Talk:Ford straight-six engine

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Trucks Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

"Output was 155 hp (115 kW) in the Mustang, and became the base engine in 1971. Power was down to 98 hp (73 kW) for 1972 and just 88 hp (66 kW) the next year." This info is wrong. The car manufacturers had to change the power measurement methode from SAE gross to SAE net in 1972. ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower ->SAE gross horsepower. Maybe someone who is native english speaking can correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.74.166 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add more info to the article and correct some dates. I'm sure I made some minor mistakes. I'm trying to get the hang of this. It would be nice to add some torque figures, pictures of engines, list of models equipped with the inline six engines and more detailed information of engines. Oh yeah and some links to inline six websites.

I added a smallish note at the end of the paragraph about the 300 that Stewart and Stevenson [1] uses (or, at least, used, their site is completely devoid of any mention of the GSE (=Ground support equipment) products at the moment.) the 4.9 in their MA Baggage tow tractor. I feel this is an appropriate addition because it shows how patently indestructible this engine really is, I work for FedEx and they use these "Tugs" everywhere to tow tens of thousands of pounds of freight around at once, and rarely ever does a Tug die because it's engine has failed. They even run them low enough on oil that the engine will just stop, then then add more, crank them back up and keep right on going. This impresses me. They sound nice, too, they emit a very burbly, low grumble.

In the part where fourth generation inline sixes are detailed there is/was a following comment: "Pedro says his 300 has more horsepower in his crappy bronco than that. At least 4 or 500." As I'm not familiar with the 'Steward and Stevenson', I have no idea what this comment means. Can someone clarify, who this person, Pedro, is and how he is related to the subject. I find this very confusing as to me it feels like an odd, irrelevant comment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.56.90 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for the FG Falcon Straight-6 are yet to be added. I was simply going to do this myself but thought whoever did previous ones might think i am copying their code or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.215.232 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone supply a picture of the intake side of one of these engines? I think that it would be nice to clarify the manifold structure used in these motors as it is one of the special aspects of them.

They say that because of the flow-restricting log-style unremovable intake these motors lose rapidly their low speed torque without giving much greater than standart high-end power if tried to enhance with more radical camshafts and are thus nightmare of choise for performance enthusiaths, especially the lower displacement units. I find it rather intriguing that in the basic form the 170 cid (2,8-liter) ford engine and the comparable Chrysler slant six made about the same power but due to the ford engine's handicapping intake and slant's advantage -the excessive manifold area resulting from the tilted position (allowing the usage of very well flowing manifolds)- the slant six can be tuned to put out far more power than the thriftpower ever could with it's stock cylinderhead.

By the way can someone tell does the thriftpower six have as restricting intake as the flathead v8? The flatheads manifolds make a single 180* turn but the thriftpower six's intake is longer and makes two 90* turns in different directions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.93.188 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I cannot find flow rate numbers for a flathead V8 but I do know they respond very well to forced unduction be it supercharger or turbocharger. A ported log head tested by Classic Inlines produced a maximum of 146cfm intake flow and 129cfm exhaust flow. That is considerably less than a stock 2.3L OHC Pinto engine head flows. Anlushac11 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Anlushac11Anlushac11 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comparing the Chrysler slant six engine to the Ford 144/170/200/250 engines is like comparing apples and oranges.

The slant six was a "big block" engine, comparable to the Ford 240/300 engine series. The slant six was based on one half of the 383 big block V-8 with two cylinders tacked on. The Ford 144 through 250 engine series was a "small block" type. 107.220.12.249 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The log head actually makes good low end torque but runs out of breath above 4500rpm. The log head is not a bad design for a mass production street engine but is too restrictive for performance applications unless modified heavily.

The Australians built a very similar version of the same head but with a removable aluminum intake commonly called a Oz 250-2v head and it used to be highly sought after. The Oz 250-2V head yields about a 50hp improvement just from the better breathing ability.

The Oz 250-2v head is no longer as sought after because Classic Inlines released a brand new modern design high swirl aluminum cylinder head with removable intake that yields about a 100hp bolt on improvement and has features that lend itself to being modernized with such features as port fuel injection. Anlushac11 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Thank you for the information. I was also wondering would it be possible to use this reproduction head on the 144,3cid six? My quess is that the difference of the bore makes it impossible. If such a head would be available, the 144 would make a rev happy economic powerhouse for the early Falcons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.93.188 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Classic Inline's aluminum head's larger valve's prevent usage in the smaller bore 144 and 170 cid engines.Anlushac11 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Anlushac11Anlushac11 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how to compute how much horse power I have added by putting on a 390 cfm carb. hedders and the offenhauser power intake manifold on a 300 inline ford 6 cylinder. can you help me? Robert Tolbert email address rdt1943@verizon . net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.15.120 (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will a ford c6 tranny bolt on a 300straight 6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.20.229 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The only sure way is to dyno test the motor before and after. The next best way is to buy one of the virtual engine dyno programs that simulate a engine on a computer and let you add and change equipment such as carburetors, camshafts, head modifications, etc. If I were to throw out a ballpark guess then my estimate would be in the vicinity of a 30-40hp increase. You would get more by porting cylinder head, adding a camshaft, and raising compression but then all that requires going inside the engine and changing parts and making modifications.

The Ford 300 (4.9L) inline six shares the same bell housing bolt pattern as the small block Ford V8. Any transmission that will fit a small block Ford V8 will fit the 300. That said the flywheels and flexplates on a 300 are neutrally balanced where the V8 is often balanced with 28oz or 50oz weights depending on year and model. Be aware that the 300 is a torque monster and would shred a Ford V8 T5 in very little time. If the vehicle is used for towing a much stronger alternative would be to find a small block C6 transmission. Anlushac11 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Anlushac11Anlushac11 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As would be noticed by any regular visitors to this article the entries regarding recent Australian Falcon Barra engines and FPV equivalents has been modified. I have made these modifications. The modifications were largely to update the details and slightly improve the sentence structure (which I assume is anyone's ability on this site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.127.30 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This engine was also produced in Argentina, as it is mentioned in the top - main info box. Originally there was the 144 cu in, but then the engines were gradually "souped up", until 1970, as from when -and for many years- Falcons were fitted with 188 and 221 cu in engines (also known locally as 3.0 and 3.6 litres respectively). Ranchero's pick ups also were fitted with the 188. During the '80's there was concern about mileage, and the local Ford branch developed an even more efficient version of the engine which was known as the 188 Econo-Max, which received modified intake and exhaust manifolds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.8.99 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came looking for information about Fords marine/industrial diesel engines, and were surprised that there was nothing about them here. Should the information be added to this article, or should I start a new article?PerDaniel (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add whatever you can. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no listing of the 3 speed manual transmissions used behind the 240/300. They made a lot of these, especially in the mid-'60s. I have driven a '65 with a six and 3 on the tree and a '66 that came with a six but had a transplanted 351W when I drove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.181.81 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tempotopaz.com/main/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=7954&start=15

According to this link, the information about the 2.3L and 2.5L HSC/HSO four-cylinder engines being related to the 3.3L "Thrift-Power" six-cylinder may be debunked, since some people suggest the piston heights between the HSC and the Falcon Six are not exactly the same. Therefore, what gives? WikiPro1981X (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford straight-six engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324085354/http://aerospecialties.com/PDF_Files/TUG_MA_Tractors.pdf to http://www.aerospecialties.com/PDF_Files/TUG_MA_Tractors.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.harlan-corp.com/NWeb/Trac_Build.asp?Key=Config&TCTMP=Yes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]