New headers, lower top end

I thought so too but no evidence whatsoever of a valve cover leak. Plugs have well under 500 miles on them. Engine is likely stock 66 but hasn't been driven more than 1,000 miles in 20 yrs, odo reads 96k but who knows, all I know is compression is about 120 across all cylinders.
What do you mean by ground strap?
 
The ground strap is the finger weled to the rim of the plug and centered over the center electrode.
How clean is the fuel tank / system. The deposits on the plugs could be contamination?
Leaks from the valve cover gaskets can be difficult to detect.
 
fuel system was completely replaced by previous owner, but i suppose some fuel system additive wouldn't hurt.

Back when I adjusted all the valves and set the timing, I did not set it by the book necessarily but set it to where it ran the smoothest. Is this wrong? Should I set timing by the book then adjust the carb if running rough? Timing is just something Ive never been able to wrap my head around, especially with vacuum advance. I understand engine theory very well, have rebuilt a few engines, but never fully grasped timing stuff.
 
1strodeo":91350yja said:
fuel system was completely replaced by previous owner, but i suppose some fuel system additive wouldn't hurt.

Back when I adjusted all the valves and set the timing, I did not set it by the book necessarily but set it to where it ran the smoothest. Is this wrong? Should I set timing by the book then adjust the carb if running rough? Timing is just something Ive never been able to wrap my head around, especially with vacuum advance. I understand engine theory very well, have rebuilt a few engines, but never fully grasped timing stuff.
smoothest is likely too advanced...
 
The way todays fuel burns it likes more initial advance less total than the old days in most cases. Basically just the opposite of the old specks more like as much as 16 to 20* initial and like 32 to 36 total. The Load O matic dizzys this can be a bit dificult.

As for and additive I recommend 4Aces pricey but its the best i have used and works better than stabilizer to preserve fuel over time.
 
Yes .050 plug gap is a bit much! The Ford factory setting for a stock DuraSpark II system is .044 (this is what I normally use). In my opion there usally isn't a good reason to use more than a .044 to .045 spark plug gap. What did you set your Rocker arm clearance too on your 170? If it's a solid lifter cam the stock Ford spec is .016 Hot if your running them looser or tighter then your giving up some performance. If it's a Hydrolic lifter cam with adjustable Rockers then I set them to Zero Lash plus a 1/4 turn with the engine warmed up good. If the rockers are not adjustable then it's likely ok as is. Getting the timing right is very important to both performance and economy X3 more base timing over the stock setting is needed. First after you make all the settings above then lastly you can dial in the carb. Good luck :nod:
 
When I was looking into the Duraspark upgrade I read (in more than one forum) that you could set the gap to .045-.055, so I thought .050 would be safe. I imagine I can lessen the gap carefully.

Is there a way to tell which type lifters you have without pulling a push rod and looking? Its a 66 170 more than likely original to the Bronco...thought I read somewhere that all the 170's after '65 were hydraulic, but not 100% if that included truck engines.

Thanks,
Jeff
 
Jeff,
My 68 has a 170, and has solid lifters. I'm reasonably certain, after doing a little research, that Ford never put hydraulic lifters in Bronco 170s. My block wasn't coded for a truck, it was coded for a Falcon, I believe, and the the oil gallery is there for hydraulic lifters, but it doesn't have them. it will when I'm done with this build, as the oil gallery makes it capable of handling hydraulics. Hope this helps.
 
Thanks I think thats where I got the 'car-only' theory was from your 170.

Another question, since the auto choke connects to the exhaust manifold, has anyone connected it to a header? Or should I just cap it off and go without? Think I have a metal line from that crappy '66 200 I bought
 
You can make a choke stove pipe easy from a piece of brake line tubing of the correct size plus the existing choke covers nut along with a new farel. Then you shape the tubing to fit and just coil the other end around one of the header tubes 3 or more times if you still have the cloth insulating tube install that too. You can also get a universal choke stove repair kit from many of the auto parts stores in there Help brand section or at your local NAPA dealer too. Good luck :nod:
 
like this? are v8 pics allowed :unsure::
 

Attachments

  • choketubing.jpg
    choketubing.jpg
    59.6 KB · Views: 139
no, no bent8s allowed (joke, we luv ALL pic).
I'd wrape it around lill more…
there R no "car" v "truck" motors of the sz.s U mention, both same.
EDIT:
o0OPP, I C now it goes beyond the black part I saw as the terminus...
 
ledslinger29":b63gzym0 said:
Jeff,
My 68 has a 170, and has solid lifters. I'm reasonably certain, after doing a little research, that Ford never put hydraulic lifters in Bronco 170s. My block wasn't coded for a truck, it was coded for a Falcon, I believe, and the the oil gallery is there for hydraulic lifters, but it doesn't have them. it will when I'm done with this build, as the oil gallery makes it capable of handling hydraulics. Hope this helps.

You're right the Falcon Club Wagon/Econoline/RV(Bronco) shop manual states solid lifters for the 170, hydraulic for the 240. Thats what i used when i set my valves to .016" a while back.
 
1strodeo":1a4nstrr said:
like this? are v8 pics allowed :unsure::

The only thing I MIGHT worry about with this set up is dirt and water being sucked into the carb as this type of choke systems runs off a vacuum from the carb
 
Back
Top