Questions for EARLY Falcon experts.

I have been researching putting together a '60-'63 Falcon for a daily driver. Stock, but discs and a T5, staying 4-lug and original 6.

Every so often I come across a 1960 model, and am told that there are some differences from the '61-'63 models. There must be, as most parts list as '61 and on. I have yet to get a clear picture of the actual differences are, and have even found contradictory information.

I am a fabricator, so making parts is not a real problem, but I'd like to stick with as many off-the-shelf parts as possible, as my time is not free.

Anybody(s) know the true dirt?

 

Go over to this message board and search body and suspension. http://www.tffn.net

front fenders 60-61 same, 62-63. same, 64-65 same. earlier 60's front suspensions used smaller ball joints. 65 parts bolt on. kind of a start for you.

 

Yep, as Jim says, the 1960 model has different suspension parts, but you can put the 61 and later stuff on it. For Disc brakes I used the Scarebird kit which used Nissan Rotors and Chevy Citation (I think) calipers which kept it 4 lug, but i did have to go to 14" wheels.

 

Thanks guys. I now have most of my questions answered, except for the rear leaf springs, versus similar era Mustang stuff. I'm still finding conflicting info there. The plan is for fresh springs, all 'round, and down 2 to 2-1/2" in ride height. I'd like to raid the Mustang bins as much as possible. Thoughts?

 

The Mustang springs are just a bit longer than the Rachero/Wagon springs and can be used on those cars with narrower frnt bushings and relocated shackle mounts. Ricky Racer here on the H.A.M.B. did a post about this swap many years ago, and I just found it the ohter night so it's still searchable. I don't believ I would try that on a sedan though.

I did the Scarebird disc brake kit on the front of my wagon and I LOVE it! I used a new '74 Maverick disc/drum master and it stops like nobody's business.

 

I have located some Falcon-specific reverse-eye leaf springs. Thanks for the master cylinder advice. Now, to pick one out that is not too screwed up already.

 

Good luck with that, seems most have been played with at some point. I cut 2 coils off my old 62 and prought it down real nice in the front, the rear was a mess, but the new springs should help that. Good luck.

 

I put a kit on my 63 Ranchero from Stainless Steel Brakes. It was for 5 lug though.

 

ditch the original loadomatic carb and distributor; install one from a 200 prefrably with DSII and a carb from a later 60's 200. replace the 1/4" drive oil pump with a later 5/16" drive unit so sourcing a dist won't be a hassle. replace the original fuel tank and sending unit with new items; it's well worth the money to know they're clean and not pinholed all over. it's a simple job to replace the generator with a real Ford alternator, although it's really not necessary. replace the motor and trans mounts. get a shop manual and check the front body dimensions every which way; do this before expending time, money and effort changing front end parts, to make sure the foundation of the car is squared up. 50 years on Falcons takes its' toll.
60 and early 61 cars have some unique parts but as has been noted, they are easy to upgrade. you can easily get what you seek and STILL keep it all Ford underneath.

 

I have found a few unmolested examples, but they carry a hefty price tag versus the "touched" ones. I am willing to look the other way on a few issues, but not a ton, at any price. I will likely wince, and pony-up the cash to get a good (enough) one.

 

I HAVE an early '61 (Oct. 1960 build date), which is essentially the same as 1960, save grille and trim. There are rather quite a few differences, even the motor mounts are different (I have an OEM supply, real Ford stuff, aftermarket lasted two days...). Depends on how much fabbing you want to do.

As for unmolested, how about 51,000 miles and NOTHING changed from new?? Yeah, I like it!!

Anyway, PM me if you want notes/photos of an original '60-'61.

Cosmo

P.S. The OEM brakes are fine. And I am hyper-critical of brakes. However, these are good'uns. And I drive this car daily, have no other. No pull, never had discernible fade, just good quick stops.

 

cosmo has a good point; if you're not racing, you don't need to redo the brake design. Falcons have good brakes (granted; ditch the fruit jar and split the circuits) from the start. a neat (and cheap) trick to avoid fade is to drill cooling holes in the front drums. it works! think of it this way; disc brake calipers and rotors are inherently heavier than the stock front drums and add to the understeer problem as weight increases up front. not racing? stay stock! but, it's still your decision and whatever you're looking for is out there. right now, i wish i'd kept my last '61 2dr.....

 

I am still in the planning stages, making sure that I have the whole deal planned out before I get in over my head. I appreciate the assistance in sorting this all out. I want a decent driver, not a year-long project. If I do stick with drums, which master cylinder do you guys recommend for splitting into dual circuits?

 

Not sure but I've heard some guys use a master from a '67 Mustang... Not sure if you would have to re-wire the brake light switch if you went that route.

 

That is unlikely to be a problem. I can build anything. I just don't want to build everything.

 

Okay, one more question, as the inter-tubes again has tons of widely and wildly conflicting information. Anybody know the ratio of first gear, with the stock 3-speed manual?

 

Possibly 3.03 I think. Not 100% sure.

 

The master from a drum/drum Maverick would work out great. I have put about a zillion miles on the stock drum brakes on Ford Falcons over the years and I have to agree with a couple of the guys that for what they are they work well. On this last one, I put the car together expressly for my girlfriend to drive, 'cause she picked it out. Her driving resume only goes back about ten years since she came over from Hong Kong where she NEVER had driven before. I reasoned disc brakes for the wagon simply because she drives exactly like an adorable asian female in her early forties who is used to the typical honda type brake feel. So far she's driven it 10 miles, and since November 1st I've driven it almost 3000 miles! As inexpensive as the Scarebird deal was to do (actually a bit cheaper than if I did the full meal deal on the original drums) and as vastly, completely superior to the drum brakes as they are, I will never mess with stock Falcon drums again! Period.

The Scarebird brackets were about 110.00, I took their parts list down to my wholesaler and the discs were about 65.00 for the pair, the calipers were about 45.00 for the pair, the hoses about 20.00 for the pair and the master about 40.00. Short of a little trim to the hubs it was a bolt on deal done in an afternoon. So worth it I can't even begine to explain!

The under steer mentioned above can be all but completely killed with a Shelby drop of the upper control arms (Free and quick) and trimmed spring work quite well, although I got a bit greedy and am looking at a coulpe of higher rate alternatives from Granadas and Mavericks. As soon as I know some more I'll post it over on "Doing Falcons Right".

 

2.66 first gear is what the Falcon handbook says for the 2.77 trans. 3,03 is the DESIGNATION of the later trans, not the gear ratio. 2.77 and 3.03 refer to the centerline of the main shaft and layshaft on the early and later trans.

Moot point either way, cause the single biggest thing you can do to a Falcon to make a usable car in todays world is a 5 speed. If you spend any time doing any thing at all on this car, take the time to do as stated above and improve the ignition, carb, and don't even bother to drive it around the block before going to a 5 speed.

A mid 2s gear is way too tall to get these cars off the line happily with a intake starved six. A 3.30- 3.50 rear gear without an overdrive is beyond worthless for western freeway speeds without an overdrive. A T-5 or equivlent with 3.10-3.40 first gear and a .80 overdrive gives you the best of both worlds and is what makes modern cars work as well as they do with as little power as they produce. I'm trying to figure out an automatic version of this deal right now for the girlfriends wagon, but it aint happening quickly. In the mean time we're having a ball running around town with the C/4 and 3.50 rear gears, but no freeway play 'cause the minimum speed around here is about 70, or 3600rpms... Not good.

 

I have a small pile if T5's. It WILL get one. I have a pathway for either a S10 or a Mustang unit. I will likely go with an S10 unit. Since I am eyeing a '60 with a 144, I am leaning toward the 4.03 gearset (NOT DOING AN ENGINE SWAP!). I know the ratio sounds low, but I have to commute in San Francisco, where there are 17-19% grades, with stop signs every 500 feet. The 4.03 set also has the shallowest overdrive (.8'ish). I know the little six will not be able to tug a really deep overdrive. Does this make any sense, or have I had my arms in the parts washer too long?

 

Oh, and I almost never drive over 65.

 

Naw dude, your right on it! In your situation that 4.03 with that little engine will be just super, especially pulling your hills over there. With a .80 overdrive and a 3.50 rear gear running on 24 1/2" tires 70 will come about 2800 or so. Perfect!

62 Rebel above is absolutely right about the ignition and carb though. The factory Load-O-Crapic ignition was just awful and is compounded by the fact that over the years of being rebuilt, most of the carbs out there have lost the capatability to run it properly. The Dura Spark II deal is cheap and works really well and can be recurved to give great results. That's how I did hers. The earliest of 144 though I believe not only have the smaller pump and drive rod, but a slightly smaller diameter dist hole in the block as well. I would think a few minutes on a lathe would take care of that, but I have never done it myself.

For carb, well these things are woafully under carbed. The quick, cheap way out is a Weber DGV type 32/36 progressive two barrel. It's primary is just about the same size as the stocker on a 144, but step on it and open the secondary and it will scoot you out pretty damn well. A simple adaptor is not the most efficiant way of installing it, but the simplest, and Classic Inlines has the best I found for about 75.00. When you go searching for the Weber carb, don't bother with new. Go hit any VW shop and grab a used one that came on one of the miserable DGV kits that were sold by the millions for bugs but never ever worked well. I picked mine up for 20.00. I hid my whole mess under a stock air cleaner and no one is the wiser. If you realy want a kick in the ass, call Offenhauser and get a 3 - 1 kit and hit the same VW shop and grab some 34 ICT Webers. Three carbs on these are in MY opinion the ultimate induction 'cause it solves the inherit problems of the cast in manifold and lousy fuel distribution.

 

I am not above yanking the head and fixing the adapter issue on the Bridgeport. I want to keep this docile, and the MPG as high as possible. Ignition upgrades are a foregone conclusion. I drive like someone's grandma, but with better eyesight and coordination.

 

Great thread and info. I need to get my '60 Ranchero out and do these mods. Mike

 

Naw, dude, just run the adaptor. I looked at all of them on the market and went with Classic inlines because it has a tapered insert that helps flow a bunch. You can do the mill and flat plate deal on these, and that was well within my capabilities as well, but the honest truth is there is only about 4 or 5 horspower to gain for a bunch more work with something as small as the Weber. It just isn't worth the time and effort in this case. if you have to pop the head, mill it to get up to about 9:1 on the compression. These little engines are real sensitive to compression changes and respond well to raising it a bit.

The three carb deal though, man that is it as far as I'm concerned! I had my car set up with a three carb head back in the eighties and it was the difference of day and night. I also on the rare occasions that I didn't have all three barrels open got pretty damn good gas milage with the combo too.

Right now my combo of a 200 C/4, 3.50 rear, weber 32/36, Dura Spark II in a '62 wagon is averaging around 26-28 around town. And that is with a crap 2.46 first gear! It feels like it is starting out in second. I expect about the same on the freeways with an overdrive of .80. I'm looking at a Volvo unit as we speak.

 

My Ranchero runs a 2.80 rear gear but I am only running 205/70/14s. I used to run a 3.25 but coming back from the Pomona swap at 90 I was pullin 4k so I had to step up to a taller gear.

 

I have not been in the VW bins since the 80's. I seem to remember a 32/32. I wonder if that might be better on a 144 than a 32/36. As for the head, I am told that 0.090 can safely come off. Anybody know offhand just how much it would take to get 9:1 in a 144? Assume adjustable rockers.

 

Never mind, I was mis-remembering the 38/38.

 

'Bout .060 should get you close with a new type composite head gasket.

 

Ya, 38/38 was a DGAS synchroness two barrel. The DGV was that thing they sold on the big clunky manifold that if you took your time to install on an air cooled car had more flat spots than Kansas. Works great on a small six though! This is my second one.