I know this sounds stupid, but I'm deeply into stupid. I've always had a soft spot for this engine. I know the head design is impossible to work with, but are ANY speed parts available? I'm thinking that with 20,000 members on the Hamb, someone here may have undertaken a project like this ....
i blew one of these doing 75 mph, #4 right out the side of the block and made a hole the size of a softball- i would recommend going with another engine if hop up is what you seek- this poor motor just ain't worth a shit
I tend to agree with Farmer's assessment. It'll go faster falling off an engine hoist than going down the road.
Aw c'mon you guys... Wheres that sense of adventure? I've owned three of these engines and had my foot in em all the time. {had to- they were so gutless} I never could blow one up... God knows I tried.
I had a '62 Falcon wagon with a 170 that was a daily for a year. I drove a stock '42 GMC 3/4 ton for a daily for a year and a half, including winter. Brrrrrr... I have a '62 Rambler American wagon and a '50 Packard as current projects. Is that enough adventure for you? Seriously, I know the 144 & 170 are dogs to the extreme. I don't know about speed parts for them, but you can always do the usual stuff, make some headers, do what you can with the head, you could have custom cam made and tweak it as best you can. I love an orphaned turd as much as the next guy, provided he's touched in the head too, but there's only so much turd polishing you can do.
Chaz, These guys are Sooooo right! I had a '61 Falcon with the 144 six. Thought it would be cool to make it go faster. First thing I bought was a "hot" cam, from my local speed shop. Don't ask me what brand or the Numbers its been about (thinking).......39 frigging years ago! ARRRGH! Any way it did'nd do squat, that car was still the biggest dog I ever owned,and Iv'e owned some stinkers! N.N.
cut the intake off and make your own and shave the head or just swap it ouf for a 250 with a c4 or t/5
It shares parts with the 170, but it really would be a waste of time. As soon as you get any rpm out of it you'll be picking parts up off the street. If you really want to throw time and money away, at least step up to a 170. You get a few more inches, and a better bottom end. If you want to actually get some performance for your work and money build a 200. I've had all three. The 144 was gutless even with a few mods, the 170 got pretty snappy with the same mods, and the 200, was a full build(hedders,balanced , lots of cam, a little head work, milled off the stock head, built a 4 bbl manifold ect.) It ran hard!
Well I'm not discouraged.... I picked up a 60 Falcon and while the 144 is no powerhouse I'll bet a hunnert horsepower isn't out of the equation... There's people here that build bangers, old small displacemet hemis, and FLATHEADS for christsake! If you build those it only goes to show that ANY engine is worth a little attention! The 144 is no exception. It'd be nice to know what potential these have... I'm on a mission here guys. I'm gonna do it. I'll keep ya posted.
I got one in a 62 falcon & the trans sounds like it might have a bad bearing or two so I never have tried a burnout or anything but have ran through the gears & it'll keep up w/the traffic as long as they aren't flooring their cars. I thought it would be neat to weld some plates on the intake for a tripower(fake) & just use the stock carb Bob
I am currently building a 62 falcon with a 144 auto, I have been looking around as well. i did find a header for it, $ 260 smackers! I think mine is going to stay the turd that it is. out of curiousity, is the auto behind these things a 2 speed?
What, you haven't got it going fast enough to reach third gear? Yes, it's most likely a Ford-o-matic 2 speed. I remember thinking my Falcon would never change gears. That old car would shift into second about 45 MPH if I stayed in it. If I didn't it would shift about 30 MPH and then 55 was a LONG climb away.
I had a 61 Econoline Pickup with a 144 in it. To show you how gutless it was, if you flipped down the passenger side visor, there were 7 marks lllll ll and underneath this the words "Cars Passed". I mean when it's a monumental event to pass a car, that Gutless. If you're still adamant try these guys. Clifford Engineering
Chaz- Well, I'd tend to agree with the others...but, regardless of which one you run, try here for info: http://www.fordsix.com/ I also have some information on the sixes in a '71-'72 Ford publication called Ford Muscle Parts that may be of some help, though it is outdated. Give me a shout if you want it- it's outdated so far as cam profiles, etc., but it shows the differences between the six families, what interchanges, the weak points, etc. I also have some early '60s ('62 I think) info from Ford Performance, a Hot Rod publication, but officially authorized/assisted by FoMoCo. Clifford Performance makes some six parts, as does Patrick's, I believe. Sephgato- your trans is probably the early '60s low-end Ford-O-Matic which is actually a two-speed only (as opposed to the "regular" Ford-O on most Fords which is a three-speed with the Drive-Low shifter pattern).
build a 200 or 250. the 250 has a strong bottom end, 7 main bearings, you'd have to make a ton of power to bust one of them. someone posted earlier in the week a 200 or 250 that is doing 11's in the quarter.
I bought a '60 Falcon 144/automatic for use as a runaround car years ago. I drove it ten miles back to my house....and put a For Sale sign on it! It made my '62 Tempest 4 cyl/automatic feel like a GTO by comparison. Take everyone's advice---drop a 200 in it.
Ding! Yup, that's what I'm doing with my 144 powered '61 Falcon. My '62 had the 170 with 3 speed manual. Relatively gutless, but reliable. The 144, however, is seriously underpowered, especially with the 2 spoeed auto behind it, though with the right tune up parts and a manual trans, got 32+ mpg in stock form.
You obviously haven't seen the April[?] 1960 cover of Hot Rod magazine. It's got what you want. I'll try to dig it up. Thanks, Kurt
ok guys the 144 might suck but i am happy w/ mine even with the 2 speed in my 61 comet made the 800 mi round trip to the hunnert car and back home w/ 3 guys and all intersate driving 70-85 mph all that way and i still got better mpg than a 61 f-1 w/ overdrive i wish the steering was as tight as the motor!
The only difference between the 144 and 170 is stroke. The 200 has the 7 main bottom end, and is basically a direct bolt it. The 250 will fit the early falcon, but theres quite a few differences, like a taller deck that barely clears the hood, and a completely diffenent bellhousing pattern. Use a 200. I'm running a 170 in my Ranchero, with the Offy three 1 barrel setup, a split manifold, Racer Brown cam, and a Mallory electronic distributor. The best mod you can make is a trans conversion. T-5 adapters are readily available, and will make the biggest performance difference. I get around 26 MPG with mine, it cruises at 70 running around 1900 RPM, and will still light the tires at a stoplight.....
Stock 144s are weak to start with. If you hot rod it, it will spit up it's carrots in no time. If you want a hot 6, go for the 240/300 Big 6. Had one in my '61 Falcon Sedan Delivery. Lots of go fast stuff available for them, and they're as reliable as an anvil. TORQUE!!! fordsix.com is a real eye-opener.
Chaz, To echo what many others have already said -- use a 200. The main reason for this is that you get about 1/3 more displacement for free (and a stronger bottom end). There's no logical reason to turn that down. The 144 is a lump of poop. You won't impress anyone by using a 144. It essentially looks identical to a 200 so visually there isn't much difference. I see 200 engines on eBay all the time for $50-100, COMPLETE, and your local wrecking yard may have one. TRIVIA: The old HAMB header graphic featured the 1960 Hot Rod cover photo showing a '60 Falcon undergoing an engine swap.
Ya know.......it's ASTOUNDING how many things related to automobiles can be described by the expression "a lump of poop". The 144....the 255 SBF....the 267 SBC....seat belt interlocks....the oil filter location on most front wheel drive cars....the Dodge Durango....the horrible red plaid Ford interiors from the '70s...left-hand thread wheel lugs...Delrin-locked GM U-joints...
Chaz, you can do more with the old Rambler flathead six than with the Falcon 144! In Falcon it's gutless, pull it and stick it in something like a T-bucket, just put a hood on it (Track-T roadster would be nice). It should perform as good as most small four cylinders (many of which are larger!) but will run smoother due to the extra cylinders. The main problem is the integral intake and small carb. You might be able to machine the intake to take a bit larger 1V carb (something like the Carter YF on the flathead Rambler -- assuming it's a 58-61). That would help. There used ot be kits that had weld on bungs for two more stock carbs. You drilled the intake with a hole saw then welded. You could run just two carbs by welding the bungs closer together and blocking the middle. There are cross flow hi-po heads made in Australia, but you're suffering from a lack of cubic incehs more than anything else! If you're gonna run the Falcon, I'd stick a 200 or 250 in it and forget the 144. It needs a lighter car! Maybe you can find a Crosley to shoe-horn the 144 in... I wouldn't even stick it in a Nash Metropolitan -- to much work for to little gain!! ;.
The Jalopy Journal
