I am pondering a dilemma here. In the next couple of months I hope to finish pecking away at my 1960 Ranchero project. The quandary is how to power the little bugger. There are 3 options. Fuel economy is the primary concern as this will be the second time I have used one as a daily driver and I rack up a lot of miles.

The original plan was to use a 170. I have two of them, one of which has about 38,000 miles on it. My 64 had a 170 and I liked it quite a bit. That one achieved pretty impressive mileage with electronic ignition upgrades and a finicky little Mikuni progressive 2 bbl. Most of the finicky nature is actually attributable to the integral cast log intake and adapter combo.

I was thinking along the same lines again but with a heavily modified head. The plan is to cut the intake "log" portion from the head then tap the ports for steel pipe stubs. Those in turn would be brazed to ensure a good seal once the 6 port intake mounting flange was welded in place. This would allow proper intake design for either the small .98 venturi Autolite 2100 or another Mikuni. I have a WC T-5 from a 93 S-10 that can easily be adapted for transmission duties-been down that road before. Yes it's the one with the low 1st gear, "betweener" 5th gear, and forward shifter location.

However, EFI is appealing, especially since winter is a bit frigid and elevations vary tremendously in Wyoming. I have long wondered just how well a mass air EFI setup from a 3.0 Taurus or Ranger would cooperate with the 170 I-6. The mass air flow system should be fairly tolerant of cam differences. Any thoughts?

Option 3 is to just use a 3.0 from another RWD platform like the Ranger or an Aerostar. Of course that will negate on of the best features of an inline six-superb access/ ease of under hood maintenance.

So there you have it. I guess TBI is a 4th possibility. Anybody here played with EFI on the Falcon six? 95% of my sheet metal work is done and I am getting excited about getting to the "done and drivable" stage.

 

https://fordsix.com/viewforum.php?f=1

https://fordsix.com/viewforum.php?f=51

Give ford.six.com a try. There is a ton of stuff there about the small block ford 6.

 

I am thinking that I may go with the 3.8 v6 instead. In a car that weighs 1200 lbs. less than the donor car, mileage and zip should actually be pretty darn good, even with tall gears. The short motor may help gain me some room for A/C and the like anyway.

 

If you go 3.8, just go 5.0. Do a 331 stroker, use efi and the right cam, get a double OD transmission and get about the same MPG with a faster, more fun car for only several thousand more than your current plan. Serving suggestion.

 

Sort of "been there, done that" some time ago for a friend with a 62 Falcon. However, I want to still be able to stick both a wrench and my hand in the engine bay when finished. Besides, the V-8 adds too much weight on the nose of the car too when you drive on icy roads or two track sand trail. Weight distribution was one of the things I loved about my 64 Ranchero when I had it: no helpless light in the rear 2wd truck syndrome. Traction is actually very impressive the Falcon Ranchero.

 

4.2 crank will fit in the 3.8.

As much as we hated the 200 in 1968, I think that's a good motor and with a real bottom end, better than the 170. (7 mains vs. what, 4 in the 170?)

Same issue with the intake, but you've got the right idea there.

Room to the sides, or room up front, no real bad choice there. Good luck with it.

 

The 4 main thing with a 170 does stick in my head but the last one I wore out got weak and tired up top long before the main bearings ever became a concern. It was pretty well weezing after about 125,000 miles. At the rate I put miles on I am starting to think modern engine but don't want to go so far as eco boost for a variety of reasons.