Register now to get rid of these ads!

Features Falcons done right?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by guiseart, Nov 20, 2005.

  1. LOU WELLS
    Joined: Jan 24, 2010
    Posts: 2,389

    LOU WELLS
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from IDAHO

    Number 2.... DSCN3565.JPG
     
    Thor1, loudbang and Deuces like this.
  2. LOU WELLS
    Joined: Jan 24, 2010
    Posts: 2,389

    LOU WELLS
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from IDAHO

    Number 3.... DSCN3567.JPG
     
    Thor1, loudbang and Deuces like this.
  3. LOU WELLS
    Joined: Jan 24, 2010
    Posts: 2,389

    LOU WELLS
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from IDAHO

    This Is Where It Came From...Enjoy... DSCN3560.JPG
     
    Thor1, loudbang, MUNCIE and 1 other person like this.
  4. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 22,128

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    Wow, a Holley 4160 4-bbl carb without the vacuum secondary pod... I wonder how that one works...????.....
     
    Thor1 and loudbang like this.
  5. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Hey muncie, I just thought of this, what if the float is sticking in the bowl? It would make sense why it's getting so rich and randomly doing it.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    Thor1, MUNCIE and loudbang like this.
  6. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    It is not a 4160, it predates the 4160. That is a mechanical secondary carburetor, built for Ford.
    MCarbHollB150_Picture70.jpg
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
    Thor1, MUNCIE, Deuces and 1 other person like this.
  7. MUNCIE
    Joined: Jan 24, 2006
    Posts: 2,286

    MUNCIE
    Member

    upload_2020-11-30_11-30-39.png
    upload_2020-11-30_11-30-54.png
    upload_2020-11-30_11-31-34.png
    Yeah someone else mentioned that on here a while back. Anyway they said to give the carb a whack every now & then on the side near the bowl with the handle of a hammer and the issue might go away. I tried that and it never worked so I know it couldn't have been the float(s) getting stuck. Check out what I noticed when I began to tear the engine down on Wednesday night, I climbed up under to take a look at everything and noticed the pistons skirts looked like this.
    -Mark
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2020
    Deuces and Thor1 like this.
  8. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    That does look very much like intentionally clearanced skirts.

    I wonder if the pistons were not equalized for weight.
     
    Deuces, Thor1, MUNCIE and 1 other person like this.
  9. MUNCIE
    Joined: Jan 24, 2006
    Posts: 2,286

    MUNCIE
    Member

    Yes has me wondering the same. I've been asking around and there is a possibility that maybe the 260 has been stroked and fitted with 302 crank and pistons. I'm wondering if there is a way to identify the crank by stamped markings?

    -Mark
     
    Deuces, loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  10. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    There must be a way.

    You can always rotate the engine, and measure the stroke, via piston movement.
     
    Deuces, loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  11. Deuces and loudbang like this.
  12. MUNCIE
    Joined: Jan 24, 2006
    Posts: 2,286

    MUNCIE
    Member

    I did some research and found an article with some nice information. I checked an extra crank I had in the garage that came out of a 289 and the marking matches the block. I put the pan back on the 260 with only a couple of bolts finger tight just to keep any elements or moisture from getting in there. I will pull it back off tomorrow and check the stamping on the crank. It should read either 1M to identify the crank as either 221/260/289 or 2M for the 302 crank. That should take some of the guess work out.
    -Mark
     
    brEad, Deuces, loudbang and 1 other person like this.
  13. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Any insight?
     
    loudbang and Deuces like this.
  14. MUNCIE
    Joined: Jan 24, 2006
    Posts: 2,286

    MUNCIE
    Member

    upload_2020-12-5_19-1-5.png
    upload_2020-12-5_19-1-19.png

    Well I had a little time yesterday so I pulled the pan back off and turned the engine by hand to get a look at the first counter weight by the keyway. It's stamped 1M so it's a 260/289 crank and not the 2M for the 302 so I am really wondering how in the heck did they balance this engine if they removed material from the skirts on the pistons to clear the crank?

    -Mark
     
    loudbang likes this.
  15. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    It is possible to do this, and still equalize the weight, but it requires effort.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  16. seb fontana
    Joined: Sep 1, 2005
    Posts: 7,507

    seb fontana
    Member
    from ct

    221/260/289 use the same rod, same stroke crank and all is interchangeable except for pistons/rings. Bores are 3.50, 3.80, 4.00. If bore is 4.00 then has to be a 289. No reason to put a 50z flywheel or damper that I can think of. Best I can come up with is they used a 260 rods and crank [lighter?] and tried to get the piston weight to match the 260 pistons. Thats all I got.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  17. MUNCIE
    Joined: Jan 24, 2006
    Posts: 2,286

    MUNCIE
    Member

    I noticed a small area on one of the weights that had a small area machined out. I don't know how I feel about the hack job on the skirts, personally I don't like the aesthetic look of it and it would have to be an engine combo that I would really want to use/have to do that. And if I did I would have made it look more presentable. Going to have a conversation about this with my Dad when given the chance. To me it looks like a hack job. Anyway I got plans to yank the motor out. That 351W I have is still staring at me lol.

    -Mark
     
    loudbang, Thor1, pcbart and 1 other person like this.
  18. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    I don't think the 351w fit due to a taller deck height. The exhaust manifolds hit the shock towers from what I understand

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang likes this.
  19. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    The towers will need to be cut.
     
    Deuces, Phoenix24 and loudbang like this.
  20. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    I've seen it done with stock logs with minimal cutting, but it think you'd have to get some custom headers if you wanted to go anything more then that.

    Personally, I think it would be really cool to keep the 260 in there

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
  21. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I think so, as well.

    If not, there is room on the other side of the towers to shift the offending area out.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  22. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Is there? I know some guys in Australia make a coil over kit and they notch the shock towers pretty heavily, and they can fit coyote motors in there iirc. Might be able to do something similar. My concern would be the structure going to the upper a arm, as those Australian guys set theirs up without it, just the shock and lower a arm (mcpherson?).

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang likes this.
  23. kabinenroller
    Joined: Jan 26, 2012
    Posts: 850

    kabinenroller
    Member

    There is also a company in the USA that sells a very similar set up. https://gatewayperformancesuspension.com/vintage-ford-front-suspension-kits
    I have their front suspension under my Cyclone. I am using factory lower control arms and stock ‘65 Comet style manual steering. The shock towers can be cut, you only need the upper spring mount area for this conversion. I have about 1,000 miles on it now, it rides fine and seems to work like the stock set up.
    I sectioned the shock towers so they do not look like they have been cut. I have much more clearance for the engine now.
    Jim
    83F9133E-53CB-4F69-A3C1-9925B1036BA6.jpeg
     
    RmK57, seb fontana, coneman and 8 others like this.
  24. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Great, something else I'm gonna want to do down the line lol. How does the chassis handle the 351? That's allot of torque compaired to a 302, even when dead stock.

    Seperate note, would it be worth it to build up a 366 with an aftermarket block rather than ge that? I know that would have more power potential, but I've heard of people making tons of hp with a 8.2 deck block. Also, does it handle any better than if you where to make the stock race ready?

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  25. kabinenroller
    Joined: Jan 26, 2012
    Posts: 850

    kabinenroller
    Member

    I’m not sure if your question about the 351 was directed to me or not. Being that the picture I posted was prior to your question I will answer it as if it was directed to me.
    The photo shows a mock up of the engine in my Cyclone, (avatar) it is not a 351, it is a ‘70 Boss 302. The block, crank, and rods, are stock Boss, everything else on the engine is aftermarket. (Aluminum heads, etc,) I also was not sure if the beefed up engine would trust the unibody chassis so I fabricated sub frame connectors that are tied into the torque boxes. There is no flex in the car now.
    One a separate note, you may wonder why the upper shock mounts are in place. They are actually there to make the system look stock, they are unused because of the strut system.
    Jim
     
    loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  26. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Yeah, I thought it was a 351. What was the goal going to that set up, I've heard the stock set up can get tuned and perform pretty well, and people typically only go with the different front suspension to fit a bigger engine like a 351 or a big block

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  27. kabinenroller
    Joined: Jan 26, 2012
    Posts: 850

    kabinenroller
    Member

     
    Phoenix24, loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  28. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Just saw your message and it makes sense. I have no experience with Cleveland anything but I've heard they're a fair bit wider than the Windsors. Also, speaking of steering, is anyone else's terrible as well? I put in 65 components in my 60 bc of the 302 swap, and it hardly turns at full lock. I think my mom's 4dr truck has a better turning radius! I'm young and this car is old, so maybe there's an old trick that people have done to help with it, but I'm coming up with nothing for searches.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    Thor1 likes this.
  29. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Did you put in every single thing from 1965?

    There are no interchangeable parts between those years, meaning you cannot have a mixture of parts between those years.

    Also, you have to make sure you do not have a Mustang center link. It will fit, but it is wider, and will cause problems.
     
    Thor1 and loudbang like this.
  30. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    I'd have to check receipts, but I got the 65 Falcon v8 spindle and upper a arms, and I'm 90% sure that I got the 65 lower as well. The steering is all 65 Falcon from what I can remember, but that's be what I'd have to double check the receipts bc I got it a while back and am just now starting to drive it. When I get home I'll have to send a picture of the turning angle.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang likes this.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 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.