Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

300 Ford


Dirty Dan Dawkins

Recommended Posts

I had a 93 Ford F-150 with the 300 straight six. I miss that truck. That is a wonderful engine. Mine had a 5 speed stick shift. It was a base model truck. I wish Ford made that one again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I had a 93 Ford F-150 with the 300 straight six. I miss that truck. That is a wonderful engine. Mine had a 5 speed stick shift. It was a base model truck. I wish Ford made that one again. 

 

I had an '87 with the same motor but a 3 speed transmission.  GREAT truck. 300,000+ miles on it when I traded it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine was a '66 F-150 that old six would have clumb a tree if I could have figured out how to attach it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

My 97 Cherokee has the 4 liter inline 6 (about 240 cubes) and my 05 Cherokee the 3.8 liter V6. I much prefer the 4 liter with much better torque for acceleration. A real stump puller too when you need it. 

 

When Jeep went to they 3.8 liter V6 in their Wranglers they sold folks a real turd. Mine is fortunately mated to 4:10 gears and a 6 speed transmission but my great grandparents can still beat me down the driveway on their 3 wheeled skateboards. The 3.8 cannot get out of its own way, and I cannot get out of logging truck's way going uphill on long grades in the Colorado mountains. The 3.6 V6 Jeep put in their Wranglers in 2012 is a much better engine but I would really prefer the inline 6. I had a 258 straight 6 in an old '75 CJ5 that was a good engine even if I did not realize it at the time. ;) My '76 CJ5 had the 304 V8 and although made fewer horsepower than my horse at the time made a lot of noise and that was at least fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive airways had at least 1f 150 with the 300.  My last one had over 500k when the frame was damaged beyond repair.   My current one has 80 k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with inline 6's. My first try at drag racing was in 1958 with my 50 Chevy. Soon replaced the original 6 with a GMC 271 6 cyl engine. Made headers for it, installed a cam and had 3 carbs on it. It was fast and beat a lot of V8's. Back in the 50's you could get a lot of aftermarket speed equipment for 6 cylinders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big inlines are mighty powerful, 

Had a bunch in different configurations, to bad the EPA killed them, and our government good ideas, cash for clunkers, took most of them off the road.

 

Theres a reason v8 semi trucks are gone as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dantankerous said:

 

When Jeep went to they 3.8 liter V6 in their Wranglers they sold folks a real turd. Mine is fortunately mated to 4:10 gears and a 6 speed transmission but my great grandparents can still beat me down the driveway on their 3 wheeled skateboards. The 3.8 cannot get out of its own way, and I cannot get out of logging truck's way going uphill on long grades in the Colorado mountains. The 3.6 V6 Jeep put in their Wranglers in 2012 is a much better engine but I would really prefer the inline 6. I had a 258 straight 6 in an old '75 CJ5 that was a good engine even if I did not realize it at the time. ;) My '76 CJ5 had the 304 V8 and although made fewer horsepower than my horse at the time made a lot of noise and that was at least fun.

Basically, by the early 2000s the engineers Jeep had wrung as much power as they could get out of the 4.0, within emission restrictions. The had to start fresh, so they went with the V6, since that was what was popular.

I have a 2002 TJ with the 4.0 and a 5 speed, and while it gets up and goes, it gets lousy mileage. 14MPH city, 12MPH highway. Nobody has been able to explain THAT one to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Basically, by the early 2000s the engineers Jeep had wrung as much power as they could get within emission restrictions. The had to start fresh, so they went with the V6, since that was what was popular.

I have a 2002 TJ with the 4.0 and a 5 speed, and while it gets up and goes, it gets lousy mileage. 14MPH city, 12MPH highway. Nobody has been able to explain THAT one to me.

 

They probably went to a V engine because of packaging and weight.  There's really nothing about an inline engine that inherently produces better performance.  Sure there are arguments about having seven main bearings, but there's plenty of 5000+ horsepower V8s out there with only five, so I don't think that's really what matters.

 

The Jeep 4.0 was a great engine in its day, for sure, but technology is an amazing thing and I'm sure there's something better these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

 

They probably went to a V engine because of packaging and weight.  There's really nothing about an inline engine that inherently produces better performance.  Sure there are arguments about having seven main bearings, but there's plenty of 5000+ horsepower V8s out there with only five, so I don't think that's really what matters.

 

The Jeep 4.0 was a great engine in its day, for sure, but technology is an amazing thing and I'm sure there's something better these days.

Inline engines tend to make better torque that a V engine of the same cu.in. 

Since Jeep doesn't make a small vehicle, (the JK is much bigger than the TJ), whether there is something better is moot. There are stroker kits to upgrade the 4.0 to 4.7, as well as turbos and superchargers, but I don't know whether they're better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

I have a 2002 TJ with the 4.0 and a 5 speed, and while it gets up and goes, it gets lousy mileage. 14MPH city, 12MPH highway. Nobody has been able to explain THAT one to me.

I had an 03. Similar results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Basically, by the early 2000s the engineers Jeep had wrung as much power as they could get out of the 4.0, within emission restrictions. The had to start fresh, so they went with the V6, since that was what was popular.

I have a 2002 TJ with the 4.0 and a 5 speed, and while it gets up and goes, it gets lousy mileage. 14MPH city, 12MPH highway. Nobody has been able to explain THAT one to me.

What is your highway rpm?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Basically, by the early 2000s the engineers Jeep had wrung as much power as they could get out of the 4.0, within emission restrictions. The had to start fresh, so they went with the V6, since that was what was popular.

I have a 2002 TJ with the 4.0 and a 5 speed, and while it gets up and goes, it gets lousy mileage. 14MPH city, 12MPH highway. Nobody has been able to explain THAT one to me.


It’s heavy and has the aerodynamics of a large appliance box. The faster you go, the worse it gets. If it’s a soft top like my 97 TJ, that has a negative impact on hwy mileage too. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

 


It’s heavy and has the aerodynamics of a large appliance box. The faster you go, the worse it gets. If it’s a soft top like my 97 TJ, that has a negative impact on hwy mileage too. 
 

Then why doesn't everybody's Jeep do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

About 3200 at 70 in 4th, if I remember right. Overdrive seems to get HOT, but at 70 in overdrive It did the same.

You're gearing is killing the highway economy.  If you start cruising around town at 3,200rpm in second, I guarantee the highway economy will be better than the city economy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Then why doesn't everybody's Jeep do that?

I’ve no idea. My city and highway mileage were pretty much the same where regular cars improved on the highway without the stop and go driving in urban/suburban driving. I could have done better on the highway if I was willing to drive 45 mph. 
 

You might want to have yours checked out as you mileage sounds a bit low even for a TJ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 cyl. engines were often undersquare, meaning they had more stroke than bore. The Ford 300 was pretty much square, 4.0" bore and 3.98" stroke. These inline motors also had heavy flywheels and were tuned for low end torque. 

V8's were usually oversquare with more bore than stroke. Bigger intake valves could be fit in the larger cylinders and with lighter flywheels, would generally rev quicker and faster.

You can hotrod many motors. but HP kills mpg if you use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad told me when I was a kid that the only way to get a jeep to go 80 MPH was to drop it out of a plane.  I laughed about it... until I bought one years later.... then I had to tell him he was right.

 

Jeeps have a place and a use they are made for, race tracks isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428 said:

My dad told me when I was a kid that the only way to get a jeep to go 80 MPH was to drop it out of a plane.  I laughed about it... until I bought one years later.... then I had to tell him he was right.

 

Jeeps have a place and a use they are made for, race tracks isn't it.

Not your daddy's Jeep

https://www.caranddriver.com/jeep/grand-cherokee-trackhawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Inline engines tend to make better torque that a V engine of the same cu.in. 

Since Jeep doesn't make a small vehicle, (the JK is much bigger than the TJ), whether there is something better is moot. There are stroker kits to upgrade the 4.0 to 4.7, as well as turbos and superchargers, but I don't know whether they're better. 

They "tend" to by nature of having longer strokes.  There's nothing inherent about the inline design that makes them more torquey and no reason to believe a V6 of the same displacement with the same bore and stroke would not make similar torque.  It would probably make more actually by reducing frictional losses and rotating weight.  An I6 is arguably more durable than a V6 of similar design, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

They "tend" to by nature of having longer strokes.  There's nothing inherent about the inline design that makes them more torquey and no reason to believe a V6 of the same displacement with the same bore and stroke would not make similar torque.  It would probably make more actually by reducing frictional losses and rotating weight.  An I6 is arguably more durable than a V6 of similar design, though.

I'm not disagreeing on any particular point. Perhaps I should say that I6 engines are designed to produce more torque than a V6 of the same displacement and HP. And you are quite correct about the durability of the I6, there are plenty of Jeep 4.0 engines that are well on their way to 300,000 miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

There's nothing inherent about the inline design that makes them more torquey and no reason to believe a V6 of the same displacement with the same bore and stroke would not make similar torque.

A Detroit engine designer has a youtube channel and talks about why the straight 6 (or a V12) is inherently stable and therefore can produce huge torque without shaking itself to death. My cousin just bought a brand new Kenworth long distance tractor...Straight 6 torque monster.  There is simply nothing like a straight 6 in a four cycle motor.....Just about a perfect combination.....BUT, physically too long for front wheel drive vehicles, that's the only reason we don't see more.

 

My wife just got a straight 6 for Christmas....

IMG_20211218_153609255_HDR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.