Close



Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Default 81 fairmont 2dr sedan

    I am beginning to dig it to this car and get it to where it is running properly. I bought it knowing that it didn't run well at all. I pulled the plugs and they are totally black so this car was running very rich. I am going to rebuild the carb although someone has all ready been into this carb. The idle mixture screw was all the way in and fully seated. The old gentleman that I purchased it from was mechanically clueless and he told me one of his friends had messed with the timing and carb. I am going to change timing gears to an early set to eliminate the built in retard then reset the timing prior to start up and try to establish a base line. I am having to relearn all I used to know about carburetors and mechanical timing as I have not touched one in 20 years. I want to get rid of all this emissions crap. I had forgotten just how ridiculous it all is. I owned probably four fairmonts back in the mid to late eighties and early nineties. Now I am back at it again. Any suggestions are certainly welcomed. Thanks Jerry

  2. #2

    Default

    Welcome!

    If you're looking to undo other late '70s lameness, I'd change out the rear end gears too.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Transit Connect Titanium LWB
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  3. #3

    Default

    You are absolutely correct, the rear gear is 2.73 and previous owner bought some 15" eagle alloy wheels and 215/70r/15 TA Radials on all four wheels. I haven't computed ratio but it is probably close to 2.30 now with that tall of tire.

  4. #4

    Default

    I just got an '81 Futura and I'm in the same boat. I'd like to simplify the engine and get it to run right. Has anybody "hacked" the stock carb? (By "hacked" I mean figured out what we can get rid of from it?

    Or is it easier to get a carburetor for a '60s mustang/falcon?

    I'd be happy to share what I learn here as I go. And if others have already "desmogged" a 200 six in a foxbody, we'd sure love to hear about it (or better yet, see it)!

    For the time being, I'm not personally looking to add power...just reliability.
    1983 Mustang GT
    1980 Fairmont Wagon
    1981 Fairmont Futura
    1986 Capri

  5. #5

    Default

    Those old blocks are strong — should be able to turbo boost the hell out of one with good internals

  6. #6
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    Simplification of the tragically complicated EGR, AIR, Carb and AC kicker and twin cat exhaust wont make a jot of difference to a 200 acceleration rate, nor will slotting 3.23s or 3.73s. The problem is the carb and cam combination. Change those two, and your 3.3 comes alive.

    Turboing with the stock 256 degree 370 lift cam is totally usefull untill the stock 1bbl fails to deliver gas to all six cylinders evenly. Then it breaks ring lands, leans out, and doesnt like 13 to 18 pounds of boost and 13.5, 102 mph quarter miles.

    The little six just needs a 350 cfm Ford Carpenter truck carb, a TO4 turbo, a 264 Howards or Clay Smith cam, a T5 or AOD abd then it can use 2.73s, 3.73s or anything if you dont rev it past 6200 rpm.

    4.62s or 4.11s are what one 65 yearold in Arizona uses to make his 500 Holley 2bbl 200 direct mount Falcon hit high 14s. Firged rods are best, but that engine can cope with its stock cast iron rods as long as the timing chain prevents cam to con rod contact.

    BRWSaver and Lincs200 and Will and Kelly have experience with various versions of this katent old threasing abd wood chipper engine..its stout, but its gotta have a great fuel supply to all six cylinders and a twin row timing gear without too many revs. Its an interferance engine if the timing chain allows the rods and cam to touch. Anything over 5800 rpm without getting in side the engine and making sure ring gaps, rods and rod bolts are great is gonna incite a National Parts Depot Clampdown.

  7. #7
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    "3-3-Fuel-Economy-Woes"

    Read all 19 posts and breath easy.


    This is the reason the 3.3 has its emissions gear removed...fuel consumption nosedives in modern traffic flows

    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...l-Economy-Woes

    Quote Originally Posted by ZephyrEFI View Post
    Could it be you remember things better than they were? Ever since I had my first car, a 3.3 '79 Mustang, I've said the 3.3 is the worst of both worlds. Crap fuel economy, crap performance. Zero advantage.



    If you have to run emissions gear, then add two other emissions devices...a turbo charger and Yellow Strain Duraspark II under about 6 or 7 psi boost.




    Back to making an 82 3.3 work well. On FordSix, FirstFox, Derangedfords90, Lincs200 all blew up there 1-bbl 3.3 turbos after getting brilliant results for acceleration.



    Lincs200 was an overboosted 3.3 1982 Fairmont B code engine in a 3.8 1983 Mustang





















    FirstFox copied that system on his 1980 Fairmont sedan with T5 and 2.73 axle

    Quote Originally Posted by First Fox
    Just sent this video to a member here and thought a few of you guys would dig it. It is just a short video of my wideband and boost gauges during a measured quarter mile on a closed road. I took the vid on my phone for my own benefit so I could look closely at the gauges after my carb tuning so the quality is bad, but it sounds pretty cool and I thought Some of you guys may like it.

    After going over the video a few times with a stopwatch it comes very very close to what the gtech on the windshield indicated: 14.20 ish at 92 mph. This is not top fuel funny car fast at all of course guys but I am still pretty happy with the fact that this is a 200 inch nearly stock engine with a ONE barrel carb running 87 octane gasoline, and during this run never exceeded 4000 rpm. Its is also an incredibly driveable car that commutes 180 miles one way and nets 31 plus mpg. :beer:

    Ford inline six. 0 - 90 mph, 12 psi: http://youtu.be/d5eNTz0MAwI

    My garage:

    1962 Falcon. 170/Auto.
    1965 Fairlane. Twin turbocharged 289/4 speed.
    1965 Thunderbird. 390/Auto.
    1980 Fairmont. Turbocharged 200, 260 Comp cam/T5 and '93 Mustang steering/suspension.
    1981 F-100. 300/4 speed OD. I use this primarily to haul my cars home after I modify them and they break.
    1987 Thunderbird Turbocoupe. 2.3/T5. Porche designed 16 valve, twin cam cylinder head.

    "This video was shot mainly so I could watch the wideband and boost gauges during a measured quarter mile run on a closed road. It wasn't until after I played it back that I realized it sounded pretty cool so I posted it. This turbo 200 blows through a ONE barrel Holley carb atop a nearly stock engine. It is in a 79 Fairmont that is driven daily and year round in northern Michigan. It runs a 14.20 et @ 92 mph and delivers over 30 mpg."



















    Derangedfords90 both here and a FS did the whole kit and caboodle and kept the A/C, catalyst, and the high mount starter C3 auto


    Quote Originally Posted by Derangedfords90 View Post
    1. Wondering if the stall is any different between factory 2.3t/c3 torque converters and NA 2.3/ c3 torque converters..
    2. If it is, has anyone tried putting it behind a 200 i-6? I figure the factory imbalance would be in the flex plate. Only difference would be the bolt pattern, which I assume is the same, and if not, easy to change on the he flexplate. Also snout depth could be different. Thanks in advance!

    PS: will cross post in fordsix, but I figured I'd have better luck here since it is more of a 2.3t question. TIA!

    His work proves that its easy to have the A/C running even with a turbo...








    FirstFox got 32 mpg and sub 14 second 1/4 miles and true on road excellence.


    because 1978 to 1983 3.3'S were downgraded to cast iron rod econo engines, as from 1969 on wards, the castings and reliabity was downgraded due to cost cutbacks. Heads improved, ignition, emissions, induction, cam profiles, gearboxes and carbs got better, but everything else performance and factor of safety declined.

    The I6 is always normally way more reliable than any other engine, but when pressed, with stock ring clearances and carburation its a lottery.


    But ya know, $2500 always gets you 13.5 seconds, even with an old automatic C5 equiped X code 3.3 with a 400 dollar Bord Warner TO4 0.57 turbo.


    On 13 pounds boost, you can get 84.76 mph at 8.93 secs over the 1/8 th mile and 92.68 mph at 13.879 sec



    On 20 pounds boost 85.45 mph at 8.907 secs 1/8 mile with 2600 pounds makes 252.10 flywheel HP and 226.89 rear wheel HP from http://www.wallaceracing.com/hpcalculatoreigth.php
    .
    102.5 mph 1/4 mile with 2600 pounds is 224.62 rear wheel HP from http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php.



    One good turbo, a rising rate fuel pump, perhaps an intercooler, and 3.3, you are golden for a few seconds on the 1320. http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...-turbo-for-3-8

    Then you get this.


  8. #8
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    BRW Saver's 24 HRS at Lemonz racer.







    "best junkyard options for a fox body in line six"





    See the famous Silver Metallic Lincs 200 13.5 second 1984 Mustang 3.8 retrofitted to a 8.4:1 compression 1982 B code low mount 3.3 conversion to see how simple it can be. One 92 hp six and one 20 psi turbo boost killed the old girl, but it shows you what you can do.



    Just copied a Diesel's turbo, and he was off!





    http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24859

    Post #6 by mike1157 Mon Aug 12, 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by mike1157

    Thanks,...you did alot of work to offer up a very helpful reply. I appreciate it.

    The 200 turbo build of Lincs 200 was very inspirational. That guy probably has forgotten more than I'll ever know,...and he's 20 years younger than me. Reading that he was able to flog that high mile bottom end while he sorted out his turbo was what I was really looking for,...as I wanted to do a really exotic head mod first, to include building a tubular intake manifold that will allow me to port fuel inject it w/ the throttle body on the driver side of the engine, much like a 300 in the F150. The turbo,...the wastegate, the B.O.V. and I/C are all too cheap on ebay as long as you don't mind patronizing another Chinese company. That said, It'll still end up being fairly expensive, and very time consuming, considering I gotta build all of that stuff, but I think I'm up to the challenge.

    Unlike Linc though,...I'm not trying to use the stock log,or a 1 bbl carb sitting directly over the exhaust manifold. I'm looking at using an A2Water intercooler w/ meth injection activated at boost pressures above 7 PSI, /w timing pulled out as boost pressures ramp up all controlled by a Megasquirt ( that I'll also have to build myself) If that'll net me the 300 HP/350 TQ I can get as a result of dropping a stock 100k mile Chevrolet LS in the car instead,...I'll really give that a hard look. The primary attraction of the 200 being that it's in the car, it fits w/o any modification,...and it was made by the same company that built the car it resides in.

    But,....I'll turn coat and go to the dark side if I cant.
    $2500 spent on the Right Stuff always gets you 13.5 seconds, even with an old automatic 3.3 with a 400 dollar turbo. No intercooler, cast iron rods, stock 256 degree, 185 degree at 50 thou lift 370 thou valve lift cam.


    On 13 pounds boost, you can get 84.76 mph at 8.93 secs over the 1/8 th mile and 92.68 mph at 13.879 sec



    On 20 pounds boost 85.45 mph at 8.907 secs 1/8 mile with 2600 pounds makes 252.10 flywheel HP and 226.89 rear wheel HP from http://www.wallaceracing.com/hpcalculatoreigth.php
    .
    102.5 mph 1/4 mile with 2600 pounds is 224.62 rear wheel HP from http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php.



    One US Borg Waner turbo, a rising rate fuel pump, an intercooler, and 3.3, you are golden. http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...-turbo-for-3-8


    For the 1984, if its procured with an EFI 5.0, and you eliminate the cost premium over a junker 2.3, 3.3, 3.8 or carb 5.0, you can do the same with zero dollars, just the purchase cost of swap outs. The 3.73's and some of the parts taht allow it to gell together. Its just parts that make 300 hp are the upper intake and better long tunbe headers, and a way of dialing in the ECM.


    Down here, 325 hp can take a 2800 pound 5 speed car into the high 11's with ease.
    Well, 1157 Mike, aka Car Micheal Angelo did the 250 Maverick block with Aluminum Head and Turbo conversion, and he's just done a strip and rebuild to turn it into a 400 hp naturally aspirated streeter with M3 S52 BMW Independent runner EFI and he's just ditched the turbo because he figures he just doesn't need it on a 10.25:1 compression engine that pushes a more radical than E303 solid roller cam to over 6300 rpm, and pops insane wheelies on 315's and just 7 pounds of boost.





    Battle boxed underneath, the whole car is able to do any thing a Bent Eight can


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •