I am impressed with the 250

A

Anonymous

Guest
A friend picked up a 70 1/2 falcon 4 door with a 250 and C-4 and after driving it I really liked that motor,it seemed to move it real well and when I got on the highway it got up to 65 with no problem. I can imagine that motor in a first generation falcon would seem like a V8 and my next daily driver might be a fairlane with one or might do the early falcon swap.
 
junkyardjeff":3u10rcro said:
A friend picked up a 70 1/2 falcon 4 door with a 250 and C-4 and after driving it I really liked that motor,it seemed to move it real well and when I got on the highway it got up to 65 with no problem. I can imagine that motor in a first generation falcon would seem like a V8 and my next daily driver might be a fairlane with one or might do the early falcon swap.
Click to expand...

What's impressive to me is the difference from a V8. In the light '61 with 3.80 Posi rear, the 250 low end torque comes on like a KIck in the Pants Switch...
 
The 71 250 was rated 155 BHP @ 4,000 RPM, 240 lbs./ft. @ 1,600 RPM
The 71 302 was rated 210 BHP @ 4,600 RPM, 295 lbs./ft. @ 2,600 RPM

The torque of the 250 peaks at 1600 RPM, just 800 RPM off idle! Most US inline sixes are known for their low end grunt.
 
Power would have been better with a less restrictive intake.
Just look at the Australian 250 2V; what the US should have had.
 
I have been hearing about the motors downunder and would love to get one if I ever get a falcon.
 
Anyone who has drivin a 200 powerd car and then drives one with a 250 knows what your talking about , 50 cubes are tough to beat , Thats why I started with it , not to metion it opens up a world of options for transmission possibilities ,
 
Yeah, I may bit the bullet when I build my next engine. I don't have too much invested in the 200 block other than the cam. I may through the 250 in there to realize better gains for an EFI system.
 
Yes for my application definately the right choice. I had a good running late 70s 200 in my Bronco for years and really liked it even though not quite the power I wanted. Going to the 250 I got a feel for the different characteristics of these engines, the 250 clearly has the extra low end torque as expected from the additional 50 cubes. One of the primary reasons for going to the 250 was the wider choices in transmissions. That original 3 speed was a drawback in my opinion as I live in an area with mountains and lots of elevation changes. I always needed a gear right between 2nd and 3rd and then on flat stretches wanted an od, the NV3550 gives me all these.
The best part is I still get to do all the performance upgrades that I wanted for the 200, they will just yield more hp and torque for the same amount of dollars spent. Planning on a cam and headwork from CI, 2100 carb and address quench issues. That should give that 250 a very noticeable boost. Also 95amp 3G alt, upgraded headlights and lighting circuit. All made much easier with the info on this site.
We are fortunate to have this site and all the knowledgeable members and the Falcon handbook and its authors.
 
Darn you guys. Now you're making me want to swap my 200 to a 250 in my 61 falcon when I finally get to working on it. :LOL:
 
What years of early falcons will they fit without too much trouble or would it be best to get a fairlane or mustang to put one in.
 
I disagree , there are 3 belhousings that can be used 164/153/136 ( the smallest is the mustang II varient ) not easy to find but very small , the middle size is the most common to use ( and may take some massaging ) the Largest ( what I have in my 65 Mustang ) fits with plenty of room ,if a V-8 C-4 setup fits then a 250 will , the biggest problem is height , but that can be overcome as well , the 200 is the easyest swap , but the 250 is doable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top