Hi, it seems everyone has different stories when you get right down to it you can get good mileage with a 300 or a 302 and you can pull just about anything you want to with either engine it is all in how it was or is taken care of and how it is geared If I had a 302 with an automatic and 4.10 gears I know I could outpull a 300 with an automatic with say 308 gears there aren't any bad years just bad trucks in different years and that is mainly because of the maint. or lack of. the 351 is really much harder on gas than the 302 or 300 but either of the other two would be a great engine in a truck. I love V8's but if I was looking for something to work hard (and I couldn't have my diesel) I would go with the 300 I6 it will last!!! I have watched my dad haul junk on two of these an 80 till it finally quit and then an 83 till that quit both 150's with 300 one three speed and the other one automatic ( C6 ) then when he started hauling really heavy loads he went to a F350 with a 6.9 diesel 4x4 with a 4 speed (got that one for $500) needed work but what a work horse. John

 

Very true John. I am a die hard fan of the Diesel myself. but if I couldn't have one I would probably go with the 300 as well.Just for the fact of it being setup more like a truck engine. Can't be killed.

Brad Godkin
1986 F350 CC/SRW
6.9liter/C6

 

A inline six is a powerhouse no matter who makes it. Ever wonder why all work equipment motors, farm tractors, semi-trucks etc etc are inline 6's? BMW's, and other cars still use I6's and no one doubt's there power...

I'm sure money has a serious role, but I still believe it's because of simpleness.

bigsix: That just what I've been told. I've driven several, and to be honest I don't think theres much of a difference, in fact it it supposed to be the opposite. EFI did help the 300, but not as much as the 302 and 351. Power didn't increase as much.

The 250 and 292 I6's from GM were very good engines too, but obviously not as good as the venerable 300. In fact, Gm still produces the 292 in Mexico as the base motor. (or at least they did prior to the Silverados).

 

I was told by an engineer at cummins diesel that the inline six
is a better, stronger design because there is room for more main
bearings and the rods do not share journals with rods from other
cylinders. Also, being six cylinders, the engine is naturally
balanced giving very smooth operation. The drawbacks are a very
long and tall engine package. Ford fans, eat your heart out-
I read GM is bringing the inline six back, overhead cam variable
cam timing and 270 hp. It has a cast oil pan with a hole right
through it for the front axle shaft. I bet this will be fun
changing the oil pan gasket!

 

my dads 84 f-150 4x4 with a c-6 and 79000 miles has one of those sad 136hp 2bbl motors, it was not that bad, even now with the new performer intake and 1406 carb with all emissions stuff removed it still has trouble holding 55 on steep hills with our fourwheeler trailer and two 500 lb fourwheelers, it has 3.55 geras with 31's also... i have drivin the carbed 300's, even the non electronic ones and they feel alot more like a pulling motor than the wimpy 302, im sure the 302 would do fine with some 4.88 gears, hehe, i still prefer my 351 and 429 (460 soon) to them both=)


1985 F-150/351Ho/4wd/6inch with 33's
1979 f-250 429/4spd/5inchwith 36 inch buckshot mudders

on a quiet night your can hear a chevy (lol,you can watch a dodge) rusting away

 

Just my 2 cents. My 94' F150 towed my friends F-350 duellie from Albuquerque to Santa Fe all up hill. I averaged a speed of 65mph (5th gear - M5OD)and got 12mpg. But I have to mention I also installed 4.10s too, which kill my gas mileage but damn that little 6 will climb a wall if I wanted it to. Next up 19# injectors on my well massage 6. I just love torque.

 

magyr: Two things:

1) early 80s there was a 255 V8 that apparently was a detuned and destroked 302 and it is nearly worthless, but looks just like a 302--beware!

2) Check that the firewall is not rusted out by the clutch pedal like my 84 did. The trough below the cowl vents on the drivers side also rusted and probably contributed to the rusted fire wall. We beefed it up with a iron plate, but never could stop the water from coming in on the floor every time it rained.

 

Wow, this is great. Thanx everyone!

If anyone has anything else to had about their experience with mid-70s -early 80s Ford pickups, let me know.

MT

 

Well, I'd take the 300 over a 302 any day, the 300 is better suited to truck use, as it is much more durable, has a lower torque peak, and a much flatter power curve, and it is a little easier on fuel. My 300 is a bit warmed over, and, well, I'd have to say the carbed 300's are the faster of the two in stock form, but the EFI makes more power, as I converted my 300 to EFI from the 1bbl, and it definatley made more power, then I added 19#/hr injectors, and then I put on a SBC valved small chamber '66 240 head which gives me ~9.5:1 cr. The EFI 300's use 12#/hr injectors, which can only support 151.2 horses, so they are running kinda lean, and hesitate a bit when floored. A good carbed 300 would have decent set of headers, an Offenhauser Dual Port 4bbl intake, a 390-500 cfm carb, a mild cam, some mild porting, and maybe 1.94/1.60 SBC valves. As for what years to avoid, the 1980's have a weak frame, and the 351M doesn't seem to be the most desirable engine, also the early AOD's aren't exactally the best auto tranny.
Evan MacDonald
82 F100 FlareSide ex. 2wd
MAF MPFI HD 300-6
66 240 Head
Hedman Hedder
NP435(6.69 low)
NP205
3.55 Geared ARB'd 9"
Dana 44 TTB
31x10.50/15 Goodyear M/T's

 

magyar: I like the '67s through '79s best.

Former '77, 300 I6.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/User_files/3a64566f4c2940a4.jpg

Former '84, 300 I6.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/User_files/3a6c3bb862641982.jpg

Current'95 300 I6.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/User_files/3a5b2ef30294ba89.jpg
Paul

 

1995 F-150XL SC/SB
http://members.sounddomain.com/blind
5-Star Rated F-150 (Big Stereo)

 

TallPaul:

Sweet trucks, truly! My '72 F100 Stepside looks like your '77, for the most part, except, of course where your accent lines are sculpted in, the 67'-72's were convex. Did you know that that shortbox is unchanged from '53 to at least '72, if not later? My '72 is the only one of my trucks that looks nice, as I restored it years ago. The only problem is it's only a 240 and it's a slushbox. But it looks nice, you know?

BTW, what is the exact shade of that yellow on the '77? The reason I ask is, after much agonizing, when I was younger, I selected '78 'Vette Yellow for my '72, and I've loved the color. Moreover, it's just pale enough to be "warmer" than the more "lemony" yellows you see, if I'm making sense, and from the picture you posted, your '77 looks very similar. Just curious.

Hey, fill me in on this 255. I thought, if nothing else, we could chuckle at its HP and torque #'s, if we had them--I don't. In fact, I've only heard of this engine a few times, and forgot about it. Does anyone know what the rationale was--fuel economy? Novelty?

Although the 4.9 is my favorite, I do like the 289. I've read that it's a higher-reving, more durable V-8 than the 302, generally. Is this true? Does the 255 share these characteristics?

Thanks,

BigSix

 

Thanks BigSix.

I'm sorry I ever let go of the '77. I can keep tabs on the '84 because my boss owns it now--pretty rusty now, but runs great. I recall the earlier step beds had the slanted tops on the bed sides up thru the early 70s, but my '77 had the flat tops. Seems the tailgate was still unchanged from '53 on the '77 and likely up thru sometime in the 80s. There was a period of several years, though, when they did not offer a step bed at all. The 240 must be a pretty tough engine and should be brought back for the Ranger. My '77 actually is not yellow, though it does seem to be yellow on the side (must be the reflection off the grass or something). It is a light tan. This was not my choice, but was what was on the lot. At the time my philosophy was that the less stuff on a truck, the less can go wrong. So when I saw this truck with manual steering, no power assist on the brakes, and no air con, I just had to have it. By the time I got the '84 I appreciated power steering and brakes, but did not get air con until the '95. The '77 had a three-on-the-tree, which I really miss, but guess you can't hook up a Mazda 5 speed on the tree ). Paint job was by a friend (a Ch**y man at that) in exchange for rides to work over a 6 month period when his license was suspended.

I noticed the 255 V8 in the advertisements in the early 80's (I have a collection of Ford truck ads from about '62 to present). Somewhere just last week the 255 was explained on this web site, but I don't remember where. It apparently was an economy move. I also recalled seeing something about a V6 tried in the early 80s F150s, but may have been mistaken.

I love the 4.9. I once drove a van with a 351 V8 (a '95) and that thing had gobs of power. I could have gotten a 351 when I bought my '95 but couldn't bear the thought of not having a 4.9.
>
The 289 is a great engine. I had a 302 in a '71 Ford custom car and that engine ran great! I always thought the 302 was just an enlarged 289 so I would think both would be equally durable. The high-revving 289 may have been the HO version that got put into some mustangs. The 255, supposedly being a detuned 302, should be very durable, if limited to smaller vehicles.

By the way, I have a Ford auto engine manual from abut '71 that has the 240 six. The specs include valve timing and all sorts of stuff. If you ever need info, holler. I am assuming the car and truck versions were the same, though.

>BigSix

 

The 4.2L 255cid was used from 1980-1982. It had a 2150 2 barrel. 3.68" bore and the 302's 3" stroke. Had 122hp and 209ft/lbs of torque, so as what StrangeRanger said. It did not belong in a truck. I have yet to see one actually in a vehicle. It looks almost exactly like a 302.

They also used a 3.8L V6 Piece of junk. I don't recommend either.

 

That the 3.8 V6 only lasted a couple years in full sized pickups is testamony to the greatness of the 300 I6! That 3.8 V6 was worthless in a half-ton pickup, but the newer (probably EFI) version of the 3.8 really moves in my Mother's '95 Cougar--the last of the real (read REAr wheeL drive) Cougars. (But then "really moves" to me is anything faster than a 300 I6 because that's all I know.). I'll take a straight six over a bent six anyday! To give credit where due, I got the phrase "bent six" off some thread on the Clifford inline six forum.