1986F150Six Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-ford-300-inline-six-is-one-of-the-greates-1795351528 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpin Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Lewis Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 That's a good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisler Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 That's a good read. I once read an article that claimed that the inline 6 was the most inherently balanced configuration, other than the V-10. Of course the V-12 was also that well balanced since it is 2 inline 6's joined at the crank. Don't know the truth of it, only quoting what I read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford F834 Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Good summary, the one thing I don’t think is correct is the statement that the 240 CID came in cars. I believe that was the 250 straight six (I had one in a Comet) and it was substantially different than the 240 and 300’s that I’ve had. The other strange thing is there is much speak of its torque from the long stroke... yet it is a square engine (bore and stroke are about the same). Many engines designed as pullers have a stroke even longer than the bore. I don’t think the 300 block can take any more stroke, but it would be neat if you could stroke one even more to make a sub square engine like the early Jeeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Wyatt Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Good summary, the one thing I don’t think is correct is the statement that the 240 CID came in cars. I believe that was the 250 straight six (I had one in a Comet) and it was substantially different than the 240 and 300’s that I’ve had. The other strange thing is there is much speak of its torque from the long stroke... yet it is a square engine (bore and stroke are about the same). Many engines designed as pullers have a stroke even longer than the bore. I don’t think the 300 block can take any more stroke, but it would be neat if you could stroke one even more to make a sub square engine like the early Jeeps. The 240 was the base engine in many full size Ford cars like the Galaxie line until 1972 while the 200/250 was the base engine for the midsize Fairlane and other smaller Ford car lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85lebaront2 Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Good summary, the one thing I don’t think is correct is the statement that the 240 CID came in cars. I believe that was the 250 straight six (I had one in a Comet) and it was substantially different than the 240 and 300’s that I’ve had. The other strange thing is there is much speak of its torque from the long stroke... yet it is a square engine (bore and stroke are about the same). Many engines designed as pullers have a stroke even longer than the bore. I don’t think the 300 block can take any more stroke, but it would be neat if you could stroke one even more to make a sub square engine like the early Jeeps. If you really want torque, the old Hudson Hornet 308 had a 3.8125 bore and a 4.5 stroke, Chevy's competitor, the 292 truck six had a 3.975 bore and a 4.125 stroke. The "big" Slant 6 had a 3.4 bore and a 4.125 stroke. It was amazing the torque Ford got from that engine. My Neighbor in Newport News had a 1968 GMC 2500 with the 305 ci V6 and a granny low 4 speed. He and I were comparing specs on that and my 1977 F150 with 300, they were pretty close, both trucks were workhorses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts