Not a fan of the 300

[tj300]

........ Still deciding between the 3.50 and 3.75.

If you know that you never want/need to go with a larger tire the 3.50 should be fine. If you ever do want a larger tire you might wish you had the 3.73-3.75

But if you get the 3.75 and never need/do the larger tires then just more revs, noise, gas. Just thinking out loud.

Actually, I'm thinking about going back to L/T's for the handling. I like the looks of some of the larger truck tires, but I'm not willing to sacrifice a lot of performance to buy them, which is why I went with the original size car tire for my truck. I have to say, I think I am leaning toward the 3.75. I'm not doing a lot of highway driving anymore and I think I would like that gear for intown. I still do some roofing repairs,and occasionally throw a few squares of shingles and other material in the back, along with tools. Not often, but there are times. So, I've given that some thought as well.

[Craigwell]

I think it's pretty clear: If you use 3.50 your not too bad with the C6. If it's 3.73, you'll definitely want an overdrive. Stay away from AOD's. You don't need that aggravation yet.

[Luckyman]

a 3.75 gear with 31"-32" tires would be like the 3.50 gear with the stock tires. Just need to change the speedo gear for an accurate speedometer.

[mutt]

the local driverain shop gave me a bid of $180 to replace my 3.08 gears- 9 in rear- with 3.50's, new axle bearings inc. its on "the list" .....I keep strictly away from automatic transmission because they are just power robbers. My studied opinion is 3.75 is too low for what you are doing, 3.50 with really surprise you.
for every wheel revolution in direct the wheel is recieving 25% more power from the engine, over the course of a single revolution. Thats a very big change. It might well be night & day.

[rbrduck71]

hey whats up

im new to ford six . com, building 58 ford pickup for my 15 yr old, first car so i wanna use a inline, bang for buck which six will make decent power, parts are available, intake, cam, headers, ignition, i would like a 300, but you guys can tell me the best way to go, whats rare and whats available, i got more labor to spare than money so any help would be appreaiciated

rbrduck

[tj300]

hey whats up

im new to ford six . com, building 58 ford pickup for my 15 yr old, first car so i wanna use a inline, bang for buck which six will make decent power, parts are available, intake, cam, headers, ignition, i would like a 300, but you guys can tell me the best way to go, whats rare and whats available, i got more labor to spare than money so any help would be appreaiciated

rbrduck

First of all welcome. Upgrading the ignition would be the first of my engine mods. Next, NO AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS! MANUAL, TRANNY ONLY! Next, make sure you DON'T HAVE HIGHWAY GEARS! Everyone is suggesting 3.50 gearing for my application and have presented convincing arguments. So I'll be following their advise.

As you've probably read I've been having performance issues with my truck,( even after adding some decent mods to the engine), because of 2.75 gearing and an auto tranny.


Without the right gearing, and most on the forum, I believe, favor a manual tranny over the automatic, adding engine mods would be pointless. Actually, I would do the gearing and manual tranny first if your going to modify your engine.

State you goals. These guys can help you a lot.

[tj300]

1).

the local driverain shop gave me a bid of $180 to replace my 3.08 gears- 9 in rear- with 3.50's, new axle bearings inc. its on "the list"

.....I keep strictly away from automatic transmission because they are just power robbers.

2). My studied opinion is 3.75 is too low for what you are doing, 3.50 with really surprise you.
for every wheel revolution in direct the wheel is recieving 25% more power from the engine, over the course of a single revolution. Thats a very big change. It might well be night & day.

1). $180 ! Everything included, (labor & material)?! A lot better than I'll be paying, and I thought I was getting a bargain.

2). Just to give me an idea of the difference between the 2.75 and 3.50. The 2.75 is not going to spin the tires from a dead stop. Will the 3.50? That's not my intended purpose, it just gives me a gauge.

Same as you, I don't like an automatic. I'm just stuck with it. At least it's a C6. I won't be doing any more mods until after I get the gearing changed.

[StrangeRanger]

My 96 EFI 300 with an E4OD and 3.73 gears, a Trac-Lok and 30" tires will not "spin the tires from a dead stop" but I never considered that as especially relevant. Because of the internal ratios in the tranny it pulls more overall gear reduction than your C6 would in front of a 3.75 but the torque converter prevents the impact hit necessary to break them loose.

[rbrduck71]

well my kids pickup will be a automatic, i just wanna know which six has the best bang for yo buck quality, availability, parts for it and what not, if i wanted it very fast i already know how to do that, he needs to start small, i just wanna make sure its cool too

thanks for the help

rbrduck

[tj300]

My 96 EFI 300 with an E4OD and 3.73 gears, a Trac-Lok and 30" tires will not "spin the tires from a dead stop" but I never considered that as especially relevant. Because of the internal ratios in the tranny it pulls more overall gear reduction than your C6 would in front of a 3.75 but the torque converter prevents the impact hit necessary to break them loose.

I never had anything in between a 2.75 and a 4.10. I was tying to get an idea of how much more responsive a 3.50 would be over the 2.75 for intown driving. Will there be a big difference?

[mutt]

rbrduck- start an entirely new "topic" with your project as the title, & more people will see it. Not everyone is following this particular thread........

[StrangeRanger]

I never had anything in between a 2.75 and a 4.10. I was tying to get an idea of how much more responsive a 3.50 would be over the 2.75 for intown driving. Will there be a big difference?

If you have everything else right then yes there will be a huge difference. If your problems originate in the carb tune or the dizzy advance then there will be little or no difference.

[tj300]

I never had anything in between a 2.75 and a 4.10. I was tying to get an idea of how much more responsive a 3.50 would be over the 2.75 for intown driving. Will there be a big difference?

If you have everything else right then yes there will be a huge difference.

If your problems originate in the carb tune or the dizzy advance then there will be little or no difference.

I'll defineately be taking another look at the tuning. Also, my truck gives a little sputter when I shut it off. Could that be a tuning issue?

[Seattle Smitty]

TJ, you mention you might be doing some head work. Do you have the smog head? Swapping for a later swirl head ought to help a bit, since it has a better shape, a little more compression, and the swirl effect. Knocking down the unwanted lumps and bumps (but not the wanted ones) in the ports can't hurt.

Has the EGR been disabled (on purpose, or by being plugged with carbon) on your engine? Having it operational won't hurt performance much, and disabling it without making other changes (primarily distributor advance curve and timing, maybe the vacuum advance, maybe jetting) can screw up performance. I learned this by doing it wrong on a 318 Mopar a long time ago. The valve had failed, but instead of getting another I just put a flat plate over the hole where the valve had been. The poor engine would ping on any grade until I retarded the static timing and disconnected the vacuum advance. You can guess what that did for power and mpg. Finally I reconfigured the distributor to pre-EGR specs, which allowed me to undo my emergency "fixes." Alternatively, I could have simply installed a good valve, but I ask you, is that hot-rodding?

Craigwell, there's a transmission builder in Canada, Lentech, that does an extensive rework of AOD and AODE trannies for better shifting and ability to withstand full-house big block drag motors or heavy towing applications. I believe they now sell kits so a guy can do the mods himself. You can Google them.

[rbrduck71]

thought we were talking about the 300 six, do i need to press one for english

i was asking about the 300 because that was my first pick without any info to decide with

isnt this thread called (not a fan of the 300)? wanted to know why not a 300

maybe you need to inform me on the proper way and place to look for help with my questions on the 300 inline

AM I MISSING SOMETHING???

[StrangeRanger]

It's simple etiquette. This thread was started by TJ300 to deal with his issues about his truck. It's impolite to jump into the middle of someone else's thread and to try to hijack it with your questions about your truck. If you start a thread of your own, people will respond to your questions in that thread.

Start by reading the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) at the top of this forum. Many of your questions will already be answered in those postings.

[shmoozo]

well my kids pickup will be a automatic, i just wanna know which six has the best bang for yo buck quality, availability, parts for it and what not, if i wanted it very fast i already know how to do that, he needs to start small, i just wanna make sure its cool too

thanks for the help

rbrduck

If you are looking for an inline six to drop into a '58 Ford pickup I'd say you have several decent options.

1. Find one of the old 223 inline sixes that was actually used in trucks from that era. It should be possible to bolt one in with the proper parts.

2. Substitute a 262 six instead. These were used in some of the later heavy duty trucks, but should also drop in fairly easily because they were from the same engine family as the 223.

3. Ignore all that old iron and go with a 240 or 300 instead. These were introduced in about 1965, and while the 240 was dropped a few years later the 300 was produced until 1996, so they aren't too hard to find.

There are, of course, other inline sixes that could be dropped in if you don't mind a bit of fabrication work, including engines from Jeeps, Dodges, and Chevys. The later versions of the Jeep 4.0 liter inline sixes would be a pretty sweet modern power plant for an old pickup that was going to be a daily driver.

Me, I might look at an older carb version of the Ford 300 inline six. They're a mighty fine engine for a daily driver truck, and they have the same belt housing bolt pattern as the Ford small block V8s so a variety of transmissions are available to bolt right up to them.

But having said all that, is there an engine in the truck now? If so, why not think about rebuilding it whatever it is? The reason I suggest this is that so far as I am aware there were only two engines commonly used in those trucks that year. One was the 223 inline six, and the other was the 272 cubic inch variant of the old Y-block V8s. Neither was exactly a hot rod engine in standard trim with ratings of 137 and 173 horsepower respectively, but both can be woken up a bit with some bolt on parts later.

[tj300]

How do I cancel a reply? This is an edit.

[crash-harris]

By next year I'll be running 4.10's behind my 300...but I'll also be pushing 33"-35" meats. Right now she's doing pretty good with the stock ratio, 3.55's and 33's are the same as 3.08's and stock tires. 33's are mounted on 8" wide rims so they actually measure out to 32". With 285K on the engine, I'm still getting about 16-17 mpg and breaking 8" 'round logs with very little throttle (in low range).

[rikard]

Back to the question of gearing. Yes there is a big difference between 2.73s and 3.55s. I noticed the difference between 3.08s and 3.55s in performance but not gas mileage. That was with stock 235/75/15 tires.
regards
rikard

[argo]

The reason automatics feel sluggish behind the 300 is that the typical torque converter's stall speed is higher than the 300s torque peak. Take a page from the diesel performance guys' playbook and get a low stall converter. Most torque converter shops can build one that will stall 1,200-1,400 rpm. That will really wake up an automatic trans 300. When I had a C6 behind my 300 it was a beast after I put in the 1,200 stall converter. That combo worked great behind my 300 with a set of 3.55 gears and a set of 31x10.5R15 BFGoodrich All Terrain TAs. But then I went all stoopid and traded my 300 for a 302 and an AOD. As I said... stoopid! When I woke up to my blunder (the first time I tried to haul a load) I put my 300 back in, but I had already sold my c6. The AOD stalled too high (2,200 RPM) and my truck was a slug in 1st and 2nd gears (it was better at highway speeds with the AOD's lockup and overdrive). Then I found an NP-435 in the yard one day while I was looking for a rear axle for my friend's Bronco and ... well the gearhead in me wanted it. I like it too, great box, but I miss my killer C6 setup. It got 19 MPG at 55 MPH (the 302 got 14, and the 300 with the AOD got 18, ironically. It will just squeak 20 MPG with my NP-435). I would definitely ditch the 2.75 gears though, because they are really hurting your performance. 2.75 gears might work with a 300 in a 2,000 lb car, but not a 4,500 lb truck.

[tj300]

The reason automatics feel sluggish behind the 300 is that the typical torque converter's stall speed is higher than the 300s torque peak. Take a page from the diesel performance guys' playbook and get a low stall converter. Most torque converter shops can build one that will stall 1,200-1,400 rpm. That will really wake up an automatic trans 300. When I had a C6 behind my 300 it was a beast after I put in the 1,200 stall converter. That combo worked great behind my 300 with a set of 3.55 gears and a set of 31x10.5R15 BFGoodrich All Terrain TAs. But then I went all stoopid and traded my 300 for a 302 and an AOD. As I said... stoopid! When I woke up to my blunder (the first time I tried to haul a load) I put my 300 back in, but I had already sold my c6. The AOD stalled too high (2,200 RPM) and my truck was a slug in 1st and 2nd gears (it was better at highway speeds with the AOD's lockup and overdrive). Then I found an NP-435 in the yard one day while I was looking for a rear axle for my friend's Bronco and ... well the gearhead in me wanted it. I like it too, great box, but I miss my killer C6 setup. It got 19 MPG at 55 MPH (the 302 got 14, and the 300 with the AOD got 18, ironically. It will just squeak 20 MPG with my NP-435). I would definitely ditch the 2.75 gears though, because they are really hurting your performance. 2.75 gears might work with a 300 in a 2,000 lb car, but not a 4,500 lb truck.

Actually, I did seriously consider a stall converter in addition to the 3.50s and a shift kit. I can't remember why, but those who responded when I mentioned that, advised against it. I think they mentioned heat in the tranny as a factor. I can't remember.
But yeah, I agree. I think a lower stall converter would be a plus for performance. But, there was a down side.

[StrangeRanger]

No, you asked about a higher stall speed converter and I advised against because it offers less torque multiplication

[tj300]

No, you asked about a higher stall speed converter and I advised against because it offers less torque multiplication

Sorry,you're right, I did say higher stall speed. But later on, probably next year , I'm going to do the head and cam. I wanted to install a stall speed to match the cam, 1200-1500/5000 rpm range. That's what I meant. What's your thoughts?

This year will be the gearing. I would like to check a converter shop for a price to make one up. Now this is getting interesting.

[THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER]

If I'm not mistaken the stock converter stalls around 1200 RPM.

SR, Doesnt a higher stall converter increase torque multiplication?

[StrangeRanger]

You would be the expert on that but I've always seen the torque multiplication of stock converters listed as approx. 2.2 and that of race converters listed as approx. 2.0

[argo]

According to the Turbo Hydramatic 350 Handbook by H.P. Books (I know it's a GM box, but bear with me) a lower stall converter can still have high torque multiplication by varying the angle of the stator blades. In other words, the stator can make up for lost torque multiplication caused by the lower slippage of a low stall converter. This can improve low rev torque multiplication and increase coupling efficiency. It sure worked for my truck. Before I did the converter swap on my C6, the factory converter stalled at almost 2,000 rpms, and the truck was sluggish off the line. With the low stall converter, the truck was much peppier and had that neck snapping punch at low speeds/off idle like low gear in a manual trans does. Have you ever rolled about 5 mph with a manual trans in low gear and then mashed the gas and felt that instant thrust? My c6 felt the same after I did my converter swap. Before the swap it would just roll off, but after the swap, it punched hard like a stick. It also had bettr low rpm grunt and would chirp the tires on a hard launch from a dead stop... something the stock converter would never do. It felt like I picked up substantial torque, even though the engine remained unchanged. Granted, 3.55 gears with 31 inch tires seems to be just about a perfect combo for a 1/2 ton Ford with a six, but the ratio was the same with the other transmissions and torque converters. The AOD has a clear gearing advantage in 1st gear, and yet it still couldn't touch the low stall C6 off the line. True, it did feel better on the highway despite the lower fuel economy, but it was still sluggish off the line. I could still kick myself for getting rid of that box. My NP-435 is making unpleasent noises and I wish I could put my C6 back in. It ended up in a drag car in Ohio.

[80broncoman]

if the op does the head, cam and intake swap then a 1500 or even a 2000 rpm stall might be better.
it all denpends on his paticular combination.

[THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER]

argo, It sounds like you have some real world experience with a lower-than-stock-stall converter and I defer to your opinion. I don't think a higher stall converter would be useful in his particular application. Based on your experiences maybe a lower one would work better for lugging around a heavy truck. I am surprised that the stock converter stalls at 2000 RPM though - I would have expected much lower based on the fact that I am using a high-stall Mustang 351 CJ factory torque converter rated at 2500 RPM behind the 351 CJ in my Willys (which, by the way, stalls at 2500 behind my hopped up six) and that was the highest rated factory converter I could find.

You would be the expert on that but I've always seen the torque multiplication of stock converters listed as approx. 2.2 and that of race converters listed as approx. 2.0

I am far from an expert on torque converters. But it seems feasible that the torque output of a low-stall would be less than a high stall, e.g., 2.2 x TORQUE AT 1200 < 2.0 X TORQUE AT 2500

[argo]

It was the transmission guy at the Olds dealership shop I worked at that turned me on to the idea. He said that trucks had loose converters to reduce shock load on the transmission. The higher stall speed lowers the mechanical strain placed on the input carrier by providing more hydraulic "cushioning" than a lower stall converter would. Please do not defer to me as an expert on this issue... my specialty is electrical and drivability diagnostics and engines. However, the expert I knew gave me the scoop on that and I ran with it. I can just tell you it really works. I can try and explain with my limited knowledge of the subject why it works, but I just know it does. That said, my 300 is otherwise stock, except for a high flow cat that replaced my original when it failed. 80broncoman is correct that with head work and other mods, the torque curve will climb higher, and therefore this mod might be counterproductive. The plus side of this mod is that there is less slippage, and therefore less shearing of the oil molecules in the ATF and also less heat buildup in the trans.

[tj300]

Will a 1200/1500 stall work for the application I have now? My plan is for head work and a cam sometime next year. But as I've been finding out , plans for one reason or another just don't work out all the time, especially when you run out of $$$$!
I am doing the gear and shift kit shortly , and I also want to do the stall converter while I'm at it.

[American Thunder]

If you want a lower stall speed converter, why not just use one from a diesel C6?

[tj300]

If you want a lower stall speed converter, why not just use one from a diesel C6?

What would be the advantages? What's the stall speed? And would it work for me? And how much $$$ as compared to one more for street competition?

[StrangeRanger]

Stall speed varies with input torque. Since you've modified your engine a bit, you really don't have a clue what stall speed you now have. Why don't you figure that out first?

http://www.txchange.com/stalltc2.htm

gives one method but be warned that it's accuracy is dependent on whether or not your brakes will hold. See these references:

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/se ... index.html
http://www.rodandcustommagazine.com/tec ... index.html

Once you know where you are, it's a lot easier to figure out how to get to where you're going.

[tj300]

If I do nothing else to my 300 than I've already done, will a converter with a stall of 1200 to 1400 work best for me in addition to the 3.50 gearing and shift kit?

[StrangeRanger]

You may be stalling at 1200-1400 already. Like I said, figure out where you are now before you plan on making changes.

[argo]

My 300 has the Offy dp intake, Edlebrock 500 cfm 4bbl., Headman hedders, dual exhaust, and MSD ignition.

I am going to assume a stock cam and stock ignition based on the information provided above. I am also going to assume the carburetor is a vacuum secondary type, and I am going to further assume that it is properly tuned and doesn't bog or run too lean or too rich. I think that a converter in the 1,400 -1,600 RPM range would be suitable to your engine performance. I also have read that a large diameter converter will give better torque multiplication and more efficient coupling, so a 12" converter in that range should be a good performer. However, like StrangeRanger suggested, check your converter's stall speed, because yours may not be stalling too high. No need spending money you don't have too. I would rather see you spend the money to do the gears first, even if your converter is not in the range discussed, because the gears are more important for maximizing your performance (unless you had a 5,000 rpm stall or something crazy like that). 2.75 gears and the right converter equals a more responsive kind of sluggish, versus the right gears and a wrong converter, which will feel pretty good, just not quite there.

[tj300]

Okay, I'll do as suggested. I want to get the gearing , tranny,(shift kit), and converter going before deciding on further engine mods. Thanks.

[80broncoman]

get your self a tach so you will for sure know what rpm you are at.

[American Thunder]

What would be the advantages? What's the stall speed? And would it work for me? And how much $$$ as compared to one more for street competition?

A diesel converter is supposedly stronger than one for a gas motor, and has a noticeably lower stall speed, due to the diesel making so much torque well under 1600 rpm. From what I've been reading, in terms of fitment, a diesel converter is a direct replacement for the gas version, and I'd call junkyards to get one cheap.