Projects 62 Falcon drive train decision.

NEVER thought I'd suggest a sick cylinder for anybody but......the 200 (maybe stroked some?!)... T-5... 8" rear end with some gear (3.55:1) Some more cam(maybe alot more!) and extra carb....6 tube header...bump the CR to about 9.5/10:!...Aluminum flywheel...minimum of a dual bowl MC. Slam it to the ground(not really! but do lower it plenty !!
Bring it to Myrtle Beach and gimme a ride !!!
6sally6

 

I'd take it to the local transmission shop to get fixed.
Then drive and enjoy.
It sounds like you have plenty of other projects to keep you busy.
This car is nearly ready to drive.

 

Yeap I'd make it road worthy with what I had cherry it out as best as possable on a budget . So the brakes and make sure it's safe .
Hoping up the original stock engine won't get you much and some high HP V8 on those brakes, suspension rearend is not great plan .
You can spend say $1500 and make it a safe driver or go in debt up grading everthing on a free car .

I'm sure there is a happy medium somewhere. I think it's cool stockish . boring but cool.

 

Why not create a website and take pictures of what is still there and tell people that its all going to be scrapped next year............invite them to come and make offers or to send offers/questions on line. Tell them you would rather sell cheaply than scrap things and are open to offers. Might make enough money to pay for building the Falcon and a few other things.

 

200 I6 with a T5. After you kick a rod into orbit with boost, you can throw the 5.0 in it easily.

 

I ordered a rebuild kit for the Fordomatic. Like others mentioned, this way I can work on paint/interior while we drive and enjoy the car.

 

I plan on taking pictures and posting on classifieds a few at a time so I can handle it. Current scrap price puts them around $125 a piece. 351s should be worth that much to someone. I've also got the farm equipment to get through the same way. It's going to be a process. I plan on saving everything possible from scrap.

 

The piston skirts would hit the counterweights.

 

He won't kick a rod.

With forged pistons the bottom end of the 200 is good for about 500hp.

 

That's what I've read. Plus, you don't add the weight of the v8. I never really liked the way my fox body drove. All that weight up front without any way to stick it to the ground.

 

Eh. There's only like a 60 lb difference between the two engines

 

That's cool to know they can handle some power!

 

The head is the issue with making power.

Without boost, it takes a ton of work to get near one horsepower per cubic inch.

 

There are some nice options for a crossflow head from Australia that would easily get more power from a 200.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1558043436...3IFFGgnQeK&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

 

Does the Falcon have a lower hood than the Comet? I fit a 250/c4 combo out of a Maverick into my ‘63 Comet without much hassle. Welded in a cross member for the transmission, I used the Maverick rearend too and had to have the driveshaft lengthened. Or was it shortened?

Maverick air cleaner didn’t fit under the hood. Modified the original to work.

 

I have never had a Comet in to check.

The sheet metal is different.

 

6 cylinders are cool, use some speed parts and make it look good. Definitely use a 5 speed tranny. Makes it much more drivable and fun.

 

the 200 has seven main bearings, as opposed to 4 with the 170. i've seen hop-up stuff on line for this engine, which the aussies make some great stuff for...

 

Maybe that's because the '63 and up engine compartments had more room.

 

The early Comet is about a foot longer than the early Falcon. I believe that length was added in the mid-to-rear section, like behind the doors. I'm guessing that the engine bay and other sections are very similar.

 

The '60-65 Comet has a 4.5" longer wheelbase at 114". Overall length varied a bit, between 12.9" and 13.5" over the Falcon depending on year. The one exception was the Comet wagon which used the same platform as the Falcon. Virtually all of the extra length was added behind the rear passenger footwells. The rear seats were in the same place on both because they shared greenhouses. From the doors forward they were almost identical, with the main difference being the radiator bulkhead due to the difference between two and four headlights.

Keep in mind that there are two distinctly different bodyshells. '60-62 were built as lightly as possible, so much so that Ford had to beef them up slightly in mid-year '61 because of cracking issues. When Ford added the V8 in '63, they beefed it further, with much thicker metal in the frame rails, crossmembers, rockers and shock towers, plus additional bracing at the upper control arm attachment points and torque boxes between the frame rails and rockers. Only the V8 cars got this body in '63 (one exception; all convertibles got all this plus yet more bracing). In '64 Mercury dropped the 'six' body and used the V8 shells for all Comets, while the Falcon continued with both shells.

 

A '60 Falcon was my first car and I was pretty rough on it. I never had nor saw any issues. Mine didn't have 200k miles on it, but I doubt that many did. They came with 85 HP engines, so it wasn't power that did it. I don't know how early Falcons had body cracking or front suspension issues.