Ford 300 vs. Chevy/GMC 292

[Louisville Joe]

Go ahead, argue over this comparison! Frankly, the only difference was the Chevy had the manifolds on the left, the Ford on the right.

[85lebaront2]

Actually, there are a lot of differences. The Ford has a true 12 port head with no valves of the same type adjacent, the Chevy has all the intake ports and 4 of the exhaust ports siamesed. The Ford engine is basically "square" bore and stroke, the Chevy is decidedly "undersquare" since it is a stroked 250. Ford stroked the 240 to get the 300, but the 240 is very "oversquared" design since it uses a 4" bore. The Chevy 292 is a "high deck" engine.

[quaddriver]

At carlisle last week I saw a mid fifties? chevy 4400 with the 292 (a tow truck of the era) - it should have been a v6 IIRC but something was changed.

and I knew a guy with a 70 c60ish truck with that - the 292 was capable of doing industrial work at low speeds, but I think the 300 did it better. I have seen 300's in F350+ work trucks that went just fine.

[85lebaront2]

Our scout camp has a 1970 F600 dump truck with the HD300 in it. Does quite well up there since the speed limit is 15mph, however, it will get out on the highway and easily go over 55 on the back roads. I am not sure what speed the governor cuts in in 4th, but it does work in the lower gears.

[jimandmandy]

GMC had a V-6 from '60-'78, Chevy was always an I-6 up to the '80's. The stock engine in a 1950's 4400 should be a 261.

Traditionally, slow-turning American I-6 engines were always long stroke. The fact that the Ford 240 was short stroke and 300 "square" is interesting.

Jim

[85lebaront2]

Jim, Ford pioneered short stroke I6s in 1952 or 3 with the 215.3 followed in 55 by the 223. The 300 is 4 X 3.98, 240 is 4 X 3.18 or something like that. I have the information on all of them at home. You are right about the Chevy 261, unless it had a GMC inline. For long stroke, you need to see some of the old Nash and Hudson engines. The Hornet 308 had a huge stroke. Trivia, which had a longer stroke, 292 Chevy or 225 slant 6?

[quaddriver]

covered once before

however for the record, the 7 main bearings of the 300/292 does not make for a motor that brings warm fuzzies to rev over 5K, BUT, thats a crapload of crankshaft support for pounding it down low.......

[85lebaront2]

No one told me that, we turned a 292 8500rpm in an H-modified Nova in 1972.

[quaddriver]

didnt say it could not be done, said it was not warm fuzzies - thats a lot of bearing drag on the oil and puts a stain on the oil pump. do it stock and I bet they spin faster than the cam.

[horsepuller]

Years ago I owned both a Ford 240 and a GM 235. Both were good engines and I wish I still had those old trucks.

[JKBrad]

I've had many straight 6 motors. a 240 and a 300 in Fords. 3 250s and a 292 in GMs. A 258 and A 4.0 in Jeeps. Also a 2.8 Mercedes.

I love them. The 292 in a 1970 GMC was great. I had it for many years. The 240 in my old 1967 F100 was outstanding too. (still kick myself for selling that one)

The only one I didn't like was in an '83 GMC that had the integrated intake/head. That was a piss poor design.

I love the way an straight 6 sounds, the low end torque and the ease of maintanace. Too bad the only survivng American straight 6 is found only in the Chevy Trailblazer and it's other GM clones.

I'd like to build and early CJ5 or Commando and put a Mopar 225 slant 6 in one. I guess I'm kinda sick.

[wild.bunch]

The Ford has a true 12 port head with no valves of the same type adjacent, the Chevy has all the intake ports and 4 of the exhaust ports siamesed. The Ford engine is basically "square" bore and stroke, the Chevy is decidedly "undersquare" since it is a stroked 250. Ford stroked the 240 to get the 300, but the 240 is very "oversquared" design since it uses a 4" bore. The Chevy 292 is a "high deck" engine.

I would take some issue with this:

The old Chevy 216-235-262 engines did have siamesed intakes and 4 exhaust ports siamesed. However, the 194-230-250-292 did not have any siamesed exhaust ports. There were 6 exhaust ports and 3 siamesed intakes. These intakes were very wide -- as wide as two ports put together (unlike the older engines), and they had a casting for a head bolt that passed thru them. Racers would cut out this casting and affix the head with short allen head fasteners in the 3 intakes, and then plug the remaining holes on the top of the head.

The Ford 240/300 used essentially the same block. The longer stroke was accommodated by using shorter rods. In fact, Ak Miller did an article on swapping the 300 crank and rods into the 240 and setting up the engine with 3 45DCOE Webers in a Mustang, which would have made for quite a ride.

The Chevy 292 was dissimilar from the rest of the family in a number of ways: The right motor mount and the fuel pump were in a different location than on the smaller sixes. The deck height was increased to take the longer stroke, and this is immediately visible because of the taller tappet covers on the 292. IIRC, the rod journal diameter was increased over the smaller six.

All in all, I think that for performance, I would take the 300, because it had a superior head with 12 ports. Ford also put a lot more work into the motor, equipping it with split exhaust manifolds and other goodies that would interest someone who was keen on performance.

But for a work truck engine, I would give an edge to the 292, because the longer rods will allow it to generate less side thrust and let the motor live a little longer. This is not to say that every 292 would last longer than every 300, but with equal care and equal work, I would expect that the statistics would show an advantage.

Neither engine is really a truck engine: both are car engines that were adapted to trucks. The 292 was adapted a bit more, but both are essentially car engines. If you want a real, honest-to-goodness truck straight 6, you have to go back to the old GMC and Cornbinder (International) straight sixes.

As far as bore and stroke are concerned, i really don't see a whole lot of difference: the Ford is 4" x 4" and the Chevy is 3 7/8" x 4 1/8".