Engine swap info

S

slowride

New member
My son has a '63 Econoline with a 170 that's getting tired. It's his daily driver, so the plan is to build another 6 on the engine stand and swap engines over a weekend so he'll stay mobile. I figured as long as we'll be buying another engine it'd be a good time to swap a 200 or 250 into it (already installed a 9" rear).
I searched the forum, but didn't get a clear idea of what would be the cleanest swap. Are there certain years 200's that will bolt up to the existing 3 speed manual, where others require fabrication? What other details are there to consider with this kind of swap?
 
slowride,

I've read recently that upgrading from a 170 to a 200 might be too much for the Ford 3.03 and peanut rear end...

My current config has the crashbox 3.03 used in 61 & 62 (apparently 63 in Canada too), but someone also graced my van with a 9" rear axle. So if I found a 200, I might also be curious about the tranny that was with it... it might be a welcome upgrade to replace the whole drivetrain rather than just mating up a 200...

Any thoughts folks? I'm no expert here, but I hope someone will add some insight to this!

Thanks
 
i'm not that familiar with the 3.03, but i do know that they were in some of the 200 powered mustangs
of course, a van is much heavier than a mustang, so i'm not sure if more power with more weight would kill it, but i doubt it
 
sasktrini":2d1patkv said:
slowride,

I've read recently that upgrading from a 170 to a 200 might be too much for the Ford 3.03 and peanut rear end...

My current config has the crashbox 3.03 used in 61 & 62 (apparently 63 in Canada too), but someone also graced my van with a 9" rear axle. So if I found a 200, I might also be curious about the tranny that was with it... it might be a welcome upgrade to replace the whole drivetrain rather than just mating up a 200...

Any thoughts folks? I'm no expert here, but I hope someone will add some insight to this!

Thanks
Click to expand...

8) i think you are confusing the 3.03 with the 2.77. the 3.03 9 bolt top loader 3sp is just as tough as the top loader 4sp trans, and will handle a lot of power. the 4 bolt top loader 2.77 is the weak trans.

as for the swap, i would go with the 250, or better a big six like the 240 or the 300. these engines put out a lot of low speed torque which is what you want in a van, even the lightweight cracker box you are building. however since you dont seem to want to make a complete drivetrain swap, the low starter mount 200 will do just fine, and use the bell housing and flywheel from the 170 to make the swap easier.
 
Asa":2ypo9ih2 said:
i'm not that familiar with the 3.03, but i do know that they were in some of the 200 powered mustangs
of course, a van is much heavier than a mustang, so i'm not sure if more power with more weight would kill it, but i doubt it
Click to expand...


actually the vans were 2550 pounds...how much were the mustangs?
 
early ford fan":21438ndv said:
Asa":21438ndv said:
i'm not that familiar with the 3.03, but i do know that they were in some of the 200 powered mustangs
of course, a van is much heavier than a mustang, so i'm not sure if more power with more weight would kill it, but i doubt it
Click to expand...


actually the vans were 2550 pounds...how much were the mustangs?
Click to expand...
mustangs should be around that actually...
 
rbohm":1wj6cp28 said:
sasktrini":1wj6cp28 said:
slowride,

I've read recently that upgrading from a 170 to a 200 might be too much for the Ford 3.03 and peanut rear end...

My current config has the crashbox 3.03 used in 61 & 62 (apparently 63 in Canada too), but someone also graced my van with a 9" rear axle. So if I found a 200, I might also be curious about the tranny that was with it... it might be a welcome upgrade to replace the whole drivetrain rather than just mating up a 200...

Any thoughts folks? I'm no expert here, but I hope someone will add some insight to this!

Thanks
Click to expand...

8) i think you are confusing the 3.03 with the 2.77. the 3.03 9 bolt top loader 3sp is just as tough as the top loader 4sp trans, and will handle a lot of power. the 4 bolt top loader 2.77 is the weak trans.

as for the swap, i would go with the 250, or better a big six like the 240 or the 300. these engines put out a lot of low speed torque which is what you want in a van, even the lightweight cracker box you are building. however since you dont seem to want to make a complete drivetrain swap, the low starter mount 200 will do just fine, and use the bell housing and flywheel from the 170 to make the swap easier.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in a trans swap and dealing with the short mainshaft and trans mount or different engine mounts and dimensions of the 240 or 300. This needs to be a quick swap so he can be on the road again in a day or so. We already replaced the rear with a 9" after he figured out how to remove 5 teeth from the 7.25" ring gear. :D At some point he wants to build a subframe , so a trans swap would make sense then. A quick swap into a reliable drivetrain is the key right now.
 
The easiest and quickest engine swap would be a 200cid from 65 to 80. These engines would all have similar exterior dimensions and high mount starter that your current 170 has, and you could use everything you have from the flywheel back.

Pluses with the 200 would be the additional torque, seven main bearing crank, and the opportunity to switch to a Duraspark distributor.
 
That's exactly what I want to do. The LOM has been holding back other changes, so we can kill 2 birds with one stone. I had considered changing the stock dist (1/4" shaft, converted to Pertronix) over to a Mallory so we could do a 2 bbl conversion, but after all that, it'd still be a tired 170.
Now the fun part is FINDING a 200. Since California is so eco friendly now, all the wrecking yards have disappeared. Looks like we'll be roadtripping it out of state if I can find one.
 
Check on the Buy,Sell,Trade-Small Six section on the forum. There have been some 200s for sale in California listed in the past several months. One may still be available, and close to you.

Good luck.
 
Didn't say you couldn't mate a 200 with the current tranny... that would be a quick swap... no motor mount fabrication... I just wouldn't want to light up the tires or try to tow anything heavy.

I'm learning about the "crashbox". My 64 Econoline has the 3.03 three-on-the-tree... top-access... my understanding is that the earlier years had side-access (don't know why it's called "crashbox" though) versions of the same tranny. I have heard something about 2.77s, but haven't seen any reading on them. It seems the crashbox is synchronized (no double-clutching, but maybe more prone to failure?) where the 3.03 is not.

Lots of people did 200 swaps... an easy 30 cid upgrade with no fabrication (56 if you had a 144 cid)! Good luck... finding a 200 should be relatively easy!
 
The kid located a complete 200 from starter to carb for $250, so we may have a good core to build. It was out of a '66 Mustang, so it doesn't have the big valves, but I don't know that it matters much. The clutch can't handle a lot of motor, and it is an Econoline...... :mrgreen:
 
sasktrini":1pold9yq said:
....

I'm learning about the "crashbox". My 64 Econoline has the 3.03 three-on-the-tree... top-access... my understanding is that the earlier years had side-access (don't know why it's called "crashbox" though)......
Click to expand...

A true crashbox has no sychros in any gear. Most of the 3-speed trannys in cars from the 50's-70's had non-synchro first gear but synchro 2nd and 3rd gears; reckon they are calling this a crashbox, eh?

I'm old enough to remember car makers advertising their new "Full-synchromesh" transmissions. Nowadays they wouldn't even remotely be able to sell anything BUT fully synchronized gearboxes (of course automatics are the predominant choice anymore).
Joe
 
Honestly, it's a new term to me, Lazy JW... I'm puzzled by it now. I'm tearing apart my donor, and it has the same side-access tranny, that I thought to be the 3.03. I understand they are the standard equipment in the Econolines.

Driving the two vans, I could swear that they had two different trannies in them, as I can downshift from 2nd to 1st at a slow speed in the 63 Merc, but I never could in the 64 Ford. Without looking at them, they felt like they were completely different.

So I'm sorry if I come across sounding like a know-it-all, I've admitted I'm a newbie over and over. Between wrenching on my Econolines and spending time learning from people online here, I'm enjoying myself. Obviously too, I'm learning something I didn't understand about these trannies before. I guess I have two trannies in very different states of wear if they can drive so differently... eh? :LOL:
 
I do know some later 3-speeds had synchronized low gears; perhaps someone swapped one in. Or you may have gotten lucky in the Merc.

We all had to start learning sometime, I know I am still in the process. When you're done learning, you're DONE! Reckon that's when they'll throw dirt in my face, eh?
Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top