??? street build suggestions...

As I've commented in other threads my engine is quite worn out. My current plan is to try to limp it along until spring, when moneys come a bit more easily, and do something about the situation.

My desires for this car are for it to be a really fun and quick street car.

I'm not out street racing or anything but at the same time don't want to get left at the green light by every ricer.

I do want to be able to cruise at 70mph or more on the interstate. An smoke the tires leaving the parkig lot if I'm feeling stupid.

What would be a good direction to go with these goals? I have a bone stock 250 out of a '72 Maverick. This won't be a total shoe string build but I'm not flush with cash either. Currently have the C4 trans and (2.7?) ratio 8" from the Mav too.

Last spring's project was suspension and brakes. Starting planning, or dwelling and obsessing, on that one about six months in advance also.
I kind of wish this was as easy as building a SBC where its as easy as a chart showing parts A, B, and C will give you X HP and Y torque.

Sav63comet":3lf3nny9 said:

I kind of wish this was as easy as building a SBC where its as easy as a chart showing parts A, B, and C will give you X HP and Y torque.

Click to expand...

Aren't 19 dyno runs of various successfull combinations and Horsing Around with the Mustang Six on http://www.classicinlines.com/HA1.asp enough?

The reason that it doesn't happen stepwise is because of the lack of understanding with respect to the different carb and log head combinations A,B and C. Mike W (Azcoupe) has actually answered your step wise requests in the form of the Classic Inlines Dyno. It doesn't hyper link when you click the board header anymore, and looses foot traffic as a result. But if you do a Google "Classic inlines Dyno"search, out pops the ABC X HP Y LB-FT dyno runs.



See http://www.classicinlines.com/dynoroom.asp, and be amazed

Personally, I can't think of a better way to get good power with minimal cost than a turbo. Fixing the inherent breathing problems of the six costs serious dollars, but turbos do a reasonably fine job of totally working around aspiration limitations by forcing air in. Considering you can do a very decent blow-through build for under a grand, it seems (to me) like money well spent versus the couple grand you're going to spend just buying a head that on its best day won't deliver the same output. That's my $0.02!

I have read these articles several times, a great read, well written and very informative, and easy to do, considering they didn’t have distributors and ignition boxes like we do now, this little engine could probably go some hp easily.

The c4 might be part of the problem. Have you considered a t5?
A 250 in good condition would give a pretty good performance upgrade also and since you have one that might be the easiest plan. I put a good running used 250 and five speed trans in my Bronco and it was a big increase in performance and driveability over the 200/three speed combo. The 250 and AOD combo would be a good choice if you want to stick with an automatic.
Or as stated lots of power cheaply use a turbo.

bmbm40":36kqkkkf said:

The c4 might be part of the problem. Have you considered a t5?
A 250 in good condition would give a pretty good performance upgrade also and since you have one that might be the easiest plan. I put a good running used 250 and five speed trans in my Bronco and it was a big increase in performance and driveability over the 200/three speed combo. The 250 and AOD combo would be a good choice if you want to stick with an automatic.
Or as stated lots of power cheaply use a turbo.

Click to expand...

The 250 is what's n the car now... It was definitely an improvement over the 170. Transmission choices are one of the things I allow myself to be overwhelmed by. Which T-5? Out of what donor? With which flywheel? Do I get to keep my bench seat? How about a six speed? Or a more traditional four speed? Where do I go with my rear gears then? I let my thoughts snowball way too much on these things.

I've looked at the Dyno Room charts before, I guess I need to pull it up on a real computer and study it. I do most of my interwebbing from my iPod because my computer is so old it doesn't work on many sites. And the iPod can come out on the porch with me while I'm having my coffee.

And yet another question.... In a '63 four door Comet what kind of torque numbers should I be aiming at for my above goals? Geared to cruise comfortably at interstate speeds (70mph+) while still being able to show my ass and smoke the tires if desired. Right now I have 205/60-15 all around but aesthetics have me wanting to go up to something wider in the back. Visually I want the car to eventually have more of an old road racer look with radiused fenders and a slightly squatter stance.

I'm pretty happy with how my suspension came out. CSRP parts for the Granada brake swap, Shelby UCA drop, V8 springs, the bigger tires, 10" drums out back on custom axle shafts, the shafts were probably false thrift. She goes around corners nicely now, still some body roll but I haven't upgraded the front or added a rear sway bar yet. I don't deiver's like I did in my Triumph days anymore but the only time I've managed to get the wheels to slide since was on a wet reducing radius on ramp.

thesameguy":1p1kvvkz said:

Personally, I can't think of a better way to get good power with minimal cost than a turbo.

Click to expand...

that is a good way to go, but you need to size the turbo right to get the power where you want it.

Fixing the inherent breathing problems of the six costs serious dollars

Click to expand...

not true, to a point. it depends on what you consider serious dollars. if you mean going with the CI aluminum head, then yes it will cost money, same with a aussie 2V or crossflow head, and the argentine head. but the log head can be made to flow much better at a reasonable cost depending on how much work you can do yourself, or how well you can shop around.

Go to the transmission section on the board index and look for t5 swap info. Also consult with a company called Modern Driveline. There is also t5 to a 250 swap info in the 'Ford Falcon Performance Manual' which you should not be without. Available from one of the authors who is frequently on this site although I can't recall the name he uses on here. Someone will know.
I used a NV3550 for my Bronco so can't help you directly.
Your rear axle ratio would need to be studied and too much power may destroy your current diff.

The issue I ran into when considering a turbo, sound. I want a unique hot six with a mean exhaust and it's hard to get the mean sound with a turbo, buffering the sound waves.
Just my personal opinion there.

.. although stock torquey 250 with C4 is no slouch, typical high geared Maverick rear ( @ 2.79:1) will allow interstate 70 MPH cruise but not performance ... to enable cruise at 70 MPH and smoke the tires a wide gear ratio setup helps, low final axle gearing will give you the smoke and tall high Overdrive top gear trannys give low RPM cruise. Typical Mustang T5;s use a fairly low gear rear with comortable cruising 1:.68 OD ratio. 250 uses SBF 157T BH. I dont know if any OD automatics are used for the 250 ...

have fun

Hi Powerband.The 250 has the same BH pattern of the SBF(IIRC).If that is the case,any of the AOD`s for a small block should bolt up to the 250.Might have to get a custom TC for it though.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

rbohm":3prhbns5 said:

thesameguy":3prhbns5 said:

Personally, I can't think of a better way to get good power with minimal cost than a turbo.

Click to expand...

that is a good way to go, but you need to size the turbo right to get the power where you want it.

Fixing the inherent breathing problems of the six costs serious dollars

Click to expand...

not true, to a point. it depends on what you consider serious dollars. if you mean going with the CI aluminum head, then yes it will cost money, same with a aussie 2V or crossflow head, and the argentine head. but the log head can be made to flow much better at a reasonable cost depending on how much work you can do yourself, or how well you can shop around.

Click to expand...

Yep. Dunno how much Crosley spend on his, but just a little Area 51 smarts, and you'll have the thing @n@l probing turbo charged Ford Probes....viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56639&p=440076#p440076

Of course, its only cutting edge 1962 technology yielding 205 hp and 200 cubic inches and a confined in a 62 Dearborn Dustbin...

Money is handy, but a weekend with mill and diegrinder is just as effective.

powerband":2qvx3sfq said:

.. although stock torquey 250 with C4 is no slouch, typical high geared Maverick rear ( @ 2.79:1) will allow interstate 70 MPH cruise but not performance ... to enable cruise at 70 MPH and smoke the tires a wide gear ratio setup helps, low final axle gearing will give you the smoke and tall high Overdrive top gear trannys give low RPM cruise. Typical Mustang T5;s use a fairly low gear rear with comortable cruising 1:.68 OD ratio. 250 uses SBF 157T BH. I dont know if any OD automatics are used for the 250 ...

have fun

Click to expand...

I'm not at all hung up on an automatic. Current driveline is only what it is because when I destroyed my old 170 I scored a $200 whole Maverick with a working engine and transmission so I swapped everything.

Seems in addition to whatever I do with the rebuild I want to track down a T5 with a long legged fifth gear and a taller rear end gear set?

Sav63comet":nav87yc8 said:

I'm not at all hung up on an automatic. Current driveline is only what it is because when I destroyed my old 170 I scored a $200 whole Maverick with a working engine and transmission so I swapped everything.

Seems in addition to whatever I do with the rebuild I want to track down a T5 with a long legged fifth gear and a taller rear end gear set?

Click to expand...

taller or shorter rear gear? a taller gear than what you have now would mean that if you have a 3.00 gear now you would be going to a 2.79 or taller. a lower gear means if you have the 3.00, the you would go to a 3.55 or lower gear.

when talking about gear ratios in cars, lower means higher numerically because you have a lower road speed compared to the same engine speed. a taller gear is lower numerically, which means you have a higher road speed compered to the same engine speed.

a T5 generally has a 30% overdrive(most are 27-33% depending on the year) so you want something like a 3.55 rear gear with that T5.

Language issue yes... For some reason I was under the impression that a higher numerical ratio rear end was referred to as taller. But yes, something around 3.5:1 as opposed to my current (2.73:1?).

I think a T-5 would be the best place to start... Even when my 200 had its original exhaust, ignition, and old knock-off 1100, the T-5 really made a difference in the way the car got moving from a stop AND allows it to cruise along at 70, 80, or even 90+ mph along the highway (well, once you get over 80 things start to wander around a bit up front, but 70 is just perfect in 5th gear). I originally had a 3.20 7.25" rear and now have an 8" 3.20 rear (might be even better with a higher final gear).

Hooked up to a 250 with electronic exhaust and headers, I imagine you would be pretty pleased with the result (I went the route of installing a DUI, a rebuilt 1100, and headers on mine, and while its not going to win any drag races, its pretty respectable off the line and cruises better than ever).

Good luck whatever direction you choose to go!

"...Right now I have 205/60-15 all around but aesthetics have me wanting to go up to something wider in the back..."
many moders select the target tire sz B4 transm & rear gear (esp 4 us off roaders)
BECAUSE, remember, it's the entire final drive ratio that has to wrk together (to get her right).

(33X15 with the 250/4.1 meant I wanted the 411 rear w/my tranny for log skiddin on the hills'n swamps round here).

Good Luck,
'Nother Systems Thinker

If your vehicle isn't turbocharged, you'll probably need to look at a T5 as a good first step. I would look at an AOD or 4w70 or A4LD based 5R55 series transmission if a five speed manual stick shift isn't you. If you have an I6 turbo, any good C4 or C5 will take kindly to it. That 13.5sec, 100 mph ET's Lincs 200 ran in his boosted 3.3 Mustang took a 19.5 second low compresion plodder into the big times.

Its very expensive to fix a stock Ford I6 auto combination if you don't want a T5 manual, and a turbo saves heaps of work gearing the transmission with overdrives and so forth, stuff you really need to cope with a 80 mph interstate cruise.

In a drag racing, shift kitted automatics excell. They make more usable power than T5's, because you can run a stump puller demon high numerical diff, a hi stall converter, and have all the power you need. The torque multipliczation suits an I6 well. Probelm is, Dearborn and the rest of Detriot want you to be able to cruise around the highway like Aunty Jane, and they load up the diff ratio, drop the stall rating and have very low performance upshift programs. The 200/3.3 and 250/4.1 suffer more than most because its already one or two gears down on any good Ford manual gearbox.

The reason the T5 works is that its got

1.the ratio spread we require, and

2. when behind a stock 200 or 250 it consumes at the very least 4 less horspower on a chassis dyno than a C3/C4 or C5. In fact, an automatic behind a stock 200 or 250 commonly consumes 14 hp when you research the dyno figures.The old rated 115, 120 or 125hp gross for the old 200 or 155 to 145 hp gross for the 250 weren't any more than 85 or 96hp net at the flywheel.

3.On our older 7.25, 8" and six cylinder Fox 6.7 and 7.5" diffs, Ford also has that very nasty habbit of always gearing the automatic up 13% when compared to the same years 3 or 4 speed manual.

4. Most times, if the stock 6 cylinder 1650 rpm stall torque converter is used, it can suck up four times as much power in urban conditions. When chassis dynoed, the rear wheel hp of a T5, TopLoader or 2.77 3 or 4 speed is about 26% of the flywheel net figure, including tire and axle drag, the total energy loss is always about that. So an 85 HP net Fox 3.3 i6 or the 125 hp gross 200 cube Mustang will see 67 rear wheel hp. But add an auto, and you often won't see 55 hp because of torque converter slip and counterwight dyno factors. So its charted total loss is often actually 55% in operation conditions, even though it may suck up only 33% when using the right counterweighted dyno. Chassis dynos are notorious for this when testing automatic equiped cars.

5. The AOD is even worse in that it jumps into 4th first chance, and generally, all C4's and most AOD's come with the numberically low high geared diff, like the 2.80, 2.79 (or 2.73's in the Foxes). Manuals come with 3.20, 3.25 (or 3.08's in the later Fox sixes). They need very agressive, often expensive work on the valve body to eliminate this. The factory never got this sorted untill the next version of the AOD, and it makes Ford overdrives very hard to calibrate.

For an automatic to work as well as a T5, its best for it to be shift kitted, have an overdriven top gear, a 2350 RPM or greater high stall converter, and a manual diff ratio.

To fix those things requires a lot of understanding. To Fords credit, they have been adding these five improvments to all there automatics since about 1989. We six cylinder guys just missed out on the revolution, and a busted a$$ C3 or C4 without mods will leave a lot of power on the table.

"...a busted a$$ C3 or C4 without mods will leave a lot of power on the table...."
Yes, there's alota kits out today that can upgrade a C4. That and a 9 inch would be a nice combo...

"...My desires for this car are for it to be a really fun and quick street car.
I'm not out street racing or anything but at the same time don't want to get left at the green light by every ricer.
I do want to be able to cruise at 70mph or more on the interstate. An smoke the tires leaving the parkig lot if I'm feeling stupid.
What would be a good direction to go...?"
How bout some more detail on your end goal?