223 performance build...questions!

I have just read through all of the hot rodding articles from the 60s posted in the small six forum, and I think your numbers seem pretty good! If a stock ‘67 200 Mustang with manual transmission was putting down 65 rwhp brand new, a 223 would probably have maxed out at 75 tops. You got 110 for at least a 47% increase! That being said, Ak Miller got 125 rwhp at 4800 rpm from a 200 with a compression bump, hotter cam, dual headers, and 4 KeiHin 37mm carbs. I agree that you should be able to see at least that 125 rwhp, probably more, though perhaps not much more—130, 135 maybe?

The fact that you were still building power at 5600 rpm seems telling. Perhaps your setup has a higher power peak than you intended. It also seems your Webers are not fully dialed in as your idle mixture is so rich.

Others with far more knowledge and experience will surely chime in!

P.s. I just rediscovered these dyno results: ci/DynoRoom-2.html

Study them and there may be more clues to where the problem lies. One thing I noticed was the huge improvement made by the classic inlines aluminum head alone. Since the 223 has Siamesed intakes for the end cylinders, the flow dynamics to those cylinders compared with 3 and 4 will never be the same. Maybe that is the ultimate hindrance of the 223, at least naturally aspirated. There is certainly a ton of power to be found with forced induction.
 
GalaxieInline:3jld2dhl said:
Thanks for the advise, perfection was of no help to me. I ended up only being able to squeeze (just BARELY) a 10" B&B style on a re-drilled flywheel. 11" WILL NOT FIT inside the 63 FORD car bell housing! The 11" diaphragm clutch even hit the housing and ground grooves into it/damaged the finger rivets.

Once I had the clutch squared away, I finally for her running!! I took it to a local shop that had a dyno and paid for 3 hours. We found the main jets on the weber had to be resized to .055 jets instead of the stock .045. The idle jets needed increased as well to get it to idle correctly.

I've come to find out that the "bolt on kit" that clifford sells for this motor is a total joke...it will not run correctly (rich no matter what you do) without changing the jets. Maybe it is a difference in sea level altitude out there? We are at about 700' in Indiana.

My results were quite disappointing after all the money I've spent on this project and I'm wondering if anyone has any advice on what went wrong here:

My timing ended up at 28° at 500rpm and 38° all in with no detonation past 5500rpm. We lost hp either direction so that's where we settled.

My AFR is about 12.5-12.7 at idle, 13 or so in the midband.

My torque bandwidth was excellent, starting at 800 rpm and not falling off until 5500 rpm. Torque results were a fairly constant 157lbs at the rear wheels....what???? Stock its rated at 205 at the flywheel...shouldn't I be seeing a fair bit more?

HP started at about 75hp at the wheels around 1k rpm and peaked at 110 @ 5600rpm and continued to rise, though we dared not take it past that. Again....138hp stock, I'd imagine about 100 rwhp from the factory...tell me that all of my mods weren't only good for 10hp at the wheels? I saw a youtube video of a 58 truck pulling 98hp stock at the rear wheels.

Keep in mind this is about a 4000lb car, but the only accessories I have are a water pump and GM 12si alternator and all run through a 3 speed manual. Shouldn't be a huge amount of drivetrain losses.

The car does get up and move pretty well after the rebuild, great drivability and torque band, certainly a thousand times better than before....but I cant help but feel that the difference is because the motor was so worn out she might have been lucky to muster 40hp to the ground with the previously weak compression.


So whats going on here, thoughts as to why the dyno pull was a lot lower than expected? I was expecting at least 175-200hp and 250lbs or more of torque...but it almost looks like its now putting out about stock numbers!

Sorry to hear of your disappointment in your 223 rebuild. Ok lets bench race your combo some! Your 1963 Ford 300 with a 223 and 3 speed, engine has a 8.4 to 1 compression Ratio stock and they are factory rated at 138 HP at 4200 RPM and 203 Ft Lbs of torque at 2200 RPM. The car has a curb weight of 3719 Lbs. for a power to weight ratio of 35.9 Lbs. per HP. Stock Performance is 0 to 60 in 15.7 seconds, with a 1/4 mile in 20.2 at 67 MPH, combined city and hyway of 15.1 MPG.

The factory HP and Torque are a gross rating at flywheel the engines were tested witout a Radiator, hoses, a water pump, cooling fan, the drive pulleys or belts, no generator, and no exhaust system. It takes as much as 25 to 30 HP to turn those engine accessories and the power that they use can very as engine RPM goes up for the water pump & fan, plus generator or Alternator's electrical load. Add to that that the factory stock exhaust system they used was quite restrictive, back in the day just swapping out the stock muffler for a glass pack noticeably increased the performance as well as the MPG. I will take an educated guess that the installed flywheel HP was closer to 105 to 110 HP Net, the other driveline losses with a manual trans are around 18 % (so another 19 to 20 HP or about 90 HP to the wheels) this chassis / driveline loss can be even more depending on if there are any excessive drivshaft to rear axle piñon angels, brakes dragging, type tires, body height or rake, and if the front end is out of alignment. Also the factory test engines was carefully built to be right on the best possable engine specs whereas generaly the production line engines could vary some especially on the compression ratio with head combustion chambers usally being larger, this is why for class drag racing the engines regardless of brand were blueprinted and carfuly assembled to the best factory specs to get every last HP possable. Have you done any other type of testing to see how your combo compares to these stock performance specs?

As for Dyno testing to me it's just a tuning tool the HP numbers being read are not always a good comparison and two identical Dyno's in the same locale area aren't going to give you the same readings. Besides that weather changes can also effect an engines power output too, let alone that some dyno operators can also fudge the numbers some depending on what they may want to accomplish. My first realization of all this was back in 1967 while at a Ford dealers shop they were doing a tune up on a 65 Pontiac Tempest 326 V8 / auto (250 HP rated) it put down a whopping 75 HP to the rear wheels. My Combo was a 1956 F100 with a 58 223 plus the stock three speed 3:89 rear axel weight was about 3050. As for the 1958 trucks Dyno test, the 223's factory HP ratting peaked in the years 1958 though 1960 at its highest of 145 HP in 1961 and later Ford de tuned the 223 down to 138 HP. As the saying goes you don't race Dyno's, to me the best testing of power output is on the drag strip. I think you are doing fairly good but with more tuning you should do better still.

Did the camshaft get degreed? What bearing clearances did you end up with? What did your pistion to block deck clearance end up at? Did the heads combustion chambers get CC'ed? Did the valve bowls get opened up and with a good 3 angle valve grind did the valves get back cut? What compression ratio did you end up with? From the few pictures the head ports look to be almost totally stock i.e. Valve guide aren't narrowed or cleaned up of the casting flash. My best guess is you have left a lot of power on the table in the head porting and all important valve bowl work. I also suspect that your compression ratio is on the low side by the amount of timing advance and were the camshaft degreed might not be optimal. I am wondering how much difference there is in your combo versus a stock build.

A few low and no cost things you can try that are proven to add power. Your fixed blade cooling fan is a big drag on the engine all the time when it's only needed when stopped or at low cruising speeds, you can go to a clutch type or better yet a thermostatic controlled clutch fan. Experimenting with different water pump pulley sizes to slow down the speed of the water pump is also worth some power or you could mod the water pump impeller too, a fan shroud can also help with cooling efficiency. Check the driveline angles getting this right is worth some power too. Did you work on the Distributor advance curve and vacuum advance curve? The Clifford intake is a good design and should provide for good fuel distribution and economy. I do share your frustration with the lack of quality control now days at Clifford it wasn't like that when Jack Clifford (the original owner / founder / designer) was alive. I think the Weber carb's are likely on the small size though when going for the most HP, I used lots of them on the small Datsun and Ford Courier 4 cylinder engines, a set of Holley or Autolite / Motorcraft 2V carb's would make quite a bit more power. On the plus side your exhaust system is really decent and the late alternator also helps with a little less drag. Good luck (y) :nod:
 
bubba22349":2uoah23f said:
GalaxieInline":2uoah23f said:
Thanks for the advise, perfection was of no help to me. I ended up only being able to squeeze (just BARELY) a 10" B&B style on a re-drilled flywheel. 11" WILL NOT FIT inside the 63 FORD car bell housing! The 11" diaphragm clutch even hit the housing and ground grooves into it/damaged the finger rivets.

Once I had the clutch squared away, I finally for her running!! I took it to a local shop that had a dyno and paid for 3 hours. We found the main jets on the weber had to be resized to .055 jets instead of the stock .045. The idle jets needed increased as well to get it to idle correctly.

I've come to find out that the "bolt on kit" that clifford sells for this motor is a total joke...it will not run correctly (rich no matter what you do) without changing the jets. Maybe it is a difference in sea level altitude out there? We are at about 700' in Indiana.

My results were quite disappointing after all the money I've spent on this project and I'm wondering if anyone has any advice on what went wrong here:

My timing ended up at 28° at 500rpm and 38° all in with no detonation past 5500rpm. We lost hp either direction so that's where we settled.

My AFR is about 12.5-12.7 at idle, 13 or so in the midband.

My torque bandwidth was excellent, starting at 800 rpm and not falling off until 5500 rpm. Torque results were a fairly constant 157lbs at the rear wheels....what???? Stock its rated at 205 at the flywheel...shouldn't I be seeing a fair bit more?

HP started at about 75hp at the wheels around 1k rpm and peaked at 110 @ 5600rpm and continued to rise, though we dared not take it past that. Again....138hp stock, I'd imagine about 100 rwhp from the factory...tell me that all of my mods weren't only good for 10hp at the wheels? I saw a youtube video of a 58 truck pulling 98hp stock at the rear wheels.

Keep in mind this is about a 4000lb car, but the only accessories I have are a water pump and GM 12si alternator and all run through a 3 speed manual. Shouldn't be a huge amount of drivetrain losses.

The car does get up and move pretty well after the rebuild, great drivability and torque band, certainly a thousand times better than before....but I cant help but feel that the difference is because the motor was so worn out she might have been lucky to muster 40hp to the ground with the previously weak compression.


So whats going on here, thoughts as to why the dyno pull was a lot lower than expected? I was expecting at least 175-200hp and 250lbs or more of torque...but it almost looks like its now putting out about stock numbers!

Sorry to hear of your disappointment in your 223 rebuild. Ok lets bench race your combo some! Your 1963 Ford 300 with a 223 and 3 speed, engine has a 8.4 to 1 compression Ratio stock and they are factory rated at 138 HP at 4200 RPM and 203 Ft Lbs of torque at 2200 RPM. The car has a curb weight of 3719 Lbs. for a power to weight ratio of 35.9 Lbs. per HP. Stock Performance is 0 to 60 in 15.7 seconds, with a 1/4 mile in 20.2 at 67 MPH, combined city and hyway of 15.1 MPG.

The factory HP and Torque are a gross rating at flywheel the engines were tested witout a Radiator, hoses, a water pump, cooling fan, the drive pulleys or belts, no generator, and no exhaust system. It takes as much as 25 to 30 HP to turn those engine accessories and the power that they use can very as engine RPM goes up for the water pump & fan, plus generator or Alternator's electrical load. Add to that that the factory stock exhaust system they used was quite restrictive, back in the day just swapping out the stock muffler for a glass pack noticeably increased the performance as well as the MPG. I will take an educated guess that the installed flywheel HP was closer to 105 to 110 HP Net, the other driveline losses with a manual trans are around 18 % (so another 19 to 20 HP or about 90 HP to the wheels) this chassis / driveline loss can be even more depending on if there are any excessive drivshaft to rear axle piñon angels, brakes dragging, type tires, body height or rake, and if the front end is out of alignment. Also the factory test engines was carefully built to be right on the best possable engine specs whereas generaly the production line engines could vary some especially on the compression ratio with head combustion chambers usally being larger, this is why for class drag racing the engines regardless of brand were blueprinted and carfuly assembled to the best factory specs to get every last HP possable. Have you done any other type of testing to see how your combo compares to these stock performance specs?

As for Dyno testing to me it's just a tuning tool the HP numbers being read are not always a good comparison and two identical Dyno's in the same locale area aren't going to give you the same readings. Besides that weather changes can also effect an engines power output too, let alone that some dyno operators can also fudge the numbers some depending on what they may want to accomplish. My first realization of all this was back in 1967 while at a Ford dealers shop they were doing a tune up on a 65 Pontiac Tempest 326 V8 / auto (250 HP rated) it put down a whooping 75 HP to the wheels. My Combo was a 1956 F100 with a 58 223 plus the stock three speed 3:89 rear axel weight was about 3050. As for the 1958 trucks Dyno test, the 223's factory HP ratting peaked in the years 1958 though 1960 at its highest of 145 HP in 1961 and later Ford de tuned the 223 down to 138 HP. As the saying goes you don't race Dyno's, to me the best testing of power output is on the drag strip. I think you are doing fairly good but with more tuning you should do better still.

Did the camshaft get degreed? What bearing clearances did you end up with? What did your pistion to block deck clearance end up at? Did the heads combustion chambers get CC'ed? Did the valve bowls get opened up and with the 3 angle valve grind did the valves get back cut? What compression ratio did you end up with? From the few pictures the head ports look to be almost totally stock i.e. Valve guide aren't narrowed or cleaned up of the casting flash. My best guess is you have left a lot of power on the table in the head porting and all important valve bowl work. I also suspect that your compression ratio is on the low side by the amount of timing advance and were the camshaft degreed might not be optimal. I am wondering how much difference there is in your combo versus a stock build.

A few low and no cost things you can try that are proven to add power. Your fixed blade cooling fan is a big drag on the engine all the time when it's only needed stopped or at low speeds, you can go to a clutch type or better yet a thermostatic controlled clutch fan. Experimenting with different water pump pulley sizes to slow down the speed of the water pump is also worth some power or you could modd the water pump impeller too, a fan shroud can also help with cooling effecancy. Check the driveline angles getting this right is worth some power too. Did you work on the Distribitor advance curve and vacuum advance curve? The Clifford intake is a good design and should provide for good fuel distribution and economy. I do share your frustration with the lack of quality control now days at Clifford it wasn't like that when Jack Clifford (the orginal owner / founder / designer) was alive. I think the Weber carb's are likely on the small size though when going for the most HP, I used lots of them on the small Datsun and Ford Currier 4 cylinder engines, a set of Holley or Autolite / Motorcraft 2V carb's would make quite a bit more power. On the plus side your exhaust system is really decent and the late alternator also helps with a little less drag. Good luck (y) :nod:

Thanks so much for the replies! Let me be clear: I'm not bitching at all... I think the build was super fun and turned out well enough, I Just want to get the most I can out of my build reasonably.

I guess I had kinda forgotten that ford rated their motors without the water pump etc at the factory, but I figured that they would still see about 100hp at the wheels back then....but after hearing what you said I see your point.

I'd like to reiterate my expectations for this project so nobody gets the wrong idea here, I don't plan to go racing in an inline six land whale :LOL: But my expectation for this project was a cool hotrod that turns heads when people hear it or pop the hood...and to give her some "fun" go on the streets, not trying to beat 5.0 mustangs and such. I know that there is a limit to what can be done without forced induction and frankly I don't know that I'd trust a 1950's 4 main tractor motor for long with it.

The car is drastically better to drive and keeps up with modern aggressive traffic where I live easily. I'm a bit of a "first from the light" kinda driver even when I'm not trying...spoiled me expects my vehicles to at least keep up with that, which she now does.
I regret that I am not old enough to have dealt with Jack Clifford when he was alive, but from speaking with people who knew him he would be rolling over in his grave at how his current company is being handled. Jack was a genius and a well respected man...Larry....well we'll leave it at that.

Now onto the technical stuff:
Your comments about the 38/38's being too small for the motor strike me as a little off compared to what I have been told by others. It is my understanding that they are around 380 CFM each for a total of roughly 760cfm. If anything I figured they were a bit on the big side since I'm not going to be regularly spinning to 7k.

Cam:
When I installed the timing set I used a rollmaster Y block set with adjustable crank keys. Idegreed it and every cylinder matched the cam card. Schneider told me if I wanted my power curve to come on earlier to advance 2-4*, so I just put her at +4* figuring it would keep the torque band in the daily driver range.

Bearing tolerances: I don't know, the guy who assembled the short block did not provide me with that information at least not in writing. I think he installed everything a hair on the tight side to allow for wear and expansion as he had put it...definitely did not put her together loose for a race motor since we wanted some longevity out of her.

Head:

Yes, he CC'd the chambers and matched them. He did not write down what the volume was :( I will have to see if I can get the information from him if he still has it.

The receipt shows the following information on what I had done:
Bronze liners with sized guides
Hardened seats, seats opened up for custom valves
Stainless undercut swirl valves, 1.910 intake and 1.600 exhaust, both .200 long.
Valve job and lap, 3 angle
Opened intake and exhaust ports, bowl blend,
Cut for PC style valve seals
351W springs/retainers/locks, @ 1.750 # 105/110lbs
interestingly enough it says he only took .030 off the head (!!) when I had asked for .040. He may have taken it off the block as it says that the block has been zero decked as well.

On the compression note, clifford performance says with my set up from them and the engine work I should see 320lbs of torque and 260hp. They may be full of horse poo but who knows? At any rate, they achieve this number with supposedly .060 off of the head...perhaps I should take her down another .020? I don't know what the piston to deck measurement is, because again I did not assemble the short block myself. This is all a lesson on what NOT to do next time... now that I have my garage I will be able to do my own assembly.
The machinist said his numbers came out to about 9.5-9.7:1 compression. I think it had about 180-190 cranking psi per cylinder, but I will verify what it has this weekend.

I had asked my machinist to blend the bowls and smooth the runners, as well as remove the casting flash from the intake runners which it appears he did at least attempt to do...I'm not sure how good of a job he did though as it wasn't quite as clean looking as I'd expect. However, I can attest to the fact that the bowls are a significant bit bigger and more blended than they were before.

My cam is supposed to be really close to cliffords grind, Larry flat refused to give me any meaningful numbers over the phone for their cam specs though. He only would provide clues such as 264* duration and "about 455-500 lift." I'm not sure if this is lack of experience or simply being stingy about their "secret rocket science" cam recipe... but after reading about numerous cam failures from improperly ground clifford cams I opted to use Schneider instead, and they had a cam that was supposed to be like the clifford cam.

The Schneider card for the 264-F reads as such: .450 lift I and E @ 260 duration. 110LSA & degree intake lobe to 108.

I'm starting to wonder if yanking the head this winter and shaving it another .020 and having the bowls worked over by someone who knows a bit more about what they are doing is in order?

One final thought on a previous comment made about the power peak possibly being higher than my intended use: Should I indeed go back to the drawing board with the cam? it's not especially lopey or radical sounding, but I cant help but wonder if a slightly smaller cam would bring my power band down some?

As always, many thanks to the guys on here who know these motors...we are dealing with a very much lost and dieing artform that I would love to keep alive.

P.S. I need to get a video up here of her running, nothing sounds quite like it!
 
GalaxieInline:28346rhm said:
Thanks so much for the replies! Let me be clear: I'm not bitching at all... I think the build was super fun and turned out well enough, I Just want to get the most I can out of my build reasonably.

I guess I had kinda forgotten that ford rated their motors without the water pump etc at the factory, but I figured that they would still see about 100hp at the wheels back then....but after hearing what you said I see your point.

I'd like to reiterate my expectations for this project so nobody gets the wrong idea here, I don't plan to go racing in an inline six land whale :LOL: But my expectation for this project was a cool hotrod that turns heads when people hear it or pop the hood...and to give her some "fun" go on the streets, not trying to beat 5.0 mustangs and such. I know that there is a limit to what can be done without forced induction and frankly I don't know that I'd trust a 1950's 4 main tractor motor for long with it.

The car is drastically better to drive and keeps up with modern aggressive traffic where I live easily. I'm a bit of a "first from the light" kinda driver even when I'm not trying...spoiled me expects my vehicles to at least keep up with that, which she now does.
I regret that I am not old enough to have dealt with Jack Clifford when he was alive, but from speaking with people who knew him he would be rolling over in his grave at how his current company is being handled. Jack was a genius and a well respected man...Larry....well we'll leave it at that.

Now onto the technical stuff:
Your comments about the 38/38's being too small for the motor strike me as a little off compared to what I have been told by others. It is my understanding that they are around 380 CFM each for a total of roughly 760cfm. If anything I figured they were a bit on the big side since I'm not going to be regularly spinning to 7k.

Cam:
When I installed the timing set I used a rollmaster Y block set with adjustable crank keys. Idegreed it and every cylinder matched the cam card. Schneider told me if I wanted my power curve to come on earlier to advance 2-4*, so I just put her at +4* figuring it would keep the torque band in the daily driver range.

Bearing tolerances: I don't know, the guy who assembled the short block did not provide me with that information at least not in writing. I think he installed everything a hair on the tight side to allow for wear and expansion as he had put it...definitely did not put her together loose for a race motor since we wanted some longevity out of her.

Head:

Yes, he CC'd the chambers and matched them. He did not write down what the volume was :( I will have to see if I can get the information from him if he still has it.

The receipt shows the following information on what I had done:
Bronze liners with sized guides
Hardened seats, seats opened up for custom valves
Stainless undercut swirl valves, 1.910 intake and 1.600 exhaust, both .200 long.
Valve job and lap, 3 angle
Opened intake and exhaust ports, bowl blend,
Cut for PC style valve seals
351W springs/retainers/locks, @ 1.750 # 105/110lbs
interestingly enough it says he only took .030 off the head (!!) when I had asked for .040. He may have taken it off the block as it says that the block has been zero decked as well.

On the compression note, clifford performance says with my set up from them and the engine work I should see 320lbs of torque and 260hp. They may be full of horse poo but who knows? At any rate, they achieve this number with supposedly .060 off of the head...perhaps I should take her down another .020? I don't know what the piston to deck measurement is, because again I did not assemble the short block myself. This is all a lesson on what NOT to do next time... now that I have my garage I will be able to do my own assembly.
The machinist said his numbers came out to about 9.5-9.7:1 compression. I think it had about 180-190 cranking psi per cylinder, but I will verify what it has this weekend.

I had asked my machinist to blend the bowls and smooth the runners, as well as remove the casting flash from the intake runners which it appears he did at least attempt to do...I'm not sure how good of a job he did though as it wasn't quite as clean looking as I'd expect. However, I can attest to the fact that the bowls are a significant bit bigger and more blended than they were before.

My cam is supposed to be really close to cliffords grind, Larry flat refused to give me any meaningful numbers over the phone for their cam specs though. He only would provide clues such as 264* duration and "about 455-500 lift." I'm not sure if this is lack of experience or simply being stingy about their "secret rocket science" cam recipe... but after reading about numerous cam failures from improperly ground clifford cams I opted to use Schneider instead, and they had a cam that was supposed to be like the clifford cam.

The Schneider card for the 264-F reads as such: .450 lift I and E @ 260 duration. 110LSA & degree intake lobe to 108.

I'm starting to wonder if yanking the head this winter and shaving it another .020 and having the bowls worked over by someone who knows a bit more about what they are doing is in order?

One final thought on a previous comment made about the power peak possibly being higher than my intended use: Should I indeed go back to the drawing board with the cam? it's not especially lopey or radical sounding, but I cant help but wonder if a slightly smaller cam would bring my power band down some?

As always, many thanks to the guys on here who know these motors...we are dealing with a very much lost and dieing artform that I would love to keep alive.

P.S. I need to get a video up here of her running, nothing sounds quite like it!

Thank you for posting all the build details you have it helps in the analyst. There is nothing wrong with having a tighter bearing clearances especially if the primary use is for the street and as long as you let the engine be warmed up good before you really start pushing or hammering it. Plus with use as everything loosens up it will get faster too. Did you get to see the short block assembled before the head was installed? If it's truly been zero decked then that's great and if we knew the head CC's we could get an accurate compression ratio. But if it's really the 9.5 to 9.7 that would be quit decent yet it docent seam like you have that much compression. Hearing it cranking over would be some confirmation though and so would doing a test of the cranking compression should give some clues too.

To be honest compared to Jack Clifford, I don't really know Larry at all and I haven't ever talked to him so can't be very objective. Still there are quite a number of people on this site that claim to have had problems enough to make me a bit Leary, there are also a number of the site members that knew and dealt with Jack Clifford. Still there are only a few places that still make parts for our Six's so I hope he keeps going strong and hopefully discovering & learning. That said glad you got the Schindler Cam over the Clifford's grind (plus there have been some recent problems with Clifford's cam supplier) hope he got that straitened out too. With your power coming on and still raising at 5600 RPM and that you can run so much base timing (does the starter kick back any?) I wonder if your cam may need some more tweaking. Maybe even the wrong grind for your purposes since its advanced 4 degrees already, if you can call Jerry at Schinder he will be able to tell you. He can grind a custom cam to fit your needs (its usually about the same price as a off the shelf grind too) or he can regrind yours so that there is more torque coming in at a lower RPM to peak at 4500 to 5000 rpm. On the street and the drag strip "Torque is King" and the "Horse Power" will take care of itself!

The valve sizes are excellent and since you know the bowls have been worked and blended that's very good and probably is enough. Still I do think there is some room for improvement later on by narrowing the valve guides and blending down further in the port epically on the two Siamese ports transition yet but with out seeing some more or better pictures this is just a guess on my part. I think you can still pull more power out of your current combo with some fine tuning and working with what you have. On the Carb's a pair of Holley's will still out perform them, yes the Weber's can work very well they just need some work to get them dialed in. I know you probably have quite an investment in that intake & carb's so you will need to stay with it. Take the time to fine tune those Weber's there is more power there to be had.

If you don't mine sharing more details on your car and maybe a few more pictures. What rear gear ratio do you have? I share your love of being first off from a stop light, my 56 F100 was set up just for that purpose. I took great joy in beating the small block Chevy V8's out of the hole, plus it really ticks some of them off getting shown up by such a little Ford Six. What are you using for a shifter? I think you have a great combo! Your well on your way to having that head turning great looking vintage Hot Rod and it's sure to be a big hit at the local car shows too! Plus with some more fine tuning you'll be able to get much more, looking forward to that video of it running. Good luck (y) :nod:
 
***EDIT*** I'm having trouble uploading photos, I keep getting an error that says "the board attachment quota has been reached".

Heres a few photos of the car, we just had a 4th of July parade and she was in it. My right foot got tired! It was 94° out with a heat index of 102° on hot pavement for 1.5 hours idling at 500 rpm down the road...by the end of the parade she had climbed to 220 (normally runs 190) but going down the road for 5 mins cooled her down. It didn't help that it was half a gallon low on coolant either though!

My rear gears are 3.55, and shes got a 3 speed column shift toploader (3.03) loaded with I6 gears (1 and 2 gear ratios are a little longer in the tooth than the V8 version of the box.)

BTW, torque on the dyno was flat as a table from about 800rpm or so up to 5400...as far as thats concerned I'm pretty happy with the very broad range it has.

Im working on getting a video up here. Its not hard to crank over honestly, never have any kickback and it doesn't have a lumpy turnover with a stock reman bendix motor and a Napa legend 800cca batt.
 
:beer: that's one great looking 63 and sounds good too! The gear ratio and 3.03 trans is good combo too. (y) :nod:
 
GalaxieInline":2q3cp8c5 said:
Here's a cold start video from this morning before I went to work :)

https://youtu.be/X94rKacBXVY

The rated cfm for one Weber 38 DGES with 29 mm venturis is 298 cfm at 1.5" Hg.

That is 421 cfm at 3.0" Hg


Same flow per barrel as the 34 ICT/ICH with the 29 mm venturi, 156 cfm each at 1.5" Hg.


Two of the 38's would be rated at 596 cfm, same as the 1993-1985 5.0 Mustang 4180C 4-bbl on the 174 to 210 hp Carby GT engines.


Generally, the rated CFM is divided by 1.6, and that gives peak potentail net horsepower. Those carbs won't become a restrictor plate untill the 223 makes more than about 373 hp.

The carbs were sized for Fords 3 liter 1972-1996 European Essex and 1974-1986 Colgne 2.8 V6's. 138 or 135 hp each. Two of them can shift 270 to 276 hpwith no effort at all.

Most of the problems are the needle and seat, which is a very poor design, and needs to be replaced with a better quality 3.0 mm part, with very carefull flaot level set up. Swatson454 on the Jeep formum has all the details.

Looks like you got the right wet side to the carbs...Fuel pressure needs to be regulated down, and the bowl vent needs to be clear.

Once the jetting is right, then you can focus on the ignition advance.A varified air fuel ratio will be all you need...the ignition is what makes a good Big Six stand up. If it likes 28 degree, then don't be afraid to see if it like less or a lttle more.

Before you fiddle with the air fuel ratios, grab a timing light, and re-baseline again the advance curve stuff like cr_bobcat did.


A typical curve for a modified I-6 starts off like this.


http://s1215.photobucket.com/user/xecut ... s.jpg.html
SeeFirstFivesIdealizedModifiedEngineIgntionAdvancebyDaveAndrews.jpg

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72349&p=555788#p555788

#7 by cr_bobcat » Fri Aug 15, 2014

cr_bobcat":2q3cp8c5 said:
Alright, the results for timing events with vacuum disconnected are in:

RPM Timing Vacuum
-------------------------
1000 17 0
1250 19 DNM
1500 25 DNM
1750 31 5"
2000 33 7"
2250 33 8"
2500 33 9"

I forgot to look at my vacuum gauge for a couple of measurements. I didn't have time this morning to shut it down and tee into a manifold vacuum source, but do these ported values look healthy or not?

It looks like I have about 16/17* of mechanical advance and then about the same 16/17* of vacuum advance. Appears that vacuum starts to kick in at around 1600-1700. Looks like I'm all in, mechanically, at 2000 RPM. I'm wondering if my numbers are a tad off because I've typically heard mechanical to be in the 20-24* range and vacuum to be 12-16*. Do I need to slow down and retake these measurements?

Obviously, there is some variability in the measurements since this is me eyeballing something and I can very much see how a Sun machine would help out in tuning these things down to the gnats arse. That being said, I think I will definitely go forward with doing the mods myself until such time as I build up the new engine. With that I think I'll want to eeck every last ounce out of her and will only want to incur the cost of the recurve once. The local guy here doesn't even have his machine at the shop anymore because of lack of use so I may have to be talking to one of you guys to help me out when that time comes.


Both Bill the Distrubtor man billythedistributorman@live.com (and especially FalconSedanDelivery, a Supercharged FE engine and Duraspark ignition guru from Freeburg Pa)...these are the guys to chatt with.
 
So I pulled the head off. I am extremely pissed at what I found. My machinist did NOT zero deck the block....the pistons are all .025-.030 in the hole!! With the felpro gasket this gives me a quench height of .080!! No wonder the stinky idle with the overlap my cam has...its not burning thoroughly.

I'm going to find a new machinist and have him look the thing over...no telling what else wasn't done correctly.

2 options to fix this....will a stock steel shim gasket get my quench back to the .040 range? The other option is obvious.....pull the motor apart and have the block decked...not friggin fun.

The head has already been milled .030, am I safe to take another .030 off the head? I need to measure my chambers next and see what my actual compression is...but I'm guessing its currenly it's in the 7.5-8:1 range...NOT where I needed to be.
 
:banghead: :wow: :shock: so you really only got a basic factory type rebuild with a cam swap and a few other parts instead of a full performance build up. Well this can explain quite a few things about the lack of performance you should have had. Yes a steel shim head gasket would help as well as cutting the head. The heads had very thick decks so you can cut them quite a bit depending if anyone else ever cut it before. But getting the quench distance right is the real answer so having the Pistons down the bore is a much bigger problem than the lower compression ratio you didn't want to have. The performance would be so much better with the deck cut to zero or even with pistons above the deck some (all depending on which head gasket you use) and then adjust the rest of the C.R. by cutting the head. Sorry for your troubles, Do you have any recourse?
 
The ports were reworked and bowls hogged out for the bigger valves and blended, but at this point I'm questioning anything else that was done. No real recourse that I can think of...would be a shame to take the guy to small claims :(
I have a local guy that machines the blocks for a national celebrity drag racer that is going to help me figure a few things out, other than him no local resources that know six's! But goddammit!! I don't want to pull the motor *again* and tear her all down. $h*t!! Not what I paid for. My paperwork clearly says decked to zero.

If zero decked, Do I need to worry about the rods stretching much when they are hot? It is my understanding that a quench height of .045-.035 is desireable. Zeroing the block and using a .015-019 steel shim would get me quench equal to my gasket thickness... wouldn't this be too tight? Wouldn't too tight of quench actually hurt detonation resistance or do I misunderstand?


Edit: OH and I've been searching forever and haven't found any results, has anyone CC'd the Chambers on the 60-64 heads so I can get a baseline? My machinist never provided me with the stock or modified numbers...my fault for failing to ask I suppose.
 
HI GalaxieInline, I see that you had a few questions that somehow didn't get answered. Yes .035 to .050 quench is the ideal to strive for (some people go to as little as a .030 quench with good results) accomplishing this can be done in a couple different ways. First you could do it as Ford did back in the day with the Pistons .025 down the hole and use the stock .020 thick head gasket for a .045 quench height, I don't know how easy it is to find those old head gaskets, though you could get a new copper head gasket custom made. The second way would be to zero deck or even have the Pistons up plus .005 to .010 out the top of the block the and then use the commonly available new style head gaskets like the FelPro PermaTorque head gasket (these are excellent sealing), at roughly .040 to .050 your quench distance would still be in that workable Quench Range. As to your question on rod stretch with the forged steel stock rods this isn't a problem as the engine heats up. As far as zero decking the block and using a stock thickness head gasket I don't know if you would be ok, you would need to do a clay test or other measurement to check for a safe valve to Piston clearance. I was just wondering if you got the head CC'ed and found out the true compression ratio of your 223? On the head CC's these can vary some but generally the stock Ford heads tended to be quite a bit larger than the stated Ford specs, the 1958 to 1960 heads had the smallest combustion cambers of all the 223 heads. Generally the Detonation resistance with a normally aspirated engine having the Pistons down in the hole an excessive amount (larger quench area) this is far worse than having a tighter quench. Good luck (y) :nod: Edited
 
Thanks for getting back with me.

Sooo.....this project might be taking a drastic right turn here....


-Block is going to be +.005 decked (pistons popped out.)
-felpro or best gasket composite .05 gasket
-Cstom set of forged +.060 pistons made
-reciprocating assembly well-balanced, polished and lightened
-arp head studs and nuts instead of bolts
-crank lightened and properly balanced this time
-custom aluminum damper
-custom made rocker assy
-bottom end girdle
-both webers converted to blow throughs and a custom hat airbox made for them
-procharger p1sc1 with intercooler, blowoff, and custom brackets.
-head reworked for better low rpm flow
-duraspark HEI type ielectronic gnition

Possibly a cam change although my engine builder thinks the 264 Schneider should be fine even if we have to make larger ratio rockers if we deem it needs more lift.


SO....a couple of questions here:

Just HOW strong is the bottom end on these? I know shes only a 4 main, but has a fairly thick block. But what about the crank? I know the 223 is cast vs forged, hearing that the rods are forged is at least good if we end up keeping them. We can do custom rods if necessary. I've already built up the bottom end fairly beefy with regards to top quality arp hardware. I dont like the main caps much in this block, thus the thought of an girdle or even possibly custom main caps and cross drilling.

I've seen only two other mentions on this forum of a huffed 223...one with a roots and triple blow through 1bbls, and one with a turbo that the guy seemed to recall 8psi was the limit before launching a rod ....which is what I want to avoid. 7-10psi is where I would be looking to try to run this setup. Think she'll stay together if built right? Really at this point the crank and bottom end are my only worries.
 
:shock: Wow with this possible right turn for your 223 build up this can get to be very exciting in a hurry and should be loads of fun too! Blocks and cranks are strong adding a full block girdle would be helpful for a blown motor application yes built right it will hold together. There are likely some aftermarket Connecting Rods that could be adapted I haven't researched this on the 223 lately, but people are using the big block Chevy's in the 300 Sixes so with a little custom work I am sure there is some better Rods that could be fitted in a 223 fairly easily. With all the abuse I put my 223's through the worse thing that happened was I spun a rod bearing but the rod stayed together (those rods should have been rebuilt), but these were also only normally aspirated builds.

The stock Connecting Rods used in 215, 223, 262, Engine Family
215 Rod is 6.260 long, the big end measures 2.4230 - 2.4238, small end is .9122
223 Rod is 6.250 long, the big end measures 2.4230 - 2.4238, small end is .9122
262 Rod is 5.156 long, the big end measures 2.4330 - 2.4238, small end is .9122

A few have used the 300 six Rod in their 223 six, with its smaller Rod bearing an offset grind could gain a small stroke increase too.
300 six Rod is 6.297 long, the big end is 2.398, bearing size is 2.1236, small end on the 1965 to 69 Rod is .9122 1970 up is .975
240 six Rod is 6.747 long, the big end is 2.398, bearing size is 2.1236, small end on the 1965 to 69 Rod is .9122 1970 to 74 is .975
A few other stock Ford Rods that could work
250 six 4.1L Rod is 5.880 long, the end is 2.398, bearing size is 2.1236, small end is .9122
153 4 cylinder Rod 1986 to 91 2.5L HSC Taurus / Sable 5.990 long, E63E-B1A casting big end 2.398, bearing size 2.1236, small end .9122

The Ford 300 DuraSpark II Distributor can be easily installed into the 223 blocks, then you could use it to trigger an MSD A6L box, with a good Hot Coil.

On cranks there is a factory Ford forged steel crank that can be dropped into the 223 block the big Ford trucks (1961 to 1964) had the bigger 262 Six that fits with very little effort casting number is C1TE-6303-H, the stock 262 crank stroke is 4.03 the crank could also be stroked up to a .250 inch or also de-stroked back .250 or somewhere in between the 3.600 of the 223, it could also be fully counter weighted too. The 262 was also offered one year only in the 1964 model year F100, F250, F350 pickups. I don't know much of the details on these smaller truck engines but they more closely resemble the car engines in their design. The 1964 big truck 262 crank number is C4TE-6303-C.

Also If you could fine a complete 262 truck short block (3.718 bore X 4.03 stroke) they are even stronger then a 223 short block with the additional 20 pounds of metal that Ford cast into them, to ID them there is a large Cast Iron Rib on the left side of the block, all your top end parts would bolt on as well as many other 223 parts. The 262 block would bolt right in place of the 223 and no one would be the wiser. A 262 block was what I was hunting for and the direction I had planed on going on my next drag race build up. Good luck (y) :nod:
 
Thanks for the information on rod lengths. I mean, if the stock rods will take the abuse we will just lighten them and keep them. I'd love to do a 262 but aside from being super hard to find, I believe it has a taller deck, no? Hood clearance is already insanely close in a galaxie (like..breather almost touching the hood and carb hats barely grazing the hood under torque) ...something truck guys don't have to worry about.

I was thinking of finding a 262 crank, but I havent been able to locate one. My only worry with the 262 crank is that the rods are already pretty long, and that a stroker might not care much for high rpm or a lot of boost...would like to keep it fairly square....destroking one is an option if I can find one (any leads on a 262 crank? ) My engine guy wants to set it up to make 10psi if she'll take it!

Oh...going to have to get some cutouts and side exits too...the open header sound of a nasty six and the idle whistle of a procharger has got to be one of the best sounds on the planet....
 
The 262 block deck height is the same as a 223, they just used a .093 bigger bore size (at .060 over bore your close to 2/3's of the way there) and then (2 X .200 = .400) more of a crankshaft stroke. What they did do though is use a shorter length of Connecting Rod to compensate I don't know what a stock 262 Pistons compression height is to compare it to a 223. Since your going with a set of custom forged Pistons you might be able to de-stroke it to about 3.750 of course this needs to be verified to see what compression height of piston makes sense, right now I also don't remember what the stock deck height of a 223 block is.

At a goal of 10 PSI Boost I think with expert prepping of the stock crank and the Rods i.e. ARP Rod bolts, shot Penned, Polished beams etc.. it can likely handle it, the weak link of the stock short blocks is usually the stock production cast Pistons. This is why in even a stock use rebuild I at least go with a better aftermarket cast piston. So with a good set custom Forged Pistons this will take care of that. Adding the forged steel crank, and full bottom end girdle and or custom main bearing caps will probably build the bottom end strength margin of capacity for even more boost of 15 plus PSI.

It's been a few years back now when I was looking for the 262 stuff, but I found 3, 262 cranks at a mid western crankshaft company. The name I am not remembering at the moment I think that it might be in my old computer along with with all the rest of my old 223 data files.

Well yes cut outs would be great! Hooker Headers makes just the set up that would be excellent for this use in single or duel electric cut out kits. Here is a 2 1/2 inch single kit https://www.holley.com/products/exhaust ... s/11056HKR

Good luck (y) :nod:
 
I've read that the 223s have issues with their head gaskets blowing out either under boost or very high compression. We are planning on using ARP studs and nuts instead of bolts, still any danger of this? @ 10:1 compression with a water/air intercooler that should at least keep detonation at bay, what is the maximum cylinder pressure a 223 can handle before the gasket fails simply due to design spacing between the studs?
 
A friend on the site built an .080 over 262 block with a ported late 223 small chamber head that He ported and decked for a Bonneville Salt Flat Race Truck. With custom set of aluminum rods and pistons. 1.850 intake valves 1.550 exhaust valves. a cam not yet configured but somewhere near .500 lift with something around 230 to 240 @.050 dur. 108 CL. 14.0 compression 8" Dia. NASCAR style clutch assembly w/multi disc's mounted on a Ford Flex Plate for the onboard starter. . Oberg filter and dry sump oil system. A good crank scraper. A crank trigger w/MSD Box and hot coil. cold air induction with water injection. + a full balanced rotating assembly. A custom ground Cam that wasn't finalized at the time until the head porting was finished but planing was for about .500 lift with around 230 to 240 degrees duration at .050 lift 108 degree CL.

This engine build was running at salt flats in mid Aug. 2018 don't know what the final specs were on head flow, compression ratio, or the cam. But if it's at anywhere close to his original plan of 14 to 1 C.R. I would say you shouldn't have any trouble at a 10 to 1 C. R. For extra insurance If there is enough meat in the head bolt bosses you could go to the next size bigger head studs for more clamping force, I used to do this on the small block Ford 289 / 302 V8's when swap'ing on the 351 heads. A Copper or Comimetic head gasket might also help. Good luck (y) :nod:
 
This particular thread is one of the reasons I joined the forum, I'm very impressed with a couple of your videos I caught on Youtube. Any updates since the last post?

I have a '62 Unibody pickup and still have the original 223 that I'm considering putting back in some time in the future. (Windsor V8 now)
Seeing the potential of the I6 has me wanting to give it a shot!

What is the journal size on the cranks of these 223's? My mind has wandered to a stroked version for a little more torque and driveablity.

I haven't seen a stoker build on these documented, maybe not worth the effort?

From what I see the 215-223 seems to share a lot of design characteristics with the Y block, are the bore spacings and head bolt patterns the same? Combustion Chambers, Rockers, lifters and other things seem to be identical.
 
Welcome aboard, there are a couple members that know all you want to know on that engine.
 
Back
Top