Good Afternoon,
'Brand new to FTE site.
I own a 1965 Ford Econoline inherited some 15 years ago from my dad. Been in storage the whole time. I'm not a crackerjack mechanic but would like to get a rebuild underway in the coming months (I'll parcel out the work). In my readings it appears the Ford straight-six 300 cu. in. engine is known for reliabilty and toughness. Is this a reasonable choice for a swap out w/ the 200cu. in. presently installed? Will it fit? A huge effort? I'd like to wind up with 150 - 200 horsepower when we get done. Any comments on a suitable powerplant?
Thanks in advance.

 

The '65 was the first year of the 240ci engine in the Econolines. You don't mention whether it's a van or a pickup. If you were to look in the bed of the pickup, you would notice that there is a slight extention that was made of the cab to accomodate the larger engine block that is the 240. The 240 is the little brother of the 300 (same block).

A simple answer to you question is "yes". The 300 will bolt into the Econo. Now the rest is that with the 240, they used the heavier front axle, front springs, brakes etc. The rearend was also updated to a Ford 8" for the greater power. If you want to do the swap to the 300, read up on the 240 Econos.

Ford's inline 6 engines were all very reliable. What you have in the '65 unless someone changed it at some point is the 170ci, not the 200. 200ci engines were dumped in '65 when they went with the 240.

 

Thank you very much. Displayed my ignorance.
My takeaway from your answer:
1. the 240 is more powerful.
2. The 300 will work...bolt in.
3. all the Ford straight 6's have good reps for reliability.
Would it be worthwhile to pursue some sort of small block V-8 conversion,e.g., 289? Are there kits that would allow for a more modern transplant?
Is my goal of approx 175 horsepower a reasonable expectation?
Thanks for your reply...appreciate it.

 

welcome to FTE.
another option is the 250 six cylinder. that will bolt rite in, and can make power good without a lot of work.

this is without a doubt the absolute best book ever printed on how to build a six cylinder, from mild to wild.

http://www.amazon.com/Ford-Falcon-Cy.../dp/B000B7I496

 

The 240 is the same block as the 300 but smaller in displacement. The 300 is the newer engine and has more horses. One of the guys I knew in North Carolina a few years back had a stock car that was producing 750hp with the 300 before they killed that class. Obviously it wasn't in an Econo. He had been one of the competitors to beat. He offered me that engine for $7000 (no typo).

The 300 would bolt into your '65 and it was made with that specific block in mind. I would pick up a donor vehicle for all the parts/pieces for your swap. Best candidate would be a 65-67 Falcon van.

Yes, the straight 6 was and is a reliable engine as long as it is kept up mechanically. Something to think about is that the newer 300 has fuel injection and electronic ignition. I don't think 175hp is out of the question. My 170ci is rated at 110hp. I also have a Curtis 6=1 header on it that gives a bit of a boost. Plus 22mpg is a bonus of the smaller 6. It's a pretty stout engine with the Clevite mains.

There are a lot of Econolines that were converted to 289/302/351. It isn't nearly as easy as bumping up the output of a 6. One last thing to think about is that you can do practically everything you need to from the driver's seat on the 6. In comfort.. out of the rain, wind, snow etc. There are no "kits"; everything is pretty much custom for conversions.

The 250ci will NOT just bolt in without work especially if you aren't mechanical. Stick with a "native" engine and it'll fall right together for you. 170/200/240 or 300. The 300 is the inline 6 that was the last built and has all the new features (be that good or bad). That engine was the engine of choice that ran ALL the UPS delivery trucks for years. You have all the parts/pieces for a good running Econo now. But if you really want to bump performance with a modern engine go with the fuel injected, electronic ignition 300.

 

750 horse out of a 300. Really small horses I'd bet.

The 250 shares the same bell as the 240/300. The 200 is different.

150-200 horse is where you start with a 302. Getting 200+ out of a 300 is a bit of work, but not impossible.

FWIW, having had both a 300 and a couple 289s (and a smog motor 302), I'd go with a 302, maybe even a 331 stroker if I found some loot.

ymmv.

 

200 I-6 not offered for Econolines until 1969. The original I-6 would have been the 170 I-6 or the optional 240 I-6.

200/250's I-6's have 7 main bearings, 144/170 I-6's have 4.

 

To all of you who answered my recent questions re. an engine swap in my 1965 Econoline pickup truck:
Thanks for the information and advice from all of you. It was just what I was looking for.
'Sorry about the mistake on thinking I had a 200cu. in. engine presently installed.
I also mis-read Ruffinit's comment re. the power on the 240 and the 300. You were comparing the 240 to the earlier engines I believe when you said "Now the rest is that with the 240, they used the heavier front axle, front springs, brakes etc. The rearend was also updated to a Ford 8" for the greater power. If you want to do the swap to the 300, read up on the 240 Econos". I thought you were saying that the 240 had heavier stouter springs, etc. than the 300. I understood the displacement was larger on the 300 and was surprised when I thought it had less horses than the 240. I'm not doing well here, huh?
After weighing all your inputs I'm leaning towards a modern 300 engine that will drop right in. I'll also take a look @ http://www.amazon.com/Ford-Falcon-Cy.../dp/B000B7I496
Again, your answers were very helpful. Appreciate the courtesy.

 

300 less hp than a 240? Maybe if you compare a pre-'71 240 to a late '70s 300. You get the highest gross rating compared to the lowest (depths of the smog era) net hp rating. Just a wag on what numbers you might be looking at.

 

Thanks for the comment on the 240cu.in. hp vs. 300cu.in. hp.
I'm wondering if I do decide to go w/ the 300cu.in. installation if I won't need to also beef up brakes, axle, springs, rear end? Or did the 1965 Econoline van and/or pickups come out of the factory that way? I would guess they would not have made those upgrades unless a 240 or 300cu.in. engine came w/ the vehicle?

 

What axle does it have now? Is it a drop out carrier or an integral carrier with a cover on the back? 5 lug wheels?

 

I don't know the answers to your qustions. Looks like I need to go down to our storage facility and climb over the the other items and take a look. What do you mean when you say "drop out carrier" or "integral carrier"? (back to basics for me...).

I'll probably do that over this weekend and see if I can at least appear a bit more knowledgeable afterwards.
Thanks for the questions though. I take it the answers will provide a clue or two on whether or not I'd need to beeef up suspension, etc., for a 300cu.in. engine install?

 

Integral carrier:

ford 7.5 rear end - Google Search


Drop out carrier:

Ford Differential Builder's Guide - Mustang & Fords Magazine

Actually, that one covers both.

 

Thanks for the info. I printed off some of your linked material and will crawl under the truck and take a peek.

Very helpful.

 

Okay, just for the record. The 300 has more horsepower than the 240. I was referencing the 240 to the other ORIGINAL Econoline engines.

ONLY when they installed the 240 did they upgrade the other components. I have a '65 P'up with 170ci and a '66 Falcon van with the 240ci. The reason I have the Falcon is so that I have all the components IF I ever decide to put the 240/300 in the P'up.

And BTW, the 200 has hydraulic lifters whereas the 170 has mechs.