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

["Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

A: The 170/200 pattern is smaller and similar to AMC early 6 cyls vs later
ones. (but I never compared them to other than Ford V8) The '71 Comet I had
(I bought it for the motor to put into my '76 Ford van to replace a tired
300) was a 4 main 170 engine. I used the Fairmont bell, starter, flexplate
and converter, and bolted it to the front pump of the HD C4 in the van. Also
used the PS pump and other bits. Looked totally stock and blew the minds of
several mechanics and Ford dealers.


From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Replacement engine for 195.6 in 58-63 American (50-55 Nash
Rambler)
"
"  -------------- 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