What motor/trans do you this is best in a falcon/comet?

505 (427) FE and a C6 with a 5K converter, 4.86's with a spool and 40-spline axles- makes it easier if it goes in here- what's a shock tower again?
And ya gotta not mind sittin' in the back seat- cause there ain't no front seats

 

If it started with a 6 leave it a 6 or plan on upgrading a lot of components. The components used with the 6 cylinder chassis were a lot lighter and there was a reason.

Charlie Stephens

 

I am a fan of 347 strokers and the trans of your choice, very doable and all the 289 stuff fits.

 

this is a HOT ROD site, put one of these in it.

 

Big block Chevy in the one in my Avatar, Blown 351 Cleveland in my 64 Ranchero in my picture album. Ranchero had stock front end with Mustang spindles.

 

if you can replace the stock motor you can put a 289-302-351 w in it all is needed is factory mounts

 

Since O/T engines are fair game in this thread, how about a Tbird turbo Coupe 4 Cylinder with a T5? 220Hp would pull the little car about pretty good without making it front-heavy.

 

I have a february 61 hot rod magazine where some famous car guys installed a Y block in a 60 falcon.

It would be different..

If money were no object.. the new coyote engine would be fun.

Nathan

 

^^^ It was a Mercury 312 and Ford Cruise-o-matic

 

Cleveland, toploader, and deep gears

Devin

 

Hey, SBF, with a T10...here's my 64 with a STOCK 260, 4 speed...

 

Yep merc 312 only required moving the battery to the trunk and notching of the shock towers if irc. Id have to go dig out the magazine to be 100% sure..

You could always install 302 internals in a 260 and build the first 272 ci stroked 260..

It can be done.. i have one on an engine stand in my garage.. just need to finish..

Nathan

 

Did a 289 with C4 but the damn Hot Rod article has got me thinking about the 312.

 

A Y block with vintage speed parts.. triple carbs...

Would be fun..

A flat head 8 would be cool but pointless.. the stock 6 cylinder puts out the same power.

Nathan

 

As you have seen with money what ever you want.The 60-62 is the hardest to drop a V8 in less room.In 63 I think is when the 289 when in so more room.A 351 and larger is somewhat harder it's wider so you have header probs.If the Ride is just a street car I would and did go with the 347 4sp.I also have a 289 with a few go fast parts in it. I will run from time to time.My way of thinking is weight I can get 450-500 hp out of a 347 and save weight off the front so that is what I did.If I can be of any help to you just let me know

 

I have 4 Falcons with SBF engines in them. A 63 2 dr , 95 cobra gt ,t-5 5 speed, 62 2 dr dlx wagon , 2001 GTP roller motor,c-4 trans. 65 2 dr wagon ,91 5.0,T-5 5 speed. 65 Sedan Delivery, orig 289,c-4trans.
I am building a 62 ranchero that will have a 87-95 5.0 roller motor in it along with a T-5 5 speed. Every thing drops right in and you can't beat the performance. it's easy to get high HP if thats what you want. Roller Motors ar a dime a doz. around $3-$600.00. At least you won't break the bank with this set up.

Butch Evans (Falconeer)
Thomasville NC

 

What kind of mileage would the 250/T5 combo give in the Falcon? I have the 170 2spd currently and it does good gas wise around town but I would like to make a daily driver and it drinks gas at highway speeds. (My commute is thirty miles each way) Also, what car could I get a rear end out of for better gearing as this girl just screams at 55 and up.

 

Nailhead...........or would that be too Strange?

 

I think one was on here a ehile back with a nailhead.

 

A 250/t5 combo would be excellent choice add a 8" rear from a maverick..

But honestly if you go t5 which is over drive in 5th you can keep the stock rear if you dont mind the limited wheel choices and small hard to find 13" tires..

 

Oh if you want a 260 engine and a 2 speed auto pm me..

 

I would go with a HiPo 289 with the Cobra goodies, 2 four bbl carbs, some head work on ex. ports and oversized valves, a General Kinetics cam .500 lift x 319 duration and toploader four speed. Maybe 3.89 or 4.11 gears. Keeping it kind of period correct.

 

There is no reason on earth that a 302 won't fit in a 62 (or a 60 or 61 for that matter), they clear the shock towers just fine. Not sure why you would have had a problem. And there is no difference in physical size between a 221, 260, 289, 302 - they are all the same on the outside.

 

I've had a bunch of early Falcon/Comet/Ranchero's. I've had 140's, 170's Mildly build 200's and V8's. Stock suspension, Global West, Mustang II - I've done them all. By far the most fun for the buck is a 289/302 with a T5. No surgery to the shock towers, stock mounts, Doug's Headers off the shelf, only a minor cut to the transmission tunnel brace and you're good to go.
If money weren't an object the next one would be an IFS kit that eliminates the shocks towers and a Coyote motor.

 

I had a 60's Falcon years ago with a hipo 289 and a 4sp toploader, It was some car !!!

 

Boss 302 and a top loader 4 speed.

Now that we have what would be on my wish list it depends on a lot of thinmgs, wallet for starters and intended use of the car would be on the top of the list.

Oh not a street boss but the real deal. High rev cruising is a rush!!!

 

Sounds good, I dont mind the small tires. Was thinking wrong on T5, was thinking 1to1 in fifth instead of overdrive....doh.

 

I was there for that burnout ! last years Blacktop Bash !! Here's what i drive on the street ask me about Motorvation ?

 

The torque of the 250 might not make the stock rear last very long but you can look for a replacement rear while enjoying it..

Drive it and build your self a 8" rear with traction lock and 3.55, 3.73, or even 4.10s.. though id go 3.55s my self..

It doesnt take much to get a 250 to better than stock v8 numbers.. just alot of $$$.. if you want cheap horse power get a 302..

Nathan

 

Ironically when I bought my $300 64 Sprint (I guess the rust didn't cost extra) it had a 350 / 350 combo that the previous owner wanted to make sure I didn't want or the price would have tripled.