daydreaming about HP and Torque in the Six.

[6CylBill]

Originally Posted by Thudpucker We all know all this stuff. It's pretty elementary, but I still feel Im missing something. Else we'd have what I'm daydreaming about in a lot of applications. Including heavy trucks. The 300 was used in UPS trucks and Busses.

[70torino429]

Originally Posted by 91Bronc300

What harte3 said. The 4 inch stroke is longer even than a 460's. Minor port work and valve work on the head, EFI manifolds, a good hot spark, and a small aftermarket cam would get you a very good, long running, 2.5K rpm torque peaking motor. Trying to stroke it is barking up the wrong tree.

so your saying not to stroke it out? so you dont want more power then?

4.00" stroke is average once you get into aftermarket stroker setups, the 418 (uses a 4.1" stroke) and 427W(uses a 4.250" stroke) (351 based strokers) are very popular, and both have no problems revving up past 6000rpm. So get it out of your mind that a long stroke motor cant rev. the 408 stroker motor has an identical stroke to the 300 at 4". Hell, almost any big block stroker has a larger than 4" stroke. While i dont feel that stroking out a 300 is really needed, its certainly a great idea and i think it would work well. The only problem i see here is your going to need all custom internals to do it.

Now, im a ford guy and all, but the 460 is one of the worst big block motors out there. So, i wouldnt bring it up.

What your going to need to get a 300 to rev high is a totally different camshaft, which may or may not require special pistons to achieve proper piston to valve clearance, there is no off the shelf cam that will get a 300 to rev safely to 6000rpm. And honestly, a custom grind cam will only run you about 100 bucks more than an off the shelf unit so why not use it? Check out Camshaft innovations, and speak to Jay, he can get you a cam to do anything you want. Now, with a cam like this your going to need to change the valve springs to match, you might as well have your heads reworked, porting, valve job, and some slightly bigger valves so that you can flow more air through them. A free revving 300 is nowhere near impossible, but i have seen very few people pursue the idea. You have an almost identical rod/stroke ratio as a 347 (302 based stroker) and they rev to the moon, and youve got a stronger engine block than the 302. Its nowhere near impossible.

I have some other ideas i can share with you, i hope this little bit helps. Im going to check a few things out this evening and ill get back to you.

[91Bronc300]

Hey, if money grows on trees for you, then by all mean, quit wasting your time insulting my advice and go ahead and stroke one. And if you want to eek out more power out of a 300 by starting in the very last place you should be looking, then go ahead and stroke one. And if you want to build a 300 that's unique and very expensive, then go ahead and stroke one. But if you want to build a 300 the way nearly everyone successfully does, then increase the carburetion, increase the airflow, decrease pumping loss, and improve ignition, and don't stroke it.

[murph77]

Originally Posted by 91Bronc300

Hey, if money grows on trees for you, then by all mean, quit wasting your time insulting my advice and go ahead and stroke one. And if you want to eek out more power out of a 300 by starting in the very last place you should be looking, then go ahead and stroke one. And if you want to build a 300 that's unique and very expensive, then go ahead and stroke one. But if you want to build a 300 the way nearly everyone successfully does, then increase the carburetion, increase the airflow, decrease pumping loss, and improve ignition, and don't stroke it.

Ditto.

Murph.

[6CylBill]

Actually, for a revving motor, wouldn't it be best to de-stroke a 300? I.E. bring it back to a 240?

By the way, torino isn't the kind of guy who goes around insulting people, so unless you two have some beef, I doubt he meant to intentianlly insult you. We're all friends here.

[70torino429]

Originally Posted by 91Bronc300

Hey, if money grows on trees for you, then by all mean, quit wasting your time insulting my advice and go ahead and stroke one. And if you want to eek out more power out of a 300 by starting in the very last place you should be looking, then go ahead and stroke one. And if you want to build a 300 that's unique and very expensive, then go ahead and stroke one. But if you want to build a 300 the way nearly everyone successfully does, then increase the carburetion, increase the airflow, decrease pumping loss, and improve ignition, and don't stroke it.

oh for the love of everything holy, none of my post was intended to offend anyone. Im trying to provide some info here that could possibly be of use to someone.

The idea i actually had in mind was based off the longrod 351. not a stroked out 351, a 351 with longer connecting rods, stock crank and custom pistons. Wouldnt cost you more than a grand for everything, so i dont know what the whole money grows on trees statement is all about. The idea arose back in the 80s when circle track racers were limited to little 2 barrel carbs and needed to come up with an engine package that would produce lots of power with a near stock top end. Do a google search for longrod 351 and you may find some info on it, or i can dig up some good links on it. for what its worth, with stock heads on a 351 this package makes 400hp 400ft lbs all day long. Now, you can do this to other motors as well, not just the 351, so thats what got me thinking why not build a 300 the same way? on a 300, if you had someone get the right rods and pistons i would expect oh i dont know, 300-350 hp. Now, i dont know what size rods would be needed, but a little math and some research and i could probably get you a parts list. Please try to read posts and think, and not get all riled up about things, this is a forum, we all like to kick back and throw ideas around.

Originally Posted by 6CylBill

Actually, for a revving motor, wouldn't it be best to de-stroke a 300? I.E. bring it back to a 240?

By the way, torino isn't the kind of guy who goes around insulting people, so unless you two have some beef, I doubt he meant to intentianlly insult you. We're all friends here.

thanks for the support man.

I wouldnt recommend destroking it by the way. Just make some adjustments to the already solid platform ford layed out.

To be completely honest, these engines need a supercharger hanging off the side, to really get going. With a different cam, ported heads, headers, and a good intake, plus a nice roots blower from say a 3.8 GM or a 3.8 thunderbird, youd be rocking and rolling pretty cheaply.

[murph77]

Originally Posted by 6CylBill

Actually, for a revving motor, wouldn't it be best to de-stroke a 300? I.E. bring it back to a 240?

If revving is the issue, a V8 ought to be considered.
I don't want to seem rude, but an I6 as a boat motor almost seems silly.

Murph.

[Harte3]

What 91Bronc300 said.
Motion second by murph77.
What 6CylBill said too.

I agree. In the original post the goal stated is for 300# tq at 3000 rpm. Completely doable without stroking. And the 300 just does not lend itself well to stroking anyway as it is already at a practical maximum stroke.

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.p...er=asc&start=0

Go through that thread and pick out the combination(s) that project (read as computer guestimate) getting an engine to or near the 300# tq and go from there.

[91Bronc300]

No, there is no beef there with Torino and I. I didn't mean to sound quite so huffed up. Like Harte3 said, the 300 stroke is at a practical limit for the block it comes packaged in. If I remember right the GM 292 inline, with a stroke of 4.12 came with a special design of piston skirt because of the high side loads imposed by that big stroke. I'm not knocking the idea of stroking at all, I agree it would be a good way of getting 400 foot pounds from a 351. But unless someone starts casting a 300 block with a deck height an inch or two taller than stock so you can put some really long rods in there. There is no practical sense in trying to stroke this specific engine.

[Thudpucker]

Thanks Harte, 300, Murph n' Bill.
Some of us seemed to get a little off the subject.
The idea was to make a long stroke, slow turning engine for a boat.
My original daydream included lengthening the stroke of the 300.

Now it seems we are getting all the slowturning torque from the 300 that we are going to get.
The reason I wanted sloturning Torque was fof longeivity. I also wonder if adding a turbo would help any at all with a long stroke slowturning torque motor?

Electronic Fuel injection is the only best way we have of miserly metering the fuel, and still have the power the engine needs.

Those were the improvments I daydreamed about and the reason is simple.
In the future, when Gas is abominimally expensive, we are going to need this kind of information.

[Econoline 150]

Originally Posted by Thudpucker

Look at this six cylinder engine table from '90'.

In 1990, when the Jeep 4.0 still had 177 hp,
the GM 4.3L V6 only made 160 hp,
the Ford 4.9L I6 (used in the F150 and Econoline) only made 145 hp,
the Ford 4.0 V6 made 155 hp,
the Chrysler 5.2L made 170 hp,
the Jeep/AMC 2bbl 360 V8 made 144 hp, and
the Nissan 3.0 V6 (used in the Pathfinder) made 153 hp.

I've been thinking about a Boat engine with a Slow turning 300 Six banger. A gas engine with lots of torque.
What if we put a longer stroke crank in the 300 six?
Can that be done?
Does anybody make one for it?

If we had EFi, water injection and a Watercooled Turbo, could we then get a lot more HP at a lower Rpm?
Do you think this combination might get 300 Ft Lbs of Torque out of the Six banger at 3000 Rpm or less?

Depending on what connecting rods would fit the application it could be offset (the crank) ground and with a .030 - .060 overbore you could pick up a few cubes, but you would probably have to get expensive custom pistons.

[SR_Crewchief]

Guys, your going the long way around the barn for basic performance gains. For an EFI 300 to acheive 300# at 3000rpm all you need is a cam in the 260 range (installed straight up), good p&p of the stock head (CR around 9:1), free flowing EFI manafolds and exhaust, (if I recall correctly) 21# injectors, and an ECU that can handle the changes (something like MSII). That should get around 215hp at 4000rpm and 312# at 3000rpm at the flywheel. Tuned long tube headers should change the numbers to roughly 238hp at 4000rpm and 328# at 3500rpm.

No forced induction or water injection needed. The rest of the parts only need to be in good order and balanced for those numbers to reliable. And do it on 87 octane.

[Freaksh0w]

I think a small turbo would be the best thing for the 300. It's already got torque down low, and the 300 would spool a small turbo up pretty quickly, especially if you were only running 4-5 psi. But the gains on top end would be tremendous, and the torque would probably be closer to 400 ft/lbs.

Now... the problem comes down to finding said turbo, lol.

[Thudpucker]

LOL, finding a turbo for a 300...hmmm, how about 'locating' a couple old VW TDI's nad doing a little creative Modding?
Immediately upon reading your post I thought of a Twin Turbo on a split manifold with a Throttle body induction system.
Lordy I wish I were young again!

My Mitsubishi TD would run all over an Izuze Diesel of the same size.
When you got that little Turbo stirred up it held 85 Mph pulling a boat trailer very well.
All the Izusu could do was wave goodby as it sent out black smoke signalls and wish he was good like me too.
Both Vehicles got 25 Mpg and both started good in the winter (Alaska)

Yessir, I think a turbo would be a good idea.
I wonder if the output volumn of a turbo for a 2.3 would be good enough to hold 4 lbs in a 4.9?
Where would we go for that kind of information?

[9.ford.5]

yeah turbos have been explored thoroughly and provided impressive results on 4.9s ...less fab work to put a supercharger in there though, and they dont take up as much engine bay if you want high rpm gains get a centrifugal supercharger that would build boost as rpms raise