|
By 62bigwindow - 9 Years Ago
|
Thought I would share some pics of what I'm putting in my wagon. The old
The new
|
|
By Rono - 9 Years Ago
|
The new looks GREAT, but the old looks pretty good too, just not enough HP.
Rono
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 9 Years Ago
|
|
Thanks. Sorry for the sideways pic. Not sure how that happened. The 6 did not run that good. Had low compression and a dead miss that I think was valve related. I hope to have it in before the snow flies to get a test drive and tune the carbs.
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
|
That's a beauty sir!!
|
|
By 57RancheroJim - 9 Years Ago
|
The Y looks great, that should be fun. I just noticed the 223 is a later model or at least has a later head. I still run a 223 in my 60 F100 and love it..
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 9 Years Ago
|
|
I think it's a 1960 vintage. I was kinda bummed when it didn't run very good. Especially after the seller told me otherwise. Another casualty of buying a car off the Internet. It will run good when I'm done with it though.
|
|
By 57RancheroJim - 9 Years Ago
|
It looks like a nice 223. If it just runs doggy it could be the vacuum advance canister, there is only vacuum advance, no mechanical, and when they go bad they are a dog.
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 9 Years Ago
|
It had the original load o matic dizzy on it and I put in a newer mechanical advance 240/300 dizzy with pertronix and a rebuilt carb. It did help but not much. I had the 292 anyway so out came the 6.
|
|
By fiddysixvikki - 9 Years Ago
|
|
NICE!
|
|
By Tom Compton - 9 Years Ago
|
|
Good looking Y. What intake are the dueses on?
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 9 Years Ago
|
|
It's an Edelbrock 573 with Holley 94's. I don't think (hope) it will be that hard to tune. The middle carb is the only one with idle circuits. The linkage is progressive and the outside 2 don't come in until throttle is past the halfway point. The guy that set it up for me said it wouldn't be a problem at all. If it gives me much trouble I'll sell it and put on a b intake with a holly 4 barrel.
|
|
By 82warren - 8 Years Ago
|
Yea... all that new HP and such but .... future gas mileage may shock your sox off, a good running 223 can deliver over 20+ mpg and your new mill just ain't gonna'.
If your 223 bearings, mains & rods are OK, I'd ridge ream the cylinders, do a little honing, put in a new set of these modern chrome rings, do a valve job and then see how it runs ... mucho' better I'd bet.
I get all my overhaul parts from Summit Racing, good prices, free shipping over 100 bucks.
82warren
|
|
By PF Arcand - 8 Years Ago
|
Just don't scrap the 223-6. There must still be some interest in those engines. I believe J. Mummert is offering parts to install a C-4 automatic behind them.
Those 223s were another engine that was largely ignored. However, I recall them being used in Oval track "B" modifieds & they did well.
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 8 Years Ago
|
|
I'm not too worried about fuel mileage. I'm putting the 292 in because I prefer it over the 6 cyl. I kept everything I took out so if I want to I can put it all back at a later date but I doubt that will ever happen.
|
|
By Ted - 8 Years Ago
|
|
There are a multitude of factors when it comes to fuel mileage. Besides the engine, the chassis must free wheel easily down the road and not have any drag. Rebuilding the engine back to stock specs gets touchy and requires that the compression ratio is restored back to at least the original specs. Having the compression ratio higher than stock can help the fuel mileage in most cases but the fuel being used must be considered when making these kind of changes. Most stock replacement pistons have a higher placed wrist pin which drops the pistons further in the hole and in turn takes away some compression ratio; this in turn hurts the fuel mileage. This helps to explain why many rebuilt engines do not perform as well or get the same fuel mileage they did when new when simply doing a standard rebuild. Fuel mileage optimization also requires that the cam timing, ignition curve, and fuel atomization be correct for the application which tends to get overlooked on standard rebuilds. Don't get me started on stock replacement rebuilt carbs as that's another story. All this is doable as I did a 318” Y last year for a customer and on a 4500 mile trip, it averaged 23 mpg. This is an engine that dynoed out at 385+ HP but has gobs of torque in the low rpm band. Because of those good low end torque values, the overdrive transmission worked very well and those low rpms brought the fuel mileage numbers up.
|
|
By speedpro56 - 8 Years Ago
|
Ted is right on, My 312s poked and stroked gets well into the 20s on miles per gallon handily beating the sixes pulling the same heavy weight.
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 8 Years Ago
|
|
I think my engine should be close to those numbers. It's a 292 with mild porting and mild cam. With the 3x2 it should be running on the middle carb primarily and with the T85 od it should turn out to be a nice cruiser.
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 8 Years Ago
|
Finally it's in!  
|