Completed rebuild

theguitarist

Well-known member
I spent the last few months quietly readying the Mustang Monthly articles about 65-coupe's aluminum head install as well as some forum posts with great interest since I have been doing my own rebuild all winter. I won't bore with too many details but I thought it might be time to throw my own 2 cents in since 2 cents is about all I have left.

Upgrades:
CI aluminum head and intake
CI cam (the one listed as most popular on the website) It sounds great at idle!
Autolite 2100 carburetor (given to me by another Mustang enthusiast)
Spectre cold air induction
Tremec T-5 transmission
140 amp one-wire alternator (bought cheap from a friend)
Summit Racing aluminum radiator
Mustangs Plus steering control arms
New brakes, ordered from Summit Racing and most pieces were returned since none of what they say will fit actually fits a 6-cylinder. Replacement drums and wheel cylinders from NAPA and O'Reillys

The short block (bottom half) had all internals replaced, cleaned, and balanced by a local machine shop. We then painted everything and installed the head and intake and broke in on an engine stand. Nothing fit as it should have. Numerous mounting holes on the intake, head, and valve cover had to be widened for proper fit. Since I didn't have the funds to test on a real dyno we ran some numbers on a dyno program.

Before rebuild: 129 horsepower at the flywheel and 169 ft/lbs of torque at 4,000 rpms.
After rebuild: 202 horsepower at the flywheel and 216 ft/lbs of torque at 4,500 rpms.

My new torque curve is close to 200 ft/lbs from 3,000 to 5,500 rpms. I have accelerating power in almost any gear in almost any speed. The car is a blast to drive! I'm sure I could take almost any V-8 from stop light to stop light, but nobody has challenged me yet. The real reason for this build was to increase efficiency. I haven't gotten accurate mpg numbers yet but a recent trip to Seattle and back burned under half a tank of gas. This trip used to burn 3/4 of a tank. I will get some accurate numbers soon when I drive to Las Vegas for the Mustang 50th anniversary event.

I spent about $5,000 on this build. I saved a lot because I did most of the work myself with the help of friends who know a lot more about motors than me. I also saved up for this for several years. Was it worth it? Absolutely, but I had been planning this for a long time and I expect this car to run flawlessly until her next rebuild; hopefully 50 years from now when my son owns it.
 
Glorious.

You've done very well.

Question. What is 237.7% of 85 flywheel hp? Answer, 202 hp.

Remember, before the better parts you added, a stock net flywheel figure for a 200 Ford stick shift in all years from 1963 to 1983 was around 85 hp or 67 rwhp, give or take a few ponies.

The factory non emission-ized gross hp rating for a 1-bbl 200 1966 Mustang was 120 hp, which was indeed about 85 hp net. In the last 2 years of 3.3 production, despite all the emissions crud, it was 7 hp higher at 92 hp.

http://mustangattitude.com/mustang/engine_200ci.shtml

The old stock figures in "Horsing around with the Mustang six" article by Ak Miller
http://www.classicinlines.com/HA1.asp
they never got over 130 rear wheel hp with the very best late 60's mods, so 202 flywheel would be over 150 rear wheel horsepower with a 3 speeder. That is something. Now you could do 14.7's and 95 mphs at the drags... :beer:


The stock T code parts remain, the block, the trans, the numbers match codes. And it sounds like you've added the best parts ever. I guess you still running the 3.20:1 7.25" axle. If so, its perfectly geared. With the I6's large weight reduction and easy going nature of the light weight drive-train, you don't miss the reduced torque on, say, a 289, but you get most of the power, vitality and spunk of a 289 K code with none of the insurance and hassles.
 
We completed our Vegas trip a month ago logging 5,000 miles in 2 weeks. The car performed very well with the only exceptions being a broken brake drum adjuster in Page, Arizona and a flat tire north of Reno, Nevada.

Average gas mileage for the trip was about 22.5 mpg with a lot of mountainous terrain, stop and go city driving, and 80-85 mph on the freeways. I did intentionally take it easy between Modesto and Bakersfield, California (long and flat road) and achieved almost 28 mpg with the car loaded down with luggage.
 
Congrats on the build sounds like you did a great job. I wish I could have had my bottom end rebuilt but that will have to wait until next year.

Brian
 
Sorry I didn't make it to Vegas when you were there. I was really looking forward to meeting you and checking out the new motor. :unsure:

I'm curious.... which Autolite carb are you using? CFM rating?
 
Yes Mike, Vegas was a blast. I got a '66 Autolite 2100 carburetor with the 1.14 venturi: 300cfm. It has been running really well but I got it dyno-tested this morning and it looks like I have more work to do. I only got 125 hp to the wheels and 163ftlbs of torque. Found out I'm running WAY too rich so I will be searching soon for smaller jet sizes. The dyno technician estimated that leaning out the fuel could add up to 30 more horsepower which would put me at 155 hp net, 174 gross.

Even if the numbers aren't what I have been hoping for, the car drives so much better. And I now average 25 mpg in all conditions. I hope that number will also go up when I downsize the carburetor jets.
 
theguitarist":3lm1lyih said:
Yes Mike, Vegas was a blast. I got a '66 Autolite 2100 carburetor with the 1.14 venturi: 300cfm. It has been running really well but I got it dyno-tested this morning and it looks like I have more work to do. I only got 125 hp to the wheels and 163ftlbs of torque. Found out I'm running WAY too rich so I will be searching soon for smaller jet sizes. The dyno technician estimated that leaning out the fuel could add up to 30 more horsepower which would put me at 155 hp net, 174 gross.

Even if the numbers aren't what I have been hoping for, the car drives so much better. And I now average 25 mpg in all conditions. I hope that number will also go up when I downsize the carburetor jets.

If your engine is dynoed as per SAE net at 202 flywheel hp and 216 flywheel lb-ft, then you will end up with SAE net 154 rear wheel hp and 170 lb-ft when its tuned. A t5 and 7.25" axle combo will loose 26% hp tops from flywheel to rear wheels.

I concur that about 30 rear wheel hp is missing.

By he way, your carb venturi is too small for maximum power, you'll most likely get 235 to 265 flywheel hp with a good 500 carb. 300 are too small for a flat fuel curve, and trying to keep a smaller carb to improve air fuel ratio is very silly when you consider the performance penalty.

Its better to opt of a bigger 500 Holley 4412 with a 1.375" venturi, and tune down the power valve channel restrictions and look at some wsa111 style mods. If calibrated, you won't loose an iota of fuel economy with a 500 cfm carb verses the 300 you have now. The too small US 2-BBL carb gospel is for those who can't calibrate a bigger carb. Although idle is touchy with bigger carbs and a medium lift cam, its much easier to tame a 200 cube six with a 500 cfm 2-bbl with a 264 degree cam, than, say, a 2.3 Pinto with 500 cfm holley and 290 degree cam.

We need to learn how to trim the fuel/air ratio and use a proper sized carb rather than going down in cfm.

As a production example, even the South American SP 221 with 166 flywheel hp on just a 8.1: compression ratio ran a Holley 350 1.1875" cfm carb from factory. At they time, they could have used any of the Ford Motor company Autolite/Motorcraft carb in the empire, but they didn't. A 300 CFM Autolite is just too small. They got 21.8 US mpg at 62 mph with any of the Holley 7217 (Original No. 72DR - 9510 - B) or 7234 (Original 79DR - 9510 - H). Jets were # 56, power valve 6.5
 
That is a nice Mustang you built pretty much what I hope to have someday in fact I already have the later 200 engine that was in my 66 Bronco tucked away in the garage. 5000 is a bargain for a rebuilt performance CI head motor and T5 in my opinion when you consider the fun and efficiency it provides. The value of the Mustang is only going up and you get to enjoy driving it plus it sounds capable of close to 30 mpg. Your mileage was lower before so your investment is providing a return to your disposable income. Everybody should build one.
 
Back
Top