ford 6 cyl swap - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:45 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2008
Location: moroni utah
Age: 23
Posts: 49
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ford 6 cyl swap

hey there i have 1980 ford ford bronco with a 400 modified it has very good power but with the price of gas i would like find a 300 or 240 inline six but i want to keep an automatic trans i have never seen a 4wd inline six with an auto trans but did ford ever make one??

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2008, 11:48 AM
richard stewart 3rd's Avatar
Registered User
 

Last journal entry: 351W rebuild
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: tremont, pa.
Age: 69
Posts: 2,217
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 13
Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
Hi,
IMO you won't save enough in fuel cost
to justify a change to the 300 in-line, as
they use a lot of fuel also.

Yes Ford used in-line sixes w/3spd,4spd, & 5spd, manuals &
3 & 4spd automatics on 4X4s In fact, your 80 broncos base
engine is an in-line, other engines were options.
Take care,
Rich
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2008, 11:53 AM
Member
 
Last wiki edit: Ford axle ratio codes
Last journal entry: Rear Suspension
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Prattsville
Posts: 6,334
Wiki Edits: 31

Thanks: 2
Thanked 52 Times in 48 Posts
the most you will crank out of a 300 is 18-20 MPG on an EFI engine.. but it will bolt in anyway
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2008, 12:26 PM
woodz428's Avatar
Troll Hunter
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Philo,Il
Posts: 2,702
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt167
the most you will crank out of a 300 is 18-20 MPG on an EFI engine.. but it will bolt in anyway
Well...it won't exactly bolt in. The 400/351M us a 460 style bellhousing pattern. Depending on which auto is used, most likely a C6, you would need to get the same typr tranny to make it easier. Most likely the rear section will need to be converted to the transfer case type pieces.240/300s use a smallblock pattern. You might get better mileage with a good 460, believe it our not. 400s aren't very effecient and the 460 would be working easier...now that would almost be a drop in. All factory pieces could be used too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2008, 02:39 PM
Member
 
Last wiki edit: Ford axle ratio codes
Last journal entry: Rear Suspension
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Prattsville
Posts: 6,334
Wiki Edits: 31

Thanks: 2
Thanked 52 Times in 48 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodz428
Well...it won't exactly bolt in. The 400/351M us a 460 style bellhousing pattern. Depending on which auto is used, most likely a C6, you would need to get the same typr tranny to make it easier. Most likely the rear section will need to be converted to the transfer case type pieces.240/300s use a smallblock pattern. You might get better mileage with a good 460, believe it our not. 400s aren't very effecient and the 460 would be working easier...now that would almost be a drop in. All factory pieces could be used too.
I didn't even think about that.. I always think Small block stuff.. diffrent trans on automatic stuff does make a big diffrence on 4X4's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2008, 05:27 PM
onebadmerc's Avatar
I need a bucket of arc sparks
 
Last wiki edit: How to identify SB Ford heads without pulling them
Last journal entry: trunk floor
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florence Colorado
Age: 43
Posts: 901
Wiki Edits: 1

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
A 460 would be a easy bolt in but it does require a few parts for it to work. The 460 engine in trucks used a three piece motor mount which is unique, the 400 mount and towers won't work for a 460. The block plate in between the trans and engine will work if you enlarge the hole in it that fits around the crankshaft, otherwise get a 460 block plate. I am not 100% certain on this but I am sure you will need a low mount alternator mount and a high mount power steering mount. I know when I did the 400 to 460 conversion on my 78 F250, the high mount car alternator mount would not work. I also had to find a power steering mount for a truck 460 since the car ps mount didn't work either. You will also need a truck thermostat housing that has more of a angle to it than a car thermostat housing. I bought a good cast iron one off a mid 80's 460 powered van in the salvage yard for $10. Keep this in mind if you think about a 460 transplant.

BTW my 78 F250 averages about 14-16mpg pulling my work trailer with equipment(about 2500 lbs.) and about (1000 lbs) of crap in the box. A 240-300 six won't do much better if you have to pull anything or load your Bronco down, plus you will work it alot harder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2008, 07:19 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 6,656
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 3
Thanked 399 Times in 346 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1969f-100
hey there i have 1980 ford ford bronco with a 400 modified it has very good power but with the price of gas i would like find a 300 or 240 inline six but i want to keep an automatic trans i have never seen a 4wd inline six with an auto trans but did ford ever make one??
A 6 especially the 300 wouldn't by much if anything. Fuel mileage is largely a function of how much power an engine has to put out to maintain a given road speed. It matters less about the size and or number of cylinders. Against say a 2 ton 4 wheel drive Bronco 70 mph on the interstate is going to cost about 60 horses. A powerful V8 doesn't need to work hard to do that, where a smaller V8 like a 302 or a 6 like the 300 or 240 has to work higher on its power curve. Usually the higher up the power band an engine has to work the greater the fuel consumption and the shorter its life. The greater fuel consumption comes from driving the throttle opening to a point where the power enrichment system is on all the time. The shorter life comes from running it closer to its structural design limit all the time.

Now there are games to be played with detail design that have significant effect upon efficiency, but the cost of these are additive to the cost of a 6 cylinder swap where parts are a lot more expensive simply because the inline 6 performance market is small.

Certainly in the immediate term slowing down should have a noticeable effect. Slowing my freeway speeds from 70-80 to 60-70; my 350 powered S-10 picked up 6 miles to the gallon, 18 to 24. But this takes careful management (mostly of me) and certainly not showing every Beemer on the superslab, that I can blow its doors off.

The 400 is a badly emasculated engine that when built right will not only provide a lot more power, but fuel economy as well. The transmission is a problem most likely being a 3 speed C6, you would benefit from an overdrive 4 speed automatic with a lock up converter.


For the 400 the design of a rebuild should look like flat top or D dish pistons to get the squish and quench up for better combustion and lower probability of detonation. The latter lets you up the compression into 9 or 9.5 which is really good for improving gas mileage and offers a modest power improvement.

The cam needs to be changed to something into the neighborhood of 200-210 degrees duration measured at .050 inch lift. You want a wide Lobe Separation Angle (LSA). The added duration compared to you ancient emissions cam will let the engine breath easy yet not be so radical as to diminish bottom end torque. For the 400 which doesn't have the worlds greatest exhaust ports, having a few more degrees on the exhaust lobe will provide more time for blow down that in turn will reduce the power that engine uses to get the spent gasses out. Adding lift against this port is ineffective as it's peaked out and offering it more won't help. The longer LSA reduces overlap, this reduces or eliminates the time both the exhaust and intake are open together going over TDC. This stops you gasoline laden intake charge from going out the exhaust valve. The loss of overlap costs a few horsepower by denying the cylinder a bit of early intake flow, but it sure puts a stop to fueling the atmosphere.

Headers, God loves long tube headers, not to metion loud Harley pipes. 1-5/8s id 36 inch long pipes dumping into a 2-1/2 to 3 inch collector will boost the bottom end torque and the top end power. Connect these to a set of 2-1/2 inch head pipes with a cross over, whether H or X depending on the space you've got. Run into a set of low restriction mufflers then into a pair of 2 to 2-1/4 tail pipes. Run the pipes straight out under the back bumper, the vehicle forms a low pressure area behind it whenever it's in motion. This can be used to suck the exhaust right out, further reducing power used off the crank for house keep duties like getting rid of the exhaust gasses. The smaller tail pipes are because as the exhaust passes thru the mufflers they give up temperature and contract. This causes the gas speed in the pipes to drop which translates into back pressure. So using a bit smaller pipe keeps the velocity up, reducing backpressure effects and increasing the pull on the spent gasses at the valve. Except for the Windsor, Fords need all the exhaust side help they can get. Consider yourself lucky, I did't recommend milling the exhaust port boss off the side of the heads and have you replace it with a slab of aluminum with raised ports. If you want a fast Cleveland, this is the trick, but I don't think you need that much crazy.

For an intake you need to score an Edlebrock Performer. For a carb look to either a Q-Jet or an Edlebrock/Carter. Both of these are metering rod type carbs, they do a better job of delivering fuel in the right proportions than a Holley. Though the Holley can be made a lot tighter, but you've got to know your stuff to set 'em up. Q-jet is the hands down fuel economy champ.

Shifting to the tranny: with the motor having greater efficiency and power, it can be slowed down at cruise. This is where a good 4 speed auto comes in, time to hunt down a big block AOD. Getting a lock up converter will gain up another 5 percent or so by eliminating converter slippage losses at cruise.

Bogie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2008, 01:40 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2008
Location: moroni utah
Age: 23
Posts: 49
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i am sorry i should have explained better this bronco(A.K.A.the turd) is purley for hunting propuses ive only had it over 50 mph once because the sterring box is shot i wanted the low end torque which a 6 has plenty of if a small block trans will bolt up to a 6 thats what i will do
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2008, 10:05 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 6,656
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 3
Thanked 399 Times in 346 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1969f-100
i am sorry i should have explained better this bronco(A.K.A.the turd) is purley for hunting propuses ive only had it over 50 mph once because the sterring box is shot i wanted the low end torque which a 6 has plenty of if a small block trans will bolt up to a 6 thats what i will do
The small block V8 bolt pattern is the same for the large 6s 240, 300.

Bogie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2008, 12:27 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lakeland FL
Age: 65
Posts: 4,110
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
don't be mis-led by just comparing a motors "peak" TQ numbers....
at less than the TQ peak rpms a smaller cube motor does make way less TQ acceleration force with the same amount of gas supplied at a given rpms....
so to have the same good low rpms acceleration with less cubes you have to use deeper gears which is more gas eating rpm's accelerating (and on the hwy at constant speed) to have the same amount of TQ force on the tires....

just to illustrate with BS numbers for the principle:

300cube motor at 2k=roughly 200ft-lbs x 3.50 rear gears=700ft-lbs of force twisting the tires
400cube motor at 2k=roughly 300ft-lbs x just 2.60 very tall gears=760ft-lbs on the tires...
(motor wind up rate would be the same)

28" tires, 3.50 gears = 70mph 3400rpms (?)
28" tires, 2.60 gears = 70mph 2800 rpms (?)

you mentioned it is a "woods truck"....
if you do have huge, heavy, tall, mud tires on it....
they are costing you about 20% less mpg....

old bogie gave you alot of very good advice to help mpg....

my much simpler answer is mount a $34? vacuum guage on the dash hooked upto manifold vacuum so you can read the actual Hg while driving....
the vacuum guage reading is telling you directly how lean (high Hg=economy) or rich (low Hg) the carb is operating feeding gas into the motor.....
re-train your right foot to keep the Hg above 12Hg accelerating period!!!!
carbs need aleast that much Hg to make a "decent" atomized A/F mix to make best power per unit of gas....

"back in the 60's days" many oem's did offer a vac "mpg" guage as an option....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2008, 02:21 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: chillicothe oh
Age: 47
Posts: 1,445
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I've heard the stories about 300 sixes getting 18 to 20 but never seen it.My current truck is a 92 f150 300-6 3.08 gear and does 11-12 pulling the racecar and about 14- 15 empty with overdrive.as mentioned a vacuum gauge would be a better investment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2008, 07:39 AM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lakeland FL
Age: 65
Posts: 4,110
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I forgot to post:
having a vac guage in the car allows you to tune the motor timing total and carb for highest actual hwy Hg for better mpg,, a 2* timing change can make a 2Hg change and that can be up to 4mpg better....you may well have to much or to little total timing for best mpg...the vac guage will tell you....

(a little bit subjective due to the "right foot factor" but) it helps you find the best mpg and TQ dist advance curve settings...
for a given amount of pedal, how quickly is the Hg recovering on the guage to make best power....
(to many years since my son's 400M mud truck but I am remembering the stock dist curve started late, was very slow and not all in till about 3500, just re-curving the dist made a world of driving difference)

the second major reason why you want a vac guage in your car is it is going to tell you immediately if something does needs attention....for mpg and/or repair!
it will point out anything from a misfire you can't hear to a leaking vac hose with a shaking needle...

how to use/read a vac guage for diagnosis link:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/ergoff/vac1.htm

re: headers for mpg...
my $.02
not worth the $$$ spent,
at normal street rpms and part throttle, with "typical" headers there are just not enough exhaust pulses per second and total cfm going thru the motor to make a "5th cycle" scavaging effect worth a hoot unless you do spend big bucks for street rpm's tuned headers...
they would be the last priority on my parts list...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2008, 11:07 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,172
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
If it is just for hunting purposes (and has a worn out front end) what is the big deal about keeping the 400M?

The minimal amount of fuel you will save will take a loooooong time to offset the expense of changing engines.

I think you would be way ahead just improving the efficiency of the 400= cam timing, ignition, spark curve, vac advance, carb type.

If you were going to swap engines, a full fuelie 5.0 from a late 80s CrownVic would be the thing for low rpm smoothness and efficiency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:01 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2008
Location: moroni utah
Age: 23
Posts: 49
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
the main reason i want to pull this motor is because i want to put in another car becuse it has some power add ons a cam and i thinck the pistons are overbore it will tear the turd up more

i have 235-75-15 tires on it so there not big at all
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ford 6 cyl swap 1969f-100 Engine 1 07-14-2008 06:53 PM
Ford 5.4 swap garretthes Electrical 2 12-31-2005 06:41 AM
4.9 liter 6 cyl ford cam question oldguy829 Engine 5 12-14-2005 11:35 AM
2001 Ford SOHC 4.0L V6 engine swap metrobill Electrical 10 02-20-2004 08:15 AM
1940 Ford Delivery Chassis Swap New2theart Suspension - Brakes - Steering 5 07-19-2002 06:41 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.