Regardless of which six to build, the beautiful thing everyone seems to agree on is they are cheap to build, practically free in many cases and can get 200-300 hp without much effort. Any V8 guy is going to say his 8 can put out twice that. True, but it cost him more not only in cash, but in weight. When you figure in power-to-weight ratios, a screaming six wins in most every example. Try a slalom run in a healthy six compared to a healthy eight. The eight is like driving a truck in comparison. The high torque of a six even with half the hp of an eight will win every time. Reliability? I do about 90mph daily. My daily run to work and back 55 miles! 170/2 speed auto/8", 3:00/14" wheels
Chaz, I don't know if your're clear on this or not, but a 200 is the same engine as the 144/170 on the outside. Aside from the number of freeze plugs and the casting number on the block, you can't tell the difference between the 3. It's what's inside that makes the 200 a whole lot better. The 200 gets stronger internals, more cubes, better ignition, better induction, more transmission choices (still bolts up to whatever the 144 is attached to) all in the same packaging as the 144. Plus in the unlikey event that the 200 comes apart, you can go get another one, easier than you can get a 144.
Don't get me wrong, I love hopped up sixes, but what gives you the idea that they're cheaper to build than a V8? Cheaper than a flathead or hemi, maybe, but I defy you to do a performance build on a 200 cheaper than you could with a small block V8, be it Chevy, Ford, or Mopar. Sure, the basic engine is cheap (or free), but you'll pay through the *** for headers, intakes, cams, etc., unless you really scour the swap meets and are lucky besides.
I agree, hopping up a six is NOT cheap. I could build a small block Chevy that would really crank for what it cost to really build a six. Chaz, go for it! I have had several 144's, 170's and have never blown one up. I am not the easiest person on a motor either. right now, my son is driving one of the cars I built, with a 200 in it. He drove this car during high school and I will say that the 200 has a whole lot more power than it's brothers. I am building a HA/GR with a slant in it, am I going with the 225?, NO!, I plan on running it's little brother, the 170. I am sure I could make more horsepower withthe 225, but I enjoy taking a smaller displacement engine and getting everything out of it I can. I think that is what you are planning on doing. Maybe we are just sick and do not fit in with everyone else. At times, I think that is not a bad place to be?
Hey Chris, From what I've read here, the 200 is NOT the same engine as the 144/170. The 250 is definitely a different breed (taller, v8 Bellhousing) People that have tried to swap a 200 for a 144/ 170 found it was anything but a bolt in. Can someone who has tried this swap in a first generation falcon clear this up for me? I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
**** it build it and burn it till it dont go no mo. Haa hell I love oddball of the wall MILLS. Good thinkin' outside the box. Even if that thing is a boat anchor
i started my 62 comet this spring to take her out of the garage and broke the camshaft in half just idling....not real happy with the 144-170 engines. but if you can get a deal on speedie dry for the clean up. only use the 144-170 becaUSE THEY SURLY WILL LAUNCH. cadillac dave
The early 144/170 is dimensionally exactly the same as the 200 and the 200 is a direct bolt in for the 144/170 BUT - Fords is Fords: >All 144's, most 170's and a few 200's (I have a C5**/'65 casting 200) up til @'65 will only accept the "small" bell that fits the puny small clutch recessed flywheel, 3speed standard or 4 Speed Dagenham and 2spd Slushomatic. I believe there are some "small" bells that accept the C4 but I don't do auto's so I'm not sure. After @ 65 they are called "Dual Drilled" and use a bigger bell for C4's, bigger SBF clutches, Toploader 3 and 4 speed etc... Later - after @ '78 200's use a different bigger bell but can use a modified SBF bell. these were use in the Granada's& Mudstain's up til @ '84! > All 250's have a SBF bell pattern and use a 157 tooth NEUTRAL bal. flywheel and any SBF stuff you want - Toploader, T5 etc. They also used C4's > All 144's, most 170's and a few 200's are 5 main bearing blocks rather than the 7 main indestructible 200 and 250's. I have a 71 Maverick 170 that I'm not sure of... > The heads all interchange BUT are very diffeent flow wise, combustion chamber cc sizing, valve size, integral intake runner size etc... Also only early ones had adjustable rockers but later can use them. > The early Falcon/Comet's til mid '63 have what's called the straight firewall and will only acept the "small bell " engines but that is easily remedied with the precision BFH. So any 144/170/200 will fit in a early car pretty straight forward. > The 250 is @ an 1-1/2 " taller and 1-1/2 " wider and due to a different WP is @ 2'' longer than the other engines but can theoretically use any year head. BUT to put a 250 in an early car can have many issues. I've done it and here are a few: > No room for a mechanical WP fan, engine too long. > Oil pan too deep hits steering center link > Previously mentioned Firewall need major "forming" > Starter hits center link > Motor mounts need fabbing because engine is 3/4" wider at bosses on each side. > If standard, the clutch Z-Bar won't work because engine is too wide. > Most carb setups won't clear hood - too tall. > Engine Belly-Bar Xmember interferes with Oil pan. > Most ******s for the 250 will need tunnel "forming" as well. > Cooling inlet and outlet in bad positions for stock rad or hoses > Other less obvious differences in electrical, sensor and controls. I'm sure some of my info is wrong but I'm sure most is right - from experience. So the 144/170/200 is basically a bolt in compared to the 250, BUT as said - "there ain't no repacement for displacement". I have a '61 Comet with a 250 mill that was built in the shop of the legendary six cylinder racer and engine builder Jack Clifford years ago while he was alive and mothballed until I picked it up and got it together. The light little Comet with this engine is awesome!. The stock 250 has more torque than a stock 302 and with the mods done to it , is a torquey beast!. If you want to see the issues of putting a 250 in an early Fal/Com check out some pics at: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Powerband/COMET%20IN%20PROGRESS/ It ain't easy but it's definitely worth the trouble... Powerband Jack Clifford, legendary six cylinder racer, record holder and engine builder's, 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 modified Holleys, Re-curved distrib., ****** dual out long tube Headers, the works, a few mysteries... Here's mom with the 250:
The 200 is a direct bolt in, ***uming you have the early 200. There was a late version of the 200 built in the early 80's, and the starter location was different, so it won't bolt up to the early trans. If you're using an early 200, (the oh so common 64-66 mustang engine, for example), it will bolt up. I did this exact swap in my 62 while I was in high school. It took me and one buddy about an hour and a half to put the engine in and get it running. Pretty easy.
Didn't thet run those in midget race cars before the VW motor deal? Seems like they machined the whole cast manifold set up off the head and went from there.
Dude, thats clean jeans! This thread has been great and this idea is what I've been looking for. Thanks flyin'eye
Not a Falcon, but I bolted a 200 in place of a 144 in an early Econoline back in the early 70's. As my dad always said if youre going to be dumb, you have to be tough. 90%+ of the people who replied to your post advised against building the 144, doesnt that tell you anything?
My first car was a '60 Falcon w/ the 144 & stick. I think the only thing slower was a Bug. My big joke was "Any ***** can race another car, it takes a real man to race a bus" On the plus side, I used to get in the mid 20's mileage wise, so the 5 bucks a week on gas was no big deal, even to a high school kid (which I was in 1984) A little over 4 gallons a week @ 1.10/gallon. Then gas went waaay down in the late '80's and when it hit like 70 cents, everyone thought gas would be cheap forever, so I offed the Falcon and jumper into a '59 Caddy (talk about going to extremes!) Never thought I'd live to see the day when gas would be 3.50 a gallon! Better yet, never thought I'd live to see the day when I would drive a diesel and love it! Jeez, whu hoppen?
A 144 makes a nice toy, and it's fun to plan out. As long as you look at the outcome realistically, go ahead, it's your money. However: 1. cost of added HP per dollar: $$$ 2. cool factor = zero, the engine looks just like the 200 (and the 250 to all but the experts), you actually have to tell them "it's only a 144", and why couldn't you say the same thing if it were a 200? 3. reliability goes to zero before you have as much power as a stock 250 4. with stock inches, almost everything you do to the engine reduces torque at normal driving speeds 5. even with $$$ spent, maximum hp is so low that you will not enjoy driving the car - the extra power is at destructive RPM levels, and the car will be a complete slug without more axle ratio (slower at all times except maximum speed and WOT) 6. search around - topic #1 about 6 cylinder speed regardless of brand is "how can I make it bigger?" Is "being different" a good idea when it doesn't work? 7. when it's done, you'll be back here asking how many of the parts you used can be re-cycled to a 200 or 250, and you'll start all over again 8. serious power with 144"? Blower or nitrous, but you'll drive over the crank before you get to enjoy it.
From what Iv'e read here, and what I remember, I'd say turn it into a 170 to start with. You are going to need all the help that you can get on the bottom end. I'm not sure but I think that the first 200's were not 7 main bearing blocks. I had a 200 in a Futura with a C4 and it was pretty snappy for what it was. I remember my father in law's Falcon with a 144 and Ford O Matic. He would step on it to go up a hill and it just made more groaning sounds, and not speed up. You might inquire if larger valves can be fitted into the head, and possibly angle mill it, if you are serious about using it. A rebore to clean up the block, and a crank kit with rods from a 170, with the right pistons might be something to consider while you are simply tightening things up. Good Luck!
I had a 144 in a 60 Falcon back in the late 60's. I replace it with a 289 V8 as SOON as I could! Back then one of my pals raced a small hydroplane in the 145 cu in cl***, and yes they were ALL running Ford 144's. As I recall, they balanced, blueprinted them, changed the cam, put three carbs and a header on them. I think the race balancing was most important for power and longevity. The 144 also had a rocker shaft/upper end oiling problem that was helped by running an additional oil line off an oil galley at the left rear side of the block up through the valve cover, if I remember correctly. I like having something different too, but to heck with one of those little Ford 6's, get a small block Ford V8!
I had a Falcon 144 in a T bucket was weight to balance prefect. Then i put a small block chevy in it.
Lots of people say "give the 144 a heave-ho and slide a V8 in there." Whats up with this peer pressure to run a rubber stamp motors? I think V8's cant be beat if your planning on racing, but I'll never light up the Ranchero on a drag strip or get tempted into a midnight street race near the boat docks. To me a 6 cyl sounds cool and is more than capable of earning me a speeding ticket. I want to build a 200 and do some of that Ausie stuff to it. But untill I get that done, I'll be rollin the 144 ThriftSix and just crusin man. Good luck with your quest and please keep us updated with what you've found out. Many of us are interested.
Hey Chaz, its been almost a year since my last post. I wonder if you have any news on your 144 motor????? Any Updates???
Oh yea, the search function, I looked up a 144 Ford and pulled up 6 threads from way back... This one has not so much nice to say about the old 144s, but I wonder if 2,3, 4, or so years has chanced the majority outlook on these little jewels??? I have what I THINK is a 144 in a nice, clean, little 1960 Falcon, and it motivates the little car pretty damn good once I tuned it a little... It is for sure no speed demon, but it does ok.... I was looking for a split exhaust manifold for one of these little motors when I commenced my search, anyone know of one?
I dont know how old this post is but I got to say rock the 144!!! Im running a 144 3 speed standard in my 61 ranchero and contrary to some other folks beliefs the 144 is a great engine. I drove mine for 100 miles with a 4:00 gear and 13 inch tires with no issue, from what I know I believe this is the original engine in my ranchero. My main concern mostly is reliablity right now, I am changing the carb and switchin to DSII ignition for reliabilty purposes. I have owned a few falcons over the years and have had v8 falcons, hopped 200 falcons and a wagon with a 170 with a 200 head. yeah the v8s cool/fast but dime a dozen and no real fun to build fast as a six. I had the most fun in a falcon was with the pumped up 200. The 170/200 head combo was nice ecspecially on the freeway. You know Im suprised no one had mentioned the article in Hot rod (I believe so dont quote me) about a 144/2 speed falcon in 1960 when they first came out. the install a 3 single set up from edelbrock and a dual point distributor on a stock falcon. Ive seen a few articles on here just recently. Besides wouldnt it be cool to make a 144 horsepower from a 144 ci engine? that one horsepower per cubic engine!! now thats pretty cool from a sewing machine engine!!!
The Aussie 6es are a different beast. Yeah you can use one of the crossflow heads on a US engine with some work, and it will make a whole different animal. Supposedly the guys down under can make 250 at the wheels with a 250, a header and a cam. The aluminum head supposedly has a cleveland port pattern that helps this out a lot. In regards to the 144, spray it or get an Eaton M62 off a JY car and build a blow through setup. You can mod the basic intake for it as well. Actually another cool thing is that you can build a TFI dizzy for one of these with little to no work, and if you're really creative with the intake holes you drill and/or your carb spacers you could probably stick a CFI throttle body on it too. That being said, I would stick to basics and then do something like nitrous or boost. As said, if you blow one up who cares? If you're going to build something, get a 7 web block. If you want to keep it a 144 just destroke the 170/250. In some ways I'd rather have a "later" 200 block, my buddy did one in his 62 Fairlane with a Near World Cl*** T5 behind it. Definitely something that would let you have your cake and eat it too milage wise. You may even get up there with some of the uber modern cars mpg wise.
I've got the 177 ci in my 61 falcon and am pretty happy with it. Not a high performance motor by any stretch. Clifford headers a 4 speed and a 1 to 2 barrel conversion from Summit racing with a 2 barrel off of a 65 chevy. Also, check this out. http://www.cl***icinlines.com/
There's a local guy here that is building a Bonneville-look alike Ford Unibody (61-vintage). It's got the 223 in it. Fun fact with a 223: the supposed redline of 4500 RPM is a harmonic. If you get past that, the engine will actually turn to 7500RPM without tearing itself apart. That got me thinking if maybe there's something akin to that with the 144...or maybe, if turd lumps are really your thing...maybe do a swap to a 223? I know way more about Chevy sixes than Fords...so that's all with a grain of sand.
The Jalopy Journal
