Features Doing Falcons Right

ya they are vintage 4 spoke, 4 lug cragars, i love em! i mixed some blue paint in some highfill primer, it actually comes out hard and durable.. with a whimbleton white roof.. thanks for likin it!!

 

an Esslinger 4 powered Ranchero I saw at the ECTA Maxton meet in May. event coverage: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=481262

 

5wbomber, how is the suspension in your Ranchero set up? Any pictures without the awesome lookin' unit bike in the back? (Got a batch of pre - units my self!). One last one- unless your on bags, any driveshaft clearance problems with the bike in the back? I'm putting together one that's pretty similar. Thanks, Chip Quinn

 

i will snap some for you today without the bike . i am on cut(2 coils) front springs and 2" rear blocks, its rides like a dream still too! i have never had even close to driveshaft problems. you can bag one without cutting the tunel, my exhaust is the lowest part and its still ok to drive with. i dont have any problems!

 

Thanks man! Sounds pretty much the way I'm doing mine, but I'm having to be a bit stealthy with lowering it. It's actually for my girlfriend, and she has stated that she doesn't want it lowered. I've never owned a stock height vehicle - ever - so I have a feeling it will somehow get a bunch lower when the engine goes back in! Just like magic! Wink wink, nudge nudge! God, they're so cute when they're gullible.

 

hahaha lower it! the only thing with girls and low cars. they dont realize steep driveways, and speedbumps, you can't just haul ass up em'! haha heres a couple more.(before i painted the inside white)

 

Like most, she doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on physics, so going too low is not an option. At least it will probably keep all four wheels on the ground around turns though! Ya, yours has just about what I'm looking for as far as stance, low but nice and practical. Ours is probably going to do bit of the same thing - hauling Triumphs! Digging on the four lug Cragars too! I just found a set in a wrecking yard up the road from here the other day, passed on them though because of some surface rust. I should probably go back and grab them. Any issues with yours? how did you solve them?

 

no issues with em at all. i would NOT pass those up, they are very hard to find! polish em out and see how bad they are then. they work great for haulin triumphs! my old 65 i used to haul bikes to motocross races. full size bike look great in ranchero's! heres one of my 65 packed up and headin to a mini race!

 

Thanks again man!

 

Yeh i know what they are, i have a set too. Just on my ford theyre in line w/ the wheel arch lip, and it suks! I'll narrow the a arms and build flares (im goin for a 70s lowrider look anyway).Was your Rancho a dark shade of green few years ago?I remember one that color w/ same wheels, 2 cut coils and 2" blocks....weird coincidence or same truck?Sweet anyway, and the bike makes me drooool too....

 

yes it was the green one. i got it from a good friend of mine, he is the one who lowered it.

 

Oops, just saw this, sorry I didn't answer sooner.
Turning radius is dramatically less than stock and header clearance to the steering joints is poor (even worse on the manual version)

 

I'm in So Cal and am looking for a rear floor for my 64 Hardtop did u make ur own patch panels or get them somewhere???

 

Well im about to get my chasis rolling and was wondering what size and type of tire I should run on my 64? Right now I have the stock 5 bolt steel rims and eventually I will run some radir slicks in the rear for cruising around town ( nothing long distance ) either on the original steels or some cragars but for now I need some tires with tread.
The tire size would have to be basically what would fit under the stock application there have been no mods to the rear or front suspension.
Thanks.

 

Best make your own floor boards as the aftermarket ones I used were so cheep and do not fit for sh*t.. I tried to rush my car by buying them...

 

I have to second No Respect above. I just made mine for the Ranchero, and it took a bit of head scratching and work, but it wasn't hard to do.

 

I bought mine and they fit pretty well. Maybe a different supplier.

 

Yup. I made my own, too...it's a helluva lot cheaper, and relatively easy to do...
Rob

 

Anyone have a good source for a header for a 200ci six in a 64 Falcon?

 

Classic Inlines. I haven't tried it, so this isn't an endorsement, but I've heard plenty of good and almost no bad.

-Dave

 

As of now, i cut 2 coils in the front and 2 1/2 blocks in the rear, runs just fine -sam

 

I ran a Clifford in one of my cars and a Hooker in the other. Clifford aounded better (different split on the collectors) but Hooker seemed to make better power. http://www.cliffordperformance.net/

 

Looks good man

 

anybody know the right specs for the torq on the rocker arms for a 170? also,im having trouble with the tuning on my engine, i get black smoke if i adjust the carb to the letf and white when i go to the right? im guessing its the timing? but i may be wrong, i recently bought a new carb,so im not to sure? anybody run into this problem before?

 

I assume you mean when you're turning the idle mixture screw? the correct answer is right in the middle...

 

I just finally learned how to post pictures here so I'm finally going to throw some up here. This my girlfriends '62 Ranchero - course I get to do all the work! So far I've put new floors in it, painted the motor, and with John Evans here on the board figured out and made an adapter to do a Borg Warner T-50 five speed. Oh, if any one has an Edelbrock three carb adapter for this thing, please let me know. I know I can buy a new offy kit, but I'd like the scripts to match my valve cover.

 

Did you write up a tech? I'd love to know how adaptors are made.

What vehicles used the T-50?

Don't you mean her valve cover?

-Dave

 

Let's just say the valve cover is on extended loan! I've had it on my '62 Futura about twenty years now, and was kinda surprised to find out they are some what rare. No, I didn't do a tech on the adapter. I kind of wish I did. John Evans here on the board actually did the carving to make it all work after we figured out what to do. It's basically just chucking it in a big lathe, and cutting away anything that doesn't look like an adapter. I know that sounds like an over simplification, but thats really all there is to it. It started as a 1" thick piece of 6061, he bored a hole to size for the trans bearing retainer, chucked it in the lathe and turned it down to about 1/2", leaving a register for the bell housing hole. Not to bad. The trans came in several GM products from the mid seventies to the mid eighties. It is not the strongest trans ever offered, but torque wise it's almost double the capacity of the stock 3 speed. I chose it because of the gear ratios, which are very similar to the Falcons first gear, but very closely spaced after that. Fifth is an overdrive, which around here, with 80 mile an hour freeway speeds common, is an absolute necessity.

 

Thanks for the information on the adaptor. I wish I was, or knew, a machinist.

Do you like 1st gear in the 2.77? I actually thought it could be steeper. Seems to me the ideal setup behind a 170 would be the T-5 (not sure if those are related to the T-50) from a 4-cylinder S10. They have an extra-steep (4.03:1) first gear, that I felt would nicely overcome the lack of bottom-end on the six. Unfortunately, the only route to putting an S-truck 5-speed behind a Falcon six seems to be digging up a 1st generation Econoline 3.03 bellhousing, then using a Toploader-to-Muncie adaptor. Not a project for somebody in a rush.

I have toyed with the idea of putting a 2.3L Mustang T-5 behind the 170 (2.77-to-T-5 adaptors being readily available), the gear ratios are better than a V8/V6 trans, but without an S10 tailshaft, the Mustang trans puts the shifter in a bad spot.

-Dave

 

I just double checked my books, stock the ratios on a '62 are 3.29 first, 1.75 second, 1.00 third. I've never had a problem with getting a falcon rolling, just too heavy a drop between gears that drops the engine out of it's torque and power bands. So basically, after each shift, the engine has to struggle to get back to where it's happy to make torque to push the car forward. With four closely spaced gears, each shift the engine never has to fall below it's happy point. Going with something as deep as a 4.03 first gear has other problems as well. These motors are not big "revvers", and you would in my opinion, be shifting before the first crosswalk if you gear too low. Might crawl up trees though...