Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2018 Contributors:
StarDiero75, curts56, DannyG, B RON CO, wsa111, Captainslow42, falconcritter
Econoline, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, 95FordFleetside, turbo6, Max_Effort, WorldChampGramp
cr_bobcat, C.S.Designs, pmuller9, gus91326, rwbrooks50, rocklord, drag-200stang, Big64my79Effie, CNC-Dude, gb500

2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry

Unknown->> M.Ketterer, T.Smith, J.Myers, P.McIntire - Please PM me (1966Mustang) and lemme know who you are!

Ford small six MPG swap questions

Moderator: Mod Squad

User avatar
falcon_master
Registered User
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:25 pm

Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #1 by falcon_master » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:48 pm

Hey everyone, another usual question here. One thing I love about our sixes is their light weight and decent fuel economy compared to there v8 brethren. I say decent because there still pretty low compared To modern sedans. Now I had a question for you all. Should I swap a 200 or a 250 into my car. I don’t really wanna hack up the radiator support that much because I want to be able to take the car back to original any time I want and have it look normal. My other problem is fuel economy. What do people usually get with a 250 or a 200. Online I’m seeing anywhere from 16-22 city for a 200 and 12-18 city for a 250. Highway miles don’t apply to me as I do not take the highway often at all so city is was matters to me. I know these aren’t amazing fuel sippers but it seems to me if a 250 is only getting 1-4 mpg better than a v8 might as well v8 swap it. And I feel like only 16-18 out of a 200 is pretty low. I eventually plan on doing a T5 and better rear gears. Just wanted what your guys average city numbers are with what set up and if I should do a 200 or 250. Thanks everyone
Junior year high school AFJROTC cadet and car enthusiast. Likes all things ford and engines of any company. 64 falcon 2dr sedan,144CI and 3spd column shift. estimated 124,000 miles. Resurrected after sitting outside for 18 years, In process fixing for use as daily driver YouTube channel for repairs coming soon. “Old cars may break but are never broken”-RCR

User avatar
powerband
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1957
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #2 by powerband » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:19 am

I can appreciate the concern for retaining the small block six' economy advantage. A quick reply would be that the 200 is an excellent performer and will slip right in to an early car with simple bolt-on adjustments. 200 has options more readily available than the 250 for both performance and economy upgrades with electronic ignition, better carbs etc , . The 250 in early cars requires substantial fabrication or modifications in my experience. In late 60's thru 70's, the 250 met the need to sustain Interstate speeds with high rear gears and have enough low end torque to rival V8's. But the 250 in OEM trim is not considered an economy alternative over a 200.

You mentioned a T5 , the revolution in OVERDRIVE in both standard and automatics in the 80's and computer management led to new approach to power application. I run Overdrive T5's in a 61 with a 250 and 3.80 rear gears for performance. DailyD' is a 63 with a 170- T5 and original 3.50 rear gears. 170 with a typical V8 T5 1:68 OD ratio the 170 and T5 can cruise at interstate speeds, carve back roads and gears with great mileage and fun.
"Take time to stop and smell... The roadkill..."

User avatar
rocklord
Registered User
Posts: 1323
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:25 pm
Location: Hurricane, WV

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #3 by rocklord » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:19 am

The 200 is the same size as your 144, so fitment is not an issue. You will be able to use the motor mounts, radiator, and air cleaner from your 144. Hood clearance will be the same. Any 200 with the single or dual bell bolt pattern will allow you to use your flywheel, PP, clutch disc, and transmission (2.77) from your 144. If you want better performance/gas mileage change out the distributor with a recurved unit; you may have to change out the carburetor with the distributor if the 200 has a load-o-matic.

What rear gears does your Falcon have? With a 144, it probably has 3.55s or higher. The higher gears will make the 200 peppier in town, but your mileage will be lower than if you had 3.20s. A T-5 would definitely help with this.

Hope this helps.
Dan

Currently Own
1965 Mustang, 200CID, 3Spd
1964 Corvair Coupe, 164CID, 140HP, 4Spd
1961 Corvair Lakewood wagon, 145CID, 80HP, 2Spd Powerglide Auto.
2017 BMW X3, 3.0L Dual Turbo, 300HP, 8-Spd Auto

User avatar
B RON CO
VIP Member
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:02 pm
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #4 by B RON CO » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:43 am

Hi, a friend of mine had a 144 in a 62 Falcon that got 30 MPG highway driving. Good luck
B RON CO. Still workin' on it!

1933 Ford Pickup - 59A Flathead V8
1966 Ford Bronco - U14 - 170/200 Straight 6
1966 Ford Mustang - 289 V8

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9048
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #5 by bubba22349 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:02 pm

falcon_master wrote:Hey everyone, another usual question here. One thing I love about our sixes is their light weight and decent fuel economy compared to there v8 brethren. I say decent because there still pretty low compared To modern sedans. Now I had a question for you all. Should I swap a 200 or a 250 into my car. I don’t really wanna hack up the radiator support that much because I want to be able to take the car back to original any time I want and have it look normal. My other problem is fuel economy. What do people usually get with a 250 or a 200. Online I’m seeing anywhere from 16-22 city for a 200 and 12-18 city for a 250. Highway miles don’t apply to me as I do not take the highway often at all so city is was matters to me. I know these aren’t amazing fuel sippers but it seems to me if a 250 is only getting 1-4 mpg better than a v8 might as well v8 swap it. And I feel like only 16-18 out of a 200 is pretty low. I eventually plan on doing a T5 and better rear gears. Just wanted what your guys average city numbers are with what set up and if I should do a 200 or 250. Thanks everyone


X2 Well if the best city MPG is your goal than the smallest engine will give best economy. The 144’s were well know for their economy. Back in early 1971 I acquired a wrecked 1970 pinto (500 Miles) swapped its 1600 CC 4 cylinder Kent engine (also a high MPG engine) & four speed plus the rear axle into a 1962 Falcon for a MPG experiment. Good luck on the Falcon :thumbup: :nod:
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5557
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #6 by Lazy JW » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:13 pm

There is more to economy than just gas mileage. The cost of doing an engine swap is very large.
"The White OX" 1974 F-350 300-6, Stock single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18A, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much increase is by the strength of the ox" (Proverbs 14:4)
Image

User avatar
falcon_master
Registered User
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:25 pm

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #7 by falcon_master » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:23 pm

Thanks for the replies everyone. I am pretty sure my car has 3.10:1 rear gears. I will confirm later using my tachometer and measuring the turns it takes. I just wanted to know how much worse a 250 is over a 200 and is it worth the extra torque and power for all the mods and cutting and lost mpg to get it in
Junior year high school AFJROTC cadet and car enthusiast. Likes all things ford and engines of any company. 64 falcon 2dr sedan,144CI and 3spd column shift. estimated 124,000 miles. Resurrected after sitting outside for 18 years, In process fixing for use as daily driver YouTube channel for repairs coming soon. “Old cars may break but are never broken”-RCR

User avatar
62Cometman
Registered User
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #8 by 62Cometman » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:57 pm

I think maybe some extra claification from you might help too. Are you wanting more performance or just more enconomy? if you wanting a little of both than the 200 would be best. IF you looking for straight performance id still say 200, the 250 is better but it a harder swap. Alternatively economy i think a 144 with a T-5 an a good rear gear would be adequate. You know what they say that the biggest factor as to your fuel economy is your foot, and if you are looking for economy are you ok with always being rather slow? Or if you want / like to keep up with traffic than were back to 200. A well setup 200 with a T-5 and either 3.25-3.55 8 inch would be a perfect setup for decent 100-125 hp performance and good economy 18-22mpg.
1962 Mercury Comet 170 ci, Dagenham Trans, 2.83:1 7.25 rear.
She ain't fast but she's fun. 8)

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4737
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Ford small six MPG Questions

Post #9 by chad » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:53 pm

the i6 is not an MPGs mo-chine. Choose them for different reasons, enjoy them for that.
Pick up all the tips B4 any engine swap or drive line mods. There's several threads on it here and quite a few pointers in the Handbook (got one?). Also see member (is not around much these daze) "MPGs" & his work documented here.

Tire sz/choice/air pressure,
driving style (biggest)
breaking style (also big)
carb choice/tune
ign components/tune,
unsprung weight
motor oil'n lubes (inc well maint wheel bearings, & crankcase change)
motor choice to vehicle weight
transmission choice
(tailgate open/closed has shown to have lill effect in p/u but cap does) so
airodynamics (inc ac v windows)
PLEZ ADD More if ya gotem...
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #10 by StarDiero75 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:53 pm

200 all the way man. It's literally a drop in for you. The carb and your dizzy should be all that you change.
I have a 3.03 manual, 200, 2.8 rear, Weber 32/36, uncurved HEI, and am getting an average of 18-20mpg. My buddy and i drove to Canada about 180 miles away and sat in Vancouver traffic for 2 hours, averaged a total of 25 MPG. Straight highway to Canada doing 70-75.

If i could run more timing like 12 BTDC without pinging i might consistantly get 20MPG. But the 2.8 is too much with a stick and all the hills. I can't wait for a T5 and 3.5+ rear gears.

Good luck man,
Ryan
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200, dual friction diaphram 9" Modern Driveline clutch and billet flywheel all balanced, 1985 SVO WC T5 with front shift, 1966 2.8 Ford 8", Weber 32/26 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6834
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #11 by xctasy » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:02 pm

Gearing requirements with a 3 speed are no lower numerically than a 3.45:1 axle with a 144.

I had a three speed 138 in line six with a 2.95/1.69/1:1 3 speed, and used a 3.9:1 axle it came with standard in 1958.

I then added a 4 speed close ratio gearbox and added the 3.45:1 axle .
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4737
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #12 by chad » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:36 pm

C above, "X"s goddit - besides 'driving sense' final drive really counts.
I think I gave U a ger ratio B4?

This 1 aint the best:

http://www.tremec.com/calculadora.php
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6834
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #13 by xctasy » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:31 pm

If your 3 speed has a wide ratio set with a synchronized 1 st gear , then the overall first gear governs the final drive. For starting off on a 12 to 22% grade with less than 145 lb-ft at 2400 rpm, a 11:1 ratio will do it good enough.

With a 138 to 144 cube inch six in a 2500 pound car, then the first gear ratio can still be less than a smidgen lower numerically than a 11:1 overall first. For example, if first gear is 3.50:1, then you can slip in a 3.10:1 axle ratio, which, IIRC right, the early XK Falcon 144's were from factory, without a sychro on first gear.

If its got those simply nukking futts 4 cylinder T5 or Tremec 140/142 5 speed gearing the old 2.3 liter OHC Fox Fords ran from 1980 to 1988, then first gear is 4.01 or 3.97, and you can run a set of 2.73's in the axle, and still hill start in San Francisco. Then your top gear in 5th would be equal to running a set of 2.26's or higher depending if the 5 th gear is 0.79:1 or not.

RickWrench has used the S10 T5 gearbox on his old Round Body Falcon, and it, um, shoots up San Francisco's steepest streets with a 200.

:hmmm: Perhaps shootin up wasn't the right word, butcha know what I mean....
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Ford small six MPG swap questions

Post #14 by StarDiero75 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:51 am

Turbo charging is another way to squeak out more power and economy. I believe xctasy knows of some guys who turboed a 78 Fairmont 200 and got like 30mpg.

Imagine what the 144 mpg wise would get if that was a 200...... im thinking maybe 40 mpg man. Try it, let us know
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200, dual friction diaphram 9" Modern Driveline clutch and billet flywheel all balanced, 1985 SVO WC T5 with front shift, 1966 2.8 Ford 8", Weber 32/26 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests