Re: Replacement engine for 195.6 in 58-63 American (50-55 Nash Rambler)

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: farna@xxxxxxx
" 
" I thought so. The 240/250 has a separate intake and I think is much
" longer than the 200. I thought about trying a 200 just before I
" rebuilt my last 195.6. I just figured it wasn't worth the trouble at
" the time to change everyting since there was't any real power
" difference. But that was at least 10 years ago. I had trouble finding
" the right water pump then, after two that weren't right (but were 195.6
" pumps -- the first an older four bolt model, the next the right housing
" but the long shaft for a Classic) I sent my old one in to be rebuilt.
" Took a week, but I already had the shortblock and head rebuilt, put the
" new pump on as a precaution since it hadn't been changed in a while.
" Good thing!! Getting one now, especially on the road, would have to be
" tough!! 
" 
" --
" Frank Swygert
" 			
" 
"  -------------- Original message ----------------------
" From: RHallack <rhallack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
" > Frank
" > 
" > Way back in the late 60's~early 70's, I spent a lot of time with the 
" > Ford 6's.
" > You're correct. The 250 is a different block. Similar deal to the AMC 
" > 4.0/4.2 litre. Larger bores ( 3.50 vs 3.68 iirc) cast in and a different 
" > cam to clear the rod bolts for a longer stroke. Also with the 250, it 
" > shares a common tranny bolt pattern with the old 289, 302, 351 where as 
" > the 170/200 have their own.
" > -- 

ron is right, the 250 block is different from the [144/]170/200, but
it's essentially a 'tall deck' 200.  the cam may be relocated but it's
the same cam.  the bellhousing pattern is the windsor v8, also used on
the 300.  btw the 240 is a radically destroked 300 [4.00"b x 3.18"s]
with -long- 6.7947" rods.  it was used in a few fullsize cars in the
'60s but like the 300 was mostly a truck engine.

the 170 is 3.50"b x 2.940"s; the 200 is 3.68"b x 3.126"s.  both have
7.808" deck height.  the 250 is 3.68"b x 3.910"s, with 9.375" deck
height.  bore centers on all three is 4.080". [0]

offy still has a 3-1bbl hack for the cast-in intake.  the aussie
crossflow head for the 250 oughta fit the 200 just fine, with whatever
speed parts they have, if you can just get 'em up here...  or how
about a complete aussie eec-IV ohc 4.0 [evolution of the 250]?

stock heads are notorious for cracking between the exhaust and intake.
this engine is cast very lightweight.  whereas the 196 actually weighs
-more- [by a few lbs] than a 199/232/258, the 170/200 is probably 150
lbs lighter - maybe more.

i've heard the fairmont 200s [late '70s - early '80s] also had the
windsor bellhousing pattern.  but the old pattern -- snag an early
falcon bell and bolt up your t-96, cause i'm fairly sure that's what
the 144 and early 170 falcons came with.  otoh the fairmont came with
an sr4/t4/t5 and certainly the 250 can take a t5.

btw the 144 and early 170 and 200 sixes were 4-main designs.  they
went to 7 mains about '66.

the 2.3 and 2.5 hsc engines of the mid-late '80s were 4-cyl versions
of these little sixes.

and as for that turbo 200 - i remember reading about an ak miller
prepped bronco with a turbo 170, before ford made a 302 optional.
neat idea though, as far as it went.

[0] data from p151, '05 ford performance parts catalog.  it has an
error for the deck height of the 250 though - with the stated stroke
and conrod the piston pin height would have to be -0.027", clearly
impossible.  assuming 1.511" like the 200, 9.375" deck is more like
it.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen

adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought