250 build advise

Thanks max I'd hate to waste pistons.

Chad, the whole engine has about 10-15k miles on it . I know the head was freshened brass guides and a 3angle job just don't know how much of a mill, fairly sure the block was just bored 30 over had a bad scar in cyl no.2
 
six shooter maverick said:
I appreciate all the help. Sad part is the early 300 rods are just as hard as the 2.5hsc rods..... I'm prolly going to try and find more specs on the aussie pistons and crunch the numbers on 2 or 3 set ups I don't wanna build a engine that I can't upgrade later to the aluminum head. Thought about just swaping rods out mute there's a high chance of destroying a piston so who knows.

Yes the early 1965 to 69 300 Rods are getting harder to find but on many of the 300 Big Six Hi Performance build ups they are getting swapped out for the 240 or Custom aftermarket Rods. So you could always try putting an Add in our BB Six parts For Sale and Wanted sections at the bottom of page below all the forums. Do rember though that the 300 Rod is much longer and it's going to require a custom aftermarket pistion set be made ruffly this going to be a minimum of $600.00 for a set of Autotec forged and more depending which brand you go with, so would be more of a street race combo

As far as the 2.5L HSC Rods that "Mike lavron" researched and is using for his "Budget 250 build", they are still in stock at Clegg Engines, and the Aussie Pistons are in stack a Carid see below for links. Then there is always the wrecking yards to hunt for those Rods if you have the time, like at one of my big SoCal favorites Pick A Part. Good luck (y) :nod:

Cledgg Engines on the 2.5L HSC Rods
https://www.cleggengine.com/ford-86-91- ... g-rod.html

Australian 200 / 250 Pistions at Carid
https://www.carid.com/silv-o-lite/hyper ... h-030.html
 
Thanks bubba guess I'll have to crunch the numbers for the cr..... if I ever find a machine shop close enough I have a 73 250 block and head to play with also... I think the 77 head in the car is better I think. Which rod Piston combo do you think would perform better
 
I guess I would need to know what your planed use is going to be and the amount of money you want to invest in the 250 engine. Having another block to work with is for sure a bonus as you can take your time building it while still being able to drive it. There are still a number of good machine shops in the SoCal area last time I checked. I am hunting for machine shop equipment I can pick up to start a shop in my area, in many places / smaller towns the shops are disappearing.

On my low Milage 77 Maverick 250 I started out running the mostly stock short block (carefully assembled or somewhat blueprinted), then I ported the head and few other tricks that couldn't be seen on the outside. The 1977's were the last year and also quite heavy compared to your light weight 1970 the most ideal one. Since it was a street driven car it was also limited having to pass the Californa Smog tests. It ran quite good for what it was and could take care of stock 302 and brand X auto cars in the stop light Grand Prix it didn't have top end power. If I still had it here in Az. it would at least use the HSC Rods and Ausse Pistons or would put a set of forged Pistons on a set of 300 or custom rods and then bolt a Turbo on it. Could be a lot of fun beating up on the high dollar rides (y) :nod:
 
"drop base" 4 hood clearence.
Hook up that frnt VC cap to the A/C housing and the rear
(PCV) to any nipple on the log or carb base below butterfly...
Get the correct one (pcv) for the make/model/yr motor !
 
I was thinking if I modify this one I'll be able to rotate the air cleaner more to center to avoid the hood bracing since it is tight on the maverickright now it has 1/4 clearance and that's on a 2to1 adapter
 
http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... ld-options

Air cleaner is D7ZE9D626BA-2.8/200 3HD

That right there is proof Ford planned to make a 2bbl 200, as the aircleaner is branded with a 2.8 and 200 part number.

D7ZE9D626BA-2POINT8_2003HD.jpg


IMG_3699_zps3a40a47e.jpg


IMG_3489_zps3a72dd85.jpg


Link above is to a 1979 modified Cologne V6 engine with a 100% stock 2150 Motorcraft 1.08 carb 2.8 Mustang with that air cleaner that makes 139 hp net at the flywheel.

It does so because it has:-

a non standard 9.2:1 compression ratio (stock USA issue German block was given for all years a 60 thou shallower piston with a shortfall that yielded much less than the claimed 8.7:1),

A set of port mismatched heads

a 100% stock factory screemer 276 degree intake duration solid lift cam,

a very efficient exhaust system with very little back pressure dual pipes front to back.

Factory Duraspark II,


and its everything that a 250 Maverick in line six isn't.

Although its possible to make a carb like that really perform, it needs a lot of very specific things to go your way to have a positive effect.


Example:-



The quoted output for the 11000 or so automatic Fox Mustang/Capri's with the 2.8 and C3 auto combo was just 104 or 109 hp net depending on source info. Both it and the anemic 4.2 / 255 cubic inch 119 hp net engine for 1980 used the tiny 2150 Motorcraft 1.08 venturi carb.

The 78, 79 and 1980 YFA Carter 1bbl engine gave just 99 hp net.

IMHO, you should be using a 2150 1.21 or 2100 1.23 carb for the 157 5.0 GT or RS 5.0, or the 351w 351m or 400 with to 164 to 178 hp.

The 1.08 is just too small.

The D7 air cleaner is offset, came out in 1977, and it just needs a nicer bigger carb under it.

Even a 350 cfm Holley is just a 1.19 carb, and its too small for more than 125 hp on most normall engines. A minimum requirement is a carb that works on other Ford engines at the greater than 150 hp level. The only way a smaller 1.08 or 1.14 carb will make more than 125 hp is by reducing the exhaust backpressure, and cleaning up the peak cfm at 80 of exhaust flow, which is a NASCAR/IMSA/WRC restrictor plate engine technique.

A resrictor plate engine is when you have more than 80 cubic inches trying to breath through each square inch of carb venturi.


It is application, cam and exhaust flow specific, effecitively what David Vizard calls the 5th stroke in a 4 stroke engine. If you nail it on those terms, a restricted air engine with insufficient carb venturi can work real well.

Rather than waste time with that process,

1. just get a bigger carb,

2. open up the intake hole, and

3. use a proper bigger carb with adjust air fuel.

4. Air fuel ratio can be adjusted up or down by PVCR, power valve, and well tube holes, NOT JUST JETTING.

5.The jets in any carb normally work right for the size if the carb on a similar size engine.

6. Power valves have two stage ratings on many Autolites or Motorcrafts.

7. FoMoCo controlled the lean or rich areas in the fuel delivery by dding or removing one 25 thou hole in the well tubes, and then calibrating the K cluster low speed metering rod sizes.

Don't be conned by the use of a smaller carb venturi bu|| shyte. Although in many special applications, a 500 cfm 1.38 Holley 2bbl can make 352 hp, and even a 350 cfm 1.19, 245 hp, they can only do so if the totall cfm flow at the exhaust is controlled to scavenge at 65 to 80% of peak engine flow at full intake lift.

In a similar way, the split duration cam is application specific, and what works on one combination doesn' t work in all cases.

If a bigger carb makes less power, or idles worse, then its fuel trim or some aspect of the intake or exhaust and ignition combination needs up grading.

The old Boss 302's idled great with big Holley 780 4bbl carbs off 396 Chevs and Ford FE big blocks. The base timing was 16 degrees, the exhausts were efficient, and they carried 10.7:1 compression ratios with 290 degree cams.
 
Thanks xctasy
I'm trying to find a larger autolite carb I figured the 1.08 would work till I can find another. Plus I have 3 1.08 from the swap on my 2.8 v6.... that article would have been nice before I blew up my ranger
 
Stanyon and MPG Mustng's method of direct mounting.





how to transition the 2bbl Autolite2100/ Motorcraft 2150/ Holley 2300 Ford 2bbl mount to the "whatever" 2bbl throttle body.

2_8TB-11.JPG


2_8TB-12.JPG


Direct mount using Stanyons method.
http://vintage-vans.forumotion.com/t39465-200-log-milling

https://fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72198&p=554386#p554386

stanyon":2q7gnh1e said:
Milling or machining the head for a direst mount for the Weber really isn't that hard, a couple of hours is what it took me . Search Milling Intake.

http://vintage-vans.forumotion.com/t39465-200-log-milling


cuttin11.jpg


78_log11.jpg



And MPG Mustangs

https://fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=68406


IMG_20120807_222155.jpg


Other options....

https://fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=75444&p=580587#p580587
timray87":2q7gnh1e said:
Gene Fiore":2q7gnh1e said:
timray87":2q7gnh1e said:
Just looking at my motor, and the center of the motor (based off of center of harmonic balance) is at least an inch and a half to the left of center of the car! I've driven this car without issues or vibration for 12+ years, so I can't think that it could be that far off but it'd explain a few things. Will you take a picture of your '71 showing center of the motor in relation to where it would line up between the shock tower braces? I'm curious if yours is centered or not?
Thanks!
I've attached a picture of my engine bay. It's kinda hard to take a good measurement with everything in the way, but it seems like my rough measurement from the center of the valve cover to each shock tower favors the passenger side by about 1/2 inch...maybe. So it's probably fairly centered which bodes well for me.

Wow looks nice! and a 14 is impressive for a stock N/A head too. Your motor is definitely shifted more towards the driver side than mine, so I bet I can get this intake to fit after some adjustments. I think I'll replace the motor mounts while I'm in there adjusting the motor, all I can find online looks like a pretty weak mount, what are you using on yours to handle your power?

20160829_074433_zpsk4gbiywb.jpg


20160928_053126_zpszwcxmrw8.jpg


20160928_053139_zpsslaajqkd_2.jpg
 
Ford did lots of weird stuff, like this XE coded 1978 2-bbl direct mount 3.3 development engine.

hEAD_MITT20XE20201090_eX20D7BE9430CA50CA_CARB_XD9BE94588BB_VAC20POD_XE201596_612b_31.jpg


hEAD_MITT20XE20201090_eX20D7BE9430CA50CA_CARB_XD9BE94588BB_VAC20POD_XE201596_54b3_31.jpg



The engine combination with a proper 2-bbl with a log head can still make 205 hp, though. See Crosley's direct mount Falcon modifications.


4412 500 CFM Holley 1.38"

Just a D7 head, some basic milling, and a nice radical 274 cam, which isn't even lumpy on a cast iron intake Ford, they still idle like an old Model T.http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56639&p=440076#p440076. Can't do 15 sec ET's at 88mph unless you've got 205 hp.



logheadport2-1.jpg
logheadport-1.jpg
 
pic 4 in #30 post shows this is not the typical fill, mill, fill & mill a last time.
A 250 & the extra thick gasket interfears w/some hoods.

The final in post 31 shows a disaster or near disaster. I think he tried to mill w/o any fill or only one go at it.
 
Thanks guys.... I wonder how much it would matter if the mount was more forward... it be a lot less filler might have a line on a 1.21 that needs re build

Edit: turns out it's a 1.23..... now I'm collecting every 2100 I see even have some old 2300 hollys
 
i'd say the 1st would B enuff (sez "mufflers", the head don't get that hot) and it's 2 bucks cheeper. Lill can looks like U could use 2 or 3?
I never used it, there's been a discussion or 2...only 1 I remember wuz devcon (cuz I used it, like it). BUT...
there was some hi-fal-utin stuff the members gave the check marks to.
Ck da threads/search function...
 
"...searching till my brains numb..."
sorry bro. Was that here?

I spend a few hrs each wk ina guy's garage. I do a brake job or exhaust wrk'n he trades off for wrk on my '66. The one thing I find so different these days is the incredible array of goop'n snot the companies put out 2day. There was no never seize, ceramic break lube, million things we got nowa days...

My problem is keepin em all straight not finding one.

Good luck keep tryin here. Post a new and separate thread to catch the right winds or forever stay dwn here in the doldrums. A fresh brese will cool off dat hot head...
 
I think that the putty is for the quick and dirty group...rated at 800 psi if my wife stepped on it with her high heels it would fail ..(.I heard that crack) she weighs about 130 ;) I think that the 2 part at 3960 psi would be better.
 
Back
Top