1966 A code engine: 240?

[eou_edu]

First of all I apologize if this has been talked about. After an hour of searching I thought I was would just post it. I was browsing http://www.broncohio.com/tech/ebvins.html and for 1966 only they have the two availible engines listed as 170 and 240? Is this just a typo? I have seriously considered swapping a 240/300 in to replace the tired 170. But it sounds like several have tried with lots of effort and regret.

 

[Viperwolf1]

Broncohio has lots of errors. That is one of them.

 

[bmbm]

240 was not available, although the 300 should have been in my opinion.
You can find a 200, do some performance mods as seen here fordsix.com, but you are still limited by the transmission or find a 250 which allows use of sbf transmissions such as NV3550 but takes a bit more work. Nowhere near as much work as a 300.

 

[Broncobowsher]

Flawed reference material.

Standard 170. Late availability of the C-code 289 (standard 2-barrel version)

The A-code engine was never abailable in a Bronco. I know the mustangs it was a 289 4-barrel mid-level engine. More compression than the C-code but not as much as the K-code. There was one more 289, one year only as I recall. It was a 4-barrel but on the low compression engine.

 

[thegreatjustino]

There was one more 289, one year only as I recall. It was a 4-barrel but on the low compression engine.

That would be a D code 289 only available in the 1964-1/2 cars. Those early cars didn't have a 289 2bbl option. The base V8 was a 260 Falcon engine (F code in the VIN). The 4bbl option was the D code which was a lower performing engine than the A code which was offered starting with the true 1965 cars.