[Guest]

I'm really and truely dissapointed in this one. Clifford called me and told me that they had a big article coming up in the new issue of Mustang and Fords. Once again we six cylinder freaks have been let down. When is someone going to do a real buildup? When are the actually going to provide the consumers with some numbers? Flow sheets, cam specs, dyno numers, track times, ANYTHING!!! All I've seen are pictures of products and huge unsubstantiated claims.

Whoever read or plans to read this article take it with a grain of salt. I've never seen a published piece with so many errors in it. As soon as I began I saw a picture of a 223 from the 50's and they were actually trying to passing it off as part of the 240/300 engine. These two families of engines were never even produced at the same time and have some extreemly significant differences.

Although the article focused on the falcon six, the info there was just as bad reguarding block castings and the 144/170/200 differences. AND PLEASE, no one go out and buy a 2 barrel carb for your six thinking you will make more power...YOU WON'T!!! I can't believe they actually make a 20-30HP claim...

Oh well, maybe one of these days we will be represented a little more thoroughly and with correct information.

Clifford get's a big THUMBS DOWN...

Ok, I'm done ranting. Thanks for listening.

John

[color:blue]'68 Coupe
250/C4, 221 Argentine Head
Breakaway Converter, 9", 3.50's/T-lock</font color=blue>

 

[66emberglow]

My new addition has a 6. It's a 64 1/2 vert with the 170 4speed. Click the link below for a pic. I've had three Mustangs before this one, but this is my first 6. I can't wait to get it running and drive it around the block.

/forums/images/icons/blush.gifClick here to see free live bare topless Coppertonecam images./forums/images/icons/blush.gif
/forums/images/icons/smile.gifMy new 64 1/2 vert/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[amartin725]

It's like their afraid to tell us that the stock 200 only really makes about 85Hp. And a really built 200 will get you about double the Hp numbers. That's why many people go for a V8. I'll stick with my inline, it has character.

Al

Turd's Rule!!

 

[Mike_B]

You know it might not be Clifford's fault. I'm sure they didn't have control of what the editors printed/wrote. Journalists are always notorious for getting things screwed up, I should know I went to school to be one!

http://216.71.48.244/archive/mikecar.jpg



65 Fastback 289 4spd in storage :-(
91 CRX Si... A.K.A. my go-kart with AC!

 

[Guest]

No, it was their fault as much as anyones. I'm sure that if they had insisted on doing an actual buildup that M&F would have complied. Especially if they wanted to get some before and after data in there. It was Clifford who supplied the info. I doubt it couldhave been scewd that badly in the printing process...

[color:blue]'68 Coupe
250/C4, 221 Argentine Head
Breakaway Converter, 9", 3.50's/T-lock</font color=blue>

 

[MustangSix]

Very disappointed too. So many mistakes in one infomercial; photos switched, engines, carbs, and bellhousing patterns mis-identified - as if they thought nobody would care! Only a few thousand six cylinder fans!

Not really a shred of new or useful info except solicitation to buy parts from an advertiser. Pretty shameless. Really distressing also to see that plug for a carb that so many have trouble tuning. There's just not 20-30 hp in a carb swap.

These engines are not as popular as the eights, but they are great fun and really do respond well to the right improvements. Too bad you haven't seen them in print. The hp can be easily doubled (to a real hp figure of abut 135-140). Maybe someday one of the Mustang rags will actually want to do a real piece on building a six. I hope they call me or Inliner.

In the meantime, six fans, join us on the Ford Six Performance forums for the truth. Lots of neat stuff that complements this forum and people who have REALLY built six cylinder engines.

Jack Collins
1966 Mustang Coupe
250 Aussie Crossflow / T-5
Visit the Mustang Six Website!

 

[289fan]

John, sorry to disagree with you, but from experience a 2 barrel carb will make a noticable difference in power... But that is with a 250 style intake log and a modified mounting flange. The 170-200 head intake log has more than just moderately compromised flow.

Tom Kubler, Long-time Mustang Enthusiast & San Antonio Mustang Club Founder

 

[Guest]

The big prob in a carb swap on the il6 is the really crappy inlet manifold.
I ditched the head on my 250 Falcon and put on a 2V head with the seperate alloy inlet manifold. Ran a 350 Holley (with other go fast goodies) and the thing flew!
A mate sawed the log of his 250 and installed triple side-draught Webbers, over 60mph I couldn't catch him!
But that was in the days when petrol was good, and horsepower wasn't a crime against motherhood, nature and the Bluebird of Happiness.

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~amcruisers/images/stangsc.jpg

 

[Jim]

You should know that M&F's only objective is to promote their advertisers. Going any deeper into a subject would cost them money! *LOL*


http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1572917&a=11954864&p=43865988.jpg

 

[Guest]

Tom,

Yeah, modifying the intake of course that helps. The you actually have a 2 barrel flange. I know from experiece it won't work other wise though... That's my whole point. Clifford says ABSOLUTELY nothing about that...

John

[color:blue]'68 Coupe
250/C4, 221 Argentine Head
Breakaway Converter, 9", 3.50's/T-lock</font color=blue>