Register now to get rid of these ads!

Hot Rods 170 inline 6 in my shoebox???

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by santino2010, Aug 25, 2019.

  1. santino2010
    Joined: Jan 6, 2012
    Posts: 28

    santino2010
    Member

    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?
     
  2. tubman
    Joined: May 16, 2007
    Posts: 4,982

    tubman
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    One word : "NO".
     
    Hnstray likes this.
  3. chevyfordman
    Joined: Oct 4, 2008
    Posts: 817

    chevyfordman
    Member

    another word, NO
     
    Hnstray likes this.
  4. v8flat44
    Joined: Nov 13, 2017
    Posts: 445

    v8flat44

    Not a good choice. Much further ahead with a period correct flathead 6 cyl, if a 6 is what you want.
     
    Hnstray likes this.
    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  5. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,428

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    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
     
  6. 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
     
  7. RidgeRunner
    Joined: Feb 9, 2007
    Posts: 851

    RidgeRunner
    Member
    from Western MA

    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
     
    Hnstray likes this.
  8. Boneyard51
    Joined: Dec 10, 2017
    Posts: 4,018

    Boneyard51
    Member

    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
     
  9. proartguy
    Joined: Apr 13, 2009
    Posts: 439

    proartguy
    Member
    from Sparks, NV

    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.
     
  10. mtkawboy
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Posts: 1,213

    mtkawboy
    Member

    The 200 or 250 6 is the same basic size, still not enough motor for a shoebox in my opinion
     
  11. Dangerous Dan
    Joined: Jul 10, 2011
    Posts: 355

    Dangerous Dan
    Member
    from Graham Wa.

    What all of them said, Junk engins unless you are restoring a car that came with one, just saying.
     
  12. jimmy six
    Joined: Mar 21, 2006
    Posts: 6,347

    jimmy six
    Member

    Find a 300" 6 and scare the s--t out of the V8's
     
    Hnstray, INVISIBLEKID and tb33anda3rd like this.
  13. That was not the question!

    Ben
     
  14. brokedownbiker
    Joined: Jun 7, 2016
    Posts: 506

    brokedownbiker
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    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.
     
  15. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,428

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    Image.........perception..........peer pressure

    Ray
     
  16. RichFox
    Joined: Dec 3, 2006
    Posts: 9,930

    RichFox
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    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.
     
    Hnstray likes this.
  17. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,428

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    All good points. I was thinking more in terms of stock bodied street drivers than building higher powered racing machines.

    Ray
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.