300 6cyl swap

Firepower354

Well-known member
no serpentine water pumps have reverse rotation
I've seen only straight vane pumps, content going either way. (volleyball coach joke here)

Up sides of the late balancer, it can not back in to the timing cover when the rubber fails (nope)
And, the inertia ring can be marked to match the tips on the reluctor, to have an instant visual if slipping goes on.
 

Pontus

Well-known member
Supporter 2021
I've seen only straight vane pumps, content going either way. (volleyball coach joke here)

Up sides of the late balancer, it can not back in to the timing cover when the rubber fails (nope)
And, the inertia ring can be marked to match the tips on the reluctor, to have an instant visual if slipping goes on.
You mean, the larger "exciter" type balancer? I would have thought it the other way around since the smaller, earlier model sits farther away from the cover. What keeps it from going into the cover?

And plz excuse my ignorance here, but what is the reluctor? I'm honestly not exactly familiar with how this thing is built and mine is a bit too crusty to see it. I may need to dig it out and look at it this weekend.
 

Firepower354

Well-known member
You mean, the larger "exciter" type balancer? I would have thought it the other way around since the smaller, earlier model sits farther away from the cover. What keeps it from going into the cover?

And plz excuse my ignorance here, but what is the reluctor? I'm honestly not exactly familiar with how this thing is built and mine is a bit too crusty to see it. I may need to dig it out and look at it this weekend.
Sorry, I'd meant to attach the pic, but multi-tasking allows me to screw up several things at once.
Mechanically attached, not possible to creep. Reluctor=exciter, I meant.

Less familiar with Ford, but the Bowtie bunch usually went up in balancer size/weight, on higher performance engines. Obviously, the MOI goes up fast as diameter increases.


s-l1600.jpg
 

Mr. Bob

Active member
Sorry, I'd meant to attach the pic, but multi-tasking allows me to screw up several things at once.
Mechanically attached, not possible to creep. Reluctor=exciter, I meant.

Less familiar with Ford, but the Bowtie bunch usually went up in balancer size/weight, on higher performance engines. Obviously, the MOI goes up fast as diameter increases.


s-l1600.jpg
It looks like that ring is bolted on what is it supposed to do for the harmonic balancer
 

Pontus

Well-known member
Supporter 2021
I don't think we're talking about the same thing here, and now that I look at the 1996 parts (instead of my 95 ones), the "exciter ring" models aren't necessarily the thicker balancers. I saw the smaller 95s saying they came WITHOUT them and assumed the thicker one was because it had an exciter ring, but apparently that was wrong. What I'm talking about looks like this:
1626468725263.png

Versus this:
1626468741737.png
What's the diff and why are they both listed for all years and models? Only the 96 models mention coming with exciter rings, but none show anything like what is shown in the picture you posted @Firepower354 .
 

Firepower354

Well-known member
I don't think we're talking about the same thing here, and now that I look at the 1996 parts (instead of my 95 ones), the "exciter ring" models aren't necessarily the thicker balancers. I saw the smaller 95s saying they came WITHOUT them and assumed the thicker one was because it had an exciter ring, but apparently that was wrong. What I'm talking about looks like this:
View attachment 7662

Versus this:
View attachment 7663
What's the diff and why are they both listed for all years and models? Only the 96 models mention coming with exciter rings, but none show anything like what is shown in the picture you posted @Firepower354 .
They expect you to re-use the OE ring, it seems.

Thin ones with extra holes on the back, for the bolt on ring.

WAG: the mass of the wide balancer, is close to the thin with the ring added.

As for the application info on Rock, yeah, nah. They are not always accurate. Finding the fine tooth timing gears the other day, I had to go through several years.
DA-3000_2__ra_p.jpg



 
Last edited:

Pontus

Well-known member
Supporter 2021
Ah, so I need the thick one to have the correct weight without the exciter? Gotcha, thank you. That finally makes sense now.
 

Mr. Bob

Active member
They expect you to re-use the OE ring, it seems.

Thin ones with extra holes on the back, for the bolt on ring.

WAG: the mass of the wide balancer, is close to the thin with the ring added.

As for the application info on Rock, yeah, nah. They are not always accurate. Finding the fine tooth timing gears the other day, I had to go through several years.
DA-3000_2__ra_p.jpg



They expect you to re-use the OE ring, it seems.

Thin ones with extra holes on the back, for the bolt on ring.

WAG: the mass of the wide balancer, is close to the thin with the ring added.

As for the application info on Rock, yeah, nah. They are not always accurate. Finding the fine tooth timing gears the other day, I had to go through several years.
DA-3000_2__ra_p.jpg



So is it that the one at RockAuto does not have an exacter ring? Does it need one?
 

Mr. Bob

Active member
The 1991 fuel injection system's ignition timing is calibrated for the EFI fast burn cylinder head and 8.8 compression ratio.
The 1986 engine will not run properly with the 1991 EFI system
Do you know anything about these engines RAMPTECH® Ford 300 4.9L Engines their ratio is 8.1 https://www.sagegse.com/ramptech-ford-300-4-9l-engines/ they use those engines in the airport Tugs that pull the planes and baggage carts around my question is about the 8.8 the 8.1
 

bubba22349

Top Poster
Staff member
VIP
Supporter 2021
Supporter 2019
REDLINE 10K
For the Big Ford trucks, and Industrial type uses the 300’s could have a lower compression ratio this is because of the harder work they needed to do pulling or hauling lots of weight for many hours at a time without overheating. There were ratio’s from 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 8.7, and the EFI’s with 8.8. For my 1965 F350 300 build I chose 8.0 to 1. Those airport tugs had a very mild 300.
 

Mr. Bob

Active member
Do you know anything about these engines RAMPTECH® Ford 300 4.9L Engines their ratio is 8.1 https://www.sagegse.com/ramptech-ford-300-4-9l-engines/ they use those engines in the airport Tugs that pull the planes and baggage carts around my question is about the 8.8 the 8.1
Did you rebuild the engine yourself or did you buy one
For the Big Ford trucks, and Industrial type uses the 300’s could have a lower compression ratio this is because of the harder work they needed to do pulling or hauling lots of weight for many hours at a time without overheating. There were ratio’s from 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 8.7, and the EFI’s with 8.8. For my 1965 F350 300 build I chose 8.0 to 1. Those airport tugs had a very mild 300.
Did you rebuild the engine yourself or did you buy one? If you bought one where at?
 

Mr. Bob

Active member
I rebuild them myself. A rebuilt short or long block block like this would be a match match for your 1991 EFI engine.
Yeah I checked them out and I'm keeping them in mind I have found that Sage company some years ago after I already got this remanufactured through O'Reilly's and I was thinking that if they use them in airport Tugs might be a little bit stronger and I remember you saying 8.8 and theirs is 8.1 so I was wondering what the difference is
 

sixtseventwo4d

Well-known member
A good place to lookup a part is the manufactures online lookup. They give some important dimensions that you can then reference to your original part.

 

bubba22349

Top Poster
Staff member
VIP
Supporter 2021
Supporter 2019
REDLINE 10K
Yes those airport tug 300‘s I think were a medium duty version it is good motor that would probably work well in an F350 or bigger truck, from what i remember they were all carb engines when i seen them years ago. If they also made newer models those would likely be EFI. If you were to go with a 8.0 to 1 compression ratio you would be giving up a good amount of torque and some HP to, might also affect the EFI fuel maps, and TFI distributor timing maps some, never tried droping the compression ratio in an EFI engine so don't know.

My plain tgat I was considering for my 1994 F150 short bed 4.9 EFI with 5 speed was to maybe add a mild custom cam grind and maybe .1 or .2 in compression ratio. Was set on polishing the combustion chambers, some mild porting work with most work under valve bowls "pocket porting" & narrowing the valve guides some 3 angle valve job with back cutting. Nothing to radical would only be going for little more torque and see if it could get a little better MPG though it did get excellent economy. The plan was fluid but that engine kept running so good it just wasn't time to rebuild it.
 

Mr. Bob

Active member
Yes those air port tug 300‘s I think were a medium duty version it is good motor that would probably be good in an F350 or up. from what i remember they were mostly carb engines when i seen them years ago. Yes if made newer ones those would likely be EFI. If you went with a 8.0 to 1 compression ratio you would be giving up a good amount for of torque and some HP to.
Well I just wanted a good stout motor that would last for a good while because I need it to pull my 16ft trailer and my 20-foot gooseneck dovetail I went ahead and put the engine that that Precision was that in the shopping basket I think you'll be a lot simpler faster and easier just to get that one in the truck and get the truck going got to wait till they're open to call them about shipping then I guess I'll figure out something to do about the F-350 I sure did like the F-350 for the pulling power I could haul some pretty heavy loads with it besides I already have a 0 mile transmission in the F-150 well it probably has about 25 miles on the transmission now so I just figure why not put a 0 miles or remanufactured engine in front of it
 

bubba22349

Top Poster
Staff member
VIP
Supporter 2021
Supporter 2019
REDLINE 10K
Yes an F350 is really handy size truck I had severial over the years and like them better than an F250. They are able to haul a quite a lot of weight, my 1965 could do most anything I ever needed to do including moving some smaller buildings like a few two car garages, numorious storage sheds that a used to delivery to customers etc. Mine also had a stake bed with a dump. Your 1986 doesn't really look that bad of shape how much is the frame bent? Does it still drive?
 
Top