Turbo for a 1965 200 ci Ford inline six info needed/wanted.

I'm not an expert, but I do have a 200. Haven't touched it for anything but maintenance. 
 

My understanding is a turbo is the only way to make anything close to real power. The integral casting of the head means there are no good ways to make it breathe. No single barrel carb is going to do much to make power. And the intake can't be modded very easily (requires milling and welding cast) so even with a decent exhaust and a hot cam, there just isn't much there. Lots of mains doesn't necessarily mean RPM capacity either, and power is a function of speed. 
I also understand there are cooling issues, especially around #6. 
 

Don't take any of this as either gospel or discouragement. I really like the idea of a hopped up 6. Especially with boosty noises. 
I also really like the idea of bucking the trends, in this case that means no V8 swap. 
 

Id say do it. I'd encourage it pretty hard, just as long as it isn't irresponsible (money/family stuff) and I'd be eager to watch along and learn. 

Quick answer, FordSix.com forums.

Several turbo'd 200s on there.

Edit: I like this guy's work https://fordsix.com/threads/turbo-200-build.74307/

Facebook Group: Boosted Ford 300 4.9 Inlines 

would be another source for info.

Asphalt_Gundam said:

Facebook Group: Boosted Ford 300 4.9 Inlines 

would be another source for info.

Probably not.  The 240/300 family and the 144/170/200/250 family have nothing in common

I would think something similar to the Buick 3.8 V6 draw-thru carb setup might work. After some quick searching, they used a t3 with A/R .42 on those cars with a quadrajet and 8:1 compression with a max 9# of boost. I don't know if that helps, but it might put you in the ballpark.

In reply to leatherswarm :

Wow that was a quick canoe but just not close enough.

Difference, the 231 Buick can breathe. With that cast in head intake about the size of a straw, well, not so much!

That was my first thought. But then, with a milling machine, all things are possible! Haven't owned a little ford I6 since about 1984. If I recall correctly, despite being the same family, not much interchanges. But I believe the intake is removable? 
I would imagine one would bolt in, and be more buildable, but my info is VERY dated!!!

Should be an easy draw through setup  with the DCOE, non-intercooled. Blow the turbo straight down into the log manifold, no joints for boost leaks!

In reply to buzzboy :

Almost. A casting plug on either end of the log 

Thanks for the advice, I'm going to give it a try over the Winter.

Years ago I read that the ticket to power for that engine is a single overhead cam head that was only sold in cars in Australia.   It has a real, bolt on intake manifold.    Those 200's/250's had 7 main bearings if I remember correctly and can rev fairly high.

jharry3 said:

Years ago I read that the ticket to power for that engine is a single overhead cam head that was only sold in cars in Australia.   It has a real, bolt on intake manifold.    Those 200's/250's had 7 main bearings if I remember correctly and can rev fairly high.

 

There are a few levels to that.

Ford -Oz made a 250-2V engine and head for their cars.  First removable intake.  Nice solid power boost over stock.

Later on they did a crossflow head and (I think) dropped the displacement some.  These can be adapted to the 200 family block but it is in no way a direct bolt on.

They eventually got to the Barra engine, which is a DOHC screamer and has nothing to do with the earlier engines.  Probably on par with the 2JZ or most other legendary I6 motors that were mostly put in grocery getters.

They did have 7 mains, but that started once they fully dropped the 144 and 170ci variants.  1965 or 1966?  Can't remember.  To verify mains, count freeze plugs.  I think 3 is a 4-main, while 5 is a 7-main?

For additional fun, look up the Brazilian 188ci screamers.  If I remember, a 200 crank in a 170ci block.

Edit: on the mains, anything in that engine family had 4 mains prior to whatever date they switched over.  Anything in Oz had 7 mains.

My understanding is that 7 mains is better for torque an 4 is better for RPM since the 4-main crank has higher torsional rigidity with fewer areas necked down for bearings.

Is that off?

My first car modification was a turbocharged 250 I6 in my 1970 Chevelle. 

I used the draw-through Q-Jet carburetor and turbocharger off of a 1981 Firebird. 

The turbocharger was bolted straight to the cast manifold and the carburetor adapter and carb were bolted to the turbocharger. 

It made 5 psi of boost and was enough to make the OE clutch start to slip. 

No mufflers and a 3" downpipe that dumped right behind the front wheel made it whistle like a Peterbilt. 

The Falcon may get the same treatment just for the fun of it. 

Edit: Holy E36 M3! The turbo, carb, and adapter for a Firebird are selling for $3500 on eBay. 

I'm going to have to go dig through my shop. I'm pretty sure I still have those parts. 

Toyman! said:

Edit: Holy E36 M3! The turbo, carb, and adapter for a Firebird are selling for $3500 on eBay. 

I'm going to have to go dig through my shop. I'm pretty sure I still have those parts. 

 

if you do find them, please tell me you're going to sell them and build a $500 JY setup of some kind. the biggest challenge with draw-through will be finding a turbo with compressor seals that can stand up to gasoline.

In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :

Drawboom is the proper name for them

In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :

I know there are carbon seals that can be installed into gt25 units for this exact purpose. And I see draw through setups frequently in VWs. Shouldn't be too difficult to find a suitable candidate. 
 

If you don't insist on turbo...

My personal favorite intake system on a 200

\

In reply to Mr_Asa :

I know that. But that group is really a catch all for boosted inline 6 fords

In reply to twentyover :

That's fantastic looking, and ought to run great. I (back in the '70s) knew on one with 6 individual motorcycle carbs. Never seen his setup, but I've always liked the thought of side drafts.