I absolutely LOVE these engines ALL of them from the little guys put in classic mustangs and Ford Mavericks. up to the Big Block sixes 240-300Cid so I made it a point to know everything about them I could lol. Going along the original posters original comment Am I safe to assume that the 300Cid because of it's long stroke can not be stroked any further????

 

Wikipedia is actually wrong on that point. The 240's stroke is 3.18. No one makes a stroker crank for a 300 but you could probably have a stock crank offset ground to give you a little extra stroke if you absolutely had to. It wouldn't get you much though and the same money spent in increasing airflow would pay far greater dividends.

 

ahh I was more interested in the specs for the 300Cid just left the 240 section there because it's the 300s little brother lol.

Yeah it was more a curiousity question than anything. sure would be wicked to see a 5.8L Straight 6 though!!!! Torque would be unreal...........as for airflow increase I'm thinking about porting and polishing the head,then port matching the intake and exhaust to the head. adding larger Valves,and the Garbage Motors(my opinion lol) 250cid six rockers. on that note though would the Crane 1.7 ratio rockers work better??? and yes also an RV cam. but more significantly true dualing it out running a single pipe from each trio of cylinders Whatcha think???

 

I asked a similar question over on Ford6 and was told that basically, the 300 is s stroked 240 more or less. You probably really can't stroke the 300 any more than it already is.

 

The crank pins on the 300 are already almost out of overlap, so if you were to stroke it more, you would lose a lot of strength.
The more the rod journal and main journal diameters intersect, the stronger the crank is.

 

Makes sense

 

Hey court1100f, interesting. I'd be curious what the actual sticker said in the window of an EFI truck. I'm with you on being a nut for the straight sixes. They're awesome. So I like to collect all the information I can on them. I remember vaguely way back when hearing them referred to having 160ish HP, but have only since then heard an read documentation of them only having 150.

150 makes more sense though if you look at how the horsepower number is calculated. Which is HP = (TQ * RPM) / 5252.
Or, in reverse:
TQ = (HP * 5252) / RPM

The EFI 4.9 makes peak HP @ 3400 RPMs.
TQ = (165 * 5252) / 3400
TQ = 255

That's almost peak torque way up there at the top of the RPM band. The 300's known for it's flat torque curve, but that's almost unheard of. That'd mean it's making 260tq @2000 and 255 @3400.
150hp would put it at a more reasonable 230tq @ 3400 RPMs.

In comparison, the carb'd version drops from 255tq @ 1400 RPMs to 214tq @ 3000 RPMs. (122HP @ 3000)

Not arguing necessarily, just getting all mathematically on it. I've been known to do that.


Fixed it.

 

so from this i dont want to stroke my engine, gives it no strength so port match my engine and increase airflow, like a high flow exhaust and maybe a huge cold air would help?

 

lol well back then in 1995 when me an tha wife met on a BBS(Anybody but me remember those) the internet wasn't really mainstream except for the specialty companies which for the life of me I don't remember the names of anymore. I had the Collectors edition Chiltons guide I probly still have it but god only knows where it is at this point we've moved so many times since then. but it stated the 165HP although I don't remember the RPM now. funny thing is HP is not alway consistent with Torque output E.G. these 4 bangers that are so tricked out they produce 500-1000HP and don't have enough torque to start rolling on their own without being pushed. lol I Honestly believe the 165 number. cause an el camino(Actually a GMC Caballero) I had it was a 84 model with 4 barrel(it was my dads I DID NOT buy a GM) even with the RV cam and Edelbrock Intake my 300 would still kick it's Axx!!! lol but to each their own lol not trying to argue either Amigo WE BOTH have good taste in ENGINES and the BEST manufacturer in the U.S. ANYway lol Yeah I'm stickin with 165HP and 265Ft Lbs Damn I use to know the RPMs getting old SUCKS!!!!

 

all i want to know is how i can make my bab izabella a lil faster ya i named my f150 and what my buddy bought a 4.7l v8 dakota POS mopared to the 9th degree stupid 4.7l v8 he is a dodge fanatic and 1 hell of a showboater i wanna laydown my 4.9 and make him eat his words thats all and i want to merge at 140km on the highway lol

 

145 horse, not 160 horse for the 300.

 

hmm well my take on that is anything you can do to improve efficiency will improve performance and My plans for my 1990 and the 1987 for that matter is an Accel Electronic Super Coil, MSD 6AL-2 ignition computer,an Aftermarket Cam I'm still on the hunt But since I've been told about the Isky cams 256 and possibly 260 grinds those are options, a more free flowing exhaust system I'm actually contemplating in the long run setting it up with True dual exhaust... other things would involve internal mods porting and polishing the head the port matching it, Higher Compression pistons, one other thing I want to do is convert from speed density to Mass Air Flow. Beyond that I don't know of too much more you could do

And I must persist to respectfully disagree on the 145HP or 150HP. Ford Themselves/manuals both shop and chiltons,My Double ASE Master certified uncle, virtually any and everybody I asked back in 1995 said 165HP not 145-150. it wasn't until the internet that this notion of anything less than 165HP came up. now what actually gets to the rear wheels may vary given parasitic power loss via the drivetrain. but the engine it'self does produce 165HP. But to the original poster I see no reason why you can't get over 200HP out of your 300 EFI.............all this said We're all still Friends lol

 

I guess that's your call, but I pretty much mathematically proved to you (using standard formulas of how they rate engine power outputs), that 165 is near impossible.

No point in having incorrect information, no matter how good it sounds.

Cheers .

 

Good job Justin.

No harm done, no hard feelings, we're just saying - it's 145 horse, not 160 and 275. That would be just under the power of a 302. Why would anyone pay extra for the 302 if the baseline engine made the same numbers?

 

LTFOL OKAY OKAY Alright already lol I'll take your word for it. But all the evidence I had back in 95 said otherwise but I'll entertain the possibility their wrong. Abit surprised ford gave false info but either way who givesa damn either way you slice it whether it's 145-150-165 or 2000 HP lol the 300 Straight 6 is a Bad A$$ engine We ALL agree on that right??? no more bloody how bout a couple instead???