You are here: Forums Classic Cars 1960's Ford Falcons

1960's Ford Falcons

133 messages,  Last post on Feb 05, 2008 at 7:50 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright

What is this discussion about? Ford, Wagon

Messages Page 10 of 14 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#84 of 133 1961 Dodge lancer by crosley4 Oct 08, 2002 (4:43 pm)
I own one of those too. A 4 door at that!
#85 of 133 KILLER! by bretfraz Oct 08, 2002 (5:28 pm)
That car look awesome!   Now all you need are American Racing 17" wheels, a little more rake, have Ernie Elliott build you a 340 stroker, pop in a Jerico Slamshifter (do they still make those?), about 500W of stereo, some flames.............   But as it is it looks very cool.   EDIT: This is the tranny I'm thinking of: http://www.jericoperformance.com/products/clutchtype4speed.html
#86 of 133 by speedshift Oct 08, 2002 (9:10 pm)
I think I would have bought a Valiant or Lancer too, instead of a Falcon. The 225 was a strong engine and it could be modified. And the styling, whatever the purist might think of it, isn't appliance-like.
#87 of 133 Mayb I should have mentioned by crosley4 Oct 10, 2002 (6:31 pm)
The Dodge Lancer I posted the pic of is powered by a 350 chevy with a Ford rear diff. It will push your eyes back into their sockets.   I have all 3 of the major manufacturers covered in the car........LOL
#88 of 133 Crosley by carnut4 Oct 11, 2002 (12:36 am)
Awesome! I knew there was something different about that car from the picture-those American mags, and that slight rake. Now that's a ride you won't see every day. What did you do to the front suspension-anything?
#89 of 133 Hey Crosley... by andre1969 Oct 11, 2002 (3:47 am)
...how hard was it to get a Chevy 350 in that Lancer? I know Chrysler had to rework the '64 compacts, compared to the '63's, to get their own 273 in.   What kind of tranny do you have in it?
#90 of 133 Chrysler 273 by bhill2 Oct 11, 2002 (11:58 am)
There was something about that engine that made it hard to fit into a bay. Chrysler had the same problem when they bought Rootes. They couldn't wedge their 273 into the engine bay of the Sunbeam Tiger in place of the Ford 260/289 that was there.
#91 of 133 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Oct 11, 2002 (3:38 pm)
If it was heavier than the 260 that would have made the Tiger even worse to drive. It's a bear as it is. Best to steer with the gas pedal.
#92 of 133 by speedshift Oct 11, 2002 (4:15 pm)
The 273 is a bigger engine, particularly in width--seven inches wider than the 289. It's also a bit heavier, although I can't remember by how much. The Ford is around 490 lbs., the Chevy small block 560 lbs. so it's somewhere in there.   IIRC the 273 is the old polysphere 318 with newer heads circa 1964, which would explain the size of the block, but I may be wrong.
#93 of 133 The 273... by andre1969 Oct 11, 2002 (4:50 pm)
...was the first of the LA engine blocks. I've heard that it's about 100 lb lighter than the old A (277/301/318/326/and some others, I'm sure) engine. Not sure how much narrower it is, but I can definitely tell the difference between a 318 wideblock and a 318 LA, like what's in my Dart or Gran Fury (or the 360 LA in my NYer).   One of the quickest visual cues is that the old A engine had heads and valve covers that had kind of a sawtooth pattern on the outer edges, whereas the LA engine has normal rectangular valve covers.   Just from eyeballing it though, the 273/318/360 engine looks bulkier than the Chevy smallblock, which then looks a bit bigger than the Ford smallblock.

Messages Page 10 of 14 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Classic Cars 1960's Ford Falcons