Technical 260 SBF

Hi there, new to the forum and wanted a bit of advice. I just picked up a 63 Fairlane 500 - I had been looking for a new project and wasn't really particular about the make/model - cars of this era seem to come mostly in one of 3 flavors: restored / redone for crazy money, someone else's abandoned project / basket case, or a clapped out pile of rust. I just happened to find a complete original 2 door hardtop, complete down to the hubcaps, relatively unmolested and mostly rust free for a price I couldn't pass up. I don't really have any immediate plans to "restore" it, just want to make it a cool old-school hot rod / driver.

It was last on the road about 15 years ago so I've been going through it enough to get it on the road. It has what I assume is the original 260 SBF, and I did all the typical stuff: plugs, wires, points, cap/rotor and rebuilt the Autolite 2V carb. I've got it tuned and running pretty good - it starts with barely a touch of the key, idles nice at 800 rpm and has good throttle response. I cut off the old ratty cherry bombs and built a dual exhaust with Flowmasters the previous owner threw in, and it's actually got a great sound. I drove it for the first time today and while it runs good, it's pretty gutless ( I think the original HP spec when it was new was 160).

I will say I'm not going to race it, don't need to make crazy power and I like the idea of keeping the original 260 but I'm going to need some more out of it to be happy with it. It does burn a little bit of oil so next on my to do list is a compression / leak down test, and I suspect dried out valve seals but we'll see. Which brings me to my question: What can I reasonably expect to get with the stock bottom end? I have a Wieand Warrior 4V intake and Holley 4160 4 barrel that will fit it, and I figured I could find some 60's 289 heads (the valves are a little bit larger) and have those worked over. Is there a mild street cam that with the above combination could get me 250-300 hp, or is that unrealistic and I should just build a 289/302 since there are a lot more options with that platform?
Sorry for the novel, appreciate anyone's feedback...

 

I can’t really answer the horse power question and such, but I just did a stock rebuild of my ‘62 260. Gutless -yes, but mine is only a driver. If I were serious about getting more power under my hood, I’d put a 302 in it. So much easier. More cubic inches to start, and way more aftermarket parts available. BUT if you’re on a budget, and already have parts on hand to build up the 260 you’ll have to weigh that out obviously.

 

I had a buddy do this to his mustn'tang. It helped.

 

What transmission? What gears?
Is the 260 the 5 bolt bellhousing?

of it were me and I wasn’t worried about keeping it original I’d look for a 302 from and 80’s mustang or 90’s explorer. Roller cam and lota of parts available.

If stick shift id look for a t5, or AOD with auto. then you get overdrive and can swap on an 8.8 with 410 gears and still drive on the highway.

 

BTW, nice car!

 

All good advice. Considering that you apparently didn't pay a lot for the car, and it has limited collector value, I wouldn't hesitate to replace the 260, if your goal is to make 250-300 horsepower.

My brother-in-law has a Mustang 5.0. With GT-P heads, an E303 cam, and a Cobra intake, he's got about 300 hp at the flywheel.

The size of your pocket book is the primary factor in determining how much power you can put under the hood, but I think I would be inclined to leave it as it is.

 

My all-time favorite Ford Body style !!
Keep in mind a couple things...engine compartment it pretty narrow even for a 5.0 (351 is pretty much outta the question unless you remove the shock towers).
I had a Falcon with the 260 and a four barrel carb and long tube headers made a NOTICEABLE difference.
Then there's the 5 bolt bellhousing issue. 221 &260 engines in these cars (M-word) and Falcon too used the 5 bolt. 289/302/5.0/351 used the 6 bolt.
Soooo if you go to either of these engines you will need to change trannys too or at least the bell housing.
289 heads with bigger shivel-lay exhaust valves... hand porting the chambers...removing the EGR hump in the exhaust ports (if applicable) should make a major increase in power. (with the exception of screw in rocker studs 289 and 289 Hi Po heads are identical ! You do the math)
A cam with increased duration and a TIGHT LSA 108*-110* and sensible lift will make a VERY peppy ride.
Do NOT neglect re-curving your distributor. Light advance springs and limit the total advance to 36-42 degrees will make you think you jumped into somebody's Super Stocker !!!
If you do the Shelby drop....1" sway bar....Monte Carlo bar...one piece export bar... decent shocks...it will rival any Corvette from that period and most new cars.
You're not gonna be able to put decent size tires on it because the wheel wells are so small which could be a good thing! Because 1st gear will become useless when you floor it from a dead stand still. The lack of traction at the rear will most likely save your 8" rear end and tranny from a quick death.
We need more pictures !!!!
6sally6

 

Yeah I had a 64 galaxie 500 and the 260 with 3.00 rear gear, I could get out of the car and run across the street before that thing could make it foot to the floor from a red light.

Don't know much about the 260 but is it one of those things that a 302 crank will drop into along with an overbore to raise cubic inches ? Of course your into possible head mods to make it breathe to support those extra inches.... but it would look original !!

..

 

Actually......the cylinder skirts may be too short to make a 302 crank swap work. Unlike a Shivel-lay Ford didn't make parts swapping too easy on their SBF's.
Some stuff sure butt-knott everything.
6sally6

 

You are working with a 3.80 bore, so the 289 valves might be too big to fit into the bore? Also you might be dropping your CR due to chamber being larger? what transmission do you have, & are you in love with it? If not(& 250 to 300 HP is NOT realistic out of a "streetable" 260!!), you'd be a lot better off finding a 302 & transmission "package" & swap it in, or even a 351" Windsor (with a little work), especially if you are set on 300 HP for the street. Would also be a BUNCH cheaper !! (Paint the later valve covers & air cleaner to match the 260 ones just to confuse the crowd? LOL!)

 

OK....
That’s a really nice coupe. It is by no mean a cheap car.
I assume it is an automatic car. If so it has the 2 speed Light duty Fordomatic. The light duty Fordomatic of the early 60s is not to be confused with 1950s Fordomatics in full size cars.
There’s virtually nothing you can do performance wise with the 2 speed auto.
The 289 was offered in the Fairlane in 1963 about mid year.
The 221 was made into 1963 especially for the Mercury Meteor.
The 260 was standard for the 63 Fairlane but it is possible it could be a 221 or even a 289.
You can decode the data plate on the door.
Of course there the possibility of engine swaps through the years.
My bet.....Fordomatic 260
3.00 8” rear was the standard rear axle.

Mild hop up?
Tune it up.
A stock 4bbl intake, Performer or a good dual plane intake and a 500cfm 4bbl should wake it up even with the stock manifolds.
Exhaust......
The cast iron K code Hi-Po exhaust is the best deal for affordable exhaust.
Fairlane tube headers are close to grand now. It’s crazy! Watch out for mistakes in headers. 1962-1965 Fairlane headers are expensive. Feasibly priced tube headers like 1964-1968 are wrong. Those are for later Fairlanes. If you go with tube headers make sure they are specificity for 62-65 Fairlanes.
So.....
Intake 500 cfm 4bbl is a good upgrade.
To really feel it....
Change the center section out to a 3.55 or 3.80.

 

Thanks for all the feedback! So, it has the 3 speed toploader with column shift, and 3.25 (3.23?) rear end. And yes, the 260 has the 5 bolt bellhousing pattern. I do have a 4 speed OD - it’s the oddball one out of a late 70’s Grenada that has the wide ratios and like a 0.8 fourth gear, I figured I could try that out and maybe throw 3.80 gears in the rear.

Budget? I mean I’m not going to go crazy but I don’t have a lot into it so I’m not opposed to throwing some money at a motor build and if I go that route it will definitely be a 289/302. I’m willing to experiment a little to see if I can make the 260 livable but that’s going to be a relatively small budget project.

From what I’ve read I think the 289 heads will fit and I can pick up a set for a couple hundred bucks. The CR is a concern so id have to look into whether I could have the heads milled to bring it back up, and yes also port match to the manifold. As someone pointed out, there ain’t a lot of room because of the shock towers, if anyone knows of headers that will fit let me know, I haven’t been able to find any.

Other than that, I’d like to upgrade the brakes to a disc setup in front, dual master. I’ll probably keep the stock suspension setup but all the ball joints etc will get replaced. Side note: I really love the old gasser look and thought about doing a solid axle kit but I don’t know that I want to go to the trouble for just an aesthetic thing. The rear springs seem saggy so I’ll either try re-arching them or replace to get the rear up a bit. Wheels and tires, thinking about 14 or 15x8 rears and 6 up front. I’ve been looking for a set of slotted mags but can’t find any with the backspacing that the rear would need to have.

 

Here are some more photos of the ol' girl...

 

6Sally6 , Falcon , Comet were super tight for any V8 , Fairlane is mid sized ride , 351W or C will fit , FE fits with the blue hatchet workin . I had a 64 with C engine , can’t remember what I used for manifolds , but I was a kid , they came from scrap car or truck .


Me 351 W roller engine , 4 speed OD , 8.8 from a ranger and drive it till you can’t get anymore gas for it .

 

That’s a really nice car.
Manual is a big plus.
Being a manual car the 3.25 is decent.
A steeper gear will always give you that seat of the pants punch.

If the car drives good I would not fool with the suspension. 1962-65 Fairlanes and 62-63 Meteors are like nothing else.
Front end parts can be hard to source. The front springs look like they belong on a B-36. They will kill you if you use cheap stuff. These cars require heavy duty tools to remove the front springs.
So....If the front end is serviceable.....run it.
If it has to have a rebuild.....
Join the Fairlane Club of America and do the research.

Brakes
The last time I checked the only front disk kit that you can use the stock wheels was from a Geo Metro....
There’s other kits but they will not work with the 14” wheels.
Needless to say I’m going to run the stock fruit jar and drums on my ‘64.

 

The 260 is an orphan these days for multiple reasons. The small 3.8" bore is one. The 5-bolt bell pattern severely limiting your transmission choices is another. Having that 2-speed Fordomatic that those came with is another hindrance, unless you're lucky enough to have a manual. 289 heads do have larger valves (good) but also have larger combustion chambers that will lower compression (bad). You could fix that with custom pistons, but that will be $$$$. Or install larger valves in the 260 heads and do some port work (also $$$). The 4160 carb is going to be too large on any 260 combo that will play nice with the OEM automatic trans. You may also have issues with port match between your Weiand intake and the 260 heads.

Want to pep up the 260 on the cheap? Hunt down a late 5.0 Mustang 4V aluminum intake (and maybe even the carb), put a 2" spacer under the carb, and use a very 'mild' 302 cam (which will be healthier for the 260). I see those intakes for $10 at the swap meets, not much more for the carbs. Other carb choices would be a 390 or 450 CFM Holley 4V, those turn up at swap meets too and are actually a better size. Use 289/302 exhaust manifolds and install dual exhaust. That should add 30 HP give or take. It won't be a rocket, but that will help quite a bit and still have good drivability. You won't be into it for big bucks, if that doesn't do it for you, you're not out much.

But if your heart is set on 250+ HP, do a 302. This will require a transmission change to a C4 (or a T5 if you want to do the work, but it will be worth it!), but that's a good thing. If you're adventurous, a 351W will also fit but there will be some exhaust issues to deal with and this won't be an easy-peasy drop-in. Some fab skill will be needed... but 300+ HP will be easy. The 351 makes considerably more torque than the 289/302, for street use that's what you want.

Nice '63 by the way. My favorite of the 62-65 Fairlanes.

 

351W or Cleveland will not fit without shock tower modification!!!!!!
The 221-302 barely fits! The car was designed around the 221.

 

Steve,
He has a manual so he is in luck.
A 6 bolt bell is easy to find for a 302 upgrade.

 

That helps, but he'll still need a newer trans. Those dual-pattern 6-bolt bells are as rare as hens teeth...

 

Nice car
Dan

 

302 swap it if you want 300-350hp. Real easy to get that power level with a 302 with what's available today.

 

Yeah sounds like a 302 swap is probably the best realistic option. I may play around with this as an experiment without throwing big bucks at it, or may just drive it the way it is and look for a donor or crate engine to swap as a winter project. It does run good for what it is - with non E premium and a bunch of timing it’s pretty snappy and the exhaust I built sounds mean even if it’s all bark / no bite.

Front end I will leave stock other than replacing the joints and bushings etc - anybody know who sells a good quality rebuild kit for that car? Ball joints, tie rod ends, sway bar links, etc? I think there are other options for a disc conversion if I run 15 inch wheels which I probably will do - I like the look but not too many tire options anymore for 14’s.

 

These cars with age are flat terrible for shock towers , creeping inward with age also .
This is why Shelby added the MonteCarlo bar to the Mustang . Some research on measurements may or may not show yours has over time compressed inward a bit . If I remember it’s only about 1/2 - 3/4 of an inch difference between 289 / 302 and 351 w , in width . 289 / 302 iron manifolds , 351 w I’m sure headers are in order .

If it has compressed a hydraulic port a power will help while engine is out . If your serious about ease of swap , 302 roller motor is a bolt in , swap on an early timing cover , distributer , intake, carb and fuel pump , and go .

Sometimes what may seem impossible will work with a bit of work . A 385 series ( 429 - 460 ) is a bolt in swap to OT fox body , with very slight adjustments .

 

Looking at it from the outside as a potential buyer, I'd value the car with a bigger engine over stock or even stock modded. Especially for parts availability. A 302 and 6 bolt 4 or 5 speed. Either stay all stock for the guy like yourself that is thrilled with untouched, or go with the best bang for the buck with minimal mods (shifter).

If this is more of a let's just have fun on a budget, I'd try deeper rear gears and just a trans. Think of it as a flathead that you want to keep up with traffic, although I bet that they have more torque. More gearing and more gears to wring out what power it has.
I had a 64 Dart with slant six and auto which had manual drums. I understand wanting to upgrade the brakes for today's traffic. This will complement any drivetrain mods and should be done first.

 

Personally I'd go as far as cam and carb and intake swap and if I wasn't happy with that engine swap. At least all but the cam could be then swapped to new engine. Then just hang on to the 260 for a backup engine or to go with the car in case you sell it. It's funny how many times I've seen people buy engine swapped vintage cars and give significantly more because original engine was included only for them to scrap or give away said engine without so much as touching a bolt on it lol

 

What is your expected highway usage? Is this an around town car, or gonna cruise more than 20 minutes on the highway?

Nothing wakes up a ride like gearing. If it were mine, I'd max the tire fitment, put in a gear for peppy around town driving, then calculate what 5 speed will work to keep rpm sane at my cruising speed without having a useless 1st gear, and then pump up some torque if it struggled to keep up with highway traffic in OD.

-rick

 

Good looking car, seems to be in good shape as well!

I like the simple approach mentioned. Cam/lifters and timing set. You have the intake and carb. Maybe new valve springs as well.

 

Ball joints 1962-65 Fairlane
The uppers are commonly available.
The lowers are not.
The Little Fairlane and Meteor was a car that went extinct in 1965.
Falcons and Mustangs are different and cheaply built. Not much swaps between Fairlane, Falcons and Mustangs except engines and transmissions. Body chassis stuff.... no.
The Fairlane was heavily built compared to Falcon platform. It’s really like a little Galaxie except it’s a uni body.

The lower ball joint was made with a lower arm. The arm and ball joint were a one piece unit.
The lower ball joint is not reproduced with the arm.
Ball joints are available but it requires removing the ball joint from that arm.
Original NOS ball joints and arms show up on eBay. I suspect that these may have been remanufactured or rebuilt by the seller.

What I’m getting at is replacing the ball joints on a Fairlane is a big job, much more involved than anything from the period.
Front end alignment is unique as well. It required special tools specific to that car.
Most shops will not have a clue.
On YouTube there is a fellow who rebuilds the front end and does a basic alignment with hand tools. I’ll try to find that channel for you.

The front springs are very very large. A normal spring compressor is too light duty. To remove the springs requires a very heavy duty screw type spring compressor.

As said the Fairlane club is a good resource.
Get the manuals for it.