Hello all I have a 1949 Ford shoebox with no engine ,I'd like to see if it would be a fairly easy to mount a 170 inline 6 that I have stashed ,I have my original 3 speed on the tree. Would I have to do alot of fabrication as far as the mounts?
The 144/170 engines are low torque engines. They were dogs in Falcons, which weigh a lot less than your shoebox. Few people seem to know or admit it, but the ‘49/‘51 Ford Flathead six was the equal to, and maybe a skosh better than, the Flathead V8 of the period. Less hp but more torque......torque moves cars...... Ray
I had a 170 in my O/T 1966 Bronco. Even with 4.10 gears it was a slug. Fifty miles per hour was it. I think if you drove it off a cliff, it would fall at fifty miles per hour. Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Based on my experience don't bother, even if it's free out of your own stash the end result won't be worth the time and effort. No direct experience with the flathead but I don't remember Dad ever complaining about a lack of power or torque when he ran his '49 3/4 ton way overloaded delivering grain with one. I've run various overheads, 223, 144, 170, 250 "small", and 240 "large" sixes in cars and trucks both used and brand new . 223 has been overlooked by most with 115 hp @ 3900 and 193 lbs ft @ 1000 vs the last Ford flatty's 110 hp @3800 and 196 lbs ft @2000 per Motors Manuals of the day. "Large" 240's worked out much better for me than the "Small" series stuff. Yanked a small one out of my '63 Falcon Ranchero and replaced it with a large 240 along with a full size standard trans and 9" rear. Simple home made motor mounts and a shorty oil filter, been awhile, Volvo maybe? 90 degree adapters from van 6's also work well in some tight swaps. Despite what a late 60's magazine had said about a "bolt in swap" the length clearance was a whole 'nuther deal, required a well placed large hammer bash in the firewall along with a lower radiator out of a '58 moved forward with some sheet metal bracing removal. Shoebox should have a bigger engine bay for most anything but measure at least twice first........... Ed
While I agree that the 170 would not be a good choice in the shoebox, due to weigh vs power, I feel the 170 was a real good engine for the lighter cars. If your 170 equipped Comet or Falcon was a slug, you probably didn’t have it tuned right. I had several and they had no trouble, even at freeway speeds. You add 30 more cubic inches for the 200 six and it was a very peppy driver. I will admit the 144 needled some help even in the lighter cars. Now that being said, none of the sixes were a match for my 271 horsepower 289! Bones
Another no vote. Those are a pretty weak engine in a Falcon. Having an engine available does not make it good swap material - it won’t have much power and have little resale value. Sell the motor and find something more suitable.
Yeah, this has always puzzled me too. The Flathead 6 cyl. was 95 HP ,the Flattie V-8 was a hundred HP.... why bother with the swap for 5 ponies and a net loss in torque. Of course, that is about all I know about those engines, I'm sure there was a reason(s) or people wouldn't have done it so often.
The six did very well in hydroplane racers. But the V8 could be stretched to 296 cid. with readily available Ford parts. The six was pretty limited. So unless it was running in a cubic inch class that it fit, the V8 was a better choice. Of course there was always the GMC if you were serious.
All good points. I was thinking more in terms of stock bodied street drivers than building higher powered racing machines. Ray
The Jalopy Journal
