1963 Ford Falcon Futura

In reply to pres589:

They are all 0.8x range OD's... I'd be more worried about 1st gear then OD.

T5 specs

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/Detailed/349.shtml

Looks like the one I bought is a 2.3 trans with a 5.0 bellhousing.... shrug. Anything is better than the 3 spd.

In reply to ditchdigger:

Other than loss of the awesome column shifter.

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

Agreed. Properly adjusted, the column shift is pretty awesome. The shift lever is exactly where it needs to be. Rally cars with their relocated shifters up high and near the wheel are actually quite similar to this.............in theory.

But ditching the linkage will also allow me to cut the column shorter in the engine bay and make the rack and pinion swap easier.

Ranger50 wrote: In reply to pres589: They are all 0.8x range OD's... I'd be more worried about 1st gear then OD.

Uhm... I'm seeing .81 to .63 with many fifth gear ratios in-between. First runs just over 4.0 to 2.95.

http://www.moderndriveline.com/Technical_Bits/transmission_spec.htm

Any update on this build?

Lets see.

I had a bit of disappointment when I realized my 81 200 block was not the low starter mount V8 bolt pattern rendering the T5 5.0 bellhousing that I just bought totally useless.

Sure, two of the holes line up but that doesn't seem like quite enough.

At this point all I want is a synchro on first gear. Looking at a 67 three speed for cheap to get that.

Even though I said I didn't want TBI, I did buy this to get off the damn carb before it gets too cold this winter.

Just need to decide on a fuel pump and mounting scheme.

Sorry to hear about the engine to bellhousing mismatch. Could you source a 300 I6 from a Ford truck to make the match?

How's this car as a driver now? Scary handling or on par with say...an 80's wagon?

I have thought more than once about the 300 but it is just too heavy. like another 300lbs more than the small six that is in there.

As far as a driver it is..... OK. The wide ratio trans and slow but very high effort steering make it feel like a much heavier and more sluggish car than it actually is. I flat out hate it in parking lots.

Just commuting around town it is pretty great. The new brakes are awesome and with the suspension mods it actually handles pretty well, but being used to small european cars it is a VERY different driving experience. No point and shoot. Everything you do takes a lot more time and a LOT more effort. I just take it easy and slow, one arm on the top of the bench seat and cruise.

At speeds above 50 the worn steering box is flat out terrifying. That will be addressed ASAP. I have a power rack to be fitted but that will take some serious planning before I jump in. Fixing the steering will improve my opinions of the car a hundred fold.

ditchdigger wrote: I just take it easy and slow, one arm on the top of the bench seat and cruise.

This is how I drive my wagon as well. It's satisfying in it's own way really. Shifts between gears are long, although I do have syncro on my first and that really makes it nice. Watching what the pro-touring guys do to get these cars to handle, it seems that there is a lot of sense in enjoying them for what they are instead of trying to make them into something they were never supposed to be. I vote for leaving the column shift in by the way. It's part of the character of the car.

mazdeuce wrote:

ditchdigger wrote: I just take it easy and slow, one arm on the top of the bench seat and cruise.

This is how I drive my wagon as well. It's satisfying in it's own way really. Shifts between gears are long, although I do have syncro on my first and that really makes it nice. Watching what the pro-touring guys do to get these cars to handle, it seems that there is a lot of sense in enjoying them for what they are instead of trying to make them into something they were never supposed to be. I vote for leaving the column shift in by the way. It's part of the character of the car.

I get this.

My teams Chump Cars (U.S.S Enterprise - 72 Ford LTD and the Sanford and Son Truck - some old pickup) were all older cars. The work put into them to make them passable as performance cars was nuts. I'd imagine it's the same for the cars you guys are talking about. Hell, even when new they weren't performance cars. They were good family transportation.

I think it would simpler to just pull the body and lay it over an older NASCAR chassis to get the level of performance you want if tracking is your goal.

Xceler8x wrote:

mazdeuce wrote:

ditchdigger wrote: I just take it easy and slow, one arm on the top of the bench seat and cruise.

This is how I drive my wagon as well. It's satisfying in it's own way really. Shifts between gears are long, although I do have syncro on my first and that really makes it nice. Watching what the pro-touring guys do to get these cars to handle, it seems that there is a lot of sense in enjoying them for what they are instead of trying to make them into something they were never supposed to be. I vote for leaving the column shift in by the way. It's part of the character of the car.

I get this. My teams Chump Cars (U.S.S Enterprise - 72 Ford LTD and the Sanford and Son Truck - some old pickup) were all older cars. The work put into them to make them passable as performance cars was nuts. I'd imagine it's the same for the cars you guys are talking about. Hell, even when new they weren't performance cars. They were good family transportation. I think it would simpler to just pull the body and lay it over an older NASCAR chassis to get the level of performance you want if tracking is your goal.

In extension to all this, how bad would just rebuilding the stock steering system be? I cant imagine it would be that expensive, or a fresh manual steering box for a car popular in the drag racing crowd having no resale value .

Its one of those things where getting the steering box rebuilt just doesn't make sense to me. After all that work I would still have heavy and impossibly slow steering when just a little more work would get me 2.5 turn lock to lock rack and pinion

You kinda have to experience what 6 turns lock to lock feels like in modern traffic and parking lots and wonder what things must have been like in the 60's. It is no wonder that suicide knobs were common. You just needed them to turn the wheel that much.

You can't really corner fast because it just takes so much time to physically turn the wheel that far. The world really did move slower.

Curmudgeon wrote: Now this is one cool project. On the EFI conversion: the ~1985 2.3 Tempo motor throttle body is almost a direct bolt on in place of the 1 bbl Motorcraft carb.

I had been hearing that for a while. I grabbed one and am frankly quite shocked at how much of a bolt on it is.

TBI and carb side by side

The bolt pattern is the same and I'll be damned if the throttle linkage isn't in the same place too. Even the ball end is the same size. It should drop in place.

This Tempo TBI is just to get it injected by the coldest part of the year. More than anything I just want some decent ignition advance and I might as well go all the way.

The 2.3 HSC in the Tempo is just an old inline 6 with two cylinders lopped off.

Maybe it's because I have the parts in the shed, but I'd put in a steering rack from a Mustang II, Zetec and Pinto's 4 speed.

Then find a turbo to throw in there...

That Tempo TBI find is wild! Is the injector inside the throttle body or will you have to setup a fuel injector rail into the manifold?

judging by the looks of it, it is a full stand alone TBI unit.

heck, it even looks as if the fuel inlet is in the right place, but i dont believe the 6 cyl cars had a fuel return.

Dusterbd13 wrote: judging by the looks of it, it is a full stand alone TBI unit. heck, it even looks as if the fuel inlet is in the right place, but i dont believe the 6 cyl cars had a fuel return.

That they did not, which is why I have been mulling over the pros and cons of a surge tank or external inline pump and the risk inadequate baffling.

Very interested in your rack and pinion swap as I am contemplating the same thing for my Rambler project. I can totally relate to you when you say manhandling the steering in a parking lot is fraught with too much effort and drama.

I am most concerned with selecting the correct width of rack and it's effect on geometry. I don't want to have to chase bump steer issues if I have chosen the inappropriate rack width and / or inappropriate tie rod length. I fully expect to have to fine tune bump steer, but I don't want to be so far out on rack dimensions such that I'm going to be hopelessly chasing bump steer issues that can never be rectified with rack position adjustments. I was kind of hoping that the rack from my Explorer (that's donating the 8.8 rear end) would fit the bill.

LOVE. THIS. BUILD!

Xceler8x wrote: That Tempo TBI find is wild! Is the injector inside the throttle body or will you have to setup a fuel injector rail into the manifold?

TBI stands for Throttle Body Injected -- the injectors are inside the throttle body on TBI set ups.

personally, on my tbi swap in the 64 el camino, I decided to go inline first and see how it goes. if necessary, ill go intank/sump

Small update.

The block is torn down

The factory rods and mains plastigauged out at .002 to .003, oddly perfect. I would have just slapped the head back on and rolled with it but the bores have quite a ridge.

It is ready to go out to the machine shop and be cleaned and measured to see what size pistons I need to buy.

All fasteners were tossed into the vibratory tumbler with some bolt cleaning media and degreaser. I wish I had a before shot. These things were nasty, rusty and gross. Zero effort and 12 hours later they look like this

The fasteners will go out to plating in whatever work batch is next so I am not sure if they will be clear zinc or black oxide, hoping for black.

On to the transmission problems. After the bellhousing issue I decided to just keep it simple and look for a mustang 3 speed. That would give me a synchro'd first and drop right in place. At the big Albany swap meet in november my father asked me what to keep an eye out for and I said a 3.03 trans or perhaps a SROD. As we were walking along he asked what the SROD looked like and it was one of those moments where I stopped in my tracks and said just like that one right there in front of us.

The benefits of single rail overdrive are that it is just a 3.03 that got an overdrive gear tacked on. The bellhousing on my car should bolt on and it should pop into place needing only a hole in the floor for the shifter.

Since I am building the new motor I might as well just swap the trans at the same time so now I was on the hunt for another six bell housing. I was up in portland this last weekend browsing craigslist on my phone and holy crap a mustang 200 bell! with some extras. I wasn't able to meet up with the seller but Ransom offered to grab it for me today and did.

Yes that bellhousing has a CPC T5 adapter plate on it. Yes the seller threw in the flywheel, pressure plate and correct clutch disc all for $100.

So now I am back to doing the T5 swap. This pleases me. The SROD is going up on CL asap. The T5 with the 5.0 bell is going to Ransom for his ranchero and the OTHER T5 I collected will be going into the falcon.

Great build thread man. I love it. Keep up the awesome work. I love old Falcon's. I can't wait to see a turbo in this thing. :-)

Would you mind elaborating on the fastener cleaning? I borrowed a friend's Harbor Freight vibratory tumbler and left some fasteners in it for an hour each with two different media types and couldn't see a lick of difference. I figured there's a proper combination of machine, materials, and methods that I wasn't using, but at the time I was in a rush and gave up. I'd love to be able to make ancient fasteners look new and last without throwing a pile of money at the problem.

Thanks, I enjoy following your builds!

Bryce