I thought about using a tractor muffler before.

 

The original reason for dropping the 300 is emissions. It's a hard engine to clean up and get rpms out of, which is why so many have a "misfire" at the 50-70 range.
The other reason is crashworthyness of the engine. It's long, and can intrude into the passenger compartment. The 4.2L is shorter and has the extra room in front of the engine to serve as a crush zone before being displaced to the rear and into the passenger compartment.

 

I never really gave that much thought. Thanks, now I won't be able to ride anyone anymore! lol

 

4this a bit high to take off in. I've done 3rd with 300lbs of sand tubes in the bed on a slight uphill incline.

Had to ride the clutch hard though.

 

Just a thought here - if the I-6s are so hard to 'clean up', why does GM have I-5s and I-6s in some of their newer vehicles? Why did Chrysler keep the 4.0L Jeep engine for so long? Why are so many 'foreign' manufacturers still producing I-5s and I-6s? I put it in the stack of yet another example of Ford wasting money to make money.

 

Jonas, I don't buy the emissions thing. Originally, there was a problem with getting even fuel distribution because the intake manifold was so long, end-to-end. The near cylinders got over-fueled, and the far were starved. Not a lot, but significant when talking ppm in the exhaust. With the EFI setup, the mix could be made exact. The bore/stroke ratio and the head squish design are common to all piston engines.
The mounts could have been made to submarine the engine transmission in a head-on, as had been done for years.
IMO, opinion only!!, they dropped the I-6 because the competition would have mocked them for 'old design'. GM *had* an I-6 that would blow the doors off the 300, numbers wise, but I never heard of it being such a long-lived engine. I think they stopped making it, but don't follow as closely as I used to.
I know of nothing that has the natural balance of an I-6 design. If I could shoehorn one in, I'd put a 200-6 into my Ranger.
/Opinion mode

tom

 

I think Ford dropped the 300 because these long things wouldn't die and Ford never made any money selling parts.

 

So they made their money back with the 5.4's blowing spark plugs out, lol.

I do think companies stop making such reliable engines because they stop people from needing to buy from them again. Sure, the 4.6/5.4 family has reliable engines. But, they do have more common 'faults' than the old, reliable 300. Whether it's blowing spark plugs out the holes, or having oil leaks from the friggin' 'oil filter adapter gasket' which is a PITA to get to... they have more common problems. That = money for Ford. Whether it is doing repairs, or selling another vehicle.. they are making more money.

It's what businesses do.

 

Like I have said before, Ford categorically has wasted money to make money throughout it's history so many times. Especially in retooling plants for newer engines. Their solution to offset things like that? Close down plants and put people out of work. Gotta love it I won't say other manufacturers have or have not done worse, though!

If I am not mistaken, the Chebby Trailblazer has an I-6, and it's not that old. So, again, the emissions thing is still not a valid reason in my opinion. I would lean more toward the making money idea, although I think it's worse business to trade reliability for profit. Ford pretty much got rid of all of their heavily reliable engines, including the 302/351W and 300. GM hasn't so much - although, I am unsure as to whether the 6.0L Vortec is of SBC origin. I'm not sure if their 'new' I-6s, etc. are rebirths or not. I know the old 250, 292, and similar I-6s of the past were pretty darn reliable. I think it's sad that the Big Three have traded reliability for profit. Just my $0.02

 

kernel, hows it goin' in yokoooskuh? We were homeported in Sasebo back in the mid 70's, one of the first forward deployed ships, I think. I got off after a year overseas.
Ford shows no sense in their engine department. How many versions of the 4.0 were there? How many of the 2.3-2.5 I-4? How many of the I-6? At least they only had two 351ci V-8 engines at one time.
Why would they develop an OHV 2.3 for the tempo topaz with an OHC 2.3 already in production? Height? Ditto the 2.5 for the Taurus, along with the 3 speed auto that they put into 33 cars...(exaggeration..)
Never made sense to have so many of similar displacement. But, then again, look at all the 2.x liter Honda and Toyota engines developed, seems as if they had a new one every year. Lots of fun to find the right part.
Last time I had a kernel-panic was on a 3b5.
tom

 

I'm thinking that the 2.3L and 2.5L of recent design are like the 2.0L Zetec engines. They were designed and developed under contract by Porche. I don't think the 2.3-5L engines are bad. Actually they are pretty good little engines. The 2.0L Zetec from which the other two are based upon was not bad either. It had some pulley issues in the early versions that they couldn't get past till recently. But other wise it's a good engine. They are all much lighter and compact than the old "Pinto" 2.0 and 2.3L design, which is an old German Ford engine from the sixities. Nevermind the OHV 2.3L designed and built for the Tempo. It was based on the 200 six pack. It had the same (approx) output hp and torque as the 200 did when the 2.3L Tempo came out new. It also did much better at the gas pump than the six did.

The fascination with the OHC engines is the press and the public. Everyone wants OHC engines...well sort of. If it has hydraulic lifters it is one very moot point. I could care less...just make it work well, and all is well insofar as I am concerned. Works fine, lasts a long time!

As for moving from the 302/351 engines to the 4.6 and sorta similar 5.4L engines all bets are off. They both blow plugs. I have a Mustang Bullitt GT and visit our Bullitt website (IMBOC.com) on a regular basis. Posts about blown plugs are more common than I would like to think, but not so common as to be more than a nusance on the 4.6L and the 5.4L.

My 302 in my Crown Victoria wasn't even in the same ballpark when it comes to reliablity as the 4.6L in the Mustang. Same for the 351 HO in my F-250. It was good, but in my opinion, not as good as the 5.4L.

Opinion only on my part...I prefer the new fangled engines over the old OHV engines. That includes my 300 cid in the F-150 I am driving now. Simply because they are more efficient and reliable than the engines they replaced. Do I miss the old 302? You bet! Do I want a 302 over the 4.6L in my Bullitt? No way! Same goes for the others...I will keep the 300 in the F-150 and the old F-150 will stay till the day it becomes more bothersome than I like. Then out the door. I suppose I'll have to do without a six if that happens anytime soon, there not being a V-6 offering in a F-150. But I read that the 3.5L Ecoboost in waiting in the wings...

As for my posting on the safety factor of the crush zone and passenger compartment intrusion. I read that on the NHTSA website years ago. I don't know, but it's probably been written over or dropped by now. It was an explaination as to why the Ford truck did so much better in the impact test with the new truck (new six 4.2L) versus the old truck (with the 300 six). OK?

 

The proof that you can make power with an I-6 is Nissan. Yes I said it. Nissan Skyline has a I-6 that puts out almost 300 horse from the factory. They have been modded and tuned to over 1,000 horse. They might be foreign, but that is one wicked 6.

 

I've read about a '69 or so Comaro with a Toyota I6 that produced over 1,000 HP.

 

These old engines were dropped for many reasons.
Smog, archaic design, length, horsepower, weight, selling point, etc.

I love the 300 and belive that it is the best truck engine ever made. This is an opinion so dont knock it.

Now stop and think for a moment........................Its 1965 again.

The Eisenhower interstate hasent even reached every state. At the local gas station a flathead V-8 is as likely a sight as a small block chevy. Your grandpa may still have a running model A in the yard. Freeways cruised at 65. The US population was at 198 million.

A truck was primarly a utility vehicle. Most men drove a car to work and the second car was a small used compact for the wife to get grocheries. Handymen did the work. Not always you like today.

4.11s and sticks were standard. Going a top speed of 55 with a load was A-OK. A truck was a utilitarian vehicle. The 240 and inline six were "fleet" engines. Reasonable on gas and low on price and maintnance. These engines were obsolete by the 80s in reality. However they are cheep and reliable as heck. Most ford sixes can run 200k with only tunups and oil changes. Fleet users loved them. Even people who hate ford tell me they respect the 300. It works and works and works and works and works. This is an engine for a working truck that dosent need a ton of getup and go.

By the 90s women drove trucks, they have heated leather seats, sunroofs, cd players, caddie suspensions, 300 hp racing trucks, and tons of options that a fleet buyer in 1965 would have frowned at.

Now days people want a truck that is near zero maintnance, tows at 75mph, and wont feel a bit of washboard gravel. Why would you want a manual is a common remark from people. 60% of this country cant drive a stick now. The 300 is dead cause its a working motor. 130hp dont cut it anymore.

 

Yeah I forgot about the Yota engines. Twin turbos rock!!!