Tired of the 300 bashing - Page 14 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

Notices

Tired of the 300 bashing

 
  #196  
Old 02-07-2009, 02:50 PM
Econoline 150's Avatar
Econoline 150
Econoline 150 is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 566
Econoline 150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by rikard View Post
I"ve had both a 302 and 300 in F150s. I liked the six for the low end power and the 302 for the ability to rev. The six is easier to work on and is a true truck engine. My 302 made it to 220k miles with 20k hauling a 5000lb RV trailer. Both of my 300s have used less oil and have have been rock solid. If my 300 ever goes out I would consider the 302 but not with the 3.08 gears
As far as diesels go the absolute worst was the old Toro Flow GMCs followed by the Olds 350 diesel.
I have always liked the 466/530 and the DT360/408 "cornbinders"
regards
rikard
I bought a old GMC farmtruck from a farm estate aution about a year ago that had a Toro Flow that ran real well.
Did they have issues ? Even back in their day I never came across any.
 
  #197  
Old 02-07-2009, 04:15 PM
don merke's Avatar
don merke
don merke is offline
Junior User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: 83 mile house bc.
Posts: 81
don merke is starting off with a positive reputation.
Exclamation 1965> md-300/6 do all to end all!!one of the best ever made.

my /65 merc 1 ton dully4x4>[ napco power-packed] 587.1 geared -43 years all org. classic. still running great> i might do the head in the future but i'm happy to just do oil changes/greese /clean the plugs twice a year and drive it forever overloaded-[old ironsides woods-dump box] at any bashing jokey that ever comes along respect the achivements of others then you can respect your own.[try to keep it on the ground 6ers ] now back to the bc.chapter> see ya
 
  #198  
Old 02-08-2009, 10:28 AM
rikard's Avatar
rikard
rikard is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Reading Mass
Posts: 1,208
rikard is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Bill
The main issue with the Toro Flows was the crankshaft. The main bearing webs would crack. The engine was based on the big GMC gas engines and would do ok if not heavily loaded. Some of the town owned trucks had crank failures when plowing heavy snow and I'm sure some of the failures could have been "pilot error" from drivers used to gas engines. When the engines failed many were replaced with Chevy 366 gassers.
Do a search on Toro Flow and you'll come up with some interesting stories.
regards
rikard
 
  #199  
Old 02-09-2009, 07:36 AM
FARM69's Avatar
FARM69
FARM69 is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kearney, Nebr
Posts: 3,195
FARM69 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Lugg'in those old GMC 350 conversion diesels would shatter the crank. It was a decently heavy crank, but not designed to take the vibration created when lugg'in the engine.
 
  #200  
Old 02-09-2009, 09:51 AM
Econoline 150's Avatar
Econoline 150
Econoline 150 is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 566
Econoline 150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by rikard View Post
Bill
The main issue with the Toro Flows was the crankshaft. The main bearing webs would crack. The engine was based on the big GMC gas engines and would do ok if not heavily loaded. Some of the town owned trucks had crank failures when plowing heavy snow and I'm sure some of the failures could have been "pilot error" from drivers used to gas engines. When the engines failed many were replaced with Chevy 366 gassers.
Do a search on Toro Flow and you'll come up with some interesting stories.
regards
rikard
rikard, thanks, even back in their day I never came across any, most medium trucks were gas engines. The one I bought a little over a year ago was in pretty good shape and looked to have had an easy life. It was pretty gutless I can say that.
In my opinon a converted gas engine is usually a disaster. The company did have some yard totes with 351 V6 GMC's that gave good service, but they were gas.
 
  #201  
Old 04-12-2009, 04:40 AM
85F_150driver's Avatar
85F_150driver
85F_150driver is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Rose City, MI
Posts: 390
85F_150driver is starting off with a positive reputation.
I have owned 3 ford 300's in the last 6 years. The first was a 2wd 85 f-150 supercab long bed with a top mounted overdrive tranny and a 3.08 rear end in town it would get about 15 on the highway it would get 25 consistantly driveing 75 - 80 mph. I had slightly modified it nothing internal on the motor but i had put 2.25" pipe and a flowmaster with dual tailpipes and no cats, i had converted the tfi ignition back to a duraspark ignition out of a 78 with a 78 carburator to get rid of all the feedback system.
Second was a 94 F-150 2wd regular cab shortbed with an E4OD and 3.08 put the same exhaust on it and best i could get out of it was 11 mpg highway or in town didn't matter.
Third one i still currently own is a 78 F-150 4x4 4 speed with 3.73 gears only mod on it is exhaust, i put a set of efi manifolds on it with a custom 2 1/4 inch Y pipe into 2.5" pipe into a flowmaster into a 3.5" Powerstroke tail pipe, sounds wicked, gets 15 with the hubs unlocked and drops about in half with the hubs locked. I love these motors. I had a Dodge with a 318 auto for a while got decient mileage if i drove it right. Worst was a 77 Chevy half ton 2 wd with a 454 and a turbo400 drove it for a year without any problems getting 8 mpg if i was easy on it most times got 5mpg modded the motor with a cam and a set of heads along with a rebuild that lasted 200 miles before the cam went flat. In my opinion the 300's were the most reliable, the easiest to work on and not afraid to work. as for drag racing a 350 it can be done, I was not imressed with my efi truck compaired to my carbed ones, but the efi was mated to and auto whereas my carbed ones were standards I put a 4 barrel intake and carb on the 78 for a while but had too much carb and it ran like crap at low end but would wind right up and wanted to keep going higher than i wanted it to.

Sorry about the rant.
 
  #202  
Old 12-28-2009, 10:40 PM
frankenstien77
frankenstien77 is offline
New User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Hood, TX
Posts: 23
frankenstien77 is starting off with a positive reputation.
300 love

Exactly, go to Cliffords web site Clifford Performance: Ford 300 & 223

These dudes are pulling massive horse power and gobs of torque in these engines. I for one own a '77 F-150 with the 300 matched to a NP435 4speed and a NP205 transfer case. I plan to put a mild cam, roller top end, oversized valves, offenhauser dual plane squar bore 4bbl intake and a 470 cfm carb. Already have headers and dual exhaust. This is a "square" engine with the bore matching the stoke at 4". I just rebuilt the engine and it is hands down the heaviest duty engine I have ever had the privelage to build. I also will upgrade to HEI ignition ad I have a freind who is a machinist and has his own shop so I will easily be able to do the ignition upgrade with some measurements and some machining. If that doesn't work I will recurve the vacuum advance distributor. If I throw more air and spark with a correctly tuned carb I should be able to hit 350+ horses with mid 4's for torque. Yes a stock 300 is awesome no doubt but if your looking to pull the ponies you got to pony up the dough to do it but once it's built I would willingly hook up to pretty much anything the weak points will be my clutch which I will also upgrade and the u-joints which I will upgrade as well. Rock on I6 lovers. I have built chevy SB and BB's, Ford SB and BB's and dodge SB's, marine engines, tractor engines, detroit and GM diesels and Aircraft engines, oh by the way I have been a certified aircraft mechanic for 11 years and the Ford 300 I6 is the simplest, and most heavy duty engine I have built yet. I will keep this motor in the truck untill I get buried in it. This is a stump puller for sure and I will happily share anything I know on what I have learned so far to help anyone out. By the way little hint. If you put a ford 240 head on the 300 you will do well. It is the same cumbustion chamber but runs a 3/8 rocker stud vs. the 5/16 rocker stud on a 300 head. Again they are the same head just the rocker studs are different. Also if you install headers cut a relief between each exhaust flange that mates to the head the poor bolt design ford used doesn't seal the headers very well.
 
  #203  
Old 12-28-2009, 11:05 PM
optikal illushun's Avatar
optikal illushun
optikal illushun is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Coal Region
Posts: 3,537
optikal illushun is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by frankenstien77 View Post
Exactly, go to Cliffords web site Clifford Performance: Ford 300 & 223

These dudes are pulling massive horse power and gobs of torque in these engines. I for one own a '77 F-150 with the 300 matched to a NP435 4speed and a NP205 transfer case. I plan to put a mild cam, roller top end, oversized valves, offenhauser dual plane squar bore 4bbl intake and a 470 cfm carb. Already have headers and dual exhaust. This is a "square" engine with the bore matching the stoke at 4". I just rebuilt the engine and it is hands down the heaviest duty engine I have ever had the privelage to build. I also will upgrade to HEI ignition ad I have a freind who is a machinist and has his own shop so I will easily be able to do the ignition upgrade with some measurements and some machining. If that doesn't work I will recurve the vacuum advance distributor. If I throw more air and spark with a correctly tuned carb I should be able to hit 350+ horses with mid 4's for torque. Yes a stock 300 is awesome no doubt but if your looking to pull the ponies you got to pony up the dough to do it but once it's built I would willingly hook up to pretty much anything the weak points will be my clutch which I will also upgrade and the u-joints which I will upgrade as well. Rock on I6 lovers. I have built chevy SB and BB's, Ford SB and BB's and dodge SB's, marine engines, tractor engines, detroit and GM diesels and Aircraft engines, oh by the way I have been a certified aircraft mechanic for 11 years and the Ford 300 I6 is the simplest, and most heavy duty engine I have built yet. I will keep this motor in the truck untill I get buried in it. This is a stump puller for sure and I will happily share anything I know on what I have learned so far to help anyone out. By the way little hint. If you put a ford 240 head on the 300 you will do well. It is the same cumbustion chamber but runs a 3/8 rocker stud vs. the 5/16 rocker stud on a 300 head. Again they are the same head just the rocker studs are different. Also if you install headers cut a relief between each exhaust flange that mates to the head the poor bolt design ford used doesn't seal the headers very well.
wow...350 hp with a mild build? nuh uh, not going to happen. stock carb'd engine has around 120 hp...to almost triple it with what u suggested is ridiclious.

also the 240 head has a smaller CC, thus more compression (approx .5 increase). dont know (or care as it doesnt pertain to me) about the rocker studs.

and why are u suggesting going to clifford? plenty of members here are pulling good numbers. Col. Flashman has a 300 hp/400 torque engine, and his is heavily modded, i would say, with ur intended build using a generic mild cam...225 hp is more realistic. u're going to need more than oversized valves to support that much power. plenty of threads on here and FSP that going into detail on what is needed for head work.
 
  #204  
Old 12-29-2009, 06:32 AM
frankenstien77
frankenstien77 is offline
New User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Hood, TX
Posts: 23
frankenstien77 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Cool thanks for the info, my machine shop says the combustion chamber is the same between the heads but either way I'll take more compression. I am optimistic about my HP and TQ numbers bear with me this is the first 300 I have ever built I am pulling from my V8 experience and that build would easily pull those numbers on a V. I am glad to have the advice and the knowledge. Thanks much
 
  #205  
Old 12-29-2009, 04:00 PM
im2tall33's Avatar
im2tall33
im2tall33 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Coeur d alene, Id
Posts: 23,620
im2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputationim2tall33 has a superb reputation
Long live the 300!! I have owned 4 300's and love them all..ANd they are very easy to work on!!
 
  #206  
Old 12-29-2009, 04:27 PM
Chevy 6.2D's Avatar
Chevy 6.2D
Chevy 6.2D is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Iowa
Posts: 448
Chevy 6.2D is starting off with a positive reputation.
I just finished reading all 14 pages of this, and was laughing the whole time about a 318 dodge van getting 50 MPG.
Anyway, the 300s are one hell of an engine.

I bought and resold a '95 150 4x4 with a MAF 302 and a 5spd. Let me tell you it hauled a** once it wound up. On a gravel road, idling in 2nd, I would floor it and it would go kinda slow, then at about 2400 RPM the tires broke loose and it went straight to 4K. Grab a gear, tires only hold on for a second and it goes to 4K again, tires spinning. Probly shouldn't have sold it, it ran amazing. Oh well.
My 300 if I stomp it in 2nd on gravel almost instantly breaks loses until 2500 when the engine starts loosing power (my timing advance doesn't work). It drives like a 6cyl diesel with a turbo, it pulls harder after you shift up.
 
  #207  
Old 12-29-2009, 04:28 PM
Truck451
Truck451 is offline
Junior User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 74
Truck451 is new and has a neutral reputation at this point.
I wish the 300 still existed
I think that inline-6s are better in general than V6s.
I think that the Detroit Diesel 8.2 was one of the worst diesel engines ever produced
I think the GM 366 V8 was one of the worst engines GM ever offered in their medium duties
 
  #208  
Old 12-29-2009, 04:39 PM
Chevy 6.2D's Avatar
Chevy 6.2D
Chevy 6.2D is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Iowa
Posts: 448
Chevy 6.2D is starting off with a positive reputation.
The gas 366...what a total PIG. Even with fuel injection they are absolutely gutless. My dad had several service trucks with them in it. Loaded with tools the truck would usually weight about 25K. With a 366 EFI than means 3-4 MPG and foot to the floor at 55 on the flat, maybe 45 on small hills if you are lucky.
The Cat 3126 Diesel was a major step up-it actually had some power and got around 7-8 MPG.

2 Stroke Detroit diesels were very good engines, if you could stand the sound. (I like it myself)

Their 4 stroke V8s (including 8.2, 6.2, and 6.5) left a lot to be desired. I love my old 6.2 trucks, but they wouldn't hold a candle to my 7.3 for reliability or power. A 6.2 hasn't actually left me stranded, but they aren't the strongest built engine either.

I saw the Olds 5.7/350 diesel mentioned as a bad engine. In '81 they went to the upgraded DX block which eliminated a lot of problems. By then everyone was scared of them so they didn't sell many diesels. A lot of the failures were caused by poor diesel fuel or lack of maintenance.
All of the engines still around today are usually running great and getting damn good MPG (30 MPG in a biga** buick). Keep in mind it was designed as an economical engine for a car or 1/2 ton 2wd truck, not to haul the world around.
 
  #209  
Old 12-29-2009, 05:56 PM
optikal illushun's Avatar
optikal illushun
optikal illushun is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Coal Region
Posts: 3,537
optikal illushun is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
the head is a huge bottle neck with these engines and they dont turn enough R's to make big hp. think of em like a diesel. to be completly honest, without spending a small fortune, anything over 300 hp is a pipe dream unless u add some boost.

the head being a U flow design coupled low rpm doesnt equal huge hp. perhaps with a roller valve train, a good porting job, properly sized cam and the stars alligning at the right time in the space time continium could u make 350 hp out of a streetable 300.
 
  #210  
Old 12-29-2009, 06:10 PM
frankenstien77
frankenstien77 is offline
New User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Hood, TX
Posts: 23
frankenstien77 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I should mention I will be doing some drastic head work, to include a possible redesign by yours trully and having it milled at the shop, who knows it could be my million dollar idea, I don't think may others have bothered to make hardcore performance stuff for these engines besides clifford and they are expensive and I really don't like what they have to offer. I love this motor and it was built to last but Ford forgot alot of fine details that they left for us to figure out, and thats the fun. Funny a 6 cylinder Aircraft engine naturally aspirated can push past 300 HP all day long why can't this monster. I suppose I will just have to play around and keep people posted. Many of you most likely think I sound like a dumb [email protected]# and thats cool bear with me this is my first inline project. I assure you I know engines and then some. Most people are very limited to knowledge of car engines only but remember gents and gals everything that moves has an engine and not to sound arrogant but I probly worked on it. We'll see though I would apreciate it if you are a doubting thomas keep your comments to your self, if you have some sweet tricks and tips you have learned with this motor and would like to share I would love to learn.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Tired of the 300 bashing


Contact Us About Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.