Attention to detail gentlemen, I stated in my first post that I'd be using the classic inlines aluminum cylinder head. People using these heads are seeing huge increases in efficiency and on one mustang build, triple the power.
My apology, I read the start of your thread long ago and just picked up on the last post. Good luck with your build. Micah
Progress! Picture speaks for itself, car is now almost completely disassembled while still able to roll. More rust in some places I hoped not to find it, but oh well. Underneath the chrome trim by my driver's side quarter window is bad and had bondo over it from the looks of things. One bolt at the bottom of the driver's front fender ripped through, as did most of the bolts in the trunk holding on the rear bumper filler. The trunk is in bad shape from appearances, but once it's blasted then I'll know for sure.
Well to all of the 250 naysayers... you win. I finally compiled the cost of building it up completely and was pretty seriously discouraged. I knew it wouldn't be cheap, but I didn't think it was going to be THAT bad. However, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, we've got a 289 just sitting in the garage that could be rebuilt and swapped in for a mere fraction of the price of the 250 and I'd still have the money left to finish most of the car. Unless you do the build in stages and are content with the car not being on the road for a long period of time, or you have a large stockpile of money to do it, the inline 6 really truly isn't worth it. Do I still think it would be cool? Of course, but on my budget it is no longer feasible. Moving on, I'll be blasting the car this week and laying down some primer. Do you guys recommend Rust Bullet first and primer over that?
Since you have change direction, I'm just going to throw out one suggestion. If you can afford just a few more bucks, dont do the 289 and get yourself a 5.0 roller block. The cost to rebuild will be the same but the 5.0 is a more efficient engine because of the cam. Again, good luck.
I really don't see anything "cool" about it whatsoever. I mean, we're talking about less power, negligible fuel mileage increase, no cost savings, and terrible sound. The V-8 is the way to go, especially when you're going to the trouble to do all that other work anyway. In any case, I wish you luck on your 289 swap. You really will be happier with the end result.
To each his own, simple as that. I've spent the last two days sandblasting. It's interesting to see what's under there, as it has revealed some previous work on the roof, driver's side rear quarter, and some other small areas. Also revealed at least two previous coats of paint and lots of bondo on the driver's side of the car. It's a very time consuming process, I collected used sand from my uncle's sandblasting business, sifted it, and am using it and repeating the sifting as I go to make the most of it. Not the fastest way, but it works. I'd have him blast it but he'd charge for the work and he might blast through more metal than I'd like. Shelby taillight kit, Taurus fan, volvo fan speed controller, and some LED strips came in, really excited to get to the point where I can start building it back up instead of tearing it down.
That just sounds like denial to me. Some things are just plain reality, like the fact there is no advantage to a inline six from that era. It's not a matter of "personal taste". Those engines existed because they were cheaper. Not everyone could afford the V-8 option. You are taking the trouble to completely gut your car and restore it, so a V-8 swap should be a no-brainer.
Admittedly I had second thoughts while believing I had mentally committed to keeping the 6, but a straight 6 built up with classic inlines parts producing 28-30 mpg is an advantage. You're looking at it from a stock perspective. Sure, it's cost heavy up front, but for a daily driver eventually your fuel savings would pay for it. Not very quickly, but eventually. And I'd have to say it sounds like you're in denial that some people could actually like the straight six. That crowd and the people who like to keep cars original intersect greatly. If zero people liked the six, companies like classic inlines wouldn't exist, plain and simple. However, their high prices are a testament to the size of their market. If 85% (just spitting a random number) of the Maverick community swaps to V8s, there is a reason for it. I'm excited about the 289, all things considered for me it is the right decision. You can have your satisfaction once the V8 puts a smile on my face as I roll out of the driveway Not trying to argue here, just pointing out that honest inline 6 enthusiasts do exist, and if I had more money to put into this project, I'd be one of them.
The truth is, even though I don't know you personally, I want you to be happy. I wouldn't want you to go to all the work and expense and then end up dissatisfied. Reality is, 28-30mpg is marketing hype. The only time fuel economy and horsepower coexist is when sophisticated valvetrains, computer-controlled ignition and fuel injection, and gear ratios that include overdrive are incorporated. Cadillac has a V-16 that puts out 1000hp and gets 20mpg, but it does it by shutting off 12 cylinders and cruising on 4. It has all the above mentioned technology along with a super sophisticated valvetrain. if you're getting 28-30mpg, you're not making much power, and that's just how it is. Your V-8 will make your Maverick fun, and will sound good too. Inline sixes will never sound good unless you cork 'em so tight you can barely hear 'em. I am well aware of the market for the Classic Inline performance parts market. Most of those customers are either doing mostly stock restorations (and just want a little more performance & better reliability), or they are building cars that V-8s were never an option for and would not rather get involved in a bunch of fabrication work. I think it's great that they exist. I just know that there are better options for us Maverick/Comet enthusiasts.
I understand completely, and I know I'll be happier with the V8. Plus, if Classic Inlines ever went out of business and I was completely slaved to their parts, I could be in trouble if something broke. With my budget, I just wouldn't be able to afford the six plus everything else my car needs. I appreciate the insight, it saves one hell of a headache when my inner Jeremy Clarkson shouts "powerrrrrr!" and there isn't enough there.
I agree that it is more cost effective to build, but an i6 can sound very good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzDZsHG2Dig&list=FLKBB6RO5gWsuTFPJPgCIOGQ
Agreed, I installed a glasspack on mine and I really liked the sound. It had a more aggressive tone but wasn't too buzzy. I'll still do glasspacks with the 289, love the sound way more than turbo style mufflers.
Reading this reminds me of my first car which was a 1965 Falcon with the stock 6 cylinder engine - to head up a mountain near my house, I had to get a full head of steam up and it would still be struggling towards the top in passing gear - now going up that same mountain with even my 4 cylinder in my RAV4 is effortless - big improvements over the years over those early 6 cylinders
