|
| robertf123 |
|
|||
|
Hey guys, i know pretty much nothing about the x model falcons but ive found a 85' xf falcon with a 3.3 litre (200ci i think) that Im considering buying, but I havent been able to find any info on the performance as all the threads seems to be about the 250, i was wondering if any body had any info on reliability, performance potential, fuel economy or LPG compatibility or just some general information about this engine, Cheers Guys.
_________________ "I believe that Human beings and fish can peacefully coexist" - George W Bush |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Nigel |
|
||
|
3.3 was a fleet engine - it didnt really sell in any other form.
The 250/4.1 got better mileage and performance. The 3.3/200 was almost underpowered in these cars. The 250 is a drop in replacement for the 200. If the car has a 5 speed then the gearbox will NOT work with the larger engine - its simply was never up to the job. |
||
| Top | |
||
| gogetta |
|
|||
|
they are not as bad as u would believe, a nicely maintained example it quite nice to cruise around in still...
_________________ |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| robertf123 |
|
|||
|
from what ive seen it looks like it has been pretty well maintained and has got 170 000 on the clock, my other concern is that the 3 speed auto is going to be going to be pretty annoying on long drives, in terms of potential though are there many options performance wise?
_________________ "I believe that Human beings and fish can peacefully coexist" - George W Bush |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| gogetta |
|
|||
|
robertf123 wrote: from what ive seen it looks like it has been pretty well maintained and has got 170 000 on the clock, my other concern is that the 3 speed auto is going to be going to be pretty annoying on long drives, in terms of potential though are there many options performance wise?
the one i drove was a 4spd manual and was quite nice...depends so much on condition with cars this old....a good 3.3 can easily outdo a tired 4.1 but really if your after performance the 250 is the only way to go...I would judge on condition of body and how clean the car is overall...motor aint too important as a good 250 shouldnt cost a massive amount
_________________ |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Nigel |
|
||
|
The 3 speeder isnt as annoying as you think. Its the same family of boxes used in the EA1, and mileage wise they were around the same as the 4 speed. The 4 speed auto was just more flexible.
I maintain though that the 3.3 was underpowered, particularly if you, and 4 of your mates with crap for a weekend are in the car. You can always upgrade later 
Cheers |
||
| Top | |
||
| PIMP_LTD |
|
||
|
I had an XF spac that the previous owner fitted a 3.3 and it was the slowest most fuel guzzling piece of s**t 6 cyl i've ever owned.
I soon fitted a 4.1, best move.
_________________ Commodore australia's favorite car??? What a load of s**t |
||
| Top | |
||
| XW '70 |
|
||
|
Have a look at this site for some performance ideas. The 200 is a stong donk, just not the fastest thing when standard.
http://www.classicinlines.com/
_________________ 1970 XW - Soon to be rebuilt |
||
| Top | |
||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests |
