Are Headers the Difference?

falcon fanatic

Thanks for the input. I agree that the exhaust will always be the factor no matter what I do to the carb or cam. I'm probably going to open up the log a little and look into a better cam. I really like the uniqueness of a hopped up six over a V8. Plus, I can keep my 63 Futura more on the stock side. By the way, how do you add pictures to these forums? I want to add a couple pics of the motor and car.

Jeff

doesnt a stock 200 ci have 120hp?.........anyways.........whats is the MOST hp you can get out of one without turbos or n2o and stuff

do you have a 2" or larger exhaust all the way out currently?

i think you also could add a little more compression ratio. with this combination of head, gasket and original type piston you might be down around 8:1

i changed to bigger OD tires to help on mileage. the loss os low end pickup is very noticeable. so i agree about others comments on your tire and gear change. this alone could have made all hop up you efforts unnoticeable except at top end.

frankie

Red, that 120 is gross HP, and is slightly inflated. In todays measurement, our engines put out about 90HP (which is flywheel HP). 65RWHP is the end result.

Slade

frankie:

I have a 2" pipe coming out of my stock manifold to a Flowmaster.

When I did the rebuild, I took .030 off the head and put flat top HSC pistons in, which should be giving me some increase in compression from stock.

Jeff

I did a very similar (spec-wise, same cam and all) rebuild on a 200 in my 68 Mustang and wasn't too impressed with the result either (felt only about 5-10% stronger). Then I added a dual outlet header and 2" dual exhaust and it felt like it gained more than the whole rebuild! I think the key was torque, the engine picked up so much low end torque it was much more of a pleasure to drive and accelerate with. Plus the sound was much sweeter out the back. I would really recommend the header/exhaust upgrade.

You also may have absorbed some of your rebuild's "punch" with the other changes you made. Going to larger tires and possibly a higher (lower numerically) geared reared could sap most of the power you've gained. Changing so many things at one time makes it tough to tell. If that's what happened you can feel better knowing your old engine would have even more trouble handling those changes.

Scott:

Thanks for your input. I'm going to go with the headers. I have another question which will probably stir up a big debate. Single or dual outlet headers? I would like to use a single outlet header because I just had a Flowmaster installed and I have this nice single chrome exhuast tip out the back that keeps the Futura stock looking from the outside. A single outlet header should still get me the performance I'm looking for. Right?

Jeff

There's probably not a real significant difference in the power from one to the other, so it really comes down to sound. I think duals sound better since the exhaust pulses are separated and more distinct.

our cars probably run high 16's stock then ......is 65 rwhp enough to beat a stock focus lx or a civic......hehe......why dont we put a 4" diesel exhaust on a 200 and see if it gains hp.....although it would sound cheesy....

[quote: our cars probably run high 16's stock]

I assume you are talking 0 to 60 and not quarter mile times. I wish it ran high 16's stock in the quarter. [/quote]

well atleast we look good cruising on the highway

a bone stock six cylinder classis stang runs the 1/4 in between 19-20 seconds at 65-70 mph. Speedy, but that's consistent with 70hp at the wheels.

Gee, Jack, you make me feel better - my Fairmont waggin' runs the 1/4 in 18.93 at 71 MPH (when the EGR is disconnected and the spark advance is maxed).

Hey, '63: when you went to that D8 head - did you check the cc volume? Reason I ask: they have larger chambers than the earlier heads. Milling .030" would make it about the same as an early '60s head. If you also used a standard composite head gasket, then your compression ratio may even be lower than what you started with (stock gaskets were about .020" thick, aftermarket composite ones are .045" to .055" thick). Normally, milling .030" from the head and then using a composite gasket ends up with the same CR as before.

End result, given 'typical' numbers that I've seen: the .030" mill job gives about the same cc chamber size as the earlier head, but then using a thick gasket would lower the compression ratio from the original 9.0:1 to something like 8.4:1 instead.

Using one of the (hard-to-find) steel or FoMoCo "7" series composites (I still have 2 of these left) would raise the CR back up and also restore the quench height. Both will raise power.

Red_Racy_Six_Pack_Pony":2mrowse2 said:

well atleast we look good cruising on the highway

Click to expand...

AMEN

its not how you speed, its how you LOOK

just follow the above advise on your exhaust. i'm sure you will be rewarded with the increase in power.
the bottom line is with todays fuel prices at least you can pass a gas station. long live the six.

Howdy Jeff and All:

I've been giving your plight quite a bit of thought. Even ran your numbers through the CR calculator. End result is that I'm quite convinced that the biggest contributor to your lack of thrill with your new engine is due to the change in gear ratio and taller rear rubber.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by MSD ignition. Do you mean a 6A module with a DSII? My question is what distributor are you using?

Given your description of your parts and modifications, your compression should be aproximately 9:1. I figured 54cc chambers, .050" for a composite head gasket, .025" deck height, and zero ccs for the flat-topped piston.

Your '63 Falcon likely had a 3.50:1 rear axle ratio, assuming an OEM combo for a 170 engine and either a 2 speed auto or a three speed standard trans. The Maverick 5 bolt flange, 8" rear end will likely be a 2.79:1 or 3.00:1. That is a significant change. The lowest geared OEM Maverick was a 3.08:1, but they were very scarce.

That drop is farther impacted by going to larger diameter 14" wheels and tires.

AND the stock type C4 torque converter is designed tight, for low end torque. Your engine design has moved your torque and power range up slightly.

At the risk of being the odd nut in this discussion, I don't think changing to more cam will solve these problems. It likely would make it worse! Headers will always help, but they will not be the solution you are looking for. Given your, already in place, exhaust improvements I'd go with the single outlet. What you will give up is a different (very cool) sound. What you will gain is less weight, less expense and less hassle.

You can try to use as much initial ignition advance as possible, but the tall gearing will make pre-ignition that much more prevalent. You can also try lower profile shorter diameter 14" tires.

Some Mustang II, from '73 - '74, had an 8" with a 3.25:1 ratio. If you could find one of those and get a rebuilt torque converter, that is a little looser than your OEM, you'd find that your engine will give you a completely different response.

As always, no one thing will give the complete solution, but one thing that is out of sync can seriouly impede and otherwise good plan.

I'm sincerely hopeful that this will help you get the response from you engine rebuild that you want. Good Luck.

Adios, David

David:

Thanks for the detailed analysis of the setup I have. I think you're correct in your assumptions. I was getting ready to spring for a new cam, but now you got me thinking.

I have an MSD 6A with a standard Ford electronic distributor.

I pretty sure I have a 3.00:1 rearend from the Mav (any easy way to tell by looking at it?). How hard is it to find the 3.25:1 gears? Will they fit in the Mav rearend? I'm not too keen on the torque converter side of things. My torque converter was recently rebuilt.

What to you mean by "looser than your OEM"?

Thanks,
Jeff

Howdy back Jeff:

Be sure to set your ignition timing with as much initial advance as you can without knock.

Did your original 7.25" rear end have a 3.5:1 gear ratio? If so a 3.00 is still too much of a change for performance- great for highway crusing! Look at you Falcon ID tag for rear gear code. The 8" Maverick should have had a tag identifying the ratio. You can also spin the drive shaft once and count tire revolutions to estimate you new ratio.

I have not seen 3.25:1 gear sets from aftermarketers advertized. That's why I suggested a recycled pumpkin from a Mustang II. Most catalogs start listing 8" gear ratios at 3.50:1. That might be too deep for highway crusing.

A stock OEM torque converter is set very tight- meaning that there is very little slipage/low engine rpms before lock up/stall is achieved. If you have an OEM torque converter rebuilt, the rebuilder can loosen it up by triming the fins on the stator and spacing the stator a little wider. This would raise the stall speed, the speed at which the converter engages completely and won't allow the engine speed to increase any more. A stock OEM stall speed is 1,200 - 1,400, A modified converter might be 1,400 to 1,600- nothing earth shaking. It just allows the engine to get closer to its power band before being lugged down by the weight of pulling the gears.

The adventure continues.

Adios, David

that made me dizzy...too technical for me...I will got o a tranny shop and see what they can do for me....

chaz...who doesnt understand all that

For Red Racy:

You asked how much HP one can expect from our engines without forced induction, etc. I look at it this way: my '98 Neon has a 122 ci engine and is rated at 150 HP at the flywheel. So that calcs out to be 1.22 HP/ci. Using that same factor then our 200 ci could pump out 245 HP. Again at the fly wheel. Then subtract HP losses from the tranny, U-joints and rear gear to see what shows up at the tyres. Also remember, this Neon has duel overhead cams, advanced combustion chamber design and fuel injection.