Good candidate for a 170/200 build?

I'm contemplating building either a 170 or 200.
I got a line on a pair of engines in my area. The owner got a 170, 200 and 250 from a neighbor years ago who was moving and was going to scrap the engines. The owner has plans for the 250 but is selling off the 170, 200 and what I think is a 2 speed ford-o-matic that had been mated to the 170. The 170 came out of a falcon. Doesn't know where the 200 came from, or the history on either engine as far as if they've ever been rebuilt or what condition/miles when pulled. The 170 has been repainted. The valve cover was painted blue over the original red. It happened long ago enough that the red is showing through in spots.
The codes on the 170 are C1DE-6015-A for the block and C1DE-6090-A for the head. For the 200 I only have that the sticker on the valve cover starts with D5DE. The owner is going to take a better look at the 200 today or tomorrow and hopefully I'll get the the rest of the block and head codes then.
I'm looking to build an engine to someday put in a round body falcon. I'm fairly sure I can get more power, etc,... out of the 200. But my inclination is to rebuild the 200 head and swap it onto the 170.

Couple questions:
1. My research on the 200 is a little foggy for the 75 head. Am I correct that this year has the 1.649 intake valves? But can be machined to take the 1.75 valves from the 77 and up head?
2. Also on the 200, I think I'm looking for a "flat top log" for easier machining to accommodate a 2V carb. Will the rest of the head code be enough to tell me if this engine is flat top vs hexagonal or will I have to physically pull the carb to verify.
3. Is building 170 feasible with this 200 head? Is there enough meat between the 200 head and 170 deck to machine off enough to achieve a combustion chamber volume small enough to achieve a good compression ratio?

Thanks for sharing your knowledge in advance.

Howdy Back Harlon:

1. My research on the 200 is a little foggy for the 75 head. Am I correct that this year has the 1.649 intake valves? But can be machined to take the 1.75 valves from the 77 and up head?
A- Yes. With this head going onto a 170 I'd be inclined to not upgrade to the 1.75" intake valves. Valve shrouding in the smaller bore 170 would limit the benefits of bigger intake valves. Both the 200 intake and exhaust valves will be bigger then on what the 170 head has.

2. Also on the 200, I think I'm looking for a "flat top log" for easier machining to accommodate a 2V carb. Will the rest of the head code be enough to tell me if this engine is flat top vs hexagonal or will I have to physically pull the carb to verify.
A- Unfortunately, no. You don't need to pull the carb. Just look at the ends of the log. You should easily see which you have.

3. Is building 170 feasible with this 200 head?
A- Yes. Larger valves, more intake tract volume are all good and will help with flow. What carb and exhaust you use will determine how good.

Q- Is there enough meat between the 200 head and 170 deck to machine off enough to achieve a combustion chamber volume small enough to achieve a good compression ratio?
A- Yes. An original 170 head will likely have 52 cc chamber volume. The factory D5 heads chambers are typically 62 cc. To get the combination back to 9:1 CR you will need to have the head milled .050", as well as another .025" to compensate for the new style head gasket. That would be a total of .075" mill cut. So the answer is still yes. A mill cut of .075" is safe if the head is a factory original. We have milled D7 and later heads up to .090" with no problems. It would be a good idea for you to measure the chambers first and then do the math.
Also use hardened washer on the head bolts to prevent them from bottoming out in the holes.

I hope that's what you needed. Let us know what you find.

Adios, David

Hi, get the Falcon Performance Handbook. They really sort through all this information.The early 170 is probably a 1961 block will have the early small only bell housing, and small 1/4 inch distributor shaft, which really limits what you can do with the engine. The 200 s I have seen are drilled for large and small bell housings. I have heard of late 200 engines with the small block Ford bell housing pattern, which will be more issues to make it work on the early Falcon. All things being equal, I would refurbish the engine that is on better shape. Good luck

Thanks David,

In regards to building the 170 block with the D5-200 head. Is there any general anecdotal information on what type of horsepower and torque improvement I could get out of this combo?

Seems most of what I've found as far as build ups/mods has been for 200s and 250s. I like the idea of the 170 buildup but not sure what the actual potential is. It will be a for fun putt around town car, but I'd like to build as much zip into it as possible. I want to push it right up to that edge where it's as fun as possible without passing into the not the really a daily drivable engine combo anymore.

Thanks,

Thanks B Ron Co,

Yeah, I've been reading through the Falcon Performance Book, that's why I brought the question here. May just be how I was approaching it, but seems that most of what I've read is aimed at 200s and 250s. The seven main bearings seem to be the smartest place to start a small I6 build. That may be where I end up. Just trying to explore what can be done with the 170. My son has an anemic '79 200. I'd like to build a light early 170 that will outperform his late 200.

As far as the distributor, I read a thread over on the HAMB Jalopy site on a 144 build that suggested that the block can be drilled to handle the later larger diameter distributors. If this is doable then upgrading to a DS2 or DUI should be possible?

Haven't put much thought into the trannie yet. Thanks for bringing it up. Worst case scenario, whatever I build will end up in my sons 66 Mustang. Doesn't help if I can't marry it up to his trannie. There is the write up in the back of the Falcon book about the T-5 to early 170 adaptor. So maybe it's still doable?

I got a couple picks of the top of the 200 engine.
I'm thinking they look like a flat top. Am I correct?

Hi, glad you got the Falcon Performance Handbook. That looks like the flat top manifold to me. Visit Vintage Inlines for some performance parts. They offer a very good DUI distributor for the small style early engines. After you are done with your engine, you will have to wake up your son's engine. Good luck

Is that a smog head? Does the engine have an egr system?

Thanks B Ron
I gotta admit, I've got to go back and reread about half the book. In the spirit of reading it to help my son wrap his head around tuning up his 200 and getting it running better, I skipped the second half of the specs and mods section and jumped to the basic performance upgrades. Skipped the main rebuilding section on the block, cams and drive train. Shame on me.
Thanks all for the advice and knowledge.

I think I'll be in good shape with the combo of these two engines. Now I have to figure out how to sneak them into the garage past the wife. Any ideas.

Harlon

Econoline":f339dmvz said:

Is that a smog head? Does the engine have an egr system?

Click to expand...

With it being a 75, I'd say yes to having an egr system. I remember something about some of these having an egr valve inlet cast directly adjacent to the carb collar. I'm guessing that's what you're referring to as a smog head. I'll to ask for a pick from the other side of the engine to see.

I haven't seen the engines in person yet. The seller will send pics and share what he knows, but is very hesitant for a visit. He wants to deliver them if I buy them.

These are the pics I have.

Yup, its EGR line is there, and the two cap scews withthe engine holding plate make it a manual gearbox engine originally I guess, BUT the sticker indicates its automatic.

Auto 1975 Maverick/Comete or Granada/Monarch . Its not Bronco.

Use the 200. Keep the 170 if you can.



Integrated, cast into the head EGR came in way late, 1980 with the E blank, E0, or E1 head. Ford used delightfull homour and hid the casting number under the automatic kicdown linkage held to the head with those two cap screws.





For pre 1980, the manifold vac ports were all under the carb on the log on the port here by my hand.

This is a 1961 170 C1 head on my 1981 3.3.



For 1980 to 1983, man vac is on a hex port, capped off with a hex grub screw in 1bad6t's photos





80Stang's EGR is blocked off, a common thing for later non emissions conversions.



From 1973 IIRC right, only stick shift or CA emissions got EGR, wasn't needed on Early Broncos or some other 250 engines, so Ford made from 1973 a very unreliable EGR adaptor whic suffered porisity problems. It fited the 240/300 engines as well, so there are a lot around.


But even with that and the massivley leak prone two bolt mounting to the log head, a 1-bbl 170, 200 or 250 will run with extremely unpleasant, horrifying, or terrible leaks :mrgreen:

EGR came in 1978 with the 3.3 in Foxes and Granada, Maverick and Monarchs, and another adaptor type.


D3 1973 EGR From Mr Moostsie

1973 to 1975 the Log head bolt pattern generally changes...

Can anyone share a pic of what a smog head for a 200 looks like?

Harlon":24f80ron said:

Can anyone share a pic of what a smog head for a 200 looks like?

Click to expand...

Not really. The Emissions eara started with the 1966 California head, a 200 with small log and AIR intake plugs.

Then that got deep sixed in 1968, and everything progressed to C9 heads, then the D5 and then the D8's and E's.


What I've shown you above with the C1 head,
the E blanks

and your D5 should be enough to get some ideas

All types are kind of hard to define.

This is an E head experimental, circa 1979 pre-production

[/img]




viewtopic.php?f=1&t=71133&p=546096#p546096

xctasy":24f80ron said:

My 1981 Mustang runs a closed chamber 170 head which had 52 cc before it was planned down.

The photos are ex Hot Rod from board member Invectivus.

The 170 large log 1971 head is shown, but the early 200 ran the same head till about 1966 or 1967, depending on state and, in my case, country. 1966 to 1967 Aussie XR Falcons were still using C1 casting heads with 1965 dates. See HRM's mustang magazine number 3. %2091% is the picture
http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustang3/Cover.jpg
http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustang3/Page 90 copy.jpg
http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustang3/Page 91 copy.jpg
http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustang3/Page 92 copy.jpg
http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustang3/Page 93 copy.jpg
http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustang3/Page 94 copy.jpg

Click to expand...

[image][/image]X,
Thanks I think I was writing my question when your pics and explanation arrived. Thanks.

I am a bit thick though.

Here are a couple pics of my sons '78 Fairmont 200. Is what I'm seeing in these pics the EGR valve being integrated into the base of the carb. I couldn't quite get a pic of it, but from the other side the EGR pipe feeds from the exhaust manifold into the rear of the carb base/EGR body. I'm guessing this is the more optimal EGR setup if you want to do performance upgrades to the intake manifold?

Is this what I likely will see on the 75 head?

Also in the first pic. You can see a small vacuum hookup. It has a small blue cover over a port. This vacuum line runs up and then back and down to the transmission. Will this vacuum port be a problem?

Okay got a good profile pick of the EGR pipe coming into the side of the Carb on the 75 200 I'm looking to buy.
Am I correct that his is a good non smog log manifold?

I would go with the 200" engine even if you have to rebuild it. 30 extra cubic inches is paramount.
Scrap all the emission crap. then you have a lot more options as far as distributor choice.
Don't go with the DUI it has a history of lack of shaft oiling & is inferior to the DS11 in all respects.
The 170 is a dog compared to a properly prepped 200. Bill

wsa111":1es72ckz said:

I would go with the 200" engine even if you have to rebuild it. 30 extra cubic inches is paramount.

The 170 is a dog compared to a properly prepped 200. Bill

Click to expand...

I hear you. I'm just exploring the option of hopping up the 170. Doesn't seem to be very common. Seems like it would be fun to see what I could get out of it.

That and it's hard, for me anyway, not to think, if the 200 is better, then a 302 would be even better. When I got my first falcon 30 years ago, all I wanted was a 351W for it. Now as a 46 year old I kind of like the idea of building a zippy little inline. The 170 kind of fits with my theme of light and sprightly. I'm assuming that unless I spend gobs of money on this, that the most I'll get out of either engine is 100-120 horsepower. If I can squeeze that out of the 170 I'd say, cool.

Your choice, but you can build a mild 200 where you would be hard pressed to even match the extra 30 cubic inches of the 200. Your choice of mods are limited for the 170. Don't waste your money on an obsolete engine.

folks on here can help you get that 170 to it's highest potential.
also the 200. It's just that the 200 has an inherently better rod to piston ratio for pep, more support & knowledge in how to hop up, more cubes, more parts, etc.
That's my non-mechanic impression.
There's some fierce 170s on here tho.

Go fer what YOU want, but know the limits & what U really want 1st.
Read the 'Handbook" & our Tech Archive @ a minimum.
Keep talkin!

I have a soft spot for the old 170's and back in the day there were many hi performance versions running around on the street. But yes a 200 is just a better and a stronger engine and is likely a bit cheaper to build than a 170 engine. Mostly I like building the 250's today for their superior torque. Good luck on your build