Compression on 61 144, advice needed

[dhbfaster]

Keeping in mind i want to keep my origional 144... I checked the compression.
Spec according to the book is 150-170. Mine was about 130, 120, 120, 130, 130, 130, give or take a point or so each. Low...but I really have no idea how much of an impact being this low makes.
I've had Advice anywhere from it doesn't matter that much if it runs to (more along the lines of what I have been thinking) might as well do it right and send it to s&j engines in Spokane...totally redone right and with a 7 yr 70000mi warranty.
Any words of wisdom??
Thanks as always!

[Ageless]

Spray some oil in each cylinder and retest. If the compression increases, you need a valve job. If still low, pull the head and use a inside micrometer to measure the bore.If it's less that .015" oversize, you ca get oversize rigs.

[falcon cobra]

The oil goes into the rings and will raise the pressure, if the valves are bad they will leak and the number wont go up much, if you really want the 144, just have it rebuilt... A berry hone job will get you down the road but not for verry long...jh

[dhbfaster]

So..S&J engine in Spokane says it's actually cheaper to turn my (1961) 144 into a 170 when they remanufacture it rather than keep it as a 144 because the 144 parts are now special order. I heard the block is the same, but I wonder if there's anything else different in these two engines? It would seem that boring out to a 170 would mean walls would be thinner and cooling could be a problem? Anyone know anything about this?

[Ageless]

The difference is in the stroke (crankshaft) not the bore. Both engines have a 3.5" bore. BTW, you could not gain that many cubic inches in bore alone

[ew1usnr]

"... I want to keep my original 144"

Cool! The "Thriftpower" 144 had a lot of design innovation put into it with the goal of making the six cylinder engine as lightweight as possible while still using a cast iron block. That engine only weighed 385 pounds and propelled a six passenger car while getting up to 30 mpg. The public loved it. If you stay with your 144 you will be keeping your Falcon true to its original pure economy design concept and you will have one of the few remaining 144's still driving around. I would love to try one out.

From what I have read, the 144 worked well with the three-speed manual (which you have), but its performance really dropped when it was coupled with an automatic transmission.

One weakness that I read that the 144 had was that the oil passage to the rocker arms was undersized and could become clogged. Ford's Y-block engines of the 1950's had the same issue. Kits were sold with an extra oil tube that corrected the problem. I saw this one for sale (since sold) on e-bay. I think that they had a fitting where you screwed in a tube behind the oil pressure switch and then connected the other end of the tube to the valve cover. I have also read that the clogging issue was a problem because people were using non-detergent motor oils back then and the oil passage clogged because of a failure to change the oil at the correct intervals. With modern oil and changing it every 3000 miles the original design should be fine.

144 rocker-arm oiler tube kit:
144.jpg

Wikipedia says: The 170c.i. Special I-6 was a stroked version of the 144c.i., changing the stroke from 2.5" to 2.94".
I don't think that you can convert a 144 to a 170. They are different engines.

As a point of comparison, the 1950 Ford came with a choice of a 90 hp 226 L-head in-line six or a 100 hp 239 V-8 (both flat heads). The 1960 overhead valve Thriftpower six made 85 hp and it was just 144 cubic inches.