Another thought, unless all your ball joints and stuff are just blatantly worn out, the most common front end malady on these cars is the bushing for the idler arm wearing out. It's a simple press in bushing that costs about 10.00 buck or so, and if it's nasty it'll make the whole drive of the car suspect, hence the "crappy front end syndrome". Check it before shelling out a bunch of cash. There are many ways to go with four lug wheels, too, so unless you want to go with say American five spokes or something similar, there really isn't a reason to go to five lug stuff.
So 65 mustang arms won't even fit. Didn't the a arm mounts change in 64? I think I'm going 289 because there are just so many for cheap cheap. I feel 200's in SoCal are more expansive because so many builds like mine now. So would I need 62-63 falcon arms and mustang spindles? Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
No. the aftermarket Mustang arms should go right on that car. Then Mustang spindles for either 6 (Four lug), or V8 (five lug) and the tie rod end adaptors seal the deal. Like I said earlier, keep watching for a 200. There are ton of them pulled everyday for V8 within the Mustang community that go for cheap. Other wise, as Gimpy said, run your 144 for now with the T-5 deal and you really might be surprised at the results.
Soo much great information! Getting ready to put a 289 into my 61 Ranchero and all of this info will help out. Definitely gonna keep following this. Great stuff!
ALL of the '65-'66 Mustang stuff fits the '60-'66 Falcon chassis, except the steering center link. The only catch is the mini ball joints used in '60 through most of '61. If you swap to '62-'66 spindles, you can then use the '65-'66 Mustang stuff. You can attach 6-cylinder tie rods to V8 spindles, within tapered spacers, and, I thought I saw adapter tie rod ends somewhere.
I'm gonna start getting parts. My friend said I can use the shop if I have everything to do it all at once. I'll get 14" steel wheels what size tire is good so I can look for a deal on white walls. Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
Gimpy, which t5 has the shifter closest to the firewall The mustang or s10? My brother put a t5 from modern drive line in his 63 falcon and I'm trying to do it a little cheaper. I want to keep some of the floor space for the middle passenger up front. I have the wife and 4 kids with me
The S-10 is the answer. Then you need to find the bell housing from an Econoline, and get the Offy or Speedway Ford to Chevy adaptor. There is one other way if you have access to a machine shop or a friend that does, and that is make your own adaptor. I did that a few years ago to go directly from a post '66 Falco six bell to a G.M. T-50 trans, the precursor to the T-5. A lathe, a drill press, the trans and the bell all in one place at one time was all it took.
Early Comet and Mustang share Falcon suspension and other parts. 1968 up Mustang uses Fairlane parts. 1974 up Mustang, Pinto parts. Best source of upgrades for your Comet, 1964 - 67 Mustang.
Is there a particular year of Econoline bell housing? And year of S-10 T-5 ,I read some where about the tail Having an electrical speedo ? Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
I think up to '63. I know the bell pattern made it to 1967. I will dig. The S10 T5 should be pre-1989.
It appears that the 144/170 Econoline bell remained throughout all years that the 170 was available in the Econoline. When that ended, I can't say. Maybe an Econoline expert can chime in. It bears the casting number C1UU-6394. That is a 1961 part number, and I do not believe that it was ever revised. I have that, and an Offenhauser adapter in my '60 Falcon.
What would you say you have invested in swapping the 3sp for the t5. I'd like to get an idea what it would cost me vs going through modern drive line. Obviously used parts prices are going to be different. Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
I'd have to think about it. I did not keep track. I was building a daily-driver, so my reference point was not having a car payment, having decent mileage, and superior style. I also purchased a car with a failing transmission, intentionally, to save money. As for mileage, I can see 30+ on the freeway, if traffic allows. Do that with any V8.
@Gimpyshotrods- I did some googling on the HEI swap. I'm not sure I understood everything he said about the vacuum lines, nor am I sure it's the same setup as the 61 comet's 144 as the 'tutorial' was of a 200cid from a 65 mustang. Are there any good step-by-step tutorials out there? I am considering monkeying with the 144 before I have the money/balls to do a full-on V8 swap.
The difference with the 144 is that it would have a smaller distributor hole in the block, and a smaller oil pump drive shaft. I know that a company called DUI makes a Chevy style HEI unit for the earlier engines, but they are kinda ugly. I prefer the Dura Spark II type from any FORD small six from about '74 onward. You would have to have the distributor body machined a bit to put it in and change the oil pump and drive shaft, but none of that is overwhelming. That and a 5 speed behind it and you wouldn't believe the change in manners in your car! Add a Weber carb, or a three single system and now it will actually feel fast. These cars drive so nicely and are balanced so well with the sixes, I just sort of cringe when the first thing I hear is "Its gonna get a V8 right away...".
Before you spend a ton of money trying to get 200 hp from the six banger consider a late 80's 5.0L Mustang engine is usually cheap and will already fit a T5. That whole engine and tranny will even get better gas mileage than a hot rodded 200. It can be swapped to a carb easily enough or find an 85 engine. The 65-66 Mustang steering stuff all fits if you use it all together. You can keep the Comet's steering box and use the Mustang pitman arm. The Mustang stuff has better geometry than the V8 Falcon/Comet parts. While you are at it lower the holes for the upper control arms (Google "Shelby drop") and it will handle even better. The Mustang sway bar will fit.
The distributor on the Mustang 200 from 1965 sucked too. The magazine write-up you found is otherwise identical. On that one, you can use a late-model Duraspark II distributor and module. They will drop right in, along with a fresh set of plug wires, or the HEI. On a 144, your choices are limited, as the hole that the distributor goes in is smaller, and the oil pump drive is smaller, too, as has been mentioned. It goes in the same way, along, again, with a fresh set of wires. I had my '60, with a 144, (properly jetted) Weber 32/36, T5, 8.8 w/3.55's, out on the freeway, effortlessly hammering down lane 1, at 80mph. Can climb a 17% grade, stop sign to stop sign, in San Francisco, in second gear. For 21% grades, I have to drop to first. It crosses Donner Summit, yeah that Donner Party, with ease, and that's at 7,239 feet. No internal engine mods. At 65, it gets 30+mpg. Do that with a V8.
After perusing Craigslist and Ebay, I've found some 250 inline sixes in my price range. Is that pretty much a bolt-in swap if I keep the 3 speed that came with the 61 Comet?
Not exactly. The 250 has near V8 bell housing pattern, and a different crank flange, so nothing on the back will bolt up. The deck height on the block is taller, to accommodate the longer stroke, so you might not be able to close the hood. The water pump shaft will about be dragging the radiator, too. The last year of direct bolt-in would be the first year of the 200. That has both your 8-1/2" clutch early-6 flywheel bell pattern and the 9" clutch bell pattern, which followed, on it.
For an indeterminate time though well into the mid seventies, the 170 and 200 came with both the early small bell bolt pattern drilled and the later ('66 and on) larger pattern drilled. So it will go either way. The thing is though, as Gimpy has been demonstration in his posts, the magic of these little cars is unlocked the Freakin' second you throw that crappy stock three speed away! I don't understand why "car guys" don't get this, but the only thing I about late model cars that is even reasonably cool is the gearing they run. A better spaced batch of gears with a lower first gear allows you to use the smaller engine's torque to it's fullest, plus keep the engine in it's "happy" range all through instead of dropping out and having to struggle back up the tach. Just doing the trans swap behind the 144 will make you think you doubled the horsepower! I really kid you not, it's the biggest transformation you can make on an early car. That said, as Gimpy has said, the ignition on these cars were a travesty right off the factory floor. And, that isn't a "modern guy" saying "I hate points", that's a bare basic fact. See, the Ford Load-O-Crapic ignition has no mechanical advance. It's all vacuum. And it's all matched to the carb. Say your carb got exchanged for a rebuilt in '77... Chances are it's no longer matched to the ignition. And, you have an engine that accelerates like a tractor... Oh, and your starting out in the modern equivalent of second or even third gear. Is there any wonder it feels like 144 isn't enough? Take an afternoon and do the DUI, or the Dura Spark, or hunt down an old Mallory double life type distributor and put a Pertronix in it, and suddenly things get much better. The last one is the carb. Sixes by nature have a long intake tract, with the carb in the center. by the time that tiny thing feeds the end two cylinders, they are so diluted that they run lean and stunble. Conversly, the two center cylinders run rich all the time, as that Holley 1904 in the center uses carburation technology that is pretty much equivalent to a small coffee can punched full of holes. They do work, but there is much room for improvement. The very best way is three small singles of better quality, but if I suggest that lot's of time it sends folks running for the hills. An easier and more workable solution is an inexpensive adaptor from classicinlines.com and a Weber 32/36 carb. When I say "Weber", again lots of guys run screaming for those hills again yelling "exotic and expensive" AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!! Nope, the 32/36 was original equipment on tons of small foreign cars during the seventies, eighties and nineties, and was sold as an aftermarket retrofit for several billion more. The easiest way to find one cheap with almost no mileage is hit the local VW shop. They sold the for bugs, but that was the one vehicle where they just didn't work well, so most were pulled off early on and left at the shop that pulled them. I pay about 20.00 - 30.00 buck for 'em. A rebuild kit is about 35.00 on ebay, and Gimpy or myself can get you set up jet wise. These three tricks will not net you a rocket ship, but a drivable car in today's world that turns back mileage that even the staunchest enviro-whack can't bitch about, that will stay out ahead of the sea of Civics and such, and is even recycled and cool... Hell, if ya want to build a rocket ship, we can talk head mods, cams, triple carbs and turbos and such.
The 250 is not a drop-in. It has the same bell pattern, crank bolt pattern, and flywheel sizes as the SBF. The 250 flywheel is neutral balance though. The block is a lot taller, but more importantly, it's wider, so the motor mounts would need reworking. In a Falcon, Comet, or early Mustang the stock air cleaner may not fit under the hood. All in all, not as easy as you might think for a related engine. Except for the 81-83 "big-bell" 200's with the E1-BB casting numbers, all the other 200's should be a direct swat for your 144. The only issues will be the distributor that Gimpy mentioned, possibly the opening for the carb will be larger, and some of the later blocks had no opening for the road draft tube you likely have on your 144. I did a 200-250 swap writeup almost 15 years ago when i put a 250/AOD in my 66 Mustang. http://www.fordsix.com/250swap.php
Even the lowly 144 can make power; I recall a local guy who had a '61 Falcon 2dr wagon in the late 60s with three one-barrels, a big cam, and a Clifford Research header who regularly embarrassed the SB V8 guys in stoplight-to-stoplight action, all while knocking down 25+ mpg. He also installed a wide-ratio T10, which as Louvers says let the motor be 'happy'.... One other thing that few think about is the early Falcon/Comet/Mustang six-cylinder cars had a much lighter-duty body structure compared to the later V8 bodies. Installing the heavier V8 into the six bodies has caused frame and shock tower failures. Ford increased the metal gauge used for the frame rails, inner/outer rockers, and towers, as well as adding torque boxes between the frame rails and the rockers. The wagons/Rancheros got the heavier bits in the rear only, only the convertibles and V8s got it all (except for Comet; Mercury went to the V8 shell across the line in '64-65).
Well I seem to have a bit of a condundrum, fellas. The stock 144 that's in the car now runs. I was toying with the idea of putting a 200 in there, as I'll be looking for a daily driver that won't give me too much fuss. If I go with a V8, I'm looking at a whole new suspension/drivetrain setup. However, I don't think I'll feel comfortable driving to work with the 4 wheel manual drum brakes. I poked around on some websites and found a front disc brake set up for 600 bucks, essentially a bolt-on kit maintaining the 4-1/2" 4 lugs. I don't know. I pick up the car in two days and I still have all kinds of questions...
Scarebird.com. Disc kits, for the rest of us. See if you have the tiny early ball joints, or the later style. The switch was made in mid '61. If you have the late-style, your parts will come from the Mustang bins. If not, you will need to drop some tiny coin on some spindles. Mine were $10 each.
The Jalopy Journal
