Agreed...and so much of the differences was dependant upon to the product year as well.....I remember in 1984, my dad looking at buying a new ford F150...drove 2 exact trucks...one with the 302 and one with the 351......he really didn't like the way the 351 ran (as far as the power curve) and thought the 302 was under-powered...ended up order the 300 cid with the 4 speed OD stick.....was a great truck!

 

And the 300 has less torque at all speeds than the 302 according to the torque curve. But a lot of people say this same thing. that the 300 feels stronger down low than the 302. I don't know why it does, but clearly there's something there that people like.

 

"...I don't know why…"
the inherent nature/design of the 6 had more tg (the 12 cyl is similar). U may google under automotive engeneering or design for a theoritical explination.
these "falcon motors" (1960 - '96; 144 - 300/4.9) have zero balance fly wheels due to the lower dempning need.
More tq per cubes - Y it's great 4 off rd…don't spin the wheels as easily (stayin in the low revs).

 

Yes inline 6 (and V12) cylinder engines are naturally balanced (unlike 4, V6 or V8 engines). This makes them smoother, but has nothing to do with torque.

And you missed the point that the 300 six has LESS torque than a 302 V8 at essentially any engine speed. That is a fact and would seem to indicate that the 302 would be a better truck motor than a 300. But "everyone" knows that the 300 is a better truck motor than a 302. So either "everyone" is lying, or else there's something other than the torque curve that is important here. I suspect that the latter is the case, but I don't know what that "something" is.


For what it's worth, yes, more low end torque improves drivability, especially off-road or hauling a big load. But torque per cubic inch doesn't make any difference to drivability. The vehicle has no idea how many cubic inches are making the torque. It only cares about how much torque and power there is. Obviously there are benefits to getting more torque (and power) out of the same (or fewer) cubic inches. But I don't think a six inherently does that. As noted, the 300 six makes less torque than a 302 V8 and the cubic inches are awfully close.

 

no argument here, just different facts
starting to go off topic anyway…
something for face to face conversation as I see it.
(or PMs for those interested)

Back to yer regular scheduled OP topic...

 

I was under the impression that the 144-170-200-250 and the 240-300/4.9 were two different engine families. Different blocks and no shared parts . . .

 

Thanks 4 askin!

"families" would B the right ford term (chebbie is 'small block' / "big block")
but they were the same. The changed 240/300 ("the gasser that's a diesel") grew out of the falcon motor (& car) which were an attempt 2 counter the decimation of the amer. auto industry the Bug created just like the japanese invasion did bout 15 yrs later. more examples: FE and Y block (families).
The ford co used a different name (Champion? or another "c" name I think) 4 these and they grew from that 144 (to 170 etc). There were a very few cars with the 240/300 - went to truck (original anyway, I believe) & stayed there till '96 after over 10yrs EFI. Lotta great guys on the 300/4.9 forum on this site ("Ford Inline Six, 200, 250, 4.9L / 300…" they left out 144 & 170 as the 60s econoline had one of each and the bronk had 170 & some consider those Ford Trucks ie FTE).

Check out a sister site - fordsix dotcom, The Falcon Performance Handbook (MAtt @ vintage inlines dotcom) and the Classic Inlines Archive (most easily accessed @ ford6) for any history lessons U wish 2 attend. Altho I had/followed the slant 6 for yrs I've become more of a falcon motor guy…

The falcon (spawning the 'stang) started the muscle car era AND Suv (my bronk is just a 4 WD falcon) craze (others share my mind on this).

Tell me what U think…
(but we should allow the OP to continue his thread on original subject)

 

Thanks for straightening me out on this. I found an article on Hemmings discussing this in more detail:

https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hm...x/3726961.html

I had a 240 in a sixties era Fairlane. Great engine and easy to work on. All the room in the world around it, unlike today . . .

 

Both my 71 and 75 have 351w in them fitment is not a problem with headers need to go with a front sump oil pan not the mid 80's twin sump also a body lift makes life a lot easier for hood clearance and power brakes if your going the route then there is the issue with all of your accessories on the front of the engine alternator and power steering pump just need to make sure that you get the factory aluminum offset adaptors on the heads as they are 1" further apart
My 71 has that motor in it a little bit different cam specs from the factory and also factory 4 barrel

My 71 is almost ready to be torn down again this time I'm either going with a 5.0 coyote
Or 347 stroker like I built for one of my Mustangs very easy to make lots of power at a real budget price Mine was 475hp with real good power and torque down low. You can also do this with a 351 but the Broncos are so small I don't think you need anything more than that I'm just looking for something different

 

I have a 72 bronco. i rebuilt the engine added a mild cam, new manifold, new 4 barrel carb, high po water and oil pump, plus petronix ignition. It now develops 285 hp. It's quick and can now pull my 60 Chris Craft heavy wood boat without burning up my clutch as in the past. One thing to remember, add to much hp and your drive train may not be able to handle it without something breaking.

 

Yeah, there's a lot of options and opinions out there, but it really depends on what you're using the Bronco for... I would recommend a strong 302 or 351w. The Bronco is a much smaller and lighter vehicle than an F150, so you definitely don't need a big block. The big block would just add more weight as well... Power to weight ratio is key. I would also recommend researching the right gear ratio for your tire size and transmission.