The 255 was one of the worst ideas of Ford's engineering staff since it had both poor fuel economy and low hp for the displacement. Available only in 1980 and 1981 (mostly in T-Birds and Stangs) it was dropped in late 1981 for the 5.0 (302) engine. Due to some unique parts and its poor reputation, no real speed parts, cams etc. exist. Yes, some 302 W based parts will swap but IMHO I'd skip it unless one is restoring a period correct vehicle.
Car Craft did a article on the 10 worst v-8s back in oct 99. Here is what they think:
Pontiac turbo 301 80-81 Trans-am 210 hp
Chebby 262 75 Monza 110 hp
75-76 Caddy 500 only 190 hp or .38 hp per ci
Olds 350 & 260 diesel 0-60 in 20sec 1/4 22.08@62mph
Caddy 8-6-4 140 hp
Ford 255 80-81 Mustang 115hp 191 tq
Buick 265 120 hp 4 main bearings
Chebby 288 '17 model D 36hp
Chebby 267 79-83 Malibus & Montes 125hp
That's it. 9 GM engines and 1 Ford. They write a good description for each one and why it is on their list. Some of their comments are very funny.
__________________
This message has been edited by machoneman from IP address 67.176.173.151 on Jun 16, 2009 9:18 AM This message has been edited by machoneman from IP address 67.176.173.151 on Jun 16, 2009 9:12 AM
seem to find any pic of the 255's chamber or ports. The ports are readily identifiable due to the rounded top and bottom and small size. The heads will bolt onto any 221-302 block but one must use the unique intake and steel valley tray.
Do you know what the chambers look like? I started thinking C20E small cc heads but, the 255's might offer some advantages, maybe not.
Thanks for the info,
Ron
port size and IIRC the bolt pattern differs from all the other SBF intakes. Note the Edel-B link below: like all suppliers, they note the intake won't fit the 255. Must use only (and it's the only one available) the 2-bbl 255 intake and pan.
Take a set of the E6SE heads and mill them to bump the compression a tad bit, polish the comb chambers and exhaust ports and run those. They are a high swirl head for economy with small valves for the low end torque. The are also common as dirt on 86 and newer Ford engines of the non HO variety.
Hell, for that matter, just get a 97/01 Explorer long block from the 'yard and clean it up since they already have a very torquey cam and the P heads with a small chamber. Hone, rings, bearings, polish and go.
Fletch has a good idea as unless you already have the 255 heads, the Explorer stuff (yes to roller blocks btw) is dirt cheap and one can choose between the GT-40 heads or in later Explorers the GT-40P heads....which are actually better than the earlier GT-40s. Some here already run the P's without a special tube steel header. One must pay attention to the spark plug boot type and/or run the Accel type short length plugs.
This message has been edited by machoneman from IP address 67.176.173.151 on Jun 24, 2009 11:17 AM This message has been edited by machoneman from IP address 67.176.173.151 on Jun 24, 2009 11:16 AM
I think MPG and TQ are in the cards with the roller and P heads. If you go with the 289 Hi_Po Re-popped exhaust, as Fletch and myself did, you will maintain a vintage look and most folks would never know a 260 from a 5.0 anyway. But the MPG and even TQ needs a well matched OD tranny and depending of the Fords weight the right rear gears. JMO
I put this in a 64 Fairlane with aod and 3.25 gears. Originally had the E6SE heads and it pulled fine with the small heads generic roller cam and Performer manifold and 600 Ed carb. My latest iteration has higher stall converter, B cam, much port matching of the exhaust manifolds and 4.11 gears. It pulls...
After putting the 3000 stall converter and hitting the strip next year, I am detuning it back to a cruiser with 3.25 gears and HO cam and tighter converter with recalibration of the trans too.
Different valve covers and it would look much more stock.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
This message has been edited by wayne64 from IP address 24.184.245.5 on Jun 25, 2009 6:35 AM
When I had the E6 heads, 1.7rr's aod 3.25's and the rest, I travelled from Hillsboro Oregon to Tacoma at a constant 80mph in od and got 27mpg+ on regular gas. Still tuned for regular 87 octane too.
Nice looking engine, Fletch. Is that a Hipo exhaust manifold or an early 351 manifold on it? The vertical bars on the ends of the heads identify them as GT40 pieces. Stock Explorer manifolds seem like they might clear the shock towers of the early Fairlane, have you ever tried that? I have a 351W in my '64 with headers that I modified to fit years ago, but am not looking forward to making another set when these get rusted out. I weld patches in every couple years now which is a bit of a hassle.
Your upper radiator hose looks a little stretched, this might be hard on the radiator.
"Nice looking engine, Fletch. Is that a Hipo exhaust manifold or an early 351 manifold on it? The vertical bars on the ends of the heads identify them as GT40 pieces. Stock Explorer manifolds seem like they might clear the shock towers of the early Fairlane, have you ever tried that? I have a 351W in my '64 with headers that I modified to fit years ago, but am not looking forward to making another set when these get rusted out. I weld patches in every couple years now which is a bit of a hassle.
Your upper radiator hose looks a little stretched, this might be hard on the radiator."
Craig, the heads on Fletch's Fairlane are GT40-P. And the P makes all the difference on header selection. His exhaust manifolds are the Re-Po 289 HI-POs. I'm running the same in my 79 Ranchero with the 5.0 and I thank him for the idea..
The GT 40's have three vertical bars, the P's have four. The repop HiPo exhaust clear the plugs with right angle boots from the distributor. Hoses are in a neutral position, had the original six cylinder radiator rebuilt from two row to three and moved the in/outlets after the first boilover. I looked into the Explorer headers and the cast manifolds but the fit and flow didn't suit me. Explorer and Mustang gt40 heads aren't quite the same. The 96 Explorer and similar trucks were the only ones to get those gt40s and they are lower compression than the Mustang 40's and 97 and later gt40P's
Ron, stick around, with all the mistakes I've made I can at least point out what doesn't work. And what does that Vehicle weigh that you plan on re-powering?
78 Zephyr, 3200 lbs, 302, C-4, 3.08 T/L, 5.0 Stock Headers/Exhaust. This probably the worst 302 w/the big chamber heads and emmissions cam.
Have an SP2P and small Holley Annular to go on it.
Thanks Guys,
Ron.
This message has been edited by StarlinerRon from IP address 69.72.61.31 on Jun 27, 2009 7:49 PM
Which is not always correct. Basing this on MPG, dependability, and some pep and keeping the 3.08 rear. I was always quite happy with my C4s until I built the AOD with the wide ratio planetary set. A great low gear and 2nd pulls good also. The added bonus is the OD
So a basic 5.0 roller motor along will wake it up but as was stated before either Explorer or since your sitting at 3200 #s even a 5.0 HO
A simple Duraspark ignition which you may have already, do a re curve though also change the dizzy gear
Most any Dual plane intake with a 500 CFM AFB.
Just my thoughts
Salt is for steaks-- Not roads!
Alcohol is for drinking-- Not in my fuel!
This message has been edited by wayne64 from IP address 24.184.245.5 on Jun 27, 2009 8:57 PM This message has been edited by wayne64 from IP address 24.184.245.5 on Jun 27, 2009 8:29 PM
You can bolt on the cheap and readily available Fox Mustang front end and pretty much anything that bolted to those engines too. That makes your header situation really cheap to fix.
Later generic roller cam engines are dirt cheap and readily available to replace your 302 if you wish. You can get a compression bump with the E6 engines since they have no valve clearance eyebrows and a shallower dish in the piston. Your 78 has low compression pistons with a deep dish and low compression heads. E6SE heads for the higher compression or even the E7TE heads for higher comp and larger valves too. The E7 heads will limit your valve lift a little but that would only be an issue if you were going high hp/tq and not tq/high economy.
With your gears and C4 a compression bump and small valves should be a significant increase in fuel economy if you stick with a small runner intake manifold and in the neighborhood of 500cfm four barrel.
This message has been edited by wayne64 from IP address 24.184.245.5 on Jun 28, 2009 9:43 PM
The casting number on the 221 head is C2OE-6090-E (N.B.: not the same as part number).
An interesting aside for these heads is that the casting number is on the exhaust manifold side of the head, so is visible on an assembled engine, although partly obscured by the exhaust manifold (and grime).
Unfortunately the heads are on the engine which is in storage under a bunch of junk, so difficult to view. If I find a picture I'll post it, if I can figure it out.
Page 36 of Tom Monroe's great SBF book although it shows (the "A" pic) the slightly larger 260 chamber. Now that I've seen it (been a long time!) the 221 does look the same if not identical although the 221 cc's are a bit smaller.
More pics here but the caption doesn't state (pic on the left) if it's a 221 or 260 chmaber.
This message has been edited by machoneman from IP address 67.176.173.151 on Aug 4, 2009 11:15 AM This message has been edited by machoneman from IP address 67.176.173.151 on Aug 4, 2009 10:50 AM
The books referenced by Bob in the previous post can be clarified a little. The first, from Tom Monroe's book, shows on the left, a 260 chamber, on the right a 302-4V chamber. Both are different from the 221 chamber.
The George Reid book in the second link shows what appears to be the 221 chamber, agreeing with the images shown in Bob Mannel's "Mustang & Ford Small Block V8 1962-1969". Note that the 221 chambers are quite differently shaped from those of the 260.
Mr. Mannel's book is a comprehensive, accurate and reliable source of information for the engines it covers.
![[linked image]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/w2zero/P5100001.jpg)
[/IMG]
![[linked image]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/w2zero/tvcable2.jpg)
[/IMG]
![[linked image]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/w2zero/GettingClose.jpg)
[/IMG]![[linked image]](http://crayonmedia.com/wayne/79_Ranchero/5.0%20installed%20020.jpg)
[/img]