Are you planning on taking some Ranger bed rails and modifying the rear of your BII? That seems to be a popular body mod. At least now you don't have to worry about busting out the rear side glass... nor about having the weight of all of that back there... which can be good or bad! Look forward to seeing the finished product

 

Kernal panic, I'm not making it up, I've talked to guy's on the early bronco forum who said that the 300 would not fit into a 66-77 bronco without a good deal of fabracation. It is bigger than the 240, the 250 and 300 are the same size. There's guy's there that have done it, well one did it, and the other gave up and went v8. Post the question over there and see what the respnces are. I mentioned, because I thought it would be no big deal to do and think it would be a common swap because of the torque. They quickly educated me to the fact that is not as easy as it sounds, it's takes a good deal of fab work. So, I wasn't trying to be funny, was sharing what I've been told by the early bronco guy's.

 

The 240 and 300 are both ... I repeat ... BOTH truck engines. For these two in particular, I believe the only difference is the stroke length. I don't think they would have offered a 240 in '67 in the EB and F100 (and the F100 also had a 300 6-banger offered) if it wouldn't fit. I'll get back to you with a link....

 

The bronc guy's say it's tooooooo looonnnggg to be a direct fit, why do think it wasn't put into the bronco from the factory. Don't you think it would make an awesome offroad engine with all that lowend torque. The 300 has been around since around 66, they didn't stop making the first generation bronco untill 77. No 300 bronco from the factory, or how many 300 swaps do you see in early bronco's, if it was so easy, every other bronco would have the 300 because of the lowend torque, it's better than the 302. Just ask over at the early bronco forum, lets those who do this sorta thing educate you. It doesn't matter to me either way, but I know what they told me.

 

Hey panic, I looked up the post on the early broco forum. It was called a "4.0 into a early bronco". But for some reason, all the post after mine are now missing. I said, wouldn't it be better to swap in a 300 I-6 intead of a 4.0 because of the lowend torque. Then a few guy's responed telling me the in's and out's of how difficult it is to do and so on, but now there missing. At least I brought the post back to the front. I'm going to ask the question again over there and see what we get. I'm not trying to act like I know it all, I'm going on what they said, they also said the 240 isn't the same size as the 300, the 250 was. So check over at the early bronco site and we'll see what they have to say now.

 

240 piston specs:
8.9:1 Compression Ratio; 4" Bore; Standard; (2) 5/64" (1) 3/16" Ring Grooves; 1.585" Compression Distance; Recessed Head .110" Deep x 2.910" Diameter; w/4 Valve Reliefs

300 piston specs:
8.0:1 Compression Ratio; 4" Bore; Standard; (2) 5/64" (1) 3/16" Ring Grooves; 1.740" Compression Distance; Recessed Head .280" Deep

So, both are 4" bore pistons / cylinders, they're both truck engines, and were both offered in the F-series truck in 1965 all the way up until they "made" the 300 a 4.9L and dropped the 240 from production.

The Falcon Six lineup consisted of the 144, 170, 200, and 250 CID "car" engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Straight-6_engine.

Also, check these out:
1967 Ford Bronco Vehicle selection on partsamerica.com
1967 Ford Bronco Vehicle selection on autozone.com
Napa's site is the same as AutoZone's, and only lists the 170 and the 289. I'm guessing that partsamerica (Shuck's, Kragen, Checker, Advance) has bad info on their site. Regardless of that, both the 240 and the 300 have the same bore and there are NUMEROUS interchangeable parts (i.e. exhaust manifolds) between the two truck engines. Now, the truck engines and the car engines were probably different, as the bores for all of the car engines were no larger than 3.68" (250 CID). So, will a 240 or 300 fit in an Early Bronco? Probably, with fabrication or use of truck motor mounts. Will a 250 CID car engine...? More than likely, with probably no fabrication required, or VERY little. What does this have to do with a BII thread? I have no idea.

 

I would have to agree. The 144, 170, 200, & 250 are all small block inline sixes, while the 240 & the 300 are big block inline sixes. The 240 & the 300 are the same size they just have different strokes so obviously some of the parts are different, while many are interchangeable. The 250 is smaller than a 240 or 300.
I would also think that if somebody could fit a 300 in a ranger that the same would hold true for a bronco II. If you would like more information on the 300 six I would highly recommend a visit to the inline six forum on this site, there are many knowlegable people there that could answer your questions.

 

ok cant stand it no more. a 300 WILL fit in in a 66-77 bronc my old 74 had one in it i used the factry 6cyl 3sp trans (shorter than the v8 trans) and a bell from a 67 couger built solid motor mounts even put the rad where its spose to be but couldnt run the fan about 2inches of clearence between the w/pump and rad. electric fan infront keept cool.no firewall reconstuction needed.i think on this bronc 2 if he had some determination and a cuttin troch it could be done just rember if using and old 79 earlyer type trans/t case the case wont fit between the frame rails with out a bunch of fabwork

 

The early bronco guy's are replying to my post, this is where I got my info, now jump over there and read and argue with them. I don't have a dog in this fight, I had a 74 bronco, but it had a 302, and it wasn't an issue. I had an 84 bronco II and I don't see any way that the 300 would fit without alot of fab work. I'm not trying to make an issue out of this, I would like to know the truth myself. You guy's say a 300 is a bolt in for the early bronco, the early bronco guy's say it isn't, so who's right ? If you read the post in the eaely bronco forum, 4.0 into an early bronco, you'll see that I ask why anyone would want to put a 4.0 into an EB, when they could install the torque monster 300. Thats when they informed me that it took alot of work, not as easy as it sounds. On the post I just started over there, they have a link to a 300 install into an EB and all thats involved. I'm looking for truth, not an argument. So lets find the truth instead of worring about allways being right. I'm going over now and read about the install and whats all involved.

 

"SORRY GUY'S? it wasn't a link, they just said the install was in bronco driver, to read the story. I don't get or have bronco driver, so that doesn't help. I still believe this to be a good swap, it would be better than having a 302. Any offroad vehicle that you could squeeze the 300 into would be a great benifit. We have a 52 ****** jeep p/u truck in the barn back home in W,Va, It has a 4 cylinder in it now. I want to restore it some day, but I want to put a 300 I-6 in it. It doesn't look like it would be to much trouble, there's alot of room between the firewall and rad, I love the 300 and I'm interested any project where it can be used. I also thought about a 300 pn a jeep cj or yj, I know it's longer than the 4.0 or 258, but would it fit and wouldn't make for an awesome jeep if it could be done ?

 

Okay, and you're the one who just offhand spouted off info you got from another thread for the EB in this one about a BII engine swap. Apples, Oranges. Going back to what wizzard said, it IS possible to put a 300 in an EB, and yes, fabrication is required and a few other things. I can't remember where I actually finally found some other info, but I'm pretty sure that partsamerica.com has some bogus info on the '67 EB having a 240 in it, and I will take the bust on that. Considering that the BII is a little smaller / shorter in the engine compartment than an EB, yes, swapping in a 300 would be a tight squeeze and you'd have to either mount the radiator in front of the support or find an alternate location to pipe your radiator hoses to, etc. I've seen BIIs that had a 302/5.0 swapped in with two radiators... one under the hood, the other one in the back of the passenger / cargo area. For some people, it's not an "I / You can't" issue, it's a "How-to" issue. Personally, I'd like to look up the numbers for a 'stang 250 I-6 and see how the dimensions and numbers fall into place... or even more fun, stuff a Jeep 4.0 I-6 in there! Anyhow.... I wasn't offended, and was not intending to offend, either... I was looking for correct info myself

 

actually i'm finding that it is easyer to just chop a ranger box into a ranger short bed i might even just mount a ranger cab on aswell.

it's funny you bring the jeep 4.0L into this. because i'v looked at putting the jeep 4.0 in (what i'd call Cheroco II) before. i do have a 91 jeep XJ (cherokee) 4dr. and i happen to have 2 motors for it but what people don't know is the 4.0 is about 3.5'' longer than the 88 302. it's a little taller aswell. ohhhh ya it's only 3'' longer from the motor mounts.

then there is the wire harness transplant witch is not easy. i'v had to look in to transplanting a auto trany harness into my man 4dr, because my trany died and i found a cheap auto trany that came with the motor for $200 Candian. finding a universal harness was imposible.

 

i know it's a little off topic but how do i get my truck's info in at the bottom of the messages?

 

Edit your signature and set it to show your signature, bob. And yes, any inline engine swap would necessitate some wiring retrofitting, as I stated before... V-6s are bank-to-bank (offset 3 cyl / 3 cyl) firing the injectors, etc., whereas inline engines fire 2 cylinders at a time. I take it the '91 XJ has an electrically /electronically-controlled automatic (or would have, that is)? Easiest way to do an automatic swap into a manual is to use an older, non-computer-controlled automatic that fits the engine or at least the bellhousing or whatever (i.e., it would be easier for me to swap in a C-5 automatic vice an A4LD because of the computer swap and wiring involved). I know someone that took an F150 cab and put on a Full-Size Bronco frame... and dubbed it "Project Tronco".... some people go that route, using a ranger cab and bed... I guess you could call it a "Tronco II"

 

Thanks for the info Kernal-panic, now I know it's more doable than what I was first lead to believe. My only point of my statement was, if you can't just drop it into an early bronco, how much harder would it be for a bronco II and it kind of blowed up from there. I don't want to beat a dead horse, or hijack, but Kernal, do you think a 300 would fit in a wrangler, or cj demenion wise without haveing to cut the firewall or something? You guy's have me wondering about all kinds of possabilites for the 300. I believe the 300 to be one of the best ford motors ever built, truck wise anyhow. My highschool buddy owns a junkyard and has a few of them around. Thanks again for your help in these matters.