Anyone install a 300 straight Ford engine w/auto & transfer in 66-77 bronco.

[lars]

Another way to use (3) 300 six engines.

https://theaviationist.com/2023/06/...rworthy-wwi-bomber-replica-returns-to-flight/

 

[nvrstuk]

Well, torque on many dyno's isn't usually advertised below about 2500-3000 but at 3K most strokers have 450ft lbs and get better mileage than a 300 straight 6. They may putt, but they aren't efficient. Aren't happy spinning at 3K + rpm for 65 mph. Just a thought. Your build and if you want a 300 make it happen. That's whats fun, doing it the way you want! Enjoy.

Gotta a good buddy that put a 300 in his years ago. Converted it to EFI years later. He did a fair bit of firewall work and is looking to go with a 5.0 Exploder for several reasons.

 

[chrlsful]

other end of it all Mad Mike’s Mav beat alot @ the drags w/the 300 (not 4.9) and
they spent beaucoup bucks to loose. This is un-modified/un-opened like a stocker.

“...whats fun..."
thats egg-zak-a-lee what its all about
(& laughing when they arent lookin) at doin it w a y cheeper
as we dont have the ching anyway...

Back to the OP (bronk). I think itsa lill nose heavy 'less pushed back
(not easy but see BD mag for one or 2 and thread(s) here. Tall deck too
(compaired to bent8). There’s 6 or 8 solutions (for all 60s/70 ford typical low
hood issues).

 

[Broncobowsher]

Another way to use (3) 300 six engines.

https://theaviationist.com/2023/06/...rworthy-wwi-bomber-replica-returns-to-flight/

Flight issues involved insufficient power.

Why does the 300 have such low end power? It is cammed that low. Why did they cam it that low? Because it doesn't rev. Without RPM, you don't have HP. All that's let to talk about is the torque. Cam a 302 with a 300 specs and it will run pretty much the same.

Internal balance? Big engine with lots of room inside the crankcase for all the counterweights, easy to internally balance. Compact crankcase, not really enough room for proper counterweighting, hang some counterweights outside the crankcase.

It's 300 cubic inches of engine with a not so great flowing head (but still better than the 170/200)

 

[nvrstuk]

Cam can move torque curves up and down the rpm scale but rod length is the key factor for max torque at low rpm.

Course stick the cam I have in a 302 and it won't idle much less produce much torque but we have to have some kind of apples to apples comparison. Got so many variables like dwell times, piston speed, etc, etc.

Why do diesels make so much torque- one of them is rod length. Cummins 5.7 has a 4 3/4" stroke. Only 6 pistons... yeah, apples to apples right? lol

302 with 8 cyl has a 3" stroke appr 230lb ft

300 with 6 cyl just shy of 4" appr 230 lb ft with 2 less cylinders

 

[chrlsful]

and there we have it.
Tq rather than HP
And in a pretty good power band (well MMMav’s up there)
down nice’n low to have less tire spin.

Now I DID like the bent8 I had in sno.
OR
rather I should say ‘on’ sno as the tires really spun & I stayed on top of it.
Must B like those paddle tired guys on the dunes (JD’s “Poney Exprss”) i'd
ass U me.

 

[nvrstuk]

Sand and soft or deep slushy snow need HP as you need wheel spin at 5k plus to keep moving. All HP.

Gears keep you crawling on top

 

[lars]

Flight issues involved insufficient power.

Why does the 300 have such low end power? It is cammed that low. Why did they cam it that low? Because it doesn't rev. Without RPM, you don't have HP. All that's let to talk about is the torque. Cam a 302 with a 300 specs and it will run pretty much the same.

Internal balance? Big engine with lots of room inside the crankcase for all the counterweights, easy to internally balance. Compact crankcase, not really enough room for proper counterweighting, hang some counterweights outside the crankcase.

It's 300 cubic inches of engine with a not so great flowing head (but still better than the 170/200)

Yeah, I caught that. And they had to run reduction drives anyway to get the propeller speed down (quick aside, tip speed of a propeller needs to stay well below the speed of sound, AKA around 0.9 Mach, or efficiency goes into the toilet). If you are running a reduction drive anyway, might as well pick something that (a) weighs less and (b) makes adequate power.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Broncobowsher]

Cam can move torque curves up and down the rpm scale but rod length is the key factor for max torque at low rpm.

Course stick the cam I have in a 302 and it won't idle much less produce much torque but we have to have some kind of apples to apples comparison. Got so many variables like dwell times, piston speed, etc, etc.

Why do diesels make so much torque- one of them is rod length. Cummins 5.7 has a 4 3/4" stroke. Only 6 pistons... yeah, apples to apples right? lol

302 with 8 cyl has a 3" stroke appr 230lb ft

300 with 6 cyl just shy of 4" appr 230 lb ft with 2 less cylinders

So 300ish cubic inches of displacement makes about 230 ft-lb of torque. Regardless of the number of cylinders.

Cummings (6BT I presume) is diesel with boost. Completely different playground. You have to start playing with ecoboost to play close to what a diesel (with turbo) will do.

 

[nvrstuk]

So 300ish cubic inches of displacement makes about 230 ft-lb of torque. Regardless of the number of cylinders.

Cummings (6BT I presume) is diesel with boost. Completely different playground. You have to start playing with ecoboost to play close to what a diesel (with turbo) will do.

That's why I said apples to apples earlier but since most here are talking off idle torque then there's no real boost happening anyway.

Less # of cyls equals more torque achieved per cyl and rod length does that.

 

[chrlsful]

“... rod length...” ’n more.
The i6 got me outta the deep (plow blade fulla heavy wet sno beside) the bent8
skittered accross the top like a water bug on his air bags... May B there’s the apples
to oranges. Ford allowed a choice. I’ll stick w/the 4.1 I have as my ace in the wood (hole).