Malibu, El Camino, Ford Fairlane. Don't know how to make this a poll thread.

[hungryjoe]

Of course. It's a fine paintjob with good paint. Why would I want to pay hard cash to cover up good paint? It's wasteful and unnecessary.

She's pretty. I'm going to call her Elsie until you come up with something else.

[W. Rabbit]

She's pretty. I'm going to call her Elsie until you come up with something else.

Scottish?

Speaking of names, here's a fun fact and Motown legend.

Ford won (some say stole) the name "Falcon" over Chrysler inside the span of a 20 minute window.

[Bneterasedmynam]

Nitrous isnt that rough on engines. A 50 to 150 shot isn't a problem on stock shit(depending on displacment)....... but people get greedy.

On a more modern engine with post 80's valves I could see, but a 60's stock engine?? Especially with miles on it?? I wouldn't want to be within explode distance of that setup.

[Bneterasedmynam]

If you don't want to watch the video here's the conclusion. If you're going to run a turbo, a blower or nitrous... If you go over a 150 horsepower increase you have to ( well you don't have to do anything, but you're really fucking should.) change your piston end ring Gap or they will expand under the increased Heat and break your piston. From there all sorts of Carnage could unleash in the following microseconds. Smashed heads, broken rods, bent valves, a rod through the intake and the carburetor. We're talking epic failure. You will need a mop and a broom to pick up car parts.

Agreed, but also in minimum IMHO. Stock rods, nope, stock pistons if not high quality, nope, there are a lot of variables. A stock engine from the 60's, especially one that predates the real "muscle" engines, I personally wouldn't try NOS on something like that without a total rebuild and at that point a crate engine would probably be cheaper.

[Raycetpfl]

On a more modern engine with post 80's valves I could see, but a 60's stock engine?? Especially with miles on it?? I wouldn't want to be within explode distance of that setup.

Iron doesn't really wear out for the most part and an engine being worn out with Blow by on the Rings actually makes it more likely to survive higher doses of nitrous not less.

If the valve lash is set properly and everything's in good working order you would be safe with a 50 or 75 shot no problem with a nitrous controller and proper A/F ratios.

If you're going to live on the bottle and just be tearing up the strip there's no reason to not have a purpose built engine. If you just want to go lay down a time every once in awhile Feel the Rush gettin on the squeeze? Just run it and hold on!

[W. Rabbit]

On a more modern engine with post 80's valves I could see, but a 60's stock engine?? Especially with miles on it?? I wouldn't want to be within explode distance of that setup.

Not to mention the single circuit braking system and other missing safety features.

Everyone knows how the Nightrider's stolen Falcon GT ended up. Safety first. Fuel-injected suicide machine second.

On another note, I found the perfect Falcon setup for you, Dung.

Behold the "Razor Cola", AKA "Caltrop #6".

[Raycetpfl]

Is there a table or formula for gap recommendation by piston diameter? Just curious as increasing the gap within a decent tolerance is not something for your average shop.

Ring manufactures will give you their gap specs for different power adders. Then you can just buy a ring file set up and do it on your own work bench.

[Raycetpfl]

They put that Calvin sticker from the placard under the hood. It's like 3 feet across.

This guy was really married to running this line of BS.

He probably didn't do the work himself. People don't actually know dick about engines.

If it sounds good people will believe it.

His time slip could be close, but with a set of slicks and minimal wheel spin he should be in the 10's with +450 hp in that car.

At 2000 lbs and perfect conditions that car should be 10.0 with 450 hp.
At 2400 lbs it would be about 10.7- this is the stock weight.
Do you know its curb weight?

[Dung Beatles]

He probably didn't do the work himself. People don't actually know dick about engines.

If it sounds good people will believe it.

His time slip could be close, but with a set of slicks and minimal wheel spin he should be in the 10's with +450 hp in that car.

At 2000 lbs and perfect conditions that car should be 10.0 with 450 hp.
At 2400 lbs it would be about 10.7- this is the stock weight.
Do you know its curb weight?

Stock curb weight on a 1961 Falcon was 2254 lbs. It could be a little less now because it's missing a few things but I wouldn't know by how much unless I took it to get weighed.

[BKR]

The factory interior they installed was ruined because they inadequately weatherproofed it and left it exposed to the elements. Headliner grew mold, had to go. Carpet may be salvageable if I pull it out and leave it soaking in soapy water for a few days. Thankfully the upholstery was covered by plastic.

Car is currently under a good waterproof car cover because I have to clean my garage to make room for it.

Edit:
The interior needs to thoroughly dry out before I can really work on it though.

OK, I get it now. Carpet and a headliner and door seals is pretty easy stuff.

I had 62.5 VW Bug (40 HP) that had the single circuit brakes, and no collapsable steering wheel. I never upgraded the brakes other than metallic shoes, but the previous owner had put in the later collapsable steering wheel. I had intended to put rear discs on it, but as it was converted to a baja bug (it had been wrecked on front end badly), it was so light the drums really worked pretty good.

You can probably put discs on the front...yeah, you can get a kit but not cheap.

[BKR]

See, I already talked about this. Why would I want to disrespect my car like that? She's beautiful without being tarted up like some cheap whore.

Yeah, this is the sort of vehicle that begs for understatement. So you fix her up, comfortable and safe (enough), figure out WTF they did to the motor, if it's even original, etc.

Then it's like the modest, but nice looking GF that is really uber-hot in the sack, and hella fun to be around.

[Dung Beatles]

OK, I get it now. Carpet and a headliner and door seals is pretty easy stuff.

I had 62.5 VW Bug (40 HP) that had the single circuit brakes, and no collapsable steering wheel. I never upgraded the brakes other than metallic shoes, but the previous owner had put in the later collapsable steering wheel. I had intended to put rear discs on it, but as it was converted to a baja bug (it had been wrecked on front end badly), it was so light the drums really worked pretty good.

You can probably put discs on the front...yeah, you can get a kit but not cheap.

Found front and back for $1150

[BKR]

For sure. I have no doubt the HP has been vastly overstated. I drove around in it all day. There's no way.

Yeah, you'd be sideways easily at 300 HP, even if were not at rear wheels.

The huge (as in heavy and long) 300 I-6 Ford put in trucks was not rated at even 200 HP at it's most powerful with FI. Lots of torque, though.
It's easy to build one of those beasts to 300 ft-lbs of torque, but still not 300 HP.

But the 144 CI or 170 CI ? I see performance parts for them...

[BKR]

Over carbing(going bigger than your engine Cubic inches,cam and intake can support) kills low end torque, hp and causes off idle stumble. The raising of venturi size(carb cfm) causes air velocity to decrease and thus fuel flow as well.
The Raising of carb size without other engine modifications generally does nothing but hurt low end performance(towing and off the line 0-60 mph). Over carbing is one of the most common things even people who " know what they're doing" do because its easy to do(four bolts and a gas line) and sounds cool to say," yeah I got a holley 750cfm double pumper on it.", and looks cool.
If you wanna tow leave it alone.
If you wanna go fast.... Put in a cam and nitrous in.
The engineers at Ford weren't stupid, they built those right for normal use.


https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
Always go smaller if you're in between.

Thanks for that. We've been discussing performance mods for a while. The headers and exhaust work well at this point.

He still has not run the compression on it. It starts easily even when it's really cold, but because he has no pre-heat set up (headers), it's a bit cold blooded.

We got a brand new YFA carb for it (from Mike's Carberateur Parts) for 129 bucks. The old carb he rebuilt (which was a rebuild itself) started leaking, and even with a new idle air mix screw had very little adjustment. The new carb is working pretty well.

He was all hot to trot to put a dual plane manifold and a 4 bbl on it, but I managed to dissuade him from that based on expense and the fact that it's an old motor, plus most of what you wrote. He did his research and was convinced Dad was maybe not so ignorant as he though...

Now he is looking to trade it with some cash for a 1972 High Boy he found for sale in Eureka, MT. That one has a 300 I-6 in it, but it's the original motor, and 1972 they still had higher compression and more HP and torque.

So if he were to rebuild the motor, as I suggested, he could have a 300 ft-lb+ torquer (like 300 @ 2200 RPM) for not a huge outlay if he did it himself.

[BKR]

Well, it's time I post the placard up. This is the car show placard they were using.


The parts list is true but I don't believe those dino numbers at all. Or the race time. It's a fun car but it's not that much fun.

The last owner was clearly a bit of a bullshitter.

So, how is it running on even 92 Octane gas ? LOL! I see he bought the Clifford line...

Did it come with slicks, too ?

Just wondering...