Can anyone tell me for the picture if this is a 200? What other size sixes did these have? This is a '64. Thanks
They had a 144, a 170, and the 200. 144's and 170's differ by bore, and some other minor things. The 200 has more main bearings, and some other stuff. They all look similar. Here is the best identification guide I have found: http://www.classicinlines.com/Ident.asp I rock a 144, daily. For what it is, it is pretty zippy, and gets good mileage.
On some models the snorkel actually should point straight ahead from factory. You can actually see the factory vacuum hard line bent to go over the snorkel in the pic. Posted from the TJJ App for iPhone & iPad
Hard to tell from that pic, we would need some more info to tell what size it is. Posted from the TJJ App for iPhone & iPad
whats the average mileage on one of those little fella's.?. I've been wanting a falcon for a long time.
I'm looking at this car tomorrow. thanks for the tip on the freeze plugs. It's supposedly rebuilt. Are there any downsides to the two smaller motors? And one last question, what rearend is in these?
I had a 1962 with a 144 and a 63 with a 170 (both had 3 spd) and I didn't notice a really big difference. But, at the time, I had a 53 Ford (which I still have) 6 cyl, the Falcons and a new 82 Fairmont 6 cyl. The older the car the more power it had!
It is not going to make honkin' V8 power, but they get down the road okay. They are a little under-carbureted, and it has a weird distributor. Both are easily rectified, if they are not working well. The rear-end is a small one, with about a 7" ring gear. If you are planning on big horsepower upgrades, it is probably not going to last very long, but with a stock engine, or a mildly modified one, it will do just fine. That is one sweet looking ride. Hard to put a price on it without seeing it in-person.
The 144 and 170 were four-main-bearing engines, as were the very earliest 200s. In mid 1964 the 200 was redesigned as a seven-main-bearing engine. For a performance build the 200 is the one to use. http://classicinlines.com/history.asp
looks like a pretty nice ranchero there. falcons are fun little rides. i have a 62 wagon on airride and i love it. check out the falcon news lots of knowledgeable guys there. http://tffn.net
I had a 66 falcon with a 200 and a c4 and that thing would hardly get out of its own way. Got 21-22mpg though . . . 6 cylinders had an itty bitty rear, mine was 6 3/4". I have no doubt you could get mid to upper 20s in mpg with an earlier model and a couple of "improvements" in the motor/drivetrain.
I am planning on a T5 5-speed, too. Just gathering the last of the parts now. Shooting for 30MPG in my '60.
Check the 5th digit of the VIN on the car and that will at least tell you what it came with. The Ford six's are superb engines. I have had several in various forms, and really do enjoy their reliability.
What is in the fifth digit number I should be looking for? Now that I know the 200 has five freeze plugs is there something in the VIN that will indicate 144 or 170? Or is the only way to know pulling off the valve cover to see if it has adjustable lifters?
s=144 t=200 u=170 The 144ci has a blue valve cover and air cleaner, and black block. The 170/200ci engines had an orange valve cover and air cleaner, and a black block prior to 1965. From 1965 onwards the 170/200ci engines had a Ford blue valve cover, air cleaner, and block. Some early 170/200ci motors had an orange oil pan as well. The 250ci engine came with a Ford blue valve cover, air cleaner, and block. However, these color combos were not set in stone, as they did change on some models, and/or specials. Hence this is only a general guideline.
We'd have to assume that this is the original engine. The first digit of the serial number is the year code, the second is the assembly plant, the third and fourth are the body style, and the 5th is the engine code. I only have '60-'62, and '63 codes on-hand. S and D are 144, while U and E are the 170 '60-'62. In 1963 S and D are 144, while 2 and 4 are the 170. It is going to come down to the number of freeze plugs under the exhaust manifold. Even then, this would only rule-in a late '64 7-main 200. An early '64 could be a 4-main 170 or 200. By the top end being orange, I would assume it is not a 144. Either way, if it runs good, go for it.
My 1961 170 is bone stock, low miles, and BLUE. 144's I have seen have been RED. Am I misinformed?? Cosmo P.S. Looks like a 144 to me. It has the vacuum wiper fuel pump, which I thought the whole of '64 production was electric wipers.
The colors are a "general rule", not etched in stone. The fuel pump looks more like one with a on-board fuel filter canister, rather than a vacuum wiper one.
Why are you so obsesed with this being a 200 or not? A 170 is a damn good little engine too. I would do a 5 speed conversion A.S.A.P. so that you have some highway gears though, although I just noticed your from Washington, and I know it's hard to get folks to even go the 60 mph speed limits up there. As Gimpy's hot rods stated, these cars have a funky distributor and lousy carb that are matched. There are a number of ways around that and all of them add quite a bit more power into the mix. I'm averaging about 25 mpg with my wagon these days around town, and having a ball driving it. If I can help in any way don't be afraid to ask.
The Jalopy Journal
