Talk:Ford straight-six engine

Wrong info

"Output was 155 hp (115 kW) in the Mustang, and became the base engine in 1971. Power was down to 98 hp (73 kW) for 1972 and just 88 hp (66 kW) the next year." This info is wrong. The car manufacturers had to change the power measurement methode from SAE gross to SAE net in 1972. ->http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Horsepower ->SAE gross horsepower. Maybe someone who is native english speaking can correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.74.166 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates

Trying to add more info to the article and correct some dates. I'm sure I made some minor mistakes. I'm trying to get the hang of this. It would be nice to add some torque figures, pictures of engines, list of models equipped with the inline six engines and more detailed information of engines. Oh yeah and some links to inline six websites.

S&S Tug and the 300/4.9

I added a smallish note at the end of the paragraph about the 300 that Stewart and Stevenson [1] uses (or, at least, used, their site is completely devoid of any mention of the GSE (=Ground support equipment) products at the moment.) the 4.9 in their MA Baggage tow tractor. I feel this is an appropriate addition because it shows how patently indestructible this engine really is, I work for FedEx and they use these "Tugs" everywhere to tow tens of thousands of pounds of freight around at once, and rarely ever does a Tug die because it's engine has failed. They even run them low enough on oil that the engine will just stop, then then add more, crank them back up and keep right on going. This impresses me. They sound nice, too, they emit a very burbly, low grumble.

More specific information needed

In the part where fourth generation inline sixes are detailed there is/was a following comment: "Pedro says his 300 has more horsepower in his crappy bronco than that. At least 4 or 500." As I'm not familiar with the 'Steward and Stevenson', I have no idea what this comment means. Can someone clarify, who this person, Pedro, is and how he is related to the subject. I find this very confusing as to me it feels like an odd, irrelevant comment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.56.90 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FG Falcon

Stats for the FG Falcon Straight-6 are yet to be added. I was simply going to do this myself but thought whoever did previous ones might think i am copying their code or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.215.232 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Falcon Thriftpower six integrated intake

Can someone supply a picture of the intake side of one of these engines? I think that it would be nice to clarify the manifold structure used in these motors as it is one of the special aspects of them.

They say that because of the flow-restricting log-style unremovable intake these motors lose rapidly their low speed torque without giving much greater than standart high-end power if tried to enhance with more radical camshafts and are thus nightmare of choise for performance enthusiaths, especially the lower displacement units. I find it rather intriguing that in the basic form the 170 cid (2,8-liter) ford engine and the comparable Chrysler slant six made about the same power but due to the ford engine's handicapping intake and slant's advantage -the excessive manifold area resulting from the tilted position (allowing the usage of very well flowing manifolds)- the slant six can be tuned to put out far more power than the thriftpower ever could with it's stock cylinderhead.

By the way can someone tell does the thriftpower six have as restricting intake as the flathead v8? The flatheads manifolds make a single 180* turn but the thriftpower six's intake is longer and makes two 90* turns in different directions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.93.188 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

- I cannot find flow rate numbers for a flathead V8 but I do know they respond very well to forced unduction be it supercharger or turbocharger. A ported log head tested by Classic Inlines produced a maximum of 146cfm intake flow and 129cfm exhaust flow. That is considerably less than a stock 2.3L OHC Pinto engine head flows. Anlushac11 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Anlushac11Anlushac11 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

 Comparing the Chrysler slant six engine to the Ford 144/170/200/250 engines is like comparing apples and oranges.

The slant six was a "big block" engine, comparable to the Ford 240/300 engine series. The slant six was based on one half of the 383 big block V-8 with two cylinders tacked on. The Ford 144 through 250 engine series was a "small block" type. 107.220.12.249 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Log head intake

The log head actually makes good low end torque but runs out of breath above 4500rpm. The log head is not a bad design for a mass production street engine but is too restrictive for performance applications unless modified heavily.

The Australians built a very similar version of the same head but with a removable aluminum intake commonly called a Oz 250-2v head and it used to be highly sought after. The Oz 250-2V head yields about a 50hp improvement just from the better breathing ability.

The Oz 250-2v head is no longer as sought after because Classic Inlines released a brand new modern design high swirl aluminum cylinder head with removable intake that yields about a 100hp bolt on improvement and has features that lend itself to being modernized with such features as port fuel injection. Anlushac11 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

-Thank you for the information. I was also wondering would it be possible to use this reproduction head on the 144,3cid six? My quess is that the difference of the bore makes it impossible. If such a head would be available, the 144 would make a rev happy economic powerhouse for the early Falcons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.93.188 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Classic Inline's aluminum head's larger valve's prevent usage in the smaller bore 144 and 170 cid engines.Anlushac11 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Anlushac11Anlushac11 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

horse power added with new equipment

I would like to know how to compute how much horse power I have added by putting on a 390 cfm carb. hedders and the offenhauser power intake manifold on a 300 inline ford 6 cylinder. can you help me? Robert Tolbert email address rdt1943@verizon . net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.15.120 (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

will a ford c6 tranny bolt on a 300straight 6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.20.229 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

- The only sure way is to dyno test the motor before and after. The next best way is to buy one of the virtual engine dyno programs that simulate a engine on a computer and let you add and change equipment such as carburetors, camshafts, head modifications, etc. If I were to throw out a ballpark guess then my estimate would be in the vicinity of a 30-40hp increase. You would get more by porting cylinder head, adding a camshaft, and raising compression but then all that requires going inside the engine and changing parts and making modifications.

The Ford 300 (4.9L) inline six shares the same bell housing bolt pattern as the small block Ford V8. Any transmission that will fit a small block Ford V8 will fit the 300. That said the flywheels and flexplates on a 300 are neutrally balanced where the V8 is often balanced with 28oz or 50oz weights depending on year and model. Be aware that the 300 is a torque monster and would shred a Ford V8 T5 in very little time. If the vehicle is used for towing a much stronger alternative would be to find a small block C6 transmission. Anlushac11 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Anlushac11Anlushac11 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Updates regarding new Falcon engines

As would be noticed by any regular visitors to this article the entries regarding recent Australian Falcon Barra engines and FPV equivalents has been modified. I have made these modifications. The modifications were largely to update the details and slightly improve the sentence structure (which I assume is anyone's ability on this site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.127.30 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Engines in Argentina

This engine was also produced in Argentina, as it is mentioned in the top - main info box. Originally there was the 144 cu in, but then the engines were gradually "souped up", until 1970, as from when -and for many years- Falcons were fitted with 188 and 221 cu in engines (also known locally as 3.0 and 3.6 litres respectively). Ranchero's pick ups also were fitted with the 188. During the '80's there was concern about mileage, and the local Ford branch developed an even more efficient version of the engine which was known as the 188 Econo-Max, which received modified intake and exhaust manifolds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.8.99 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No industrial or maritime engines?

I came looking for information about Fords marine/industrial diesel engines, and were surprised that there was nothing about them here. Should the information be added to this article, or should I start a new article?PerDaniel (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Add whatever you can. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

3 speed transmissions used with 240/300 six

There is no listing of the 3 speed manual transmissions used behind the 240/300. They made a lot of these, especially in the mid-'60s. I have driven a '65 with a six and 3 on the tree and a '66 that came with a six but had a transplanted 351W when I drove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.181.81 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

2.3L HSC, HSO Straight-4 Engines

http://www.tempotopaz.com/main/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=7954&start=15

According to this link, the information about the 2.3L and 2.5L HSC/HSO four-cylinder engines being related to the 3.3L "Thrift-Power" six-cylinder may be debunked, since some people suggest the piston heights between the HSC and the Falcon Six are not exactly the same. Therefore, what gives? WikiPro1981X (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford straight-six engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324085354/http://aerospecialties.com/PDF_Files/TUG_MA_Tractors.pdf to http://www.aerospecialties.com/PDF_Files/TUG_MA_Tractors.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.harlan-corp.com/NWeb/Trac_Build.asp?Key=Config&TCTMP=Yes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Where did the generational designations come from?

Did Ford refer to the engines using these First, Second Third and Fourth generation designations, or were they introduced by the authors of this article? I've only ever seen Ford refer to what this article designates the Third Generation as either the 'Falcon Six' or 'Thriftpower Six'. Similarly, what the article designates as the Fourth Generation seems to be universally described elsewhere as the 'Truck Six', and what it designates as the Second Generation was commonly marketed as the Mileage Maker. So why not just use the designations that Ford used, which would also align to the descriptions in Template:Ford_early_engine_timeline?

The generational designation is potentially problematic as it implies a lineage that may not actually exist. As it stands, the article makes no mention of Ford's OHV Zephyr Six, which was made by Ford of England from 1951 to 1966, overlapping the production of the Second, Third and Fourth Generations, yet being quite distinct from each of them. That engine is every bit as relevant to an article on Ford straight six engines as the Model K engine. 124.148.216.230 (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I doubt Ford ever referred to these with generations of any kind - most automakers don't. It comes about out of necessity as a clear way of describing them after the fact. The problem is, the "Thriftpower Six" long outlived that moniker, so using 1960s brand names across the board is little different from numbering the generations. The Australian six is probably a couple additional generations of its own too.

It appears to me that a lineage does exist, at least as far as the U.S. and Canadian markets, with another branching off for the Australian market. While there was some overlap, it's a clear progression through them. I don't see how the Zephyr Six is relevant - it has its own article already. Why would it be included this article, where it would be clearly out of place? --Sable232 (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess the problem with all of this is, how do we know which engines form part of a lineage, and which do not, unless we have primary or at least secondary sources to back it up.

It seems the Flathead, Mileage Maker and Falcon sixes were three entirely distinct engines, the first two being six-cylinder offshoots of the V8 design of the era rather than different generations of the same engine family. In each case, the one replaced the other; the only overlap in production being truck use of the older engine. You then get to the entirely different situation with the parallel timeline of the Falcon Six and Truck Six, which went into production within four years of one another and were produced concurrently for the next 20 years, longer if you count Australian and Argentinian production of the Falcon Six. The Truck Six is surely a sibling of the Falcon Six, not a descendant or replacement. It just makes this use of word "generation" even more problematic.

With regard to the name for the the 1960-84 engine, no less an authority than Hemmings seems to be quite happy to refer to it as the "Falcon Six", so I'd suggest that we could feel the same level of comfort in using that name.

From a non-American perspective, the inclusion of the Model K (which is about as unrelated to the subsequent Ford inline six engines as it gets) but the exclusion of non-American inline sixes such as the Zephyr Six, or the Ford Dorset/Dover engine for that matter, seems a bit selective, a bit arbitrary. I'd suggest that perhaps in the same way we mention the Model K in the introduction, we could similarly at least acknowledge the UK Ford engines, and link to the articles on each.

124.148.216.230 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 124.148.216.230 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)