by "gmctavish needs more space" (gmctavish)
Published 02/16/2017 at 01:52
by "gmctavish needs more space" (gmctavish)
Published 02/16/2017 at 01:52
Tags: Falcon
STARS: 1
Could it do a reasonable job moving a ‘68 Falcon wagon around, or would I really wish I had one of the V8s.... Oh and does anyone have a rough idea what one of these would be worth? Looks to have next to no rust, and only 70k miles on it, auto, paint seems good except for around the front. That’s all I know so far, I’m gonna try and go see it soon.
"Cherry_man1" (Cherry_man1)
02/16/2017 at 02:01, STARS: 0
The 200 I6 was an ok motor, really the 289, 302,351 from the windosr plant were the best for the small cars like that, but if you wanted power and like a bit of insanity. 351 Cleveland and bigger.
"gmctavish needs more space" (gmctavish)
02/16/2017 at 02:03, STARS: 0
I think the biggest you could get in this was the 302. But I guess if something were to be swapped in, nothing would be stopping you from going bigger. Part of me wonders if the 300 straight six from a truck might be an interesting alternative.
"Cherry_man1" (Cherry_man1)
02/16/2017 at 02:06, STARS: 1
from the words of my father: Thing was a fucking torque animal. It was good. Though if you want to the 289-351W are all relatively the same motor so it will fit 351C is a bit different in size and shape but so minute you won’t know unless you start taking apart the engine. do a 351W or 351C and you will be happy.
"SpeedSix" (speedsix)
02/16/2017 at 02:16, STARS: 0
There’s a dedicated website/forum for people tuning Ford’s inline sixes.
"Birddog" (maintmgt)
02/16/2017 at 02:20, STARS: 0
They make great boat anchors. You could go to Clifford or others and buy some HiPo parts. Dollar for dollar though? A Windsor swap is a better bang for the buck.
"gmctavish needs more space" (gmctavish)
02/16/2017 at 02:26, STARS: 0
I don’t imagine that’s took hard, given the car was meant to house V8s as well. I shall look into that
"Birddog" (maintmgt)
02/16/2017 at 02:38, STARS: 1
Don’t get me wrong. If it’s as nice in person as the pics show it’s worth owning as long as it runs and has a nice price tag. Drive it for a while, fix little things and make a plan.
"gmctavish needs more space" (gmctavish)
02/16/2017 at 02:53, STARS: 1
The price tag is of concern. I’m thinking it’ll be around $5k-6k, but I’m hoping for less....
"gmctavish needs more space" (gmctavish)
02/16/2017 at 02:53, STARS: 0
Ooh this is of interest
"Birddog" (maintmgt)
02/16/2017 at 03:26, STARS: 0
It all comes down to money. It is a nice looking wagon. Not having “wood” on the sides is a plus.
The best thing about that chassis is that Lido and Ford ran that platform into the ground all the way to 1980. If it fits a Mustang, Maverick, or Grenada it should fit a Falcon. If it doesn’t the aftermarket has you covered.
"gmctavish needs more space" (gmctavish)
02/16/2017 at 03:29, STARS: 0
Definitely, and definitely. I can’t decide what kind of second car I want, but I’m hoping to spend around $2500-$3500. I may stretch that for something I really like. The guy who has this Falcon also has a 1964 Mercury Park Lane, which I know nothing about. I just know he wants less for it than the Falcon. If it’s not a Breezeway, it may have my attention as well...
"fintail" (fintail)
02/16/2017 at 09:25, STARS: 1
Needs a 289 or 302, they will drop right in. Nice looking survivor, pretty rare these days. That blue seems to exist a lot on Falcons of this era.
My dad had a 68 Fairlane with a 289 for a number of years. It was actually a 3 on the tree, and wasn’t a slouch at all.
"R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet" (r-saldana)
02/16/2017 at 09:37, STARS: 1
It’s my dream to stuff the 2.3 4 cylinder from the Focus RS in one of these for a resto-mod family hauler.
"SpeedSix" (speedsix)
02/16/2017 at 15:05, STARS: 0
I’d expect that you’d need a hole in the hood - modern engines with overhead cams are much taller than earlier engines with overhead valves.
"NojustNo" (front24200)
02/16/2017 at 23:13, STARS: 1
I had a maverick with that motor and it was pretty good. got off the line fast enough to chirp the tires. that wagon is certainly heavier than my 4 door maverick. motor details here:
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/maverick_usa/maverick_usa_2-door_sedan/1970.html