hi guys! here is what i've got going on, 1947 ford pu that i've nova subframed [narrowed 2"], that i would prefer to go /6 ! i have a good 82 rear sump lean burn, & a 62k 67 [solid lifters?] that runs like new! i like the old skool dist. ignition, not sure if i like solids for a dailey [sorta] driver, & regardless of which one i drop in it will have an 833od behind it. both /6's are bone stock, i'm looking for mpg. so my Q's are is wiring up the electronic dist.ignition worth it?, & does anyone have wiring diagram? i will add dultra duals, keep the 1 barrel. the big Q is what kind of mpg am i really going to get? 3.42 rear, 2000# pick up,driven by 53 yr old. any & all input would be greatly apprecaited!!!!!!!!!!!! dash

Wiring the electronic ignition isn't hard but you can keep the early dizzy and use a Pertronix unit to replace the points.

Solid lifters are a once a year adjustment for most people... maybe every other year unless this will be your daily driver.

_________________
Check it out... www.symcoshakedown.com

That choice is easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy: The '67 engine. You'd wind up removing the Lean Burn from the '82 engine anyhow. Valve adjustment is not difficult — see valve adjustment procedure.
Yes, but not the Lean Burn distributor. Use a Chrysler single-pickup electronic distributor with vacuum advance. See HEI upgrade.
Dutra Duals, good pick. "Your mileage may vary". Should be pretty good with an 833OD and 3.42 rear axle, assuming a well-tuned engine and a carburetor in good shape.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

In my bone stock '87 D150 I am getting about 22-24mpg leanburn and all and I also have the od 4speed

_________________
Nothing beats a slant six
1987 D150

If the 64 is in good shape, I would run that one. However, I would run the head from the 82 with the 67 rocker arms and shaft.

The 82 does have some advantages- the hydraulic lifters, a lighter crankshaft, the revised combustion chamber in the cylinder head, possibly the factory one barrel intake manifold.

Really, it comes down to which short block is in better shape.

You will need the correct flywheel for whichever engine you choose. The 67 engine should have a smaller crank pilot then the 82 engine. The center hole in the flywheel must match.

_________________
Charrlie_S
65 Valiant 100 2dr post 170 turbo
66 Valiant Signet 170 nitrous
64 Valiant Signet
64 Valiant 4dr 170
64 Valiant 4dr 225

Uh…why would you do that? Heavier head with fewer spark plug options...where's the advantage?
That's an advantage in that you needn't adjust the tappet clearance, but it's a disadvantage in that the camshaft selection is much narrower and the oiling system has many more potential trouble spots.
A weaker crankshaft.
...which the '67 also has...
Intake manifolds are bolt-on items. If the '82 engine has the good 1-piece aluminum intake, it can easily be swapped onto the '67 engine.
Really, it comes down to accurately presenting the differences between the engines and the benefits and drawbacks of each. Either will work fine if in good condition. My choice would be the '67 engine, all else being equal.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

hey guys so far lotsa good input! i said i have a leanburn 82/6, but i 'm just assuming the 82 electronic ignition means that is what 82's had? also it sounds like i need a 67 fly wheel, which i don't have,[the 82 came w/833od.have no clue where to find 67 flywheel ! also the 82 sure seems to have the bad welded intake, instead of the 1 piece.still need help w/electric ignition wiring diagram. /6's are too cool! thanks!! dash

If it has Lean Burn, there'll be a control box perched on the side of the air cleaner. But in either case, the '82 distributors and carburetors are inferior to other (earlier) options.
See the HEI link provided above.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

I don't know about the lighter/weaker crank. Sure if you are building a drag racing monster slant you might worry about the weaker crank, but for a daily driver the lighter weight = better performance and better MPG.

I thought the revised combustion chamber occurred in 68?

Oh well. Foiled again.

Yes, '68 was revised combustion chamber.

375+ HP has been made on a cast crank motor, and many others with ~300 HP. I am screwing together a cast cranker to make about 270-280 HP for my '64 Dart. Not many people get this kind of power out of a 225, period.

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

Nope, it was '67. Dig through your pile of heads and find some with '67 date codes; you'll find none of them has the '66-down 2206035 casting number. Or you can go look it up in the relevant MTSC book, emissions engineering book, or just the FPCs. First year for the revised cylinder head #2843 819 is 1967, and that continues as the only one through '69.

As for the cast crank: Yep, it generally works despite being made of a weaker material than the forged crank, and with inferior (smaller) bearings. Is it enough weaker to make a practical difference? Nope, not for most applications. By the same token, it's not enough lighter to make a practical difference in most applications, either.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

OK, thanks for the clarification on the head, Dan.

I don't know the year break point, but the later 80s cranks were 60 lbs vs. 76+ lbs for forged cranks. That's a big difference in my book. Mine is 60.2 lbs bare (Longacre scales) with no grinding.

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines since 1988

Plus, the weight of the crank is rotating weight, as opposed to the dead weight in the head. Seems to me that that much reciprocating weightwould make the motor rev much quicker and easier.