Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1967 - 1972 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


1967 - 1972 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks Discuss the Bumpsides Ford Truck

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 05-04-2006, 05:09 PM
BigCash BigCash is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
BigCash is starting off with a positive reputation.
performance/mpg for my '69 with a 240

I have a '69 f100 with 107k original miles on it......recently with everything still being original i've had to replace the distributor, starter, solenoid, master cylinder, alternator, etc.. I have also added a K&N air filter and a single Flowmaster muffler with a y-pipe for duals running out the back....These things have upped my mpg and also made the truck run better than ever(not that it didnt run good to start with).....i've been doing some research and i've found the offenhauser intake manifold that converts to a 4bbl carb. instead of a 1bbl., also a comp cam., and a pacesetter header for my engine.....just wanted everyones thoughts on how much of a difference these things would make as far as gas mileage and performance?? and also if it would be worthwhile to invest in these things? Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-04-2006, 10:20 PM
idealtrucks idealtrucks is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: S/W Virginia
Posts: 820
idealtrucks is starting off with a positive reputation.
To each his own, but for the money and time your going to spend on that, you'll be doing better performance wise, and probably gas mileage wise to go with a 302.
__________________
1970 F100 Stepside, 240 4 speed
1970 F100 302, 4 speed
1968 Mustang Fastback, 289 4 speed
1966 Mustang Coupe, 289 Auto
1979 F100 Longbed, 351M C6 auto
2006 F150 XL V6 5-Speed
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-04-2006, 10:29 PM
sandhillmike's Avatar
sandhillmike sandhillmike is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Archer, Fla
Posts: 368
sandhillmike is starting off with a positive reputation.
I bought a new 74 F100 with a 240 back in the day. Drove it for 120K miles, got 16 mpg no mater what I did to it. Also the truck was under powered. Want performance, get a V8.
__________________
Cain't nothin' outrun my V8 Ford
1999 F250 Supercab PS
1989 Ranger 4X4
1960 F100 Stepside

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-04-2006, 11:08 PM
ceetwarrior's Avatar
ceetwarrior ceetwarrior is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,926
ceetwarrior is starting off with a positive reputation.
Hey Bigcash, welcome to FTE, I've heard of guys getting more power out of carbed 6's by doing exactly what you're doing. And even using 300-6 EFI exhaust manifolds. Any headers do great wonders over stock exhaust manifolds. And intakes alike.
__________________
-There's no replacement for Displacement
My Gallery
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-05-2006, 01:54 AM
Ford_Six's Avatar
Ford_Six Ford_Six is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 16,585
Ford_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputationFord_Six has a superb reputation
I had a 300-6, running around 9.5:1 compression with a 72 240 head, some sort of high lift cam, Offey C series intake, 354cfm Motorcraft 2150 2BBL, efi dual manifolds, and dual 2" pipes off the factory efi downpipe, ran great. I drove that truck from Connecticut to here loaded, crossed the scales at about 11,500lbs with full tanks, between the truck and trailer.
I was pretty happy with the engine, it pulled well, got ok mileage for how hard I beat it, but needed high octane gas due to a mistake I made on the port job.
__________________
Jared
Real trucks have the key on the left
FTE Guidelines
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-05-2006, 07:35 AM
BigCash BigCash is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
BigCash is starting off with a positive reputation.
my only problem with just finding and dropping a V8 in is that this truck is my daily driver and an engine swap may put me out of commission for at least a few weeks if not more....also with it being numbers matching the original engine with only 107k miles its hard to part with that, so im looking at more possible things to do to it to make it run stronger and whatnot....the engine is already surprisingly stout for a 6, especially in that big a truck and i've had absolutely no problems out of it whatsoever(other than expected maintenance and parts just getting old)...i dunno i guess its sentimental to me as the truck is.....i bought it last year when i started my new job while taking some time off from college as something to drive daily and tinker with and now i cant seem to part with it even after numerous offers for more than i originally paid and at 21 i hope to be able to in the end complete my restoration and pass it down to my future children
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-05-2006, 08:46 AM
banjopicker66 banjopicker66 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Coal country
Posts: 3,293
banjopicker66 has a good reputation on FTE.banjopicker66 has a good reputation on FTE.banjopicker66 has a good reputation on FTE.
The 240, 300 six and 302 V-8 (and I think the 351W??) all share the same bellhousing, so a swap to any of these would be relatively easy as long as the donor engines have all the accessories and brackets; you won't be looking at serious changes.

If you want high RPM performance, swap to a 302. I recommend you stay away from a 302 for a truck, though, unless you are going to use it for cruising, and aren't going to use it for hauling. The short stroke of the 302 makes it more suitable for higher RPM applications.
If you want truck power, stay away from a 302, and go with a 300 six or a 351W. Their longer strokes make them much more suitable for power and mileage in a truck.
If I were in your shoes, I would look at a 300 six swap, and put some minor performance upgrades like a 4 bbl intake on it. The 300 six was used for over 30 years in trucks, and has proven its worth.

Good luck!
__________________
John
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-05-2006, 10:29 AM
BigCash BigCash is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
BigCash is starting off with a positive reputation.
im leaning towards keeping the 240 and just seeing what i can do with it......so im curious.....anyone ever heard of putting the 300 factory dual exhaust manifolds on and running true duals out of a 240 and what that does for it???

and also would the offy intake with a 390cfm carb. be too much for the 240?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-05-2006, 11:41 AM
banjopicker66 banjopicker66 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Coal country
Posts: 3,293
banjopicker66 has a good reputation on FTE.banjopicker66 has a good reputation on FTE.banjopicker66 has a good reputation on FTE.
Unfortunately, there is no replacement for displacement. That little 240 is a great and dependable engine, but you can only get so much out of it.

Probably the best balance would be a 300. You get a significant increase in cubic inches, a great increase in power and upgrades, without having to make a lot of modifications.

Of course, I think your idea of keeping it original is great, too.

Just my opinions!
__________________
John
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-05-2006, 06:58 PM
sandhillmike's Avatar
sandhillmike sandhillmike is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Archer, Fla
Posts: 368
sandhillmike is starting off with a positive reputation.
Keeping the 240 is a good thing if you can accept it's limitations. I loved mine, but I didn't use the truck for much heavy work, it was my daily driver. You will have a few problems trying to tow or haul heavy loads with the 240 though, it just doesn't have the grunt.
__________________
Cain't nothin' outrun my V8 Ford
1999 F250 Supercab PS
1989 Ranger 4X4
1960 F100 Stepside

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-05-2006, 11:30 PM
averagef250 averagef250 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 794
averagef250 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I have a 1970 F100 with an 89 fuel injected 4.9 conversion. The engine is totally stock with the stock ECU the only mods are removing the EGR and air pump and TIG welding a custom down pipe off the EFI manifolds to a single 2.5" pipe and a turbo muffler. It has a T-18 four speed and 3.50 gears and gets 22-25 MPG on the freeway and will get no worse than 17 MPG rodding the living heck out of it. I estimate the engine makes 200+ horsepower and 350 ft/lbs below 3500 rpm and really scoots the truck around. The engine also has around 220,000 miles on it and still going very strong. It will tow light trailers under 5000 pounds pretty easily and just the other day I hauled 1600 pounds of concrete in the bed and didn't really notice it.

My best friend has an identicle 1970 F-100 2wd, but his has a 240. Everything else is exactly the same except for a '69 grill. We used a 240 crank rods and pistons in an EFI 4.9 engine hoping the much better EFI head and fuel injection would make for a super gas mileage machine with tolerable power. Nope. The 240 sucks. Even with an aftermarket EFI controller it makes OK power, but is just too small of an engine for a half ton truck. The engine will not lug along like the 300/4.9 will and gets erratic mileage probably averaging 17 mpg.

Honetly, not many people out there are concerned whether an old truck has the original numbers matching engine. I agree with those advising against the 302. I'll take a 4.9 over a 5.0 anyday for a truck. There really isn't any way to tell the difference externally from a 4.9 to a 240 except for no fuel pump. If you drop in a 4.9 six with the stock rebuilt 1 barrel carb and run the EFI manifolds you will be very happy. An aftermarket intake with a motorcraft 2 barrel would be even better. You can buy a downpipe from walker exhaust to literally bolt the EFI manifolds into your truck.

Ditch the 240. They worked in the 2000 lb econolines, but not a 4000 pound half ton truck.
__________________
I have scabies and crotch rot. I also kill babies and burn the american flag!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-06-2006, 09:51 PM
WillyB's Avatar
WillyB WillyB is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near Fresno, California
Posts: 5,231
WillyB has a great reputation on FTE.WillyB has a great reputation on FTE.WillyB has a great reputation on FTE.WillyB has a great reputation on FTE.
Too bad you are so far away, I would swap you about any engine for your 240. I grew up with these trucks, and the 240 is a great engine for a driver. If you will check the factory ratings you will find very little difference between the 240 and 300 in power, and the 240 was 1 to 2 miles a gallon better than the 300.

Of course, the difference in the engines was the pollution controls - the 300 had a lower compression ratio and was built for unleaded gas.

As others have stated, the V8s have more power, but do you really need it? Like they say around here - "speed cost money, how fast do you want to go?"

Unless you are using your truck for heavy work - loads or towing - I would stick with the stock set up. If you want, adding aftermarket speed equipment will not hurt, but I would not expect a huge power gain.
__________________
***** B
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. - PT Barnum
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-07-2006, 01:02 AM
1972ford_f-100 1972ford_f-100 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 479
1972ford_f-100 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by banjopicker66
Unfortunately, there is no replacement for displacement. That little 240 is a great and dependable engine, but you can only get so much out of it.

Probably the best balance would be a 300. You get a significant increase in cubic inches, a great increase in power and upgrades, without having to make a lot of modifications.

Of course, I think your idea of keeping it original is great, too.

Just my opinions!
oh, my friend,not to rain on ya'll v8'ers party,but there is a replacement, back in the 50's,60's,and 70's when we were all using gas guzlers,over in europe they used smaller engines for the mpg but used turbo's for the power facter,turbo's make alot of power very fast and cheaper and will increase mpg and power,and as we all know,exhaust is veiwed as waisted power down the pipe,but since a turbo uses that exhaust to spin a turbine to compress the air entering the engine,u waiste nearly only 1/4 of the power with out a turbo,i have plans of putting in a built 300 in my trcuk,with a turbo and all the goodies. i have seen many trcks with I6's that have waisted big v8's and still gone farther on a tank then them also....jmo and some facts
__________________
1972 SWB FROM HELL
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-07-2006, 07:06 AM
jowilker's Avatar
jowilker jowilker is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Creedmoor, North Carolina
Posts: 22,799
jowilker is a splendid one to beholdjowilker is a splendid one to beholdjowilker is a splendid one to beholdjowilker is a splendid one to beholdjowilker is a splendid one to beholdjowilker is a splendid one to behold
https://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn jowilker
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1972ford_f-100
oh, my friend,not to rain on ya'll v8'ers party,but there is a replacement, back in the 50's,60's,and 70's when we were all using gas guzlers,over in europe they used smaller engines for the mpg but used turbo's for the power facter,turbo's make alot of power very fast and cheaper and will increase mpg and power,and as we all know,exhaust is veiwed as waisted power down the pipe,but since a turbo uses that exhaust to spin a turbine to compress the air entering the engine,u waiste nearly only 1/4 of the power with out a turbo,i have plans of putting in a built 300 in my trcuk,with a turbo and all the goodies. i have seen many trcks with I6's that have waisted big v8's and still gone farther on a tank then them also....jmo and some facts
Apples and oranges, Put an equal setup on the V8 and it will still get squshed like the bug that it is. IMHO

John
__________________
In the cool still quiet hours of night, you can hear chevies rusting away.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-07-2006, 08:59 AM
banjopicker66 banjopicker66 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Coal country
Posts: 3,293
banjopicker66 has a good reputation on FTE.banjopicker66 has a good reputation on FTE.banjopicker66 has a good reputation on FTE.
You are right about the turbos, they are indeed great; I had one in my 4 cylinder 2.2 '86 Chrysler Laser, and it would fly down the autobahns in Germany at well over 150 mph.
But, I had to get out of the way of the big Beemers and Mercedes which had V8s. Or the occasional Ferrari or Jaguar with 12 or 16 cylinder engines.
It was eerie to be passing everyone like they were standing still, only to be passed at the same time like I was standing still! They have their place, that is for sure.

Turbos in trucks have limited application. They work best at higher RPMs - opposite of what trucks work at. When grunt stump pulling power up a hill is needed, a turbo won't cut it.

The difference here is not just raw horsepower, but torque - which is why the physics of the 302 short stroke motor (and most of the European motors) won't match up to the low end power of the longer stroked 300. So, even though the two engines have very close displacement, they have very dissimilar performance characteristics.

You have made an excellent point about turbos, that's for sure, and they do a good job of reclaiming some of that otherwise wasted power out the tailpipe.
__________________
John
Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2006, 08:59 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tuner and exhaust for MPG gain? tozir 2004 - 2008 F150 10 06-04-2013 06:45 PM
33" MT's and MPG - What do ya get? Tips welcome! Gundown64 2004 - 2008 F150 9 05-26-2011 09:11 PM
K&N air cleaner assembly part #60-1264 & 351W camshaft? Frenchy 1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 2 09-30-2005 06:00 AM
Performance Help for a 96 4.9L I6 KYHossF150 Ford Inline Six, 200, 250, 4.9L / 300 27 05-05-2004 07:32 AM
Performance Help for a 96 4.9L I6 KYHossF150 Performance & General Engine Building 2 03-21-2004 10:52 PM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1967 - 1972 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks

Tags
1972, 240, 240300, 2bbl, ci, engine, f100, f250, ford, gas, improving, intakes, mileage, motor, mpg, offenhauser, performance

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup