Mighta found me a trail rig....decent or no?

[Hahnsb2]

I would look for something with EFI personally.

 

[Shran]

If the body's shot I'd say $950 is way steep for that. I can't believe the retarded prices people are asking for their old rusted out junk these days. I actually saw a truck, same year and drivetrain as the one you're looking at for the same price this week. It was rusted out so bad that EVERYTHING 2-3" up from the bottom of the body was completely gone. Fenders, rockers, floor, everything just missing. Who in their right mind would spend a grand on that piece of junk when it should have been taken to the scrap yard 10 years ago?

Oh, and the 300 is a bitchin motor, even though all three I had previously took a crap way before their time.

The carb setup on the 85's and 86's is retarded though.

 

[low_five]

Dont shoot the messenger! I love the 300 which is why the 300 hate threads stick out to me so much.

heres another thread with some serious 300 hate for you to check out.

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243

 

[Maverick]

I'd say $500 max. I had a 1980 bronco set up nearly the same way given to me. The body was shot but it ran like a champ. I wheeled it for a few months and sold it for $400.

 

[Will]

I'm guilty of bad mouthing the 300. It's not that I don't like it, I do. But it's misunderstood. It was the base engine, not the power option. It doesn't make much power and it doesn't make much torque. It's highest torque rating was only 265ft#. I had one in a '77 F100 so I know how they feel to drive. Yes they feel very torquey at low revs and yes it is because of the stroke. But the stroke does not = torque. It isn't a leverage thing. It's a piston speed thing. A 300-6 has an inch more stroke than a 302-V8. The pistons are moving 1/3 faster at the same engine rpm. Piston speed is the real speed an engine is running, not crank rotation. The air going in only knows the piston speed. The 300-6 is running faster than the 302 at the same crank speed so its filling its cylinders faster and with a carb it has a stronger signal at the same rpm. It runs better at the same rpm than a 302, at least at lower speeds.

But the practical limit of a stock crank and rods is about 3,500fpm piston speed. The 300-6 reaches that piston speed at 5,250rpm and the stock 302 reaches it's limit at 7000rpm. Since they both move them same 300cid per rev, the 302 V8 can make a whomping more bit of power because it can rev higher. The 300-6 could make 250hp with a cam swap and head work--Ford wanted it to be able to move heavy loads so it is tuned to buzz hard right down in the low revs. The saem is true of Chevy's budget lugger the 292 and even the old Slant-6. They all have huge stroke so they can run great right off idle. They do not have more total torque than any other motor their size.

And there is certainly no torque gained by arranging the cylinders in a row instead of in a V. The cylinders have no idea of their orientation. Torque is about displacement if there is no turbo. Stroke is about piston speed only.

 

[ZMan]

I'd say $500 max. I had a 1980 bronco set up nearly the same way given to me. The body was shot but it ran like a champ. I wheeled it for a few months and sold it for $400.

I agree, there is nothing that warrants it being worth $950.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I mighta over did it when i said the body was "shot"

Its got the usual rust (wheel arches, cab corners, bottom of tailgate, etc), got a lot of scratches and dings, it was used to haul wood from thr woods.

Im going ot go over and talk to him today.

I dont wanna turn this into a 300 6 VS everything else debate, I like the 300 and if you dont then whatever.

Im thinking another 2 inches of lift and a rear locker/ltd slip up front and some 35's and it would be a very capable rig...what you think??\

later,
Dustin

 

[dirtsquirt]

I mighta over did it when i said the body was "shot"

Its got the usual rust (wheel arches, cab corners, bottom of tailgate, etc), got a lot of scratches and dings, it was used to haul wood from thr woods.

Im going ot go over and talk to him today.

I dont wanna turn this into a 300 6 VS everything else debate, I like the 300 and if you dont then whatever.

Im thinking another 2 inches of lift and a rear locker/ltd slip up front and some 35's and it would be a very capable rig...what you think??\

later,
Dustin

take 500 cash and pick it up split the manifold into 3 and 3 put on a dual exhaust, it will sound real knarly and give you a little more power, fix up the body

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Yeah put on EFI manifolds you mean?

Wish me luck.

later,
Dustin

 

[rusty ol ranger]

My nephew just called me and said he drove by there and it was sold

Oh well, easy come easy go.

Ive still got my 76 F250 sittin in the barn, which is my mud truck, but it set up strictly for mud....and in my experince mud only trucks dont do good on trails.

I just wanna go wheelin with ya'll

later,
Dustin

 

[Danger FX4 Ranger]

I'm guilty of bad mouthing the 300. It's not that I don't like it, I do. But it's misunderstood. It was the base engine, not the power option. It doesn't make much power and it doesn't make much torque. It's highest torque rating was only 265ft#. I had one in a '77 F100 so I know how they feel to drive. Yes they feel very torquey at low revs and yes it is because of the stroke. But the stroke does not = torque. It isn't a leverage thing. It's a piston speed thing. A 300-6 has an inch more stroke than a 302-V8. The pistons are moving 1/3 faster at the same engine rpm. Piston speed is the real speed an engine is running, not crank rotation. The air going in only knows the piston speed. The 300-6 is running faster than the 302 at the same crank speed so its filling its cylinders faster and with a carb it has a stronger signal at the same rpm. It runs better at the same rpm than a 302, at least at lower speeds.

But the practical limit of a stock crank and rods is about 3,500fpm piston speed. The 300-6 reaches that piston speed at 5,250rpm and the stock 302 reaches it's limit at 7000rpm. Since they both move them same 300cid per rev, the 302 V8 can make a whomping more bit of power because it can rev higher. The 300-6 could make 250hp with a cam swap and head work--Ford wanted it to be able to move heavy loads so it is tuned to buzz hard right down in the low revs. The saem is true of Chevy's budget lugger the 292 and even the old Slant-6. They all have huge stroke so they can run great right off idle. They do not have more total torque than any other motor their size.

And there is certainly no torque gained by arranging the cylinders in a row instead of in a V. The cylinders have no idea of their orientation. Torque is about displacement if there is no turbo. Stroke is about piston speed only.

Very well said. I had a 92' F150 (auto) LWB with a 300, and a 93' F150 (5-speed) SWB for company trucks for a period of time. Both were slow as hell, but both could take one hell of a beating. The 5-speed had 190,000 miles and caught hell daily to say the least, but not once failed me.

 

[skinner]

Eh..i'd probably give 600-700 for it. But thats probably why he priced it as such. I used to have the mantra when selling vehicles(ive sold 6 or so) that i will list the price that I WANT for it. No haggling. Give me this amount and its yours. This amount was always far less than what others went for(I listed an 89 F150 4x4 longbed auto/all power perfect body new tires) for $1100. However, I soon found out that people feel like they are being ripped off if they don't haggle, and act offended if you won't go down. And for that reason, I just gave in to the masses and overprice everything by 400-500 more than I want for it, and let them "haggle" me down to what I expect. Human nature I guess.