240 or 250 inline six?
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,021
Likes: 5
From: Almost Heaven
True. I doubt the Jeep six was designed to work like the 300. My truck is very slow (she's quick on the days she wants to be, but that's rare) but she can take a hill at 70+ mph and hold that speed without kicking out of OD. The V8 guys shouldn't be impressed by this, but I think it's pretty good considering my truck's low gear ratio and meekly 140 horse. Now what I would like to see is two F-150's identical in every aspect except the motor. Give one the 300 and one the Jeep six. Have these trucks hook up to a trailer with an 8,000 lb load and have these trucks tackle a hill. I want to see which one gets the job done better in three categories; Speed, fuel efficiency and overall performance.
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: South Africa
That mite be an ineisting comparison. One thing i have often pondered on is how the 4.0l V6 of the Ranger would do in an F100/150. They have abt the same power/tq as the jeep i6. One thing though and its pure speculation on my part, I do not think the jeep i6 could hang with the 300 i6 as a work truck day in day out fer a number of years.
Think most (all?) would like more top end on the 300 but i cant fault it for what it is
Think most (all?) would like more top end on the 300 but i cant fault it for what it is
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 2
From: North Reading Mass
I agree.
When my Cherokee with the 4.0 was loaded down performance did fall off more than with my 300. Ironically my 89 4.0 had 150 hp like my 94 300 but not as much torque. With no load the Jeep was noticeably quicker and got better mileage, that had more to do with the weight and frontal area than the engines.
The hot rodders phrase of "There ain't no replacement for displacement" is particularly true when hauling a load. My 300 has more hill climbing ability than the several 350s that I've had. I shift at the same RPMs as if it was a diesel.
regards
rikard
When my Cherokee with the 4.0 was loaded down performance did fall off more than with my 300. Ironically my 89 4.0 had 150 hp like my 94 300 but not as much torque. With no load the Jeep was noticeably quicker and got better mileage, that had more to do with the weight and frontal area than the engines.
The hot rodders phrase of "There ain't no replacement for displacement" is particularly true when hauling a load. My 300 has more hill climbing ability than the several 350s that I've had. I shift at the same RPMs as if it was a diesel.
regards
rikard
Cargo Master
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,095
Likes: 2
From: Wahpeton ND
The jeep 4.0 is a fun and peppy engine. For a stock application it offers plenty of torque and can rev significantly higher. I used to tow cars around behind a wrangler with a 4.0 and 5spd. was a great engine on the takoff. However I found the clutch always sliped if you laid into her.
Spunky little devil though.
Spunky little devil though.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,915
Likes: 1
From: Yokosuka, Honshu, Japan
What kills me is the fact that 6cyl mentions an S10 with a Ford engine. S10s either had the 2.5L 4-banger, 2.8 carb or TBI, or the 4.3 carb/TBI/Vortec..... and yes, all of the truck engines should be included - I don't recall a separate forum for the pre-170 CID engines on here.
The 4.0 Jeep engines aren't a bad setup. The HO engines, definitely. With the right mods and gearing, they'll do alright, but they weren't meant to be a heavy hauler truck engine.
The 4.0 Jeep engines aren't a bad setup. The HO engines, definitely. With the right mods and gearing, they'll do alright, but they weren't meant to be a heavy hauler truck engine.
Ford Parts Specialist
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 88,826
Likes: 790
From: Simi Valley, CA
The 250 was not installed in F Series trucks, Bronco's or Econolines.
The 200 was used in 1964/83 passenger cars, 1965/68 Ranchero's, 1973/74 Bronco's.
The 240 was introduced in 1965, used thru 1972 on Galaxie/LTD. Thru 1974 for Econolines, F100/350's.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,021
Likes: 5
From: Almost Heaven
What kills me is the fact that 6cyl mentions an S10 with a Ford engine. S10s either had the 2.5L 4-banger, 2.8 carb or TBI, or the 4.3 carb/TBI/Vortec..... and yes, all of the truck engines should be included - I don't recall a separate forum for the pre-170 CID engines on here.
The 4.0 Jeep engines aren't a bad setup. The HO engines, definitely. With the right mods and gearing, they'll do alright, but they weren't meant to be a heavy hauler truck engine.
The 4.0 Jeep engines aren't a bad setup. The HO engines, definitely. With the right mods and gearing, they'll do alright, but they weren't meant to be a heavy hauler truck engine.
What are the differences between the 4.0L and the 4.0 HO?
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Fords to Drive Before You Die
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / Worst Features Of The 2025+ Ford Expedition
Brett Foote
10 Ways Ford is LOSING to the Competition
Joe Kucinski
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,987
Likes: 104
From: Boise, Idaho
The H.O. has about 190hp/225tq. My brother has one in his Cherokee and that thing will set you back in the seat, especially since the vehicle weights only 3200lbs.
I think the regular 4.0 had about 175/210, if I remember right.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,021
Likes: 5
From: Almost Heaven
AB, I'm glad you gave me that info but my question was more along the lines of what did Jeep do to make it a 4.0 HIGH OUTPUT? Different cam, exhaust..?
Cargo Master
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,095
Likes: 2
From: Wahpeton ND
If the 4.0 HO was a 190 HP engine my mom is a virgin.
Snappy and torquey it is. But those numbers sound gross not net. I loved the 4.0 I had and thought it was a perfect "jeep" engine. There is no way in hell that its 190 Hp. A simalarly geared 300 will whip it in a race up to 60.
Snappy and torquey it is. But those numbers sound gross not net. I loved the 4.0 I had and thought it was a perfect "jeep" engine. There is no way in hell that its 190 Hp. A simalarly geared 300 will whip it in a race up to 60.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,021
Likes: 5
From: Almost Heaven
If the 4.0 HO was a 190 HP engine my mom is a virgin.
Snappy and torquey it is. But those numbers sound gross not net. I loved the 4.0 I had and thought it was a perfect "jeep" engine. There is no way in hell that its 190 Hp. A simalarly geared 300 will whip it in a race up to 60.
Snappy and torquey it is. But those numbers sound gross not net. I loved the 4.0 I had and thought it was a perfect "jeep" engine. There is no way in hell that its 190 Hp. A simalarly geared 300 will whip it in a race up to 60.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,021
Likes: 5
From: Almost Heaven
Really? I need to drive a 4.0. My truck is so slow I've never won a race, even before the big tires. My best 0 - 60 time was 11 seconds with a 4.11 gear ratio. Now it's closer to 13 with the big tires.
Cargo Master
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,095
Likes: 2
From: Wahpeton ND
The 4.0 wraps up pretty good. But it lacks sufficent torque to do anything after 3rd gear. Itll cruise comfertably at 65 in OD like a 4.9. Just a simple torque issue.
I sold my wrangler and now I want one back. The 4.0 is gone now but I would like to replace the old ladys escape with one of those wrangler XLs.
If I can commit to a freakin chrysler product. The jeep was fun. But like every chrysler Ive owned or worked on it was a constant (and very expensive) battle to keep running.
I sold my wrangler and now I want one back. The 4.0 is gone now but I would like to replace the old ladys escape with one of those wrangler XLs.
If I can commit to a freakin chrysler product. The jeep was fun. But like every chrysler Ive owned or worked on it was a constant (and very expensive) battle to keep running.