I know the 6cyl motors then had single barrel carbs. You could get a 4bbl intake and headers if you wanted. Typical hot rod stuff.
Yup, Clifford Research sold 4 barrel, 2-2barrel and 3-2 barrel intakes plus headers. Cams and more if I remember correctly.
Small Ford 6s had an integral manifold and head. These is still a 3-1barrel adaptor being sold. Requires a couple of large holes be carved into the manifold so the head must come off.
The big 6, the 250 and 300 motors had seperate manifolds.
âŠ[quote=âVDCdriver, post:19, topic:194873â]
zero-60 acceleration was best timed with an hourglass.
[/quote]
1 Like
I remember the mid 70âs Mercedes 240D had a 0-60 time that was timed with a calendar.
So, there was a car that my Falcon could have beaten in an âaccelerationâ run?
Thatâs good to know!
Edited to addâŠ
This was a UK car magâs take on the Falcon. Youâll probably have to enlarge the text in order to read it.
One of the car mags (Motor Trend? C&D?) built a small sports car/hot rod, back in the late '60s, and it was powered by a Slant Six that they had modified. IIRC, it had a custom intake with a 4bbl carb, custom headers, and a hotter cam. I think that they were able to boost the HP to something like 170.
You mean the 240, right? Those were much better engines.
1 Like
I guess it was a 62 falcon. I borrowed my dadâs commuter car to drive 200 miles back to school when my vw was totaled. Then back again 200 miles at the end of the week. Even at 18, I was little concerned with acceleration and provided a comfortable ride at 65 on the highway. Of course this was rural Minnesota not a congested costal area. Two speed 6 cyl. Did its job. Just in defence of the falcon. It was not meant to be a track car.
Right! And they were much better engines!
The Falcon was definitely designed as an economy car, with no performance pretensions, andâoverallâit did its job decently. If you didnât find that the acceleration of your Falcon was extremely slow, the one that you drove most likely had the optional 170 c.i. engine. That engine still wasnât exactly a powerhouse, but it was far more practical for highway use than the standard engine was.
I really donât know what size engine it had but we had a 60 first and the 62 had much more power. One of them needed an engine but donât remember which. It sounded like after about 60 to 70k, the engines would overheat and that was the end. After that it was a lark but never drove that one. Not exactly a performance machine either. Canât even remember if it was manual or auto.
No they werenât. The 144 and 170 werenât very good but the 200 and 250 were much better than the 240. Iâve had both the 200 and the 240.