• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

Has anyone put an inline 6 in a Ranger?


One of these days I would like to put a 300 I6 in a ranger(another one), but It would be my "nice" truck. As for V8's and I6's I like both, It just depends on the way the engine was designed (reliability, torque, bell housing compatibility, ect.), I have a friend who used to have a 79 firebird that had a pontiac or olds 455 (swapped in) and it had DOT legal drag tires on the back, and it would be bad about throwing out the TH350 it had, it could go sideways EASY(500-600 hp), it also had the torque to make a stock Super duty scared
 
would a ford territory 4 liter inline-6 fit into the enginebay of a ranger '08? these cars are from australia.
 
The best Ford I6 to swap into a ranger would be the 250 I6. It is the same overall dimensions as the 170/200 Falcon/Mustang six, except it's deck height is about 1.5 inches higher, which is no issue in a Ranger. The 250 is an undersquare engine, so it's LONG stroke makes great low-end torque, which is what you would want. As someone else said, it has the Ford smallblock bell pattern, so you have excellent tranny choices, like an AOD or T5 for instance. Build up a megasquirt system based on a throttle body and you'll have a sweet-running engine. Cleaning up the bowls and throats on the head brings out a lot of power on these engines. Head is interchangable with the 200 and 170, the best head is the '69 and up 200 or 250 head. I was able to get a '66 Mustang with the 200 and T5 into the high 16s in the quarter mile, a 250 would be nice in a Ranger.
 
The best 6 for a Ranger is a 4.0 V6. It is so compact for its displacement--it's amazing. It can do full-size jobs and has torque to spare in a Ranger-sized truck.
 
if the 250 would give me a few more ponies and some additional torque over my 2.8, i'd start looking for one now!!! i'm assuming it would go in the engine bay without any cutting or hammering (except for motor/tranny mounts). love a straight 6!!
 
I have a 77 250 with the I6 and 3 speed with hurst shifter lol. This is one tough hauling, towing truck.. It out tows our practicaly new 89 e250 with the 302 and aod. " van has like 65k and is in show room condition" The only down fall is the 3 speed. It needs a gear between second and third.. Personaly i would rather have the 300 6 in my ranger than a 302. I towed a 2000 gmc 3500 4x4 on my car trailer with my ranger yesterday... I was wishing i had that 300 6 instead of my 3.0... Got home hooked the trailer to my 250 to move it around the soft muddy gravel driveway and that 300 didn't even begin to notice that trk or the 1300 lb trailer it was on..

The straight 6 300 was designed to be a work horse..... From Wikipeda...
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. The engine has earned the terms "bullet proof" 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. Few, if any, modern engines use timing gears; belts are by far more common, especially among non-domestic automakers.



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 150 hp (112 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 and E4OD transmissions, as well as the Mazda built M5OD 5 speed manual transmission. 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.

[edit] The Ford Inline six in racing
The Ford Inline six has had a small though colorful career in racing, which has increased in recent years due to the rising popularity of the motor and the availability of performance parts.

A recent yet giant step in Ford Inline six racing has been performed by McLearran Motorsports in Tucson AZ. The McLearrans, Wil and Kelly, have achieved enough notice that their 1963 Ford Falcon has been seen in several magazines and was scheduled to make an appearance on the show Pinks.

The 1963 Falcon driven by McLearran Motorsports' Kelly McLearran has been dyno tested at 323 rwhp @ 4500 rpm and 502 rwtq @ 2650 rpm. The car has run a best time of 10.89 seconds at 1/4 mile, with Kelly driving.

The McLearran Motorsports engine used in their 1963 Ford Falcon. A bored and stroked 263 cid inline six dyno tested at 323 hp and 502 ft lbs of torque using E85 fuel and 16lbs of boost!!
 
The best 6 for a Ranger is a 4.0 V6. It is so compact for its displacement--it's amazing. It can do full-size jobs and has torque to spare in a Ranger-sized truck.

Um, there is no way a 4.0L Ranger could outwork a 300 I6 F150.

The 300 is an amazing engine for its displacement, Lots of low RPM torque, down good an low where ya need it.

For those who prefer a V8 though the 400 has a similiar powerband with a V8 Rumble :)

There is NO 6 cylinder produced today (or in time, except the 292 Chevy which came close) that could touch a 300 for down and dirty workhorsein'.

later,
Dustin
 
if the 250 would give me a few more ponies and some additional torque over my 2.8, i'd start looking for one now!!! i'm assuming it would go in the engine bay without any cutting or hammering (except for motor/tranny mounts). love a straight 6!!

It's give you torque, factory was around 190 ft/lbs, again at some really low number. But they also made barely 90hp.

The cylinder heads on these things have a "cast in" intake runner, which while not only atrociously small, but since it's cast into the cylinder head, there's not much you can do about it.

http://www.fordsix.com/ sells a replacement cylinder head (aluminum) and a new (seperate) intake manifold, as well as many other go-fast-goodies. With those you actually can get drivable power out of them (200 HP and 220lb/ft, and suuuper flat low end torque curve).

It's a good engine, fairly reputable service record, super cheap to acquire (nobody seems to want them), and they were actually produced in rather large numbers.

With some "massaging" it would really work well for a Ranger.

I have one sitting in my barn slated for when DeathTraps V8 goes belly up.
 
thanks for the info. my only experience with the 250 was in the old USPO mail van i owned back in the 70's. ran great with the 3sp auto in it. seemed to have plenty of power (torque) and never gave me any problems. think i'll start looking for one... just in case!
 
fordsix also has threads on installing 2 one barrel
carbs on the stock head. that would solve the
fuel starvation problem on #1 and 6. the
ports in the pics don't look all that small for
a street six. if i were doing it, i would bolt
a 4x24x0.5" aluminum plate to the original
carb mount and drill holes midway between 1&3
and 4&6 for the 2 carbs, and seal the gap between
the log manifold and the plate with solid rubber.
then add curved bottom plates with bolts to hold the
top plate down. the throttle and choke linkage would
be an interesting project.
 
Im in the process of putting 91 sb ranger bod on fs 91 bronco chassis "Rotted body" 300 duals E4OD tranny "mini monster" ,i had a 2000 expedition with 5.4 biggest money pit i ever owned, As 4 tow'n r work'n il stick with my 79 sno fighter t-18 np 205 twin D60's 460 12"clutch out of a 74 gran marquis holley 780 duals. LUV m both! LUV this forum!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Even though the 300-6 was installed in higher GVWR chassis, those things were pigs. They were meant to lumber down the county roads to the grain elevator at 45mph. They were tractor engines installed in trucks. Nobody ordered them because they were powerful. They ordered them because they could move the vehicle forward from a dead stop and accelerate, eventually, up to a reasonable speed. I've said this a million times--airspeed at low rpms is the way you get something moving. It doesn't mean it is capable of fantastic torque, only that it can actually run and operate at a low rpm. The stroke of that motor is what lets it run strong at a low rpm. It's maximum torque is pathetic, it's ability to make that pathetic torque at a low rpm is incredible.

Torque is determined by how much fuel you can burn in a single cycle of the engine. An engine with huge ports and a straight shot through the ports is capable of more torque than an engine with tiny ports with lots of obstructions. For it's displacement, the 300-6 is a loser. The only thing the 4.9 has going for it--and it's true of the 250 and 200 engines--and the 292 GM: they all have a long stroke.

A long stroke means that the engine is actually running faster at the same rpm. The pistons are moving faster. It is filling the cylinders faster at the same rpm. Air has mass and once it's in motion it likes to stay in motion. At lower rpms the 300-6 is filling its cylinders quicker and more fully than a shorter stroke motor. It runs like an electric motor right off idle. It can do a job larger than its size would indicate because of its piston speed.

But then those small ports and valves suddenly become a problem. They don't fit enough air through them to make any power. For a generator, a farm tractor or an oilfield engine, they are fine. For a grain truck or a base motor for a pickup, fine.

For highway towing I would prefer the 302 even though the 300 is stronger from a stop. For a Ranger I would prefer the 4.0 because it's easy to swap in since it was made for it. It is very torqey and powerful and does everything the 300 could do--and it belongs in it. All of your parts will come off the shelf. there will be no weird shit to deal with. My B2 is skidding logs right now. A 300 wouldn't do it any better and it would be much less reliable and a lot more patched together. A 4.0 is just as much a truck engine--and in the truck it was designed for. The pushrod 4.0 is extremely compact for its displacement and easy to work on. I have never seen a 300 that was installed and functional and daily driven. I've seen many attempts, but no complete successes. A 4.0 belongs in a Ranger. I would not put a 4.0 into an F150 that had a 300-6. I'm not saying that. But it's stupid to put a 300-6 in a Ranger when a 4.0 is so friggin easy and such a big performer.
 
Sometimes, its just good to be different. A 4.0 has wiring to mess with to get it to run, a carbed 4.9 has much less. Not everybody takes their ranger on a highway, or needs a performer engine. But you and everybody else here that has posted does give good points.

I would rather put a 200 or 250 in a ranger then a 300.

If you want a fast ranger, put a 2.3 Turbo Coupe engine in your Ranger then.

If you want a "bolt in plug and play engine" do a 4.0.

If think like me, jump out of the box and put a non ranger in it, whether you keep it Ford or not is up to you.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

TRS Events

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Latest posts

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Ranger Adventure Video

TRS Merchandise

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Sponsors


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Sponsored Ad

Back
Top