Anybody know where I can get a book on the 300-inch six cylinder engine. I don't want the Chilton or even the factory book as I won't be doing my own mechanical work, but want a book that talks about the motor, its history, its capabilities, and some of the customizations done to it. I believe it first came out in the early '70s. I now have my third pickup with the 300-inch motor and will be happy if I keep running that motor the rest of my life--too bad, I understand it was phased out after '95 (the year of my current truck I just bought).

 

The 240 CID and 300 CID were first introduced in the 1965 lineup. They were designed as a bottom of the line truck engine, and were available through the F-600 up through the 1996 model year. They are a low RPM tractor engine, with torque-enhancing small port/small valve head and a cam that runs out of breath promptly at 4,000 rpm (if you can get it to go that high). Ford's hanging EFI and a split exhaust manifold off these things for the '87 model year made a tremendous improvement in their breathing, and an EFI 300 responds really well to any exhaust improvements you care to make (typical Ford). Keep up with the oil changes, run 89-octane, don't rev the wee out of it, and you have a minimum of a 350,000 mile engine.
Want to make it run a lot better? Port-match a set of headers and the EFI intake, use C**vy 1.94/1.60 valves, have a competent multiangle valve job done, clean up the bowl and ports, run 19-lbs./hr. injectors and a Clifford 270 EFI cam and kit with Rhodes lifters. You won't hurt the low end a bit and will pass both emissions and these "trucks" with similar-displacement car engines, and the highest you'll ever have to turn it will be 4,500 RPM.
Get the Ford set of shop manuals by Helm, Inc. It is awfully hard to surpass the manufacturer's own repair book...I have both Chilton's and Ford's; Chilton's is valuable for the pictures and because they compress a lot of year-to-year changes into one volume, but I notice that they use a vast quantity of drawings from the Ford book.
Ed

 

I recently read an interview with a Ford engineer. He said shortly after Ford launched the new smaller V-8's, the lack of good torque in the truck application became appearant. Ford and GM are now both designing and experimenting with new high tech straight six engines. I feel they dumped the 300/6 due to mediocor gas mileage and increasing difficulty (two catalytic convertors) to meet emissions.

I would love to have an updated version of the 300/6. Until then, I will have to keep mine running too. When I first bought my 300/6 I thought it was a rare engine compared to all the V-8's out there. But after reading this Web sight quite a few trucks out there are running six's. Chris...

 

I think the 300-inch six is a great engine. i saw it refered to as the "Super Six" on one web site--a fitting name. As far as RPM, I always wondered what redline would be and never took my 1984 over 4000. You are right, the gas mileage is not so great and emissions tests (which I am not subject to for a few years now)are a bear. I once was planning to move to Ft. Collins Colorado (but didnt)and spoke to the state emissions person there who said the engine is a "hydrocarbon hog." Re the 89 octane, I always ran 87 with no problem. I believe it is a 350,000 mile-engine--sadly I just sold my '84 with 176,000 miles on it. It never burned oil and I believe that is because I changed the oil every 2-3K and didn't get on it when it was cold. It had to go as the body was falling off and my wife thought it too ugly to sit on the street anymore (I am pleased with my new '95 supercab, 300 six, but can't park it on the street either because it is too clean). I had the Helm manuals for the '84--that baby sure is a tractor engine with seven(!) main bearings and direct gear driven camshaft--bullet proof! I would be interested to see what Ford comes up with for a new big six engine. Hopefully it will be as tough as the old one. (I recall that back in the early 80's chevy offered a big six that was about 292 c.i., but only in the 3/4-ton and larger pickup.) Finally, as for my new '95 F-150, anybody have a sales brochure for that year they'd like to part with? I would pay a modest fee.

 

I don't doubt that a stock 300 was an "un-green" (is there such a word?) engine. Look at the time frame when it was designed: in production for the 1965 model year, it would have been on the drawing table around, say, 1962...the very year Ford brought out their small block, which is still with us (today though hanging on by only a small thread). Look at the 300's general combustion chamber layout, valve geometry, and rocker arm design and you'll see what I mean.
What Ford needs to do is graft their current head/cam layout onto the 300 lower end and (cheaply) they'd have a current design. After all, Ford has an in-house precedent: they've done exactly that on their 4.0L V-6.
Sadly, I don't think Ford's current F-150 envelope could be stretched to hold an engine physically as loooong as the 300. An inline six has an inherent smoothness and torque production advantage over any other design (save a V-12) due (a), to its perfect primary and secondary balance and (b), 120-degree crankthrows--which are two very sound reasons that 90% of all large diesel trucks use an inline-six design.
Ed

 

I was just reading in Peterson's "The Complete Ford Book" (1972) that the V-8 has a power stroke every 90 degrees, whereas the I-6 is every 120 degrees (and presumably the V-6 also as I think it is just 2*360/no of cylinders). They said that makes the six a rougher running engine which requires a heavier flywheel, but that the advantage is each power stroke has more time (120 vs 90 degrees) to push the crank resulting in more torque. Makes sense to me as I would think as soon as the next power stroke comes any remaining push from the last power stroke becomes insignificant being overwhelmed by the fresh power stroke. On this theory, a four cylinder should even have more torque. Was there ever a big "torque monster" four other than in a tractor (I wonder about the INternational Scout)? I also learned that the 240 I6 (they don't list the 300 in the Peterson book) had a 4.00 bore and 3.18 stroke which leads me to believe the 300 is a stroked 240 as the 300 is 4.00 bore and 3.98 stroke. I really like the 7 main bearings of the 300. The peterson book had an article on a man who hot-rods ford I6's. He used the 200 inch over the 170 because the 200 inch had 7 main bearings.

 

I just bought an '88 Bronco with an I-6 and 5 spd. I was wondering about engine mods to make it more efficient, but read that because it is Speed-Density controlled engine mods won't work?
At the moment all I want to do is add a K&N filter/airtube set-up.
Does anyone even make a header for this engine? I would love to replace my exhaust with a header and cat-back system.

 

Clifford makes the headers for the 300 I6.

Say, does anyone know how heavy the 300 is compared to the 302 or 351W? I replaced my 300 with a 351W and guessed that the two weighed about the same.

Slik

 

I see the application for the 300-I6 headers on their website, but only for the F-150...I wonder if they would fit the Bronco with little/no problems?

 

Anyone know the performance numbers for these engines, or where to find them? I have an 88 300-I6 and I'm curious, since it seems to drive better than the 302 Eddie Baeur trucks that I drove!

 

My '89 brochure shows a certified engine power curve of 150 horsepower @ 3400 rpm (145 hp @ 3600 w/2.73 or 3.08 axle) and 260 lbs./ft. torque @ 2000 rpm (265 lbs./ft. @ 2000 rpm w/2.73 or 3.08 ratios). Compare that with the 185 hp @ 3800 rpm and (get this) 270 lbs./ft. @ 2400rpm that the 302 car engine Ford used in pickups got. I imagine your '88 would be the same rating because that horsepower and torque figure was the same to the end in '96.
Long block weight for the 300 is 470 lbs. While not a FE-style heavyweight, it is not a thinwall casting in the style of the small-block, either. It was designed with durability in mind, as a base truck engine.
Clifford has headers for F-150s and these will fit a Big Bronco of the same years also. I run a set of what Clifford calls their "Street Rod" header, which is an unequal-length dual 3-into-1 shorty setup. Make sure you order them with smog hookups and 3-inch to 2.25-inch reducers. DO NOT GET THEM HEAT-COATED FROM CLIFFORD!!! You will want to spend some time with a die grinder inside the headers smoothing welding slag and excess sheet metal. Then get them Jet Hot (or whatever) coated.
If you get 2-inch reducers, you can tie in directly to the truck's existing dual-inlet catalytic converter.
If you're like me and get a little excessive, have a custom stainless "Y" connector made up, tying the 2.25-inch collectors to a 3-inch Random Technologies high-flow cat (made for a C**vy Camaro), dumping into a Gibson 3-inch cat-back exhaust system. The air pump fitting in the "Y" should be as close to parallel with exhaust gas flow as possible.
The speed density EFI gets bashed quite a bit, and needlessly, in my opinion. My truck's stock EFI responded quite well, thank you, to the exhaust mods described above. I did try a JET chip, it did nothing except create a mysterious crib-death syndrome which killed the entire truck.
The only way to get it running again was to pull the chip, and this happened every time I put the thing back on. JET's tech people were not only rude and too busy, they obviously had just fallen off the turnip truck, as had their engineers. JET uses an adapter that sandwiches into the main computer wiring harness OUTSIDE the firewall, and JET's idea of waterproofing is a black, gooey, nasty sheet of roofing tar which you are supposed to stick on your fire wall all around this adapter. Their chip then plugs into this adaptor with a delicate 64-pin connector. EEEYEW, YUCK. I am talking to HyperTech now.
The stock EFI has also coped rather well with the port recontouring/big valve job I did the day I brought my new '91 home in the fall of '90. I ripped the head off, matched the exhaust ports to the stock cast iron manifolds (hogged them out, too), did the same to the intake ports and manifolds. I did quite a lot of work in the bowl/long turn area, slimmed the valve guide boss A LOT, added 1.94/1.60 Manley valves made for a (gag) C***vy, and had a multiangle valve job done.
I'm using the stock cam, therefore the thing runs out of breath and falls on its face promptly at 4,000rpm, but boy does it get to 4 grand in a hurry and pull REAL hard getting there. And it passes emissions and gets 12-13 mpg and has for 175,000 miles, this with 4wd, 4.10s, 5spd OD, and 31X10.50-15 Wrangler GSAs.
Well, if you've read this far, you get a cookie.
Ed

 

I own a 92 E250 Ford van with a 300 engine. My
question to you experts out there is this, could I
modify this engine to get 20-25 mpg? ha ha ha
I know the the best way to achive this is by incresing my compression ratio. Current ratio is 8.8:1 I know that a gasonile engine can go up to 17.0:1 before premature detonation. How about a I6 300 with a compression ratio of 12.0:1, sounds resonable ehh? ???? How can I achive this???? How about shaving the engine block and head??? would the put to much stress on the pistons and conecting rods? Would I keep on blowing head gaskets? ???

 

Ed,

Any idea what the 302 or 351W long blocks weighed?

Slik

 

Moses Ludel from Off Road Magazine has a Book called Ford Truck Owners Bible ...It has everything in it that any Ford Truck owner could want to know . Available at most books stores for about $25