I agree there is no other six cylinder worthy compared to the 300.

Ford made a big mistake using this new 4.2L OHC V6. GM is going to wipe the floor with there new I6.

 

Paul, the 80-87 Flareside box is different than the 53-79 box, it is wider, and maybe an inch taller, not to mention the fiberglass fenders. There was no Flareside box between 88 and 91. As for squeezing a 240 into a Ranger, it's outer dimensions are the same as a 300, sure, it is possible, but not very feesable. The 255 came in around the same time as the F100S, AOD and the SROD 3 speed/OD and the really high gear ratios when Ford was on a fuel mileage kick. The 3.8 was an option in 82/83, and, well, I've seen two of them, doesn't even look like much of an engine.....
Evan MacDonald
82 F100 FlareSide ex. 2wd
MAF MPFI HD 300-6
Hedman Hedder
NP435(6.69 low)
NP205
3.55 Geared ARB'd 9"
Dana 44 TTB
31x10.50/15 Goodyear M/T's

 

Thanks 82F100SWB. Tell me about high gear ratios in the early 80s--my '84 F150 had a 2.47 rear end and a 3.01 first gear. That gives an overall of 7.43 which is not much lower than second gear on my '95 (3.08 rear and 2.25 second equals 6.93).

 

Evan

I too thought the 240 and 300 were the same block, as I think I've seen headers or manifolds that advertised that fit both of them. Although I own both, the nice truck, the '72, is registered antique and currently hides in a semi-trailer upstate, so I've never taken the time to really compare the two engines side by side. Do you know the differences in bore and stroke? Don't look it up, not worth it, I was just curious how they got the extra cubes for the 300, as I believe the 240 predated the 300....?

Also, TallPaul and Evan, I continue to see, infrequently, F150's advertised as having a "V-6" and I've always thought it was a typo/ignorance, but a friend told me he'd seen one, so this is news to me, to have this confirmed. What more can you tell me about this? Power/torque? Trans choices? Is it the Cougar mill?

TallPaul: How about a 2.42:1 rear end ratio, which is higher than any CAR I've ever heard of! It's in my '81 F-100 300 SROD 4x2 Shorty Fleetside. Ridiculously high, considering the SROD's approx. 30% overdrive. I've gone on about this sad bit of product planning on this site before, so I will only reiterate that at an indicated 75mph, (which I'm told with the oversize [235/75 x 15R tires = more like 80-82mph?) the 4.9 is turning a whopping 1,800 RPM! In other words, to keep in in the "powerband," you've got to run 75-80mph minimum. It loves to do this, by the way, but it's a dog below those speeds. It's comfortable at 90mph, and makes me feel like I'm killing my '88 4.9 (3.55 rearend) when I turn 2,500 RPM at 70 or 75 mph (can't remember). Not that 2,500 really IS too fast, but when you're used to the Six moanin' away at 1,800, 2,500 sounds like you forgot to shift! In fact, when I got the '88, I can't tell you how many times I tried to shift into sixth, at 2,500, just like I was bangin' gears in a Roadranger--only to run out! I'm used to the '88's 3.55 now, and I love it, b/c the Mazda's gears seem perfectly evenly spaced, and I LOVE the acceleration compared to the '81. But until you mentionend a 2.47:1, I'd never heard of a rearend coming close to being so high geared. And the mpg is only 16-17 which, given a GVWR of only 4,700 lbs., I would expect some economy from it. IOW, I think it might even get better mpg with slightly lower gears.


Perhaps not one of Ford's better ideas, but still a riot, as I'm told it's as high geared as one of those early post 1984 'Vettes w/ the "7-speed" manuals. And it is a testiment to the torque and flexibility of the 4.9 that it can even pull such gears, IMO.

Loooonnnngggg lllleeegggssss!

 

BigSix: Actually I knew the 240 and 300 were the same block and thus one might as well stuff a 300 in a Ranger as a 240. Or for that matter the old 250 cid inline six from Ford cars would have done well in the Ranger. I'm pretty sure the 240 is the same bore as the 300 (3.98 inches). Stroke on the 300 is 4 inches, so the 240 should have a 3.2-inch stroke. I wonder how the 240 compares with the automotive 250 straight six (powerwise, as I'm sure the 240 wins on durability).

My Mothers cougar 3.8 V6 had an automatic tranny. I don't know when the Cougar got the 3.8 mill. I know her previous Cougar, a mid 80's, had the 3.0.

Those mid-2s rear ends combined with the 30% overdrive also made trouble for me. Going 65-70 in OD worked most of the time, but with a strong headwind I had to run in 3rd. I think it turned about 1650 at 70 mph. Had that baby up to 100 mph once, though, and it seemed to like it a lot--nowadays I'm older and a little bit wiser and so try not to exceed 80, which is hard to do when everybody is rushing past you on some of these Michigan freeways. My '95 turns 2500 at 70 mph in 4th which is how I ran it for 6000 miles on a recent trip with my trailer--she loved it. Even with the 2.47 rear, my 84 pretty much got around 13.5 mpg, whereas my '95 with its 3.08 gets 16.5, which I attirbute to the EFI, and the '95 weighs 800 lbs more because of the supercab! Actually, with the 2.47, once I got the '84 rolling I could floor it and that thing would really move (or so it seemed to me) and I could run 1st out to about 45 mph and 4000 rpm, then one quick shift to 2nd was all that was needed. Never needed 3rd as 2nd would run me up to somewhere in the 70s. (I remember pulling the shift **** off once on that 1-2 shift). But with the 95, 1st is so low you have to shift at about 20 mph and that puts a real kink in quick acceleration.

Something about all that torque of the 300. My Wife's aerostar 3.0 has the same horsepower and roughly the same acceleration as my F150, but it sure feels faster to floor the F150. Somehow the higher torque (265 ft lb) makes if feel much more real than the low torque (165) 3.0 V6 screaming 4600 rpms to do the same work. Tractor Power!

 

as a former owner of the 4.2 liter V6 I can definatly say that engine was a pile. Should have bought the 96 Eddie Bauer with the 300.

Brad Godkin
1986 F350 CC/SRW
6.9liter/C6

 

While I cannot find concrete numbers, I have heard that the 3.8L with a 1bbl carb produced a modest 105hp and 130ft/lbs of torque. I can't imagine driving it as a daily driver or even a tow vehicle.

 

TallPaul:

Thanks for the tip on the 240 svce. manual. As crazy as I got with manuals for my later trucks, I don't even have an owner's manual for the '72, so I'll keep your offer of eng. data in mind.

You mention the 250 c.i. Ford inline six car engine. I drove one for 12 years in my '77 Granada, w/ 4 sp. O/D, 2 door, A/c. It was actually a VERY reliable car. I think in stranded me twice, once when a soft plug rotted through and I limped it home using friendly water hoses, and once for a bad oil press. sending unit. I put 100,000 of the 170,000 on it when the unibody rotted out and the rear axle got loose, but the car had decent power. Not like the 300, but it too had long legs. I did put a junkyard rearend in it ($25.00) and I went from a 3.00 to 3.25 or vice versa, when I swapped. MPG was approx. 17-19, if I remember. Burned approx. 2 qts. oil in 3,000 miles. Might not be a bad Ranger engine, as it's physically smaller than the 300.

Re: horsepower, the '72 240 is not by me now, but I believe there's a sticker on the B-pillar indicating 105 hp., but then again, wasn't '72 before the SAE reevaluated h.p. ratings? If anybody remembers the straight dope on that scandal, I'd love a refresher! I believe the Granada's 250 c.i. was also about 105 h.p., but I also own a '75 Chevy Van w/ a 250 c.i. (same block as my boat, which has 165 h.p. Mercruiser) and I thought the VAN's h.p. was also 105, so I may be confused. The van is kind of an off-road veh. I am surrounded by inline sixes--6 of them, 5 running (Granada is waiting for the knackerman to come--ran fine when parked.)

PastMaster: Thanks for the 255 info. I'd like to see one.

Brad: I'm confused--the "mystery V-6" in the '82/'83 F150's--was that a 4.2l or a 3.8? (I thought someone said the 255 was a 4.2). Argh--metrics! Lol.

(Six)BigSixes

 

bigsix: (filling in for Brad)

The 4.2L used in 1980-1982 was the 255V8. The 3.8L was the V6.

 

The 240 and 300 both came out in '65, the 240 has a 3.18" stroke, while the 300 has a 3.98" stroke, bore is the same. Most of the time, the V6 is a typo, but, the 3.8 is out there, the two I've seen were 2bbl equipped. Back when my truck was 2wd, it had a 2.73 rear end, and for a while when I first got it, it had a SROD that was missing 3rd gear.... Running with the 2.73's and NP435, I was getting 18-20 mpg. As for teh 240 vs. the 250, the 240 is definatley more powerful and durable, the 250 has the "turd" head design with the cast in intake manifold.
Evan MacDonald
82 F100 FlareSide ex. 2wd
MAF MPFI HD 300-6
Hedman Hedder
NP435(6.69 low)
NP205
3.55 Geared ARB'd 9"
Dana 44 TTB
31x10.50/15 Goodyear M/T's

 

The 4.2 I owned was in a 97 F150. I had nothing but problems with the truck and wound up selling it. A friend of mine had a 255 in his 81 F100 step side. he pulled it a month ago and put in a 302. all the while thinking it was a 302 lol. Seemed to run fine. the 302 is A LOT snappier though. thanks for filling in for me pastmaster. I am pretty busy as of late.


Brad Godkin
1986 F350 CC/SRW
6.9liter/C6

 

Evan (& Co.):

Thanks for the info. I know the 240 is a lot more engine than the 250, (which was okay for automobile use) and it has to be more durable than the 250 c.i. I was just pointing out that if one were to try to shoehorn an inline six into a ranger, the 250 has visibly less bulk/weight and would be slightly more feasible, IMO.

You've reminded me of something. I had forgotten thsi, but back in the day I wanted to put headers on the Granada, but was put off by cost, as the intake had to be changed also, as it was "siamesed" to the exhaust manifold (shades of Cliffords heated intake?). I understand that the 300's don't have this problem. Is that true of my '72 240 in the F100? I wasn't sure....

Thanks again, all.

BigSix

 

>bigsix: (filling in for Brad)
>
>The 4.2L used in 1980-1982 was
>the 255V8. The 3.8L
>was the V6.


Pastmaster: To make things worse the V6 in the late 90s F150s is a 4.2L--I bet this V6 with EFI is more powerful than the old 4.2 V8.

 

Actually it makes 202hp and 250ft/lbs of torque, I would bet it would hang with our V8's, but couldn't anywhere do the work.

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-Mar-01 AT 09:27 AM (EST)[/font][p]Interesting, the 240/300 has the intake and exhaust bolted together, and using Clifford's intake for it requires the use of headers, as there is a big hole in the top of the exhaust manifold when you seperate it from the stock intake. But, headers can be used with the stock intake, just don't buy fron Clifford, they are just plain expensive for no good reason. As for the 250, headers bolt on it in place of the stock manifold with no problem, and the intake is cast into the head, so it's kinda hard to change. As for putting it into a Ranger, even it is too long to fit without considerable work, but, if you can put a 300 in a Falcon, it can be done.
Evan MacDonald
82 F100 FlareSide ex. 2wd
MAF MPFI HD 300-6
Hedman Hedder
NP435(6.69 low)
NP205
3.55 Geared ARB'd 9"
Dana 44 TTB
31x10.50/15 Goodyear M/T's