Features Doing Falcons Right

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...

 

What's the OE rear-axle ratio in '62? My '61 has a 3.10:1 rear, which is probably a lot of my problem. My understanding is that the '60s originally came equipped with a 3.56:1 rear gear, that, IMHO, would be better suited to the 1st gear. At the moment, I just feel like I'm slipping the clutch too much to get going.

-Dave

 

My book says 3.10 was standard, with 3.20 and 3.50 being optional. My (her) Ranchero has a 3.50. But if you were to do that ratio with out an overdrive life would suck in my humble opinion. Typical freeway speeds around Phoenix are about 70 - 75 mph, (thank god our photo radar is gone!!!) and outside of town, average is more like 85 or so. By my calculations 75 with that ratio and no overdrive would be around 3675 RPM. Yikes. With my overdrive, I'm looking at about 2650. definitely livable.

 

Overdrive would be an absolute necessity with the 3.50:1 gearset, I agree. The 3.10 is pretty good on the freeway, just not so hot coming off the line. And since my commute is all two-lane blacktop, I’d like a steeper first gear (or a steeper rear gear, but I figured with the T5 swap I could get a steeper first and an overdrive for freeway jaunts, and life would be golden).

And yeah, 4.03 1st gear with a 3.50 rear gear would definitely be a tree climber.

-Dave

 

This is my daughter's 61, still in progress.

 

Looking good, keep us updated!

 

Great looking car! What size tires are you running? Is it the front or rears that rub?

Thanks!

EDIT: Nevermind, answered in a previous post:

 

jr. Nice, How much drop?

 

Can anyone tell me about how many coils to trim to drop the nose of a '61 two inches?

Thanks,

Dave

 

Dave...I took off about 1-1/2 coils to get an approximate 2" drop in my 'bird. It all depends on the age of the spring...my ancient ones were fatigued and compressed pretty severely (with my 302/C4 combo), so it didn't take much.

Rule of thumb is to start with cutting 1 coil, re-install, check, remove and cut 1/2 more, re-nstall, check, etc, etc...until you get what you want. It's a pain in the ass, but better safe than sorry: You can't add a coil back to the stack once it's too short!

Rob

 

Thanks Rob. I'm looking forward to spring.

-Dave

 

look at my picture thingy under my name, its from mike at classic inlines. Fit like a glove and looks great! Just got my falcon to fire and run for the first time in 6 months, and it sounds nasty idling with the dual outlet header.

 

is anybody running air shocks in the rear? or using them to lower theirs?

 

I'm running them on my 65 wagon. They were on the car when I bought it and I just left them. I de-arched the rear leafs 1 1/2". I use the air shocks when I add luggage/rear weight.

 

Did the same on a 66 stang with no problems...

 

After re-reading, it occurs to me that you couldn't really use them to lower the car. The ride height would be determined by the springs or coils. Dis-inflated(?)/uninflated they would not "pull" the car lower. At least mine wont.

Matter of fact, I should probably have double-checked mine to make sure they wouldn't bottom out on extremes.

 

Just a quick OPINION about doing the air shock deal on these cars... I would think about not going that way. The upper rear shock mounts on these cars are a couple of laters of sheet metal laminated together, and are intended to accept the force of the dampening movement of the shock only. My concern is when you would have the shocks inflated to compensate for having a load in the car. At that point, you are now asking those same upper shock mounts to carry part of the load of the vehicle weight, plus what ever else is in the car. That's a perfect storm for those mounts to punch right through the floor pan. Not saying it's GOING to happen, just saying there's a good chance. I'm not a huge fan of air shocks or helper springs in general. They are most often used as a "crutch" to fix someting that is harder to cure correctly, and I would limit their use to something that has a full frame and shock mount cross member. The other thing to think about is how the rear springs are done. A common high school deal with air shocks on a lowered car is to remove some of the spring leaves to drop it, and use the air shocks to tune the height. See above again! But wait, there is more! By removing some of the spring rate to drop the car, you also have removed some of the rate that helps control the pinion, and thereby pinion wrap up. Not good. If you do drop the back, In my opinion, the best way to do it is to have your springs de arched, and spend some quality time with a shock absorber book and find some thing a bit shorter with the correct rate to work with the car. 'Course, just about that time is when you find out just how tight the rear wheel wells are on these cars, removing a tire and wheel is just a ball! Just my two cents worth, and experience of about thirty years with these critters...

 

Ahh i see i see, ive heard of people doing that, but i didnt know if it would work since you where just using them for the load? i have the 2 1/2 blocks in the rear with 3 leafs, it runs a lot smoother, and not as stiff as it was before. i was trying to figure out if this was a good method or just an odd theory of getting it to sit lower. that helps a lot

 

Back in the 60's and 70's, hot rodders used them to add rake to the car. (A reverse California rake) It kept the larger tires from hitting the inside of the wheelhouse. And yes, it probably wasnt that good for weight transfer, but we were cool.

 

Air shocks were originally designed to do one thing, to help compensate for extra weight. Not to raise it, not to lower it (they can't do this anyway). Just to firm up the suspension and re establish ride height when the car was over loaded. Then the "Stink Bug" look became popular as guys tried to emulate drag cars with big tires and the rear end high, so Gabriel re branded their air shocks as Hi Jackers and marketed then to the ass high crowd. Now every racer wanna be (including me) had an ass high car with big tires hanging out (remember L-60's, the first of the big tires).
I sold hundreds for this purpose as did every other tire shop, Speed Shop, hell even Sears and it was very rare that a shock mounting area of the car failed, although occasionally a shock would break. This was all in the 60's and 70's.
Lowered car guys also used them to keep the thing from bottoming out, but they weren't (and aren't ) a substitute for Air bags or hydraulics.
I have used them in the rear of two Ranchero, a 60 (down 3") and a 64 (down 2"), to allow the lowered truck to still be able to carry something in the bed and keep the tires from rubbing and the axle from bottoming out, and neither has suffered any harm from this. try and use them for more than this and it's only a matter of time before something fails.

 

got my wheel tubs/back seat almost finished up.

 

Interesting comment - I have seen guys refer to California Rake as the standard nose down, rear up look and that is the most common description I have seen, including in an article in LowRider magazine where they were discussing how low riders were usually achieving the opposite of California Rake by lowering the rear.
Once or twice I have heard guys use it to describe the low rider low in the rear style, but I don't really think that is the more accepted definition. At least not that I ever heard here in So Cal over the past 50 years.

 

I wonder if the late model truck crowd re-appropriated the term. I have seen many of them with the tail down...just a thought.
As for the shock set up, I de-arched the new leaf springs and added an extra half a leaf from the front spring mount to the diff perch to help with axle wrap. It sits perfect with 25 lbs in the shocks (the minimum requirement). I bump them up to 50 psi for road trips when the trunk is full of luggage, tools and a spare. It's been that way for 15 years as a daily driver with no problems.
I wouldn't use them for anything extreme. Great comments so far