There where several guys around here that had the 300 straight six cylinder engine in 3/4 ton 4x4 pickups and they seemed to work fine. One of these had to be in the late 1990s or early 2000. I always thought that was a good deal. So when did Ford drop the 300 straight six???
- Thread starter JDseller
- Start date
Fordfarmer
Well-known Member
I believe '96 was the last year for the 300 in 1/2 tons. '97 would have had the 4.2/4.6/5.4L. I'm less sure, but would bet it was the same year for 3/4's.
Nebraska Cowman
Well-known Member
They were a good engine. I think the last one I had was about 1980. The 5.4 Triton is a good substitute.
1965 was the first year for the 240 and 300. I think 95 or 96 was the last year.
The 65-68 300's I've dealt with were real gutsy for a six, but I'm not as happy with the 300 EFI in my '89 F-150.
Father ordered a new '65 F-100 Custom Cab short wide with 300, Borg Warner T-98 4 speed and the Dana 60 with 4:11 limited slip axle. Perfect 1/2 ton farm pickup at the time.
Like all the pickup engines, once the smog junk was installed in the mid '70s, they just sucked gas and low power.
The 65-68 300's I've dealt with were real gutsy for a six, but I'm not as happy with the 300 EFI in my '89 F-150.
Father ordered a new '65 F-100 Custom Cab short wide with 300, Borg Warner T-98 4 speed and the Dana 60 with 4:11 limited slip axle. Perfect 1/2 ton farm pickup at the time.
Like all the pickup engines, once the smog junk was installed in the mid '70s, they just sucked gas and low power.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I've got a 1995 F150 1/2 ton with the 300 6 cyl, has 159000 miles and still running strong, not bad on fuel consumption like some folks think, last time I checked mine it averaged 16 mpg.
tomstractorsandtoys1
Member
We have a 1993 F150 with the fuel injected 300 with 275000 miles on it.Still runs good but getting a little tired,gets good gas milage,not sure what I will replace it with.The new F150 is built lighter than the old rangers were and a diesel is another set of problems, but I don't want a gas hog.We pull a trailer some hauling hay and machinery.
1996 was the last year of production for the 300 cu in (4.9L) straight six. Noted for durability and excellent fuel economy (when properly tuned) they are still a favorite engine and there is a Ford six cylinder club. Some of my friends bought them as they were being phased out just because they knew they wouldn't be available any more, not because they needed a truck.
Pair-a-dice farm
Well-known Member
Yep '96 was the last year. At one time I had 3 of them that had at least 200K each. My 94 had 280K on it when my son totaled it. The only thing I ever changed on the engine was the alternator. It got 22-23mpg on the road and at least 19 local. I sure hated to see them quit making them.
RandyB(MI)
Well-known Member
Dad /family bought new '65 ford full size car with the 240 in it. got 21 mpg on highway and lasted through 4 boys getting their drivers lisc. Bought a '69 with same engine / same good car. Bought new '68 F 250 with 240 / 4spd for the farm . Same good engine. Yes they DID put the 240 in pickups. Never had engine problems with ANY of them. ( 240/300 same engine, I believe 300 had longer stroke)
bobs old iron
Well-known Member
because some new IDOIT in engineering, decides to change things, taking away somthing that was simple to work on.
BrianJasper co. Ia
Member
Couldn't meet exhaust emissions anymore. Same reason the 3.8L GM engine was discontinued.
ever been under the hood of the 1997 and up Ferd Turds? there isn't enough room for the strait six, little lone enough for the V-8,
I need to change the plus on my 4.6l, it's only got 249xxx miles on it, and I just cringe at the thought of it, I've worked them before and know what I'm getting myself in for.
I need to change the plus on my 4.6l, it's only got 249xxx miles on it, and I just cringe at the thought of it, I've worked them before and know what I'm getting myself in for.
Decent fuel economy at best. In the last couple of years with OD transmissions and fuel injection you might 18-20 MPG in a light duty truck if you didn't push it too hard. Most of them were in the 15 to 17 MPG range - about average for the V6s Dodge and Chevy used in their half tons.
However they would take a huge beating and come back for more. All you had to do was change the oil on a regulare basis. We had a 65 F600 with a 300 6, over 300K of HARD miles (usually loaded - we didn't drive empty trucks). Several pickups that were used and abused the same way. Biggest problem with the 1990s F150 is that the cheap MD50 transmissions (Mazda)couldn't handle the torque.
However they would take a huge beating and come back for more. All you had to do was change the oil on a regulare basis. We had a 65 F600 with a 300 6, over 300K of HARD miles (usually loaded - we didn't drive empty trucks). Several pickups that were used and abused the same way. Biggest problem with the 1990s F150 is that the cheap MD50 transmissions (Mazda)couldn't handle the torque.
The Ford 4.2 V6 (Essex) had nothing in common with the 4.6 or 5.4 (Modular) engines.
The 4.2 used from 1997 to 2008 was actually a stroked version of the 3.8 V6 that was in everything from the Mustang to the Windstar to the Taurus. The 3.8 was based on the 302 engine with 2 cylinders cut off - the same way the Chevy 4.3 engine was a 350 engine with 2 cylinders cut off. That engine was around since the early 1980s. The 4.2 was push rod engine while the Modular engines were overhead cam engines. About they only thing they MIGHT share is the bellhousing bolt pattern.
The 4.2 used from 1997 to 2008 was actually a stroked version of the 3.8 V6 that was in everything from the Mustang to the Windstar to the Taurus. The 3.8 was based on the 302 engine with 2 cylinders cut off - the same way the Chevy 4.3 engine was a 350 engine with 2 cylinders cut off. That engine was around since the early 1980s. The 4.2 was push rod engine while the Modular engines were overhead cam engines. About they only thing they MIGHT share is the bellhousing bolt pattern.
rustyfarmall
Well-known Member
I've thought for many years now that the EPA is pulling the wool over our eyes on the exhaust emmisions issue.
If you take a truck that was capable of 20 miles per gallon, but didn't meet the emmisions standards, and then you detune it and add a bunch of garbage to it so that it WILL meet the standards, but now that same truck will get only 14 to 15 miles per gallon???
I know I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, but how can an engine that burns MORE fuel have LESS exhaust emmisions?
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Engines run better and last longer with unleaded
gasoline. Fuel injection and electronic ignition was
another leap ahead in reliability and durability.
gasoline. Fuel injection and electronic ignition was
another leap ahead in reliability and durability.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
If you are comparing 1960's engines to 1971 to
1986 engines, then sometimes yes.
Comparing the fuel injected and electronic ignition engines using lockup auto transmissions.
The vehicles run better, burn less fuel, make
more power, last long but terrify those who fear
change.
Mid 70's 400 auto 4x4 pickup made 5-6 mpg on a
trip. My 2003 pickup is larger and does 13 mpg
knocking around and 16-17 on a trip.
Beat that.......with a 1960's vehicle.
1986 engines, then sometimes yes.
Comparing the fuel injected and electronic ignition engines using lockup auto transmissions.
The vehicles run better, burn less fuel, make
more power, last long but terrify those who fear
change.
Mid 70's 400 auto 4x4 pickup made 5-6 mpg on a
trip. My 2003 pickup is larger and does 13 mpg
knocking around and 16-17 on a trip.
Beat that.......with a 1960's vehicle.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Ford's Australian branch still manufactures these engines for their Falcon range.
Fourth generation
Truck Six
Production 1964 - 1996
Displacement 240 cu in (3.9 L)
300 cu in (4.9 L)
Cylinder bore 4"
Piston stroke 3.18" (240)
3.98" (300)
Fuel system Normally aspirated
Fuel injection
Power output 120 hp (89 kW) - 170 hp (127 kW)
Torque output 260 lb·ft (353 N·m)
Produced at the Cleveland Engine plant in Brook Park, Ohio from 1964 through 1996, the 240 and 300 Sixes are well known for their durability. Simple design and rugged construction continue to endear these engines to a number of Ford enthusiasts to this day. Many have run 300,000 to 600,000 miles (480,000 to 970,000 km) without any more service than standard oil changes.[citation needed] The engine has earned the terms "bulletproof" and "indestructible" by many. There are numerous claims of those who have purposely sought out to destroy one through abusive use, and were unsuccessful in doing so.
One example of the engine's sturdy design is the fact that no timing chain or timing belt (both of which can break, causing unwanted downtime or even engine damage) is used. This generation of Ford Six was designed with long-wearing gears for that purpose instead. Very few modern engines use timing gears; belts and chains are by far more common.
Both the 240 and the 300, no matter the application, used a single barrel Carter YF carburetor until the introduction of Electronic Fuel Injection. With proper gearing, many F-trucks and Broncos are able to achieve over 20 mpg with these carburetors, when properly tuned. This was heavily used by Ford's advertising campaign (some television advertisements and written literature even claimed 30 mpg), since the V8 engines in these trucks rarely achieved over 14 mpg.
The fuel economy of the 300 makes the engine a popular choice amongst truck enthusiasts that want both power and economy. The addition of performance parts (such as intake and exhaust manifolds with a four-barrel carburetor) place the engine power output near the same levels as the stock HO (high output) version of the optional 351 V8, with little or no change in economy. There are claims of 300s that have had the power output doubled, or even tripled, with less than a single mpg drop in fuel economy.
300
The 300 cu in (4.9 L) six was added for the F-series in 1965. It was essentially a 240 cu in (3.9 L) with a longer stroke. The two engines are nearly identical; the differences are in block dimensions, combustion chamber size, and the rotating assembly. It produced 170 hp (127 kW) (gross). The 300 became the base F-series engine in 1978 at 114 hp (85 kW) (hp number changes due to Ford switching to net power ratings in 1971). Power outputs were increased to roughly 122 hp (91 kW) during the early 1980s, before fuel injection was introduced. This became the primary engine of the line, eclipsing the 240. Unlike the Falcon engine, it featured separate intake and exhaust manifolds, which could be easily replaced with aftermarket manifolds offering the promise of even more power, through the installation of larger carburetors and a higher flowing exhaust system.
Also during the late sixties and early seventies, the 300 was used in larger vehicles such as dump trucks, many weighing into the 15,000–20,000 pound (7,000–9,000 kg) range. These 300s were equipped with a higher flow HD (Heavy Duty) exhaust manifold, since the engines were going to be constantly working in the 3000–4000 rpm range. These rare, yet effective manifolds had higher flow than the electronic fuel injection 4.9 (300) manifolds and some headers.
Engine sizes were converted to metric for 1983, causing the 300 to become the "4.9". Fuel injection and other changes in 1987 pushed output up to 165 hp (123 kW) with 8.8:1 compression. This engine was gradually phased out, ending production in 1996, and was replaced by the Essex V6 in the F-series trucks with their 1997 redesign. However, it was renowned for its durability, low end torque, and ease of service. The 300 4.9 came with the Ford C6, E4OD, ZF S5-42 and S5-47 transmissions, as well as the Mazda built M5OD 5-speed manual transmission, and the Borg-Warner T18 and New Process NP435 4-speed manual transmissions. The 4.9-liter 6-cylinder was built in the Cleveland, Ohio engine plant.
This engine is also used by Stewart and Stevenson in the MA Baggage Tow Tractor (pdf), and Harlan in their standard tow tractors [1], as well as a multitude of other pieces of equipment, such as ski lifts, power generators, wood chippers, tractors, and, until they converted to diesel engines, most UPS trucks. Many UPS trucks still use the 300 to this day.
In stationary service (generators and pumps) fueled with LPG or natural gas, this engine is known as the CSG-649.
Fourth generation
Truck Six
Production 1964 - 1996
Displacement 240 cu in (3.9 L)
300 cu in (4.9 L)
Cylinder bore 4"
Piston stroke 3.18" (240)
3.98" (300)
Fuel system Normally aspirated
Fuel injection
Power output 120 hp (89 kW) - 170 hp (127 kW)
Torque output 260 lb·ft (353 N·m)
Produced at the Cleveland Engine plant in Brook Park, Ohio from 1964 through 1996, the 240 and 300 Sixes are well known for their durability. Simple design and rugged construction continue to endear these engines to a number of Ford enthusiasts to this day. Many have run 300,000 to 600,000 miles (480,000 to 970,000 km) without any more service than standard oil changes.[citation needed] The engine has earned the terms "bulletproof" and "indestructible" by many. There are numerous claims of those who have purposely sought out to destroy one through abusive use, and were unsuccessful in doing so.
One example of the engine's sturdy design is the fact that no timing chain or timing belt (both of which can break, causing unwanted downtime or even engine damage) is used. This generation of Ford Six was designed with long-wearing gears for that purpose instead. Very few modern engines use timing gears; belts and chains are by far more common.
Both the 240 and the 300, no matter the application, used a single barrel Carter YF carburetor until the introduction of Electronic Fuel Injection. With proper gearing, many F-trucks and Broncos are able to achieve over 20 mpg with these carburetors, when properly tuned. This was heavily used by Ford's advertising campaign (some television advertisements and written literature even claimed 30 mpg), since the V8 engines in these trucks rarely achieved over 14 mpg.
The fuel economy of the 300 makes the engine a popular choice amongst truck enthusiasts that want both power and economy. The addition of performance parts (such as intake and exhaust manifolds with a four-barrel carburetor) place the engine power output near the same levels as the stock HO (high output) version of the optional 351 V8, with little or no change in economy. There are claims of 300s that have had the power output doubled, or even tripled, with less than a single mpg drop in fuel economy.
300
The 300 cu in (4.9 L) six was added for the F-series in 1965. It was essentially a 240 cu in (3.9 L) with a longer stroke. The two engines are nearly identical; the differences are in block dimensions, combustion chamber size, and the rotating assembly. It produced 170 hp (127 kW) (gross). The 300 became the base F-series engine in 1978 at 114 hp (85 kW) (hp number changes due to Ford switching to net power ratings in 1971). Power outputs were increased to roughly 122 hp (91 kW) during the early 1980s, before fuel injection was introduced. This became the primary engine of the line, eclipsing the 240. Unlike the Falcon engine, it featured separate intake and exhaust manifolds, which could be easily replaced with aftermarket manifolds offering the promise of even more power, through the installation of larger carburetors and a higher flowing exhaust system.
Also during the late sixties and early seventies, the 300 was used in larger vehicles such as dump trucks, many weighing into the 15,000–20,000 pound (7,000–9,000 kg) range. These 300s were equipped with a higher flow HD (Heavy Duty) exhaust manifold, since the engines were going to be constantly working in the 3000–4000 rpm range. These rare, yet effective manifolds had higher flow than the electronic fuel injection 4.9 (300) manifolds and some headers.
Engine sizes were converted to metric for 1983, causing the 300 to become the "4.9". Fuel injection and other changes in 1987 pushed output up to 165 hp (123 kW) with 8.8:1 compression. This engine was gradually phased out, ending production in 1996, and was replaced by the Essex V6 in the F-series trucks with their 1997 redesign. However, it was renowned for its durability, low end torque, and ease of service. The 300 4.9 came with the Ford C6, E4OD, ZF S5-42 and S5-47 transmissions, as well as the Mazda built M5OD 5-speed manual transmission, and the Borg-Warner T18 and New Process NP435 4-speed manual transmissions. The 4.9-liter 6-cylinder was built in the Cleveland, Ohio engine plant.
This engine is also used by Stewart and Stevenson in the MA Baggage Tow Tractor (pdf), and Harlan in their standard tow tractors [1], as well as a multitude of other pieces of equipment, such as ski lifts, power generators, wood chippers, tractors, and, until they converted to diesel engines, most UPS trucks. Many UPS trucks still use the 300 to this day.
In stationary service (generators and pumps) fueled with LPG or natural gas, this engine is known as the CSG-649.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy