Hey, mine's a '94 too! (why does that excite me?) Do you have any pictures of your trucks?

You're right. The 300 is just a simple, durrable engine. It's "okay" that it got left behind. It just rides everyone to the junkyard for their newer trucks (just like you!). But I would like to have seen a HO 300. It would have to have a shorter stroke though.

She's slow, but she'll go!

Really? That is very interesting. The EFI 300's seem aimed more for mid-range power (not that I'll complain about that. I personally don't tow anything regularly). For instance, mine seems to run fairly hard (using "hard" loosely) till 4,000 rpm, where it tachs out.

I believe Ford refuses to bring the inline design over here because of size. Of course, that doesn't stop Ford from jamming their engines in the vehicles now. Sideways V6's in Escapes. Van engines. I heard you have to take the bodies off the newer trucks just to pull the engine (is that true?).

So, I don't know. But I would love to see an I6 lineup for Ford.

 

I think Ford doesn't bring them over because they can't get them to pass United States emissions laws. That's usually the case when you see a domestic in another country sporting an engine with twice the power and performance they get here.

 

I just put some in my garage.

I looked at your pics, all I can say is I wish my 94 looked as good as yours. Oh well, it's a work in progress... very SLOW progress!

My 99 is a flareside. If I can find some pics I'll post them.

 

I looked at your pictures and I love your truck. I like the color, too. Why do you say it's a project truck? It looks clean to me.

I see you have the manual transmission. You're lucky. You also have the 2.71 gear ratio. That is very rare for a '94. What kind of fuel mileage do you get out of that truck? Your truck is set up to cruise the open highway and get REALLY GOOD fuel mileage. You should see 18 - 19 mpg on a good day.

What are your plans for the truck?

Looking forward to seeing your '99 FlareSide! Great looking trucks.

 

blurriness of the .
jaypeg
That's the problem w/it (not the font). Blurry w/ magnification.

 

"a shorter stroke" would B a 240, wouldn't it, Bill

Yeah, the Thunderbird (I think that's the model) is pre Bonneville (2 carbs). No, the 750 is much better - excellerate in any gear @ any speed. 'umph has the tough guy seat, ape bars (almost), no frnt fender, Lucas ignition, etc. It's my Chrome Sculpture.

So like I said 1500 - 2200 is where it's @ for the 300. Just right 4 me, now. The 250 had it @ 1600! Even better (for me, now or any X). Now again that's before net changed to gross n pollution controls entered. They are listed for this forum. No 170 (may B I should petition the ADMINISTRATOR for mine...uh, better not they might declare a Bronk is NOT a truck) - or 144. Yeah, it sez 200 & 250 tho!
What the heck ford trucks were they in? Van, Courier (may B 144?I just saw a 4 cyl fi chebbie), ranchero? I know guys w/250 Rancheros...

 

Yeah those Aussies get 500HP outta the 250 w/an intake, like your 300 Offy, and a head's not that modified beyond what a stock 200 I6 is "like", I think long tube headers...

 

Yeah Chad, a 240 would probably have a shorter stroke.. But is it short enough? How long is the stroke on the 240?

Chad, what RPM's do those HO 4-bangers see?

 

(bore x stroke)
140: 3.5" x 2.5"
170: 3.5" x 2.94"
200: 3.68" x 3.126"
250: 3.68" x 3.91"
240: 4" x 3.18"
300: 4" x 3.98"

((The 302 is 4" x 3" and the 351 is 4" x 3.5" for comparison.))


I've often been curious what a 240 would rev to.

 

Justin, I'd like to see a built 240. I would love to see what a 240 is capable of. More or less than the 300? I would say, horsepower wise, the 240 would have more potential, just because of the shorter stroke.

What size are the pistons on a 240 anyhow?

 

Updated the list I put.

It'd be hard to say, simply because Horsepower is directly derived from what torque it's making at a given RPM. It'd be able to rev higher, but it'd be making less torque due to the shorter stroke, so you'd have to make it rev to get it it's power, unlike the 300.

HP = (TQ * RPM) / 5252

This is just outta no where, but lets say you built a 240 to rev to 6500 RPMs, and it was making 280 tq by then...

(280 * 6500) / 5252 = 346.5hp

The 300 would obviously be making more torque at that RPM, but it'd be pretty darn tough to ever get it to rev that high!

 

Hmmm. Very good point, J.

I would love to see a 240 dyno'd before and after, from stock to HO.

 

I also think under hood packaging played a role too.. The 1997 and newer F150s appear to have less hood and engine bay length, the shorter Mods V8s even seem buried way back behind the front window . Plus, wouldn't be crazy that the optional 4.6 V8 be smaller then the base 300 ?

 

You’ve got a point for sure! Working on my 99 is almost like working on a van.

 

6cylBill,
When I bought the truck it had been sitting for probably close to two years, before that it had been loaned out by the guy I bought it from and they trashed it. It was the poster child for abused and neglected trucks.

To get it to idle the timing was set way to high. It had serious carbon buildup behind the throttle body which was blocking the air bypass valve and the EGR valve completely.

The clutch had been replaced prior to me getting it. When they “reinstalled” the shifter they busted the plastic shifter trim that goes against the floor, cut a big hole in the vinyl flooring and insulation, cut a couple of corners off of the rubber grommet, and to top it all off never put the screws back in. They did however put a new shifter **** on it.

The interior of the truck was in pretty rough shape. Rips in seams of the seat. Dash pad cracked. Dash discolored. Both inner tie rods were shot. Between them and the steering gear box there must have been close to a half a turn of play. Shocks were shot. Shifter bushings were shot. 5th gear achieved from passenger seat only. Front wheel bearings so loose that both tires could easily be wobbled. But with the steering, you’d never know it by driving it. I’m thinking that it needs new ball joints since one side of the front is about an inch lower than the other.

There are other things, mostly cosmetic though. Since we have plans of restoring it, it’s a way for me to teach my son a little about working on cars. I’m no mechanic, but over the years I’ve turned a wrench or two. I enjoy it. I bought the truck for two reasons, first was to have transportation to/from work while I fix my 99, and 2, for my son to have a vehicle at 16. Of course the more I drive Ole’ Blue, the more I am reminded how much I liked and enjoyed the 93 that I had.

Oddly enough, it feels more like a truck than my 99 does. I’m thinking that my son might be getting a scooter when he turns 16… lol!