I've been looking for a 6 for my 33 dodge pu project. I was originally looking to do a hopped up 235 chev but nothing good has come up. In my searches i've come across a ford 170 out of a 62 fairlane. the price is right and the motor is in good shape but i don't know a whole lot about these old inliners? Questions: Are they decent motors? How much power do they make? Any good speed parts available? I'd like to do a 2x2 manifold. Anyone got pics of one in full dress? Please post, i'd like to get some ideas about getting one of these to look cool.
clifford makes some stuff for em http://cliffordperformance.net/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=CP&Category_Code=F2
The 170, 200 and 250 belong to the same family. They are solid little motors, my wife's rig has a 170 with a 1bbl on it, it goes down the road, but is not burning up the asphalt. It's basically a stock build. A clubmember has a 200, that's putting near 250HP down, with his custom head and turbo, it's a swift little ride. Hit the fordsix forum mentioned earlier. Sometimes traffic is a little slow, but there's a lot of knowlege there. I can snap some pics of Bec's tonight if you like.
I can see hopping one up if it's in your Falcon or Comet, but I don't think I'd go to the trouble of fabricating mounts, etc., just so I could have a 170 in my '30s Mopar. At the very least, 200s (at least around here) are dropping out of trees, and I'm sure your truck could use the extra 30 cubes. Take a look at the integrally cast intake on the 170 and you'll see that it presents a unique problem for hot rodders. Offenhauser made (and probably still makes) a clamp on 3x1 setup for it, though.
the 170 in my Econo does fine, but the van's really lightweight. It takes a lot of work to add more carbs to them, but like most i6s, they're very stout. Yes, you can still get the Offy intake, but you have to do a lot of machine work to use it. A 240 Ford 6 has a separate intake so it's more easily adaptable... and it's basically the same block as a Ford 300 6
I actually haven't see the thing yet.. A friend checked it out for me in the car and relayed the running condition only. So the 170 has an integral intake?? That ****s... I guess i may rule it out unless someone has an argument not too.. i was thinking it was a smaller bore cousin of the 200... Frankly i'd rather due an old chevy anyway...
I have seen people toss heads from 200s on them. Look into a Ford 300 inline. LOTS of power. Lots of speed part and a damn good engine..
Yeah, if you're gonna do the 240, you may as well use the 300. Another upside to that is that they use the same small block bolt pattern for the transmissions, there are boatloads of cool ******'s to use with them. There's a whole gr***roots movement dedicated to racing the 300, loads of cool stuff going on there.
You can buy a new aluminum head with your choice of fuel set-up (carb, multi-carb, efi)/intake manifold, www.cl***icinlines.com. Mike has so many speed parts, getting 250hp won't be hard. Guys are putting down sub-12 quarter miles with turbos and no nitrous at all. There's even a Ridler Award entry (Julian) building a ford six with a planned 550hp/735t http://www.sn65.com/Fire & Ice.htm 7 mains and such a narrow footprint, they're perfect for rods. You can fit them in anywhere and tach 'em high. you'll learn a lot at fordsix.com.
hmm.. i may have to still check it out.. maybe at least grab it for a future project.. Thanks for all the info.
The largest of the Small Block sixes , the 250 uses the same Bell and flywheel as the SBF V8's. I'm running a 302 sfi Flywheel, weighted SPF Ram clutch and Toploader. For the definitive info on the Ford Small Block Sixes refer to the Falcon Six Performance Handbook by the Schjeldahl brothers. Here's a link to their site: http://falconperformance.sundog.net/default.asp An excerpt from their book on that site illustrates: This six-cylinder engine family was first introduced in 1960 in the new Ford Falcon automobile, intended to compete with the Volkswagon Beetle. Original engine displacement was 144 cubic inches (3.5 bore x 2.5 stroke). This engine had four main bearings. The 144 c.i. engine size remained in production until 1964. A 170 c.i. version with a longer stroke, (3.5 bore x 2.94 stroke), followed in 1961, and was used as the base engine in the"new" 1964 1/2 Mustang. A seven main bearing crankshaft support system, hydraulic lifters and a heavier distributor drive shaft became standard at that time. A 200 c.i. version A stock seven main bearing 200 c.i. bottom end is virtually bulletproof. with a longer stroke and a larger bore (3.68 bore x 3.126 stroke) followed in the 1965 model year. A 250 cubic inch version with an even longer stroke (3.68 bore x 3.91 stroke) was introduced in 1969. (© 2002 Falcon 6 Performance Handbook. All rights reserved. ) MY 250 : Jack Clifford, legendary six cylinder racer, record holder and engine builder's shop, performance built Ford 250 six engine- 10:1 Pistons, Clifford rods, Clifford 272H Cam, line bored & balanced bottom end, Cloyes timing set, Fisher balancer, 1.88 int. valves, Ported and relieved, Offy 3X1 w/3 Holleys, Re-curved distrib., the works, a few mysteries...
I have a stock 170 except for a 1 barrel Holley carb in my '64 Falcon wagon. Top speed is 65, of course it's mated to the original 2-speed Ford-O-Matic. I wouldn't bother building a 170, the seven main bearings in the 200 and 250 engines are way stronger than the 4 bearings in the 144 and 170, not to mention more power even in stock form.
I have a stock 170, 1 brl, 2 speed. I upgraded to electronic ignition and I don't know how accurate the speedo is, but I can pull 80 without straining. I have a 3:00 rear end and 14" tires.
the 170 in my Econo does fine. My speedo is off, too, but I can keep up with Chicago highway traffic and even p*** quite a few cars, so I figure I can do at least 70-75 without any problems
The eloectonic ignition probably make a nice difference. I've got slightly undersize tires on my wagon- 175/80/r13 instead of the closer to stock 185/80/r13. They're new tires that were on the car, and I hate to fork over $100 for a new set just to get an extra 2mph on the highway. On the bright side it helps my low end (and that needs all the help it can get ). It leaks oil from the rear main seal at highway speeds, so it's going to get replaced in the future, and probably the transmission and rear end too.
i have a 170 with a 3speed in my 61 falcon wagon and it will roll out ok. It also has 3:50 gears and very tiny 13" wheels & tires but i can easily get up to 65 and cruise there. I just donated/gave two of them to another member so he could build a dodge speedster hummmm maybe these motors are really catching on :O) keith
I think you will find the 250 cid engines use a small block Ford bolt pattern on the bell .......... if that was not mentioned
Some time this year in Hot Rod (flame away) a guy had a turbo 250 in a Falcon that ran in the 10's. Just mu .02.
An awesome motor is a 240 with a 300 crank and 302 flat-top pistons. Offy C manifold, with 4BBL. Plenty of cams available. You'll have more torque than you know what to do with. And as reliable as a hammer. Pistons from a 352 fit the 300 block. As mentioned before, fordsix.com.
You should think also about which ****** you plan to use. Most of those sixes, including early Mustangs used a non syncro first gear, three-speed (not a very strong 'box). You will need to figure out which bellhousing you need if you want to run a full synchro three-speed, four- speed etc.
Aw say it aint so. Why would one not want a Dodge slant 6 in a 33 Dodge? 170 , 198 or 225 cu in. Or an Austraulian hemi Chrysler 6. Lots of speed stuff for the slant. I have done turbo 170, single four 225, 500 cfm 2 bbl 198 and now 225 at 244 cu in with 6 singles. Great engine and lots of factry support.
That's the swap of choice. Again, visit fordsix.com I GPS my speedo and it's slow by only 5mph. That translates to about 90 mph top speed. As mentioned the 200 has 5 main versus 3 on the 170, but since you can get the 170 for nothing, you won't be dissappointed with it. They are very tough and stout.
True. A slant is just so unique looking, nothing like it. I know they are fast too. Maybe if he wasn't getting the 170 for free.
The Jalopy Journal
