223 "performance" expectation management

peeeot

Well-known member
My recently acquired 1960 Fairlane is my first experience with a six in a fullsize. It has a Cruisomatic and 3.10 axle ratio. The carburetion and ignition are stock (and original!) but have been throughly checked and optimized as best they can be without changing the equipment. The engine has 94000 miles and has never been rebuilt.

The car moves along ok at low speeds and has no trouble cruising on the highway. With 225/75-R14 tires in the back, my tach is showing a little under 3000 RPM at an indicated 70. It is not, however, a car for someone in a hurry. Accelerating up a highway ramp, I feel like I might just be able to outperform a dump truck or 18-wheeler if I floor it. In fact, I seem to spend a fair amount of time close to WOT when accelerating, though I seldom push through the detent to the transmission kickdown. In general, it is slow to gather speed but able to maintain the speed once it has reached it.

Does this sound like the typical stock 223 driving experience?
 
:unsure: yep that's sounds about normal for a stock 223 with an auto trans. :nod:
 
Unfortunately those old auto transmissions take a lot of the engines power to turn them. Good luck :nod:
 
Thanks for the confirmation! Is the experience much different with a manual? I'm guessing the manuals typically have a higher axle ratio which should help with the pep.

Next big question is, how much difference can I expect the usual hop-up items to really make? The closest thing I have to compare with is a 312-powered 57 fairlane with fordomatic and 3.10 axle. It is quite peppy, but it is rated at a full 100 hp and 130 ft-lbs torque over the 223. I wouldn't imagine the typical multi-carburetion, headers, mild cam to add more than something like 50 hp and torque. Not sure if it's worth planning to hop up or just accepting it as-is.
 
peeeot":hkchd2lg said:
Thanks for the confirmation! Is the experience much different with a manual? I'm guessing the manuals typically have a higher axle ratio which should help with the pep.

Next big question is, how much difference can I expect the usual hop-up items to really make? The closest thing I have to compare with is a 312-powered 57 fairlane with fordomatic and 3.10 axle. It is quite peppy, but it is rated at a full 100 hp and 130 ft-lbs torque over the 223. I wouldn't imagine the typical multi-carburetion, headers, mild cam to add more than something like 50 hp and torque. Not sure if it's worth planning to hop up or just accepting it as-is.

Yes there would be a huge impovement in performance by just going to any manual trans like a 3 speed, 3 speed with overdrive, a T10 4 speed and others, all the way up to the Borg Warner / Termic 5 speeds? The stock combo of a 3 speed Manuel often had a 3:50 axel but back then you could order them with any gear ratio you wanted in the 9 inch rear axels. A 3 speed with overdrive would have had a 3:89 or 4:11 as an example.

As another reference I used to race these 223's back in the day (mid 1960's) my combo was very low cost a mostly stock block engine with an good free flowing exhaust system, with a 3 speed manual trans, and a 4:11 rear axel ratio, 8.55 x15 tires these were the tallest I could find at a low price back then. I would regularly beat most brand X 265, 283, V8's with an auto trans and also the 292, 312 Fords (there's a lot of power that can be unleashed in those old Y Block too) with an auto trans.

There are many Hop up options for the 223 and it's possible to get near double the stock power and torque with some work but yes you could expect 50 to 75 HP with typical bolt on hop up items and it would cost some money if your in a hurry going with all new parts, but you can also hunt for used speed equipment it's still out there and sometimes you can find very good deals. Great first mods are a good free flowing exhaust system, and changing out the ignistion system to a later 300 Ford point distributor or better yet the DuraSpark II system this would be a great improvement without speeding a huge amount of money another good one was the old Mallory Duel point distributor if you can find one. I can't really answer your last question you would need to study the cost versus the befit and decide if it's worth it to you. I can only say there is lots of power and torque in these old 223 six'es and they can be made into a fun ride that will surprise many people. Good luck :nod:
 
I appreciate the detailed response :)

I can imagine that the auto trans eats a lot of the engine's limited oomph. I have not looked at the ID tag on the transmission but I have never seen the Cruiseo offered with a 6 so it may even be a V8-duty transmission, which would probably be worse still. In spite of that, I want to stick with this transmission because. I don't want a manual and I do want a dual-range 3-speed. I know the c4 was matched to the 6 in 64 but I don't think going that road would be worth the trouble.

I have been considering the later distributor upgrade. Still not sure how much difference it will make though. This weekend I advanced my base timing for maximum vacuum and rpm. This max came in at 30* btdc! It was hard to start cold but seemed ok once it was warm. Anyway when I road tested it there was very little difference in acceleration. Had lots of spark knock under load so I retarded and road tested until the knock all but went away, which was at 20* btdc.
Now, if I went to the later distributor, as I understand it the advantage of the mechanical advance is that the advance will come in quicker and be matched better to engine speed. After my ignition tests, it seems that the seat-of-the-pants improvement to be had from a more responsive curve would be hard to detect. Is it really night-and-day different?

I might have a hard time adding carburetors due to the minimal hood clearance of the 60 ford cars. Assuming I can, how badly does adding, say, a second 1904 hurt economy? Any thoughts about the single Weber option?
 
peeeot":1sfhgogo said:
I appreciate the detailed response :)

I can imagine that the auto trans eats a lot of the engine's limited oomph. I have not looked at the ID tag on the transmission but I have never seen the Cruiseo offered with a 6 so it may even be a V8-duty transmission, which would probably be worse still. In spite of that, I want to stick with this transmission because. I don't want a manual and I do want a dual-range 3-speed. I know the c4 was matched to the 6 in 64 but I don't think going that road would be worth the trouble.

I have been considering the later distributor upgrade. Still not sure how much difference it will make though. This weekend I advanced my base timing for maximum vacuum and rpm. This max came in at 30* btdc! It was hard to start cold but seemed ok once it was warm. Anyway when I road tested it there was very little difference in acceleration. Had lots of spark knock under load so I retarded and road tested until the knock all but went away, which was at 20* btdc.
Now, if I went to the later distributor, as I understand it the advantage of the mechanical advance is that the advance will come in quicker and be matched better to engine speed. After my ignition tests, it seems that the seat-of-the-pants improvement to be had from a more responsive curve would be hard to detect. Is it really night-and-day different?

I might have a hard time adding carburetors due to the minimal hood clearance of the 60 ford cars. Assuming I can, how badly does adding, say, a second 1904 hurt economy? Any thoughts about the single Weber option?

The auto trans option is not very often found in the 223 straight six cars of that time period (1954 to 1964), most people back then wanted them for their great economy as well as the low cost to buy them which is reduced considerably with the addition of an Auto trans. Add to the fact that there were almost no major divided Hy Ways across the country back then and generally people were just not in as big a hurry to get somewhere they simply wanted to enjoy the pleasure of driving and view the scenery. There were three sizes of these auto transmissions a small, medium, and large case in the CursOMatic, if I remember right these were the SX, MX, and the FX but they also had the FordOMatics, And MercOMatic, versions too that the Cruse O Matic design was based on.The large case FX trans was only used with the biggest of the V8's at the time like Lincoln V8's, 390 FE, and maybe the 312's. There are ways to improve the performance of those transmissions though if you want to keep the Duel range functions then there little to help it. The last late model version of these transmissions was the FMX which was used in the later 1960's and early 1970's with some work one of them could be bolted right in, add a shift kit and you have a great combo. Another way is to find a 1967 up Cruse O Matic valve body (Selec Shift type P,R,N,D,2,1) add a good TransGo shift kit, an Aux. trans cooler, and it gives you much quicker better shifting and some increased performance.

Ah yes the long Rurmored 223 C4 trans combo! In all my years as a Mechanic I have never seen one or talked to anyone that actually seen one, or even seen a picture of that combo. If they were actually built then they would have to be extremely rare. But that said today its very easy to build that exact combo with a kit or adapter plate that lets you bolt on a C4 which would be much lighter and also use much less engine power to turn it. Some adapters will also let you bolt on an AOD or AODE trans which would give you over drive so you could go with a lower rear gear for a better quicker take off plus still get very good MPG probally way better then the stock trans combo and also less engine wear and tear while cursing at the higher FreeWay speeds.

The old timers used to install the Offy or other make 2 X 1V intakes and many claimed to get even better then Original MPG with them this is because these engines stock are so very under carbed. I have not used the Weber carb on a 223 but have used them on many other engines with good results. My preference is the vintage look of the 2 X 1V carb's I would hands down go with a 300 DuraSpark II ignistion. Carburation improvements and ignistion are generally very good improvements when done togeather on these engines. Have you set your valves and did a major tune up yet? Good luck :nod:
 
An AOD with a more aggressive axle ratio would be really nice, and also really expensive. I just took the old bird out for a drive to warm it up for a compression test, and actually on country roads I'm pretty pleased with its performance. It doesn't feel like a slug when you are driving casually. I like how it really uses the gears of the 3-speed transmission. It's at highway speeds that the under-carburetion really starts to rear its head. It's funny, the throttle bore on the 1904 is 1.25" while the throttle plate on my Buick 3300 (204 ci) is something like 2." A single barrel forces a sharp compromise between torque/throttle response and top-end power. Seems like Clifford has the right idea with its dual progressive Weber setup. Mercedes was putting dual progressive 2-barrels on its inline sixes in the 60s and 70s, and they performed quite well. I think it would be really neat to do something like that, or sidedrafts like on a TR6 or XKE, or even a small turbo. All of that would be really neat, but a LOT of work and headache, while I presently have a nice running reliable frugal simple stock setup. It's fun to think about different things though.

I have done a major tuneup including hot valve adjustment. Compression test came in at 130, 144, 140, 136, 146, 146. Not bad at all considering nearly 100k miles and a tremendous amount of blowby! Spark plugs are clean as a whistle too. I have gone 300 miles on this tank of gas and still have 1/4 left! Not sure I trust the gauge but if it's accurate that's an honest 20 mpg.
 
:beer: congrats it's sounds like it's in real decent condistion, good luck with it :nod:
 
Well, I have been driving a '55 with a Y-block for 45 years and I have had the same question about what should be the expected performance of a 223 w/Ford-O-Matic ever since I got my Courier on the road.
My '55 Courier has this drive train and does not have the pep nor acceleration of the Y-block. My 223 has had everything gone over to close tolerances. The fuel pump and carb are OEM and it still has the Load-O-Matic distributor (rebuilt), however I have converted it to Pertronix ignition (the standard variety for use with original ignition coil). Mine also has a Ford-O-Matic. I've always thought it underperformed, but I realize that I might be SPOILED by the power of the Y-block.
The 223 takes longer to accelerate but maintains its speed effortlessly once you level off the accelerator. It's a little scary on hiway on ramps, especially if they are going uphill.
Iv'e got my timing set to about 8 degrees BTDC (vacuum disconnected at distrib) and idle RPM is about 525 RPM. Engine starts on a dime and runs like a dream. I guess this is just the difference between 140 horses (223) compared to 162 horses (292).
 
BTW, your 3.10:1 gear ratio is pretty extreme for a 6-cyl with automatic. My courier has 3.25:1 ratio with OEM specification tires. We both might see a vast improvement if we swapped out our gears for a 3.55:1 setup, but I am not going to. I built it this way because I did almost all highway driving back then and I wanted to get the absolute best gas mileage I could.
At the time when I was putting this thing together, I told a few people what the drivetrain was going to be and they thought I was nuts due to the rearend ratio.
 
55courier,

I have my initial timing set much higher, somewhere around 20 degrees BTDC. It makes a little difference in liveliness without any downsides I can recognize. As for the 3.10 rear gear, it works because the transmission is the 3-speed cruise-o, not the 2-speed fordo. So first gear is much more aggressive and the higher axle ratio doesn't hurt performance as much as it would seem.

I've been driving the car a lot since my initial post and have grown accustomed to the power delivery of the 6. No, it doesn't have y-block oomph, but it is definitely usable in modern traffic. I am not sure whether I will attempt to upgrade or remain stock at this juncture.
 
peeeot":1nkhsj10 said:
Thanks for the confirmation! Is the experience much different with a manual? I'm guessing the manuals typically have a higher axle ratio which should help with the pep.

Next big question is, how much difference can I expect the usual hop-up items to really make? The closest thing I have to compare with is a 312-powered 57 fairlane with fordomatic and 3.10 axle. It is quite peppy, but it is rated at a full 100 hp and 130 ft-lbs torque over the 223. I wouldn't imagine the typical multi-carburetion, headers, mild cam to add more than something like 50 hp and torque. Not sure if it's worth planning to hop up or just accepting it as-is.

LOL! There is no comparing a 312 Y-Block with a 223 6,other than saying they are both Ford engines.

Don't knock an additional 50 HP from a set of headers,dual exhaust,and something like a small 4 barrel carb using a Clifford or similar intake.
Yeah,you can probably make more power using a 3 x 1 intake if you can find it,but it's a LOT more expensive and complicated.

Clifford Engineering makes all sorts of stuff for 223's. Here is their 223 page.

http://www.shop.cliffordperformance.net/Ford-223_c15.htm
 
Hi Arthur, do you know whether those usual mods reduce or increase low- to mid-range power and responsiveness? I have read that most power-adding hop ups increase top end power at the expense of performance in the range most daily-driven car really see.

If I am going to make modifications, I would like to preserve or improve fuel economy and responsiveness under normal driving while having a bit more oomph when I need to pass or get on the highway. That is why I think something like the progressive Weber would be a good idea.
 
Bubba, you mentioned earlier in this thread that a free-flowing exhaust and electronic ignition are great first mods. With regards to the exhaust, for an otherwise stock engine, would you say switching to headers is worth the trouble? Would there be a substantial improvement from just replacing the stock muffler with a straight-through design?
 
peeeot":3hmsunn0 said:
Bubba, you mentioned earlier in this thread that a free-flowing exhaust and electronic ignition are great first mods. With regards to the exhaust, for an otherwise stock engine, would you say switching to headers is worth the trouble? Would there be a substantial improvement from just replacing the stock muffler with a straight-through design?

Yes Peeot, installing a good exhaust system by using some 2 inch to 2 1/4 inch pipe with smooth mandrel type bends and a freer flowing muffler for sure will make some improvement in power and will also befit your fuel Economy some. A header would also take it a bit further up the power scale though you may think the expense or trouble isn't worth it especially if you have to pay someone else to install it for you. In that case going with a better muffler as a first step might be the way to go. Good luck :nod:
 
Ok, thanks! I will plan to change the muffler at my next opportunity. I will also check my exhaust pipe size, not sure if it's 2" or smaller.

I am planning to pull the engine soon. The head gasket is leaking a little coolant outside the block, and while I could repair it in-car, I'm thinking about doing a partial teardown to evaluate whether more substantial work is required--it has 98k miles after all!
 
Almost a year later, I am still thinking about making some improvements to the ol' six. I spent a lot if time comparing power to weight ratios of different vehicles and reading people's descriptions the effects of mods they made, trying to determine a target HP/torque and what I might have to do to get there. Ultimately, though, I determined that, numbers aside, there are two things I would like to achieve:
1. Better highway drivability
And
2. Stronger part throttle response/acceleration.

To flesh these out a bit, for #1, the car is happy as a clam at 60-65 mph and below, but at 70 mph and 3000rpm it feels like it is near its limits, or like it doesn't have much more to give. I think 3000 rpm is a reasonable cruising rpm at that speed; I would just like it to feel like it has some reserves left at that speed, which it should, given the spec'd power peak of 4200. A bit of extra hustle up highway on ramps would also be welcome!

For #2, what I mean is that with the 6 it feels like I have to dig into the throttle a fair amount to accelerate at more than a grandfatherly pace. I don't care about actually being fast, or getting to 60 mph in 10 seconds. I just like how other cars I drive, old and new, accelerate with casual traffic at what feels like a light throttle input.

For #1, I am trying to obtain a Holley 1960 carburetor to try in place of the 1904. The 1960 has a much larger Venturi, and though the throttle bore is the same, it should flow better at higher rpms. I am also strongly considering a three angle valve job and backcut valves as suggested previously to improve head flow a little. The exhaust system is kind of a patchwork and is under 2" so I also want to have it replaced with either 2" or 2.25" as suggested to reduce restriction on that end.

For #2, I am hoping the #1 improvements will help, but I am also planning to mill the head for some extra compression above stock, 8.6-9.0 or so. A new timing chain could put some spring back in its step too, as well as a re-ring job (I have a set of ten-up piston rings to go in).

Do you think these improvements will be enough to make a noticeable difference in the desired areas?
 
Sounds like a reasonable rebuild plan. Any work that you do to the head (multi angle valve job, back cutting, CCing the heads Combustion Chambers and matching / equalizing them, blending and opening the valve bowls, porting,) milling the head for an increase in compression ratio, keeping the quench distance in the .035 to .050 range, Distribitor plus other Ignistion improvements, and freer flowing exhaust system will improve both #1 & #2, plus not sugnicatly change the fuel economy and may even improve it some.

Using the new style head gaskets is first going to require a .025 head cut / mill just to maintain the engines stock compression ratio. Raising the compression ratio about a .5 and more above stock would also help though at some point it would also require some higher cost fuel (89 and up RM).

Beyond that increasing power for even more acceleration (increasing the fun factor) is going to require more mods such as a better camshaft design, bigger valves, more carberation, and or a lower rear axle gear ratio, etc. these can also have some negative effect on #2 and probably also effect economy some. Good luck (y) :nod:
 
Maybe some tempered expectations.
I got back into domestic 6s after a 30-35 year hiatus, most recently running modestly stressed 4 cylinders. My current is a ‘93 F150,300 EFI, E4OD. I think it’s got 2.50:1 gears (yes, really!).

It had some driveability issues when I first got it, but after I got it sorted the only thing that impressed me was how soft it felt on acceleration. All of them I’d had I prior life felt peppier, but all had stick-shifts. But regardless I noted the thing was jumping ahead of traffic on launches and able to hold speed and even gain speed on significant hills, even in 4th/lockup.

All these sixes were designed for low speed/tractable power. Most are undercammed, have comparatively small bores and so have limited valve size. Pretty much the best you can hope to do without significant rework is maximize airflow where it lives, figure 1400 to 3000rpm. Most will spin tighter, but they don’t really do much up there. Don’t really need to. Remember, horsepower is simply torque output measured over time. It’s the torque that does to work, in whatever speed range you build it in.

My uncle and his buddies had campaigned a T track roadster with a built 261 Chevy in the mid 1950’s on 1/2 mile dirt. He told me the sixes (big Chevys and GMCs) always outpulled the V-8s out of the corners, but the 8s would catch up by the end of the straight. BTW- the multi carbs came off that engine and it ended up in his daily (49 fastback Belair). It twisted the driveshaft in half pulling a house trailer through the Appalachians.

So I’d say don’t try to make it something that isn’t in its DNA, you will frustrate it and yourself. A log style intake (turbulence helps these at mid rpms), good free-flowing exhaust and modest DYI porting could work wonders for good solid tractable power. Like you I think single carbs are a lot easier to tune, even though they done look cool.
 
Back
Top