300 I6

[Will]

This post is so packed with misinformation I'm tempted to blow it in place.

An FMX is not as strong as a C6. And FMX is the ancestor of the AOD and the C6 is the ancestor of the E40D.

A turbo is not a high rpm performance boost. That's exacty what it is not. It does not kill your low rpm power and lag has nothing to do with low rpm power. A 2.3 turbo puts up similar numbers in the same rpm ranges as a 5.0 HO--and it's half the size. All lag is is the delay between the time you stomp on it and the time the turbo spools. If you size the turbo too large your engine won't be able to spool it up at low rpms. Most of the time the turbo is sized fairly small so it spools up quickly and then is equipped with a wastegate to keep it from over speeding. The turbo gasser cars I have driven--a Dodge Daytona, a Suzuki Swift and another Dodge sedan of some type--they all had a bit of a lag--about a quarter to a half intersection worth, then took off like mad. If you boosted a 300-6 it would spool up at a low rpm with the correct turbo. Especially with it's long stroke which already moves a lot of air at low rpms. You need to get the turbo selected for you by someone that has access to the turbo maps--three dimensional drawings that show boost and turbine speed over a variety of conditions. If you were in known territory with lots of empirical example then you could forgo that step.

The 300 does not have great low-end torque. A 460 has great low end torque. A 300 makes what torque it has at a low rpm. It has to, because it only has 300 cubic inches. You put your troops where they will do the most good and if you are going to have a chance with only 300 cubic inches, it needs to be right off the line. After that, it's going so it doesn't matter.

Jamming that long thing in a Ranger is a waste of time. A 302 is a better choice. It fits easily and can spin faster. It makes more torque--about 40ft# more at the same technology level. That's because a 300-6 is tuned so hard to run at low rpms that the air is restricted. Everyone seems to forget that air is the hardest thing to get into an engine. The fuel is easy and the spark is easy. The air is the trick. A 300-6 in any configuration has a long passage to fuel the outer cylinders. The air is a tough thing to get through in one piece. The theoretical vs. actual is what people call the volumetric efficiency and the 5.0 is much better at it. A 4.0 will outflow a 300-6. The horsepower numbers prove it. You gear up the difference in torque. A ship with a jet turbine engine definately has gearing like crazy. Your after raw horsepower. Use the gearing to adjust it. A 300-6 is a novelty installation.

 

[bobbywalter]

yup...i concur with will.



the aod has potential to out perform the c6....if you wanted/needed another gear its a great choice if you put money in the right places.


that said....for dragging...i would build the balls out of a 700....behind a stroker 351 setup to get 15.5 vac at idle.


fast as it gets there...307 first gear and insane launching power with the right converter.....

 

[bobbywalter]

well do the 351 when your done playing with stock

 

[rusty ol ranger]

If he runs a 302 he wont be able to run in the 4\6 cylinder class.

A 4.0L will not out torque a 300 6 cylinder.

A 302 sure as hell wont out torque a 300 6 cylinder.

A turbo would ruin one.

A FMX is stronger then an AOD, they may be the ancestor to the AOD, but like everything, the newer it gets the weaker it gets.

I agree, the 4.0 has more Horsepower then a 300, as does a 302. How do you say the 302 has 40ftlbs more torque then a 300 at the same RPM? That is WRONG. A 302 might make 10-15 more at 1000-1500 more RPM. At 1200 (or 1600 on EFI 300's) I doubt the 302 is making as much torque as even a 3.0.

Running a 300 in the mud drags all you would have to do is gear it high instead of low like you would have to with a 4.0 or 302. A 300 has the grunt to spin up 35's with 3.55 or 3.31 gears, and you would still carry the wheelspeed thats needed.

You can make up for Horsepower with gearing, all you gotta do is gear it high. An Engine with alot of low end torque (but not much horsepower) works great with higher gears, because it can stay at low RPM's and still keep the wheels turning fast.

But i guess its useless to argue with will, seeing as how if it were up to him every vehicle in the world would be powered by GM's wonderful 6.2L Diesel

later,
Dustin

 

[Will]

First, yes, he won't be able to run in the 4/6 class. That's why I suggested a 4.0. A 4.3 GM would be better.

Next, a 4.0 WILL "out torque" a 300. That's where your understanding of torque-power breaks down. The important thing is the amount of air the engine can inhale for the length of the race. A 4.0 can inhale more air. That's a damn fact, and the only important fact. You have to look at the engine/transmission/final drive as a unit. At the rear axle shaft the 4.0 will be turning harder than the 300.

A 302 spanks a 300--that's FIFTY HORSEPOWER!!! You want to talk about 200rpm difference in the peak? The peak means jack shit. The 300-6 is 260ft# there and the 5.0 is 270ft#. That there is FIFTY-HORSEPOWER difference mean the 300 tanks it and is making wiffle torque at 4000rpm where the 302 is stomping ass. Off idle the 300 is better. So what? It gets its ass kicked no matter what because no motor is an island. A 302 sucks in WAY MORE AIR and can burn A LOT MORE FUEL in the same time--it beats up on a 300.

Torque and power are both about HOW MUCH FUEL YOU CAN BURN. And that is exactly proportional to HOW MUCH AIR YOU CAN INGEST. It's stupid simple. Most of our arguments over the years have been because of your failure to understand this fact. I've been nice about it--trying to show you pretty charts and stuff to make it simple for you. I've never flamed you. Even now, when I'm feeling ready to unleash a tirade of verbal abuse--I resist.

You have it backwards--YOU CAN MAKE UP FOR TORQUE BY GEARING IT---NOT HORSEPOWER. Horsepower is the bottom line. It includes the function of TIME. Torque doesn't. Torque is INSTANTANEOUS--A SNAPSHOT. Torque is meaningless.

I told you jet engines were used in ships--an extreme example of torque not meaning shit. A destroyer has 4 jet engine capable of 39,000hp each. The same engine family used on the C5 aircraft is used in navy ships. Not the same engine, but there is an aircraft version and a naval version. The naval version is geared down to turn a propeller at 200rpm. You think it doesn't have torque? It doesn't without the transmission. With the transmission a destroyer can do what it is designed to do--chase subs. Turn, accelerate and manuever a 2-million pound ship takes torque. Destroyers primarily screen the fleet from subs. They go from zero to 50mph back to zero to 50mph the other way in no time at all--and they use turbines--jet engine. Airplane engines.

It's useless to argue with me? It's useless to argue with anyone. But if you argue with me, you are faced with annoying things like facts and supporting references.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

How the hell does torque not matter?

A school bus makes 180HP. A 302 makes more. You think a 302 would move a school bus around as good as a 5.9L B Series cummins?

Torque is a twisting Force. It takes torque to get a vehicle rolling from a dead stop. Makeing a vehicle move while it is already in motion is easy. A person could push a semi ifit was already rolling (like say, on a down hill slant) at 5MPH. A person can not budge a semi if it is sitting on flat level groud. Horsepower is meaningless unless the vehicle is moving. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 HP does you absoultly no good at all if you have 1FTLB of torque. Cause in order for the engine to spin up and make horsepower, it has to make torque to allow what ever is behind the engine to roll, whichthen allows the engine to spin up and make its HP.

A 300 6 will outpull a 4.0, and it will outpull a 302. Ask anybody whos actually had one that wasnt a "Turd special" like yours was will. If i remember correctly you had an 84 right? With an electronic carb, 3spW\OD, and probely like 2.47 gears. A 302 wouldnt of been able to even move that truck. Because it wouldnt of had the TORQUE to get the vehicle MOVING where it could have used its HORSEPOWER.

When you step on the gas in a vehicle, Torque comes into play first to get the wheels turning, the more the wheels start turning, the higher the engine revs, the more HP it makes, and thats where HP comes in.

Torque gets ya there, horsepower keeps ya there.

So yeah, a 300 might not be able to run 100MPH up a steep grade pulling 9000lbs, but either can a 302. And atleast a 300 could get that 9000lbs rolling on that steep grade, as to whre a 302 would puke.

later,
Dustin

 

[Will]

Dustin...

I can't argue with you anymore. As long as you feel good about your convictions, more power to ya.

 

[choped84]

finaly got some pics of the swap

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Glad to see you went with the 300.

I dont think you'll be dissapointed.

Go to www.fordsix.com....they can really help ya out with getting what you want from it.

later,
Dustin

 

[MakerOfBeast]

ill have to agree with will in mud hp is the key. sure torque will get you off the line but hp is what gets u down the track. that's why all drag cars are tuned for hp even diesels cars. and you can push a rig from a standing start on flat or slightly up hill ground, we did it all the time at the truck shop i worked at,

 

[Gotta_gofast]

Haha, Will is right about all this misinformation! Its interesting you run a 300ci I6. Although I agree with Will in every sense about the 4.9L, I would have grabbed a 2.3T from a turbo car and thrown it in there. Give her lots of boost and some tremendous gearing so you can stay in the "happy zone" and you will have similar horsepower AND torque of mildly built smallblock V8s... only you get to compete with other 4/6s. Not to mention the light weight of your drivetrain would be a HUGE benefit for power-to-weight ratio and the advantage of "skimming across rather than sinking like an anchor". You can run a 5 speed so that you can keep it in that happy zone, too. And yes, the 2.3T will also produce more torque than a 300ci I6! The 300ci might make its peak torque at a low rpm, but this is mud racing, not cross country towing. If you can't keep those tires spinning, then you start to lose momentum and your tires won't clean themselves as efficiently. I seen a small buggy (one seat) with a Suzuki Hayabusa 1300cc engine and it whooped everything in the 2 wheel drive class because it was so light and had a tremendous power-to-weight advantage... and it sounded really good tapping rev limiter at 12,000+ rpm.

 

[Gotta_gofast]

Oh, and to rusty ol ranger

I will use the 1996 F-150 to give the 4.9L the benefit of the newest technology before its demise

The 4.9L produced 150hp and 260 lb-ft

The 5.0L produced 205hp and 275 lb-ft

To me, the 5.0L looks to be the better candidate for pulling AND acceleration. Ford obviously agrees, as they rated the 5.0L to tow 500lbs more than the 4.9L when both are identically equipped with a 5 speed manual.

 

[Mutant Pony]

Gotta_gofast, you haven't paid very good attention. He can't run a turbo or a v-8 in his class.
Will, An fmx and an aod have absolutely not one thing in common and never did.
Rusty, he said that he couldn't run an aftermarket intake manifold. That is why I recommended the EFI. You yourself said not to run the 1bbl, the efi is the only other choice. The efi will out perform a 2bbl.
Out of all the motors listed above, the only one I've seen win anything in the mud is the 300. That includes the 302.

 

[choped84]

the mud bogs that had those rules have now closed down so im putting a clifford 4bbl intake manifold with a throttle body fuel injection. im also making a custom header for it to clear the frame a little better

 

[Gotta_gofast]

Hold on here, let me dig out my "RANGER V8 binder"... Found it, chapter 1: Engine. Nope, Chapter 2: Transmission YES. Scan a little more... here we go.

These are all personal notes, so I do not know where the specific information came from as I built the truck 2 years ago and these are just all the parts, notes, ect from the build. Having said that, there is an article here in my own private "AOD TECH" that states "The AOD and FMX share a similar compound planetary geartrain" Umm, further down I state "The only difference in powerflow is that [the AOD] splits the torque between the Torque Converter driven shaft and the Direct input shaft Since most of my information came from AOD books, Len Bertrand (LenTech) and the internet, you should be able to find and verify the information. Looks like the FMX influenced the AOD...

You are right, I totally forgot about the whole turbo deal. But, now he says the rules have changed!

If the 300ci I6 must stay, then I think some headwork and a mild cam are going to be your friend. You've gotta rev that motor! Get it to pull hard up to 4500rpm or more. I think fuel injection will be your best bet, also.