a reply to this thread (which I started) 24 hours ago but it has not appeared online. i am not able to contact the moderator (azcoupe) is there a problem????

8) since we have had issues with people signing up and posting, shall we say, less than desirable material, mike has decided that the first few posts by a new member have to be approved. after a few more posts yours wont have to require approval before the members at large can see them. we get to post approval as quickly as we can, but unfortunately we can be slow sometimes, all we ask is a little patience.

 

[bubba22349]

Also try your post in the Turbo and Supercharger section, you might get some more input

 

[powerband]

ontheroad68

I have been researching a similar SC setup , I have seen a few Pontiac 3.8 blowesrs in CL lately and interested in them. Been trying to generate some responses from "the knowledge base" over in the mentioned Turbo / SC forum

keep the ideas going...

 

[chad]

"...Been trying to generate some responses from: ...'

let me know what U find out.
I'm too old to change (forums).
8^0

Actually I would like to C a turbo/sc 144. That's Y I wuz eggin 'em on. C above. (also cuz there's alot of modern engines out in that sz w/ those things in em, no?)

 

[iceman]

Just jumping in here. as CZLN6 said I am building something similar. what I went with was a stock 61 144 76,000mi.)with a recurved duraspark and went 1/2" over on the exhaust. It has a wide ratio t-5 from a 2.3 mustang and a 3:08 rear from a s10(redrilled axles its only 55"wide) and 205 70 14 tires. I want to try to upgrade to the 68 mustang carb that CZLN6 sugested but have not gotten out to the bone yard to explore. I have only driven the car to about 35 mph down the block so far but my initial impressions are not bad. My daily driver is a S10 2.5l five speed and I would say that acceleration in the Falcon is comparable. I have found it difficult to get used to that the engine makes it's power right off of idle and dies off at 3000. but as I said I probabily only drove it maybe 10 miles so far. I read alot on the board before I bought into my set up. looking back I would not have gone with the wide ratio t-5 as it is not necessary and shifting out of first is almost like driving a VW. I looking at my gearing I picked I have I think a 12.5 :1 rear wheel ration and the factory calculated to about 9:1 if I remember correctly. I think a first gear rear wheel ratio jump of about half of what I did would have been good. The one thing I am anxious to see is how well the car will pull hills at speed without shifting as I live in eastern Pa. the land of the rolling hill. I did all my set up with the goal of modern drivability and fuel milage.
Just one more thought I was very inspired by the AK Miller write up on his work with the 200 on the Classic inlines web site. If I ever finish this car I think I might play with some of his Ideas.

 

[xctasy]

Just jumping in here. as CZLN6 said I am building something similar. what I went with was a stock 61 144 76,000mi.)with a recurved duraspark and went 1/2" over on the exhaust. It has a wide ratio t-5 from a 2.3 mustang and a 3:08 rear from a s10(redrilled axles its only 55"wide) and 205 70 14 tires. I want to try to upgrade to the 68 mustang carb that CZLN6 sugested but have not gotten out to the bone yard to explore. I have only driven the car to about 35 mph down the block so far but my initial impressions are not bad. My daily driver is a S10 2.5l five speed and I would say that acceleration in the Falcon is comparable. I have found it difficult to get used to that the engine makes it's power right off of idle and dies off at 3000. but as I said I probabily only drove it maybe 10 miles so far. I read alot on the board before I bought into my set up. looking back I would not have gone with the wide ratio t-5 as it is not necessary and shifting out of first is almost like driving a VW. I looking at my gearing I picked I have I think a 12.5 :1 rear wheel ration and the factory calculated to about 9:1 if I remember correctly. I think a first gear rear wheel ratio jump of about half of what I did would have been good. The one thing I am anxious to see is how well the car will pull hills at speed without shifting as I live in eastern Pa. the land of the rolling hill. I did all my set up with the goal of modern drivability and fuel milage.
Just one more thought I was very inspired by the AK Miller write up on his work with the 200 on the Classic inlines web site. If I ever finish this car I think I might play with some of his Ideas.

I've done many 4 speed from three on the tree swaps, and I'd say unless you live in San Francisco your always best keep overall first gear the same, and bring the diff ratio up. I can state catagorically after many miles with a 1-bbl 138 cubic inch short stroke six with 6.8:1 compression, but a 12 port head and just 72 net flywheel hp that its best to get a close ratio gearbox, and enjoy the great low rpm torque.

http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc5 ... 16f819.jpg
http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc5 ... 220004.jpg

Little 144's are able to take 3.40 gears, 3.20 at a pinch, and will cope fine with a close ratio set of intermediates like the 3.18, 1.94, 1.26 I had on mine. And a 80 mph in a slick, aerodynamic car weighing less than 2400 pounds, 3500 rpm in fourth gear is even better when you have a loping overdrive to go still! My little 138 had a 260 degree cam, so you can probably get the smallest Clay Smith cam, and get a lot more pep out of the 144. The feeling is very much like a slick modern Audi or Camry, but with the too small 5 or 4 cylinder engine option.

The reason it all comes to a halt at 3000 rpm is in fact the 240 degree cam. Add a later factory 200 spec with 256 degrees, and a little bit of work on the intake log to fit a later 1946 Holley would be my next step. The C1 head is quite a nice little thing, and you can fit all sorts of funny stuff to a 144 and get away with it, you can't create a badly matched combo as long as there is space for the bigger valves of a big bore head.

Bit I'd stick with the little log on the 144.