Yes, the 250 torque is always worth it, its a proportional 25% improvement over the 200. Its under a lot less stress than the 200 because of that factor alone. On a 250 with an aftermarket head with big 1.625" ports, like the 2V 250 or Classic Inlines head, is really made for the 250, it works best on that engine size. Its because you gain back a huge amount of street drivability and a lot of low end torque that a high spinning 200 2V or Aluminum head CI 200 engine won't have. That is the back drop to its true worth. An especially easy to find engine since its in the worlds most ignored cars. The L and C code 250's from 12 years of Rancheros, Mavericks, Monarachs and Grannies. You find those under any spreading tree or urban breaker that hasn't smeltered the iron for WallMart cans or drill presses. In its first year it was rated strong, but the combo wasn't as good as its power rating. In any case, the L-code got rated as 155 to 145 hp gross verses 120 or 115 hp T-code , or the C-code 99 hp net verses the T and B code 85 to 92 hp. The 250/4.1 is always a slightly more powerfull than 200 engine that lookes the same but is a lot more sublime than its little brother.
Checked neagatives against it:
The Power increase on a stock 250 verses a stock 200 isn't proportional, its only 9% at best. Case for case for any similar engine combo. US 250 vs US 200, Aussie 250 verses Aussie 200, Same if its cross flow, 3.2 or 3.9 OHC, turbo, Classic Inline headed, and certainly the case when the stock air flow limited head is used.
When the 9% boost in power is Factored against the 6%to sometimes 12% weight increase, most of it over the nose, some of it over the tail, the weight then makes the steering heavier, requiring power assistance for some people, the engine 460 pounds verses 385 pounds, but with the better transmissions and diffs and suspension and braking quality required to contain the grunt, your looking at well over 150 pounds of extra mass. So that 9% potential power boost driven through a 250/C4 is no advantage over a 200 with T5. Proven many times
I have an example, a good T-5 3.3 did 17.9 sec 1.4 mile in a Aussie 1980's Falcon, but only 18 secs for an auto 4.1. On their 2-bbl engines with 2v 250 intake flow rates of 145 cfm at 25"H20, thats 121 hp verses 131 hp. Average US Miles per gallon for the 3.3 was 27.2 mpg, but only 22 mpg for the auto 4.1 which was often 12% heavier with extra appointments (a/c, auto, power steering)
The 250 is sort of like a 2V Windsor 351 or 400 Ford compared to the 289 or 302, an engine unresponsive to small modifications compared to the 200. But when its given a free flowing cylinder head like Mikes, a good triple hole intake manifold, proper pistons deck to block clearance, and its then cammed, carbed up and exhasted properly, it then becomes a standout engine, and the weight, size and donkey minded stubburness is made up for by its strength. 100 pounds of extra block, gearbox and diff are nothing. Then it shows its true mettle. With the head, pistons and rods are upgraded, this long stroke best with a turbo upgrade can get proportional 25% power boosts because big engines love turbos more than little ones. It is then propable one of the worlds most responsive engine to cam changes, they just lap up longer durations cams that really shouldn't work. Check out Cortina 6, or XD/XE/XF Falcon or Fairmont turboon youtube. 11 second 2600 to 3600 pound turbo and Xlfow machines galore. That's why the Aussies make any turbo or 4-bbl or EFI 250 into such a potential sub 11 second animal;its the cam and the ability to get those heads to flow that make those birds fly. Same applies to the US 250, as its got a heart of pure steel.
The only real negatives are the cast rods, the 103 thou piston to cylinder head short fall, and the extra 1.67 inches of deck height in the engine that make it such a pest to package...Weight and the rest is easy to cope with.
