Yep, isn't it amazing that some of the folks who vigorously defend posts including 427/454 Chebbies using the excuse that, with the right dressing, they look like a 396, which came out in 65- but when someone suggests doing the same with a later Ford, which can be dressed back the same way, OMG "has no place in this build" lol. It is pretty obvious that our young friend has unfortunately fell victim to the "Put a Chebbie in it!" mentality that tends to permeate this site (and others). In this case, a bad idea all around, when it is so much easier to just use an engine the car is designed around. Those cars, especially the 6 cyl versions, have the engine tied into the frame assembly/shock towers, inner fenders, braces from the firewall to towers and such- in fact, many have found out the hard way that even driving around without the tower braces will result in the towers sagging together, which is why the road racers used the "Monte Carlo Bar" between the towers. When one cuts out the towers, what's left is far too weak to support even a stock engine. I intend to do this with my 65 Comet, and have a 50 F1 axle assembly for it, but it will tied together with a roll cage- if you don't do this, which is quite a bit of work, the front assembly will soon fold up like a cheap suit. This project can be a little difficult, with a SBF, which also is about 100 lbs lighter, or quite difficult with a SBC to satisfy the "Put a Chebbie in it!" mentality
The other issue is he's working a 4-dr. He'll spend the same amount of money on it as a 2-dr but it'll be worth less when it's done. Every six-powered Falcon I've ever seen had the six body shell. Only the convertible got the V8 shell no matter what... but I suppose one could have been built by mistake.
And also, the excuse that he already has a SBC- just get a GM V8 body to put it in, and dress it up how you want
Truth be known, a 250 swap would be the easiest and it can be hopped up to make V8 power w/o worrying too much about suspension upgrades. It has separate intake from the head, unlike the 133-200. Intakes, carbs, headers, cams are all available to build a fun car that will take corners well, unlike a straight-axle car. You aren't looking at a big weight differential and it will bolt right up to a T-5. Add a 8" from a Mustang, radius the rear fender wells and have fun with it. It will be a unique car on it's own. Joe
There was an article in an Early Hotrod magazine that they did this swap... Wish I could remember what issue it was in...
Those sixes could be made to run. There was a guy in my high school who had a '62 2-dr wagon with a 170 in it. He leaned on that motor with 3 carbs, split exhaust with headers, BIG cam, T10 four speed, slapper bars and 4.11 gears. He gave the hot-shoe V8 cars fits stoplight-to-stoplight, they could only get past him on a longer run. Nasty idle, did not sound like a six at idle. Pretty embarrassing when your musclecar gets waxed by a six-powered wagon... LOL
After reading most of the so-called 'helpful' answers being given here, if the kid's got half a brain he's left the building in search of someone willing to help, minus the bullshit 'attitude'.
I posted a link to the July 1960 HRM, but it was a Y block. They used a 9 inch rear axle that was only one inch wider than the stock Falcon axle..later model 302 's arent expensive and the OP might find a clapped out Fox body Rustang with all the parts he needs..
250 Ford same block as the 177, 200 in that Falcon. Stroked 200. Paint it black, valve cover red. Instant sleeper. Joe
until you get to buying weatherstrip for doors and window channel....then the 4 door costs more deck height is quite a bit different...the longer stroke 250 has a taller block
Fab a scoop for multi-carb setup. I came to this forum chasing a Mercury script FE pentroof cover for just that purpose for early Comet Joe
No it is not. The 250 has a taller deck, not to mention a much larger water pump, which will hit the radiator, if it is not relocated.
...and then you have to find a 250. I haven't seen anything with one in it, driving around here for a long time.
I haven't seen anything around here but rice-rockets for last 20 years but you can still find them out in the boonies. Those Southeast guys have them growing on trees, it seems. Joe
No, again. The water pump is substantially larger and longer on a 250. This is the fan clearance on a 200, with the shorter deck block, and smaller water pump. I cannot even get my finger in there.
And before someone says "just move the radiator", that's also the great big nope There is no room for it to go forward without running into the good latch support. Also, even if you manage to push the radiator forward enough, the water pump is higher, so the fan will hit the upper radiator hose, and possibly the upper radiator tank, too.
I think the project got off to a bad start, for me anyways, when the OP asked which motor mounts would work. I figure if you have to ask that you may be pretty far behind the 8 ball on a build that is going to take quite a bit of fabricating. Good luck with it though, at least it's not a 2-door hardtop your experimenting with.
I stand corrected, Sir! The car I was referencing is a '64, not '63. Please excuse my lackluster memory. I am currently working on a '63 1/2, bouncing between both years in my head. Transitional Fords.....home of the brave. Joe
The 250 I6 is still a integral intake manifold, the 240 and 300 are not but are a big block I6, rough to fit in a bigger car; '71 Torino as I did.
All v8 Falcons got the torque boxes, as did the all six cylinder hardtops (no post) and convertibles, regardless of what engine they were built with. Convertibles got added reinforcement to compensate for the lack of a roof. Despite all the talk of thicker metal in the v8 car’s shell, I have never seen any numbers to back that up. Lots of stories, but no data. The press releases issued by Ford when the Falcon V8 was introduced are, for the most part, referring to the beefed up transmission, drivetrain, and suspension components that came with the more powerful v8 engine. That’s not to say there weren’t model year differences, ie 60 vs 61, then 63 and up, but once the v8 was introduced.....The shell, with the exception of the torque boxes being added to the v8 sedans and wagons, remained the same, as best I can tell. Early Mustang six and eight cylinder cars followed the same pattern: all shared the same shell, including torque boxes since they were all hardtops or convertibles, but suspension, drivetrains, and steering were lighter on the sixes.
Well we all gave our 3 cents on what we thought, and the KID has not been back! Hopefully he didnt get scared off, with all that has been said. What direction do you want to go in young man so we can actually offer up some form of help to get your car moving forward!
Ok so I’ve been scratching my head over this…my 65 Falcon Futura HT was a 6 car…but has torque boxes…so maybe it’s not gonna fold itself in two like this post has made me fear..I knew about the front suspension and changed all that out..added a Monte Carlo bar, a crossmember support, and will be adding frame ties..
Yeah, I lost everything here when Photosucket held my pictures hostage. So haven't gone back to reload the images yet. Here's a few I have on my Imgur account: The length of the front rails I boxed in underneath with heavy 1"x3" box tubing formed to fit the stock rails. Then welded Mustang subframe connectors from that, back to the rear spring mounts. Added round tube from subframe connectors out to the rockers to tie them into the connectors. 8.8" Ford limited slip, with 3.73 gears, 50" ladder bars, and 10" pie crust slicks. Ran Goodyear Eagles at the strip, as they hooked much better! Super T10 four speed. '63 Futura 6 cyl. car.
The Jalopy Journal
