Need help choosing an engine.

[clintonvillian]

Of the 200/250/300

I need something to push a 300lb vehicle down the road and still get 25mpg. Which engine should I go with it. It is just a cruiser but I want something cool that has a good parts aftermarket and still performs well.

What are kind of mileages are you all getting?

It seems like the 200 all require adapters for a t5 which seem pricey, were there any 200 that used a sbf pattern? Should I stick to a 250 because of this?

Thanks

 

[MPGmustang]

what's the vehicle? truck, car, rat-rod, boat, ski-doo, motorcycle, all out drag race? okay just kidding on some of those...

I saw a guy once take a 390 out and put a 572 in a truck that got 8mpg pulling a 8k lbs trailer, with the bigger engine he started getting 13mpg on the same road. that being said the 572 was working way less and required less fuel for the same job. I have heard of the 300 getting some remarkable 18mpg or even 20mpg in heavier than 300lbs vehicle (more like 3500lbs) so I don't think you'll have much of a problem on mpg... all could do it. I would lean more towards the 300ci, it has a removable intake easy access push-rod/lifter plate, it's 300ci square bore, and the intakes you'll have your pick of carb options, then use efi duel exhaust manifolds. you can go easy on the setup of 9.5:1 CR with a 240 head and get 200hp on a mild cam. you'll have a wide option of ready transmissions as they use 0-balanced v8 parts.

the 200's with a SBF trans were made in 1981-1983, and IIRC they some slight mod to use the SBF but it's very straight forward. the 250 has the advantage there. the t-5 is great and IMO a great mod to the car. gearing will also be an issue, with 300lbs vehicle you could run taller gears (numerically lower) and get away with it. the heavier an the shorter (numerically higher) gear you need. but that also depends on tire selection.

My sig has my mileage for my 2700lbs vehicle, probably 2900lbs with me and full gas tank.

 

[clintonvillian]

3000 lbs, F100

Plan to run 2.73 gears with a T5, put me pulling 1650 rpms in fith at 70 mph. Like I said its just for cruising, no towing.

Main issue is fuel economy and low end torque.

 

[powerband]

... adapters for a t5 which seem pricey, were there any 200 that used a sbf pattern? Should I stick to a 250 because of this?

IF you use Falcon, Mustang, Maverick, Comet etc 200/170 drivetrain after @ 1965 with Ford pattern "toploader" 3 (or 4)speed bellhousing, to convert to T5 needs available "toploader to T5 adapter" @ $150. Original mech. clutch linkage can work and rear tranny mount needs simple mod.

250 will simply bolt right up typical T5 bellhouse (157 toth FW ONLY) but all T5 BH's used cable clutch, ... which can be adapted. the 250 fits simply ONLY in OEM 69 up cars...

http://www.mustangsunlimited.com/itemdy ... A650526+01

have fun

The '63 has Maverick 170/TL3spd BH/Adaptor with V8 T5 (.68OD) with 3.50:1 rear and 195/70/14's runs @ 1800RPM : 55mph and @ 2300 : 70mph.

<> . .

 

[clintonvillian]

did any of these engines come setup with powersteering pumps or ac??? Any chance of me finding one with any of that???

 

[rbohm]

3000 lbs, F100

Plan to run 2.73 gears with a T5, put me pulling 1650 rpms in fith at 70 mph. Like I said its just for cruising, no towing.

Main issue is fuel economy and low end torque.

for your vehicle choice, i recommend using the 300 with an AOD instead. you still get the overdrive, but you dont have to worry about shredding the T5 with the torque the 300 puts out.

 

[rocklord]

did any of these engines come setup with powersteering pumps or ac??? Any chance of me finding one with any of that???

Sorry, didn't read all the previous posts.

If you are looking for a 300, the early 80s and above F150, and F250 4x4s would be a good place to start. The 4x4s would normally come with PS, with AC as a option.

If it is the small block six (200/250) you are looking for, then look at the later Mavericks, Fairmonts, and Granadas. Mid 70s and later.

Lots of vehicles to look at.

 

[chad]

For that vehicle (& my style crusin) I'd go for the automatic and efi (300/AOD) if I had my way. Reliable, durable, well tuned = hi 20 mpg, not much to mess with (set it & forget it), inc. the need to clutch/shift. For me pick ups don't seem to be for crusing ('62 Falcon convert. w/250, or same yr ranchero'd B my choice) so it's still got some stuff for carrin or haulin! Everyone's got different tastes tho.
Have fun w/it - Welcome to the site & forum - stick around some...

 

[MPGmustang]

3000 lbs, F100

Plan to run 2.73 gears with a T5, put me pulling 1650 rpms in fith at 70 mph. Like I said its just for cruising, no towing.

Main issue is fuel economy and low end torque.

hate to tell ya, but even I can't use a t-5, 200ci, and 2.73 gears on my less than 3k lbs vechicle... you will NEVER be in 5th gear as it just doesn't have enough juice to "maintain" speed. I'm pushing 160 ft/lbs tq, 20 more than stock, with 3.2 rear gears I don't like 5th gear, I'm always in the power valve to maintain speed @ 45mph and 65 on the freeway speed, there I'm also in the power valve to maintain speed, I'd have to be going 75-80mph to keep out of the power valve @ 7.5 vac, and even then any type of incline (small or smaller) I'm in the power valve to maintain that speed otherwise I down shift.

just for those that don't know, a power valve dumps (yes dumps) more gas through the engine. most power valves are activated on manifold vacuum pressures, when I reach 6.5 vacuum or less the valve is open and the gas flows, I could get other valves that open later (say 4.5 vacuum) but 6.5 is IMO good, I might try a 5.5 later, but I think a TBI will be in order for me which will help more. with the valve open at cruise you can kiss your mpg good bye, you need the valve to accereate to speed otherwise you risk being lean.

 

[chad]

automatic and efi (300/AOD)
in the F100 - 250 they seem to like the 3.55 (or less, but not much, IIRC). Check over on THAT form - we got it all here!
8)

 

[clintonvillian]

My main concern is fuel mileage. 25mpg is the minimum i am shooting for. I don't think the 300 will get close to that.

I would think the 250 would be able to produce well over 250ftlbs of torque with some headers, and a weber carb and raising the compression. The 200 should get close with the same mods (I am assuming based off of experience with 223's).

Do both engines have the intake manifolds molded into them?

I don't see why or how one of these could be GUTLESS in 5th gear with 2.73, and .72 OD. RPMS will be at 1650 which is in the peak torque of these motors.....

 

[chad]

"...Do both engines have the intake manifolds molded into them?..."
250/200 yes, 300 no.

might wanna double ck. yer (other) assumptions/facts, or not?...

 

[MPGmustang]

try it, you'll hate that grandma's cat beat you in a drag race.

again true story

saw a guy once take a 390 out and put a 572 in a truck that got 8mpg pulling a 8k lbs trailer, with the bigger engine he started getting 13mpg on the same road. that being said the 572 was working way less and required less fuel for the same job.

because the bigger engine had more power, it was able to burn the fuel more fully. the guy only swapped engines, used the same carb and rear end ect.. as before.

then on my experience, and data I have collected, @ 65mph I get 18mpg avg @ 1900rpm, but at 75-85mph 2200-2500rpm I get 21mpg avg. it's because I have more rev's making more vacuum and burning less fuel. I'm about to swap to a 4.11 gear in hopes to have more RPM, with this, I'll get bigger tires to 'fine tune' the rpm at speed I'm hoping for a nice 2450rpm @ 70mph and I'll probably get 21-22 highway mpg.

 

[turbo2256b]

I had a 302 EFI 3.55 gears AOD 4000 LBS 87 gRAND mARQUIS PULLING 27 TO 32.9 MPG hiway 20+ in town.

 

[clintonvillian]

Again main concern is fuel mileage.....Not racing.

Anyone here actually have the 200/250 engines in their cars, and speaking from experience? I mean they were good enough for the cars they were put in and got 23-28mpgs in them. Some of them weigh more than an f100......

 

[MPGmustang]

I have a 200ci t5 and 3.2 gears... yes I like to race but that's not the point. I'm say'n I'll get better gas mileage with shorter (higher numericly) gears.

if I had the same setup with 3.55 or 3.7 gears, I'll get better gas mileage

my 65mustang weighs 2900lbs, +3300lbs with 3 passengers

 

[clintonvillian]

Where are the engine mounts located on these motors?

Is powersteering and air conditioning a possibility?

 

[bubba22349]

On the big sixes there was a 240 too. you can find factory power steering and air brackets for any of the sixes. The 200 and 250's have side mounts, the 240 and 300's have front mounts in early pickups and also side mounts for the cars and later models pickups.

 

[chad]

"...have the 200/250 engines in their cars..."
econolines & rancheros as well.

170 in the econoline too, I believe, no, know?

 

[69.5Mav]

170 in the econoline too, I believe, no, know

I have a 170 in my 69.5 Mav and it is 2800 Lbs.

Last time I had it out on the open road it got mid to high 20s. The absolute best it did was a one time only 39 mpg.