Technical 260 SBF

SSBC is still selling this kit... A120 Front Disc Brake Conversion Kit, Ford Non-Power – SSBC-USA which they say fits '64.5 to 66 Mustang, Fairlane, Falcon etc' with five lug drum brakes. They don't list this for the early Fairlane by itself however, so you may need to call. These discs do fit 14" wheels (proper disc brake wheels) so you could maintain the look.

 

On my '64 Fairlane I added dual exhaust to the stock manifolds and a stock iron 289-4V intake on the 260 with an Autolite 4V carb from a 390 engine. Performance was so so, and possibly worse, except for top end. I switched to a 370cfm (sic) Holley 4V and the performance was much better. This was a great combination.

I later installed a 351W which had more power but the extra weight hurt handling. No shock tower cutting was required but I did need to cut out the rear two tubes on each header and remake them to fit. It's really tight as mentioned, and I also had column shift linkage and clutch linkage to work around. The headers were used swap meet items probably from an early Mouse Tang.

If I were to do it again, I'd use the late 302 from say an Exploder. The nice thing about your 3.03 transmission is that you can swap in a later more common 6 bolt 3.03 and everything else should fit the same (shift rods, driveshaft etc.) but make sure to get the yoke with it, I think the '63 trans will have 25 splines vs. 28 on the later units.

 

There is some merit for staying with the early SBF stuff. One thing Ford made so many changes throughout the years. You run can run into all kids of problems.
Accessory mounting......
Dampers and flywheels....
Heads......conventional.....rail type......pedestal type
A lot of this stuff does not mix well if at all without modifications like guide plates and that kind of stuff.
The 63 260 head is really a decent head. The exhaust valve is slightly smaller but in ‘64 it was enlarged. In ‘64 the 260 and heads were the same name xcept for the Hi-Po.
I know you have a ‘63 with a slightly smaller exhaust valve. If I remember right it’s 1.58 where the ‘64 later 260/289 302 head was 1.67. That’s not much
With a little porting you can have a head that is a lot better than the ‘68 4V 302.
Pistons.......
289s and 302s suffered from weak piston skirts. The skirt of the piston was prone to cracking and breaking off especially on #1 and #5.
I do not know if this was a common problem with the 260. I suspect it could be.
The 260 had dish pistons. Flat tops will give it a bump in compression.
Cams.......
Early SBF......221-302 with stock heads like lower lift and longer duration. Try to keep the lift below 0500. When it gets close to or above 0500 this exceeds the capability if the stock head.
High lift cams will require screw in studs. Keeping the lift lower works better with the stock heads.
260/289 early heads were pushrod guided and do not need guide plates.
I prefer the early heads for this reason. I do not care for stock rail rockers of the later 60s-70s these can have issues like dropping valves.

The 260 has potential.

 

Yeah interesting re: the suspension, sounds like there might be a little more to it than I first thought. I was looking at this kit: https://www.kanter.com/products/sus...ctFilter[refinementList][SubmodelName][0]=500
At this point I think I may try the 4V stuff I have and spend a couple hundred bucks on a cam/lifter kit - was looking at this one that should match the rev range of the intake more or less: https://www.compcams.com/xtreme-ene...flat-cam-and-lifter-kit-for-ford-221-302.html

If it doesn't pan out I'm not out a ton of money so I won't be upset.

I found a wrecking yard that has a 1968 C code 289 2V core out of a Cougar for cheap - I'll be near there for work next week and I might pick that up and use that as a base to build something up this winter. Far as the trans - I do want a 4 on the floor - I have the aforementioned TL 4 speed OD - I just opened it up and all the guts look perfect - only issue, well two - the input shaft carrier housing is broken but I can see if I can swap with the one I have, but also the bolt spacing to the bellhousing is wider than the current 3 speed. If I kept the 260 I was going to see if I could drill it out to match; if I go with a 289/302 I'm sure I can find a bellhousing that will work. I also found a guy who's selling a T5 (also cheap) but from what I've read people who've tried that swap in these cars have had difficulties with either a cable or hydraulic clutch linkage setup.

Whatever I end up with I'll put a gear set in the rear end if I need to - that's no big deal. I envision mostly just local cruising but could see some highway trips too. At the end of the day I want it to be reasonable, safe, reliable and fun

 

That's quite a bit of cam for a stock 260. Low end power will suffer and above 3000-3500 when it starts to pull the heads will start to run low on flow. But it'll sound good and work ok with some gear and manual trans. Is your trans aluminum? If so, maybe it's an SROD trans? Shifter off to the left side and linkage rod runs through a tube?
If you do go 302, strongly consider a 5.0 HO from a Foxbody Mustang. Nice runners.
Great Car BTW...love it!

 

Say @SheckyW , Here at All American Classics, we have a D Code 1964 1/2 289. And it has the 5 bolt pattern.

 

You probably need to look at the upper control arm bushings. They are supposed to be lubed, but not everyone did that. The grease port has a plug in it from the factory. Ford had a kit that let you remove the plug and thread in a special wheel looking piece that had a zerk in the side. The reason you needed it was there isn't much room between where the zerk would go and the shock tower. A lot of people torched holes in the shock tower and installed permanent zerks.

In this era, Ford put plugs in all the areas that normally had grease zerks. They had a 30K mile lube interval. The thinking at the time was that a zerk would let water into the joint as it worked, hence the plugs. If you had a Ford dealer lube your vehicle, they would remove each plug, put in a zerk and lube the joint. Then they would remove the zerk and replace the plug. Did this many times when I worked for a Lincoln/Mercury dealer.

 

I'll have to disagree with that statement. I've personally seen a 351W stuffed into a '64 Falcon without shock tower mods and using OEM exhaust manifolds. Plug access was ugly, and the tiny 221 manifolds used choked the motor for little power gain, but it did fit... barely. The Fairlane engine compartment is wider than the Falcon.

 

Your coupe weighed in a little over 2800 lbs. 193 hp should move it along pretty well, not a world beater. I had the same Ford 260 in my 65 Sunbeam Tiger. Only 400 lbs difference in the vehicle weight and I had 30 less HP. Not. Drag car but still very peppy

 

Unless the OP intends to go racing, I, too, think a stock 5.0 out of a 1988-92 Mustang would be a good choice or Explorer/w GT-P heads. The 88-92 5.0 had forged flat-top pistons; Ford switched to hypereutectic pistons in 93. If you replace the fuel injection with a carburetor, you'll gain rpm, but you'll lose low-end torque of the longer intake runners of the fuel injection. 85-up Mustang 5.0 all had roller cams; Camshaft break-in not a problem. The GT-P heads, however, are known to have weak valve springs. Screw-in studs should be a given, and I believe that's the only difference between K-Code 289 heads and the C/D Codes. Keep in mind that the Windsor blocks are thin-wall castings. If you attempt to go more than .040 over, you should have the block sonic checked, particularly on the thrust side.

Go with cam manufacturer's recommendation for your application.

I wasn't aware that Holley made a 370 cfm 4-barrel carburetor. I thought their smallest 4-barrel is a 390 cfm 4160, 0-8007.

 

I’ll take a closer look at the front end this afternoon.

Might back off a little on the cam, go with a little less lift like someone suggested. I would like at least a little more toward the top end, I don’t have a tach hooked up yet but it seems to run out of steam pretty early.

The 4 speed I have is cast iron, it’s a Tremec out of a late 70’s Grenada, something about the 3rd and 4th being switched internally compared to a normal top loader 4, it came with a shifter which hopefully is set up right for it. I guy picked it up for a Mustang but ended up going auto, other than the bolt pattern the geometry looks the same as far as the tail shaft length, crossmember location. Mine’s not a floor shift so I’ll have to do some sheet metal work regardless.

I’m open to using a 5.0 from a Mustang, Exploder, Crown Vic or whatever but people seem to want what seems like a lot of money for a take out core at least from what I’ve seen so far.

 

Another factor to consider that has not been mentioned is the changes to the block over the years, especially with using a manual transmission. Early blocks had a threaded boss for the ball that supported the Z-bar, then used a bracket for the ball, and then eliminated the boss when hydraulic clutch linkage arrived.

 

Good point. The HO engine blocks won't have the clutch Z bar mounting hole. Not sure if the undrilled boss is there.
Ah, cast iron 3.03 4 spd OD...I know what you have now. Decently strong unit.

On the cam, it'll be duration ( overlap) more than lift that hurts bottom end power. Overlap is what gives a cam that lumpy sound.

 

Falcons are not Fairlanes.
By 64 after the Futuras and Sprints, the second generation Falcon was made to accept a V8 and this translated to the Mustang. 64 Falcon is actually wider than the Fairlane.
As crazy as this sounds it’s easier for a ‘60 Falcon to accept a 351 vs a ‘62-‘65 Fairlane.
Ford made the Fairlane around the 221 in ‘62. It was engineered to be tight. This may be why the Falcon/Mustang platform has more room.

Crites recommends shock tower mods.
It’s a common recommendation by little Fairlane enthusiasts to make the shock tower modifications when going to a 351Windsor.

Now will a 351W fit? My guess is probably so but a sledgehammer may be involved.

 

Say pal, I noticed ya have a Washington state plate on that nice Fairlane.
check this out-
https://www.facebook.com/marketplac...eed_ranking_signature":"2320824214792454985"}

 

Unless you can find a nice set of Ford heads that are ready to go, I wouldn't invest in installing larger valves, Hardened seats, better valve springs, bronze guides porting (even if you do it yourself), or milling the heads for more compression, and you would have to have the heads cleaned and checked for cracks before any of the above is done.

I recently spent close to $2000 on parts & machine work (I did port work) on 1957 Ford ECZ-G heads for my 1955 Tbird. Although aluminum Y-blocks heads are available, they cost $3500 (rocker assemblies not included). There are more affordable options available for the 292/302/351W).

 

I think you would be happier with the Comp Cams 31-238-3 cam in a 302. However, because you have options, I would select a billet roller cam instead of a flat-tappet cam, whether mechanical or hydraulic.

 

Yeah I’m in the Seattle area so that’s an easy day drive there and back. Would be a good option and seems like a reasonable price. Not ready to pull the trigger on anything just quite yet.

 

Yes, the Falcon is not a Fairlane. But you're a bit confused on the Falcon. There were two generations of Falcons; the '60-65 models, and the '66-70 ones. This is witnessed by the fact that Falcon/Comet export braces, shock tower braces and bolt-in lower crossmembers to tie the framerails together (something the Mustang didn't need because it came with one from the factory) will interchange across all first-gen Falcon/Comet models. The '64-65 versions were just re-skinned versions of the '63s. When Ford designed the Mustang, they used the Falcon architecture with one important difference; they widened the engine compartment by 1.5". This is why a 351W swap into a first-gen Mustang is a true bolt-in. Again, this can be witnessed by the steering linkage change Ford made to the Falcon/Comet. In about May of '64, Ford switched from the Falcon/Comet-specific steering linkage to the Mustang style. All parts were the same EXCEPT for the center link. The Falcon used one 1.5" narrower to account for that difference.

When Ford added the V8 to the Falcon in '63, they didn't do any dimensional changes to the body shell but did beef up the structure considerably. Heavier-gauge metal was used in the framerails, crossmembers, inner and outer rockers, shock towers, added torque boxes and yet more shock tower bracing around the upper control arm attachment points. This was carried through to the '64 models unchanged except for a bit more shock tower bracing for the upper control arms. Anything wider than a 302W will require fairly extensive shock tower mods, typically cutting away about a 1.5" deep x 12" high section then filling the hole.

Not so with the Fairlane. Here, all the interference is in the bottom 2" of the shock towers. Do some creative trimming/reinforcing there, it is wide-open above that point. I didn't say that a 351W swap was easy, just that it's doable, with less shock tower work. Neither car will be an 'easy' 351W swap.

When Ford redesigned the Falcon in '66, it became simply a shortened Fairlane (5" less wheelbase, and 15" lopped off the overall length) and the hardtop and convertible models disappeared. Both models switched to the Falcon-style front suspension, but the engine compartment was enlarged on both to accept the FE in the Fairlane. Yes, a FE will bolt into a '66-70 Falcon, although it won't have the additional structural bracing Ford added to the FE cars.

 

Same trans was available in the 78 and later Econoline and similar era F series half ton pickup.

Not particularly durable because of the power flow changes from the regular toploader four speed. I knocked out the counter shaft and input bearing on mine a couple of times but it’s an easy trans to rebuild. Gear ratios aren’t ideal, but they do work.

I have a soft spot for the little 260 and 289, and would probably do a basic freshening up and add a small 4 barrel and mild cam if it was mine, with the understanding that a roller 302 would probably make more sense.

He’ll, I always thought it would be neat to run a 221 in a light car.

 

I wasted the best part of my young life and spent way too much money trying to make horsepower with 260"s and 289"s. Just get yerself a good roller cam HO 302" and live long and prosper.

Another voice of experience; do what it takes to put the 5-speed in there. It transforms the ride and drive.

jack vines

 

When I rebuilt my first 260, two pistons had small chunks missing (they were in the oil pan).

They were actually flat tops. The 289 came out with a small dish (except the Hipo), presumably to not increase the compression ratio when used with the same head as the 260.

The early five bolt will be a drop in, same bellhousing and equalizer bar stud. And throttle linkage mounting bolt holes should be in the same place.

But it didn't work in my Fairlane - I tried. I lowered the engine in until the manifolds (I tried a couple different stock ones) hit the shock towers and then realized I needed some custom headers. Pre-internet days as well.
I'll repeat, I did not modify or cut the shock towers.

Yeah, it was off of a HD truck engine (477?) and had weird governor linkage that I had to convert to car style. It also had power valves on both sides, with idle screws only on the secondaries.

 

Your cam choice from Comp has a little too much lift AND duration. (Besides the comp cam is out of stock any way!) I would recommend a custom cam be ground (for the same money OR LESS) by Delta Cams (local to you in Tacoma) or Howard Cam to name a couple. They can recommend specs for your application or you can "modify" specs that are on the comp cam. Less lift....under 500....Less duration @050 ...220/224...Less LSA 108* OR leave it at 110*.
Just an FYI.....it's the LSA numbers that give the lumpy idle. The tighter the number the snotty-er it idles but still maintains low end torque. Why ya think dirt track engines that need "instant" pick-up off the corners use cams with 106-108* Lobe separation angle!?
Smart money would be a roller cam block from 1985on up to the 90's from a junk yard. Newer design..less wear because most were FI engines most of the pieces on the 260 will swap over to the roller block roller cams ARE more expensive initially but....IF you wipe a lobe on a flat tappet cam then the replacement of another cam eats up any $saving$ you may have had using a cheaper FT cam and lifters. Stroker kits are very reasonable for the 5.0 to make it into a 331/347 cu in engine that will make 350+ HP no problem. No problems about the Z-bar swivel/ball connection on the 5.0..... kits to make the Z-bar work are cheap(EZ to make!) and available from any Mustang parts site.
6sally6...........It's GREAT to spend other guys money !!!!!