Safe RPM'S for a 262?

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone. I have a 262 in a 64 F100 with 3.50 gears and 29 inch tall tires. I currently dont take it above 2600 rpm's on the highway which yields me 60-62 miles an hour. Would it be ok to run it a little faster say 3000rpm's? I wasent sure if these can rev as high as the 223's and 215's due to there 4.03 inch stroke.

Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[Luckyman]

The 300 has a 4" stroke and they can safely run at 3000 rpm but they dont make anymore power much above that. Just make noise unless modified with different cam & breathing (intake, exhaust, carb, port & polish etc.

I would venture to say that as long as the engine is is good shape/condition 3K RPMs wont hurt it, it will just use more gas/make more noise.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the reply. I was pretty sure it would be ok but just wanted to be sure. These 262's sure have alot of torque!

I see you arent far from me, Im in Billings.

Thanks again.

 

[Luckyman]

Yep just 4 hours from Billings.

IIRC the 223 has 4 main bearings on the crank. I am going to guess that the 262 is the same. Some folks feel that with only 4 mains (vs 7mains for the succeeding 240-300 engines) the 223-262's were not as strong an engine. I have a different opinion. I believe the 223-262's were better balanced, and that going to 7 mains was a cost saving measure, in that it was cheaper to add bearings than to spend the time and labor balancing everything to the enth degree. I owned 3 different 223's way back when, and they all ran like sewing machines compared to my current 300's. I love my 300's and wouldnt trade em, but they sound/feel "coarse" compared to a good running 223.

I heard one time (But never confirmed by looking it up) that back in the day, Rolls Royce would balance thier engines to the point that they only required 2 main bearings to run and hold up just fine. Sounds plausible to me.

 

[Anonymous]

I think you are correct. This 262 ive got has to be the smoothest running inline six ive ever seen. Everytime I come to a stop I have to look at the tach to make sure it didnt die. Even on the highway you can barely tell its running.

I hauled a 5000 pound loaded trailer with it last weekend and it did suprisingly well. It almost seemed like it liked pulling it!.

 

[Luckyman]

Sounds like you have a real gem. Keep the oil changed & drive 'er easy so it lasts a long, long time.

 

[JimKoz]

I've got a service manual for the 1961 262 engine that rates it at 152HP @4000RPM. 3000RPM shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Anonymous]

The 262 has 20lbs more in the block, (than the 223); reinforcing ribs. And, timing gears instead of a chain and sprockets. 61-63 had forged cranks only, for 64 and 5 it was an option. So, overall they are a stronger motor than the 223.Good to hear about the 4 mains versus 7. Like the idea of the better balance. Like the other posters, I'm confident it can handle 3000rpm's, you'll have to see what it does to your speed, and mileage. Yes, they are torquee suckers! Jim

 

[Anonymous]

The 262 has 20lbs more in the block, (than the 223); reinforcing ribs. And, timing gears instead of a chain and sprockets. 61-63 had forged cranks only, for 64 and 5 it was an option.

Is there a way to tell by looking at the crank externally if it is forged or not? My 262 came out of a 64 F250 that I parted out. I sure hope it does.

 

[fmartin_gila]

Yep just 4 hours from Billings.

IIRC the 223 has 4 main bearings on the crank. I am going to guess that the 262 is the same. Some folks feel that with only 4 mains (vs 7mains for the succeeding 240-300 engines) the 223-262's were not as strong an engine. I have a different opinion. I believe the 223-262's were better balanced, and that going to 7 mains was a cost saving measure, in that it was cheaper to add bearings than to spend the time and labor balancing everything to the enth degree. I owned 3 different 223's way back when, and they all ran like sewing machines compared to my current 300's. I love my 300's and wouldnt trade em, but they sound/feel "coarse" compared to a good running 223.

I heard one time (But never confirmed by looking it up) that back in the day, Rolls Royce would balance thier engines to the point that they only required 2 main bearings to run and hold up just fine. Sounds plausible to me.[/quote


I think I am the "some folks" referred to here as I am constantly reminding people about the 4 mains in these engines. To clarify my position: I run and fully intend to keep on running a 223. It is a very good engine, and has enough get up and go for what I want it for (it also gives me 23 MPG on the highway in my old pickup). When I remind someone about the 4 main setup is when I am posting in regard to someone asking about doing a lot of modifying to get more out of a (in my opinion) good enough engine. I have been wrenching since the early 50s and have seen a lot of things and ideas come and go over the years(some good-some not so good). These 4 main crankshafts, because of the additional crank throw between mains, do not handle the added torque that well. As designed, it is a very good setup, and when additional stresses are added they have a tendency to fail - hence my warnings. I did not and will not ever try to impart the position that these are bad engines. I have seen too many times that people do this or that to engines, and if it does not work out or there is a major failure, the engine is "no good", when it is no fault of the engine or design. Sorry this got a little long, just trying to clarify.

OT When were you in there? I was USMC 1957-1967.
Fred

 

[addo]

Is there a way to tell by looking at the crank externally if it is forged or not?

Take your 1/16" drill bit, and bore a small hole in the crank snout, to generate a continuous shaving of steel about 1" long. If you now grasp each end of this curl and gently pull it - does it break, or resist?

A cast crank shaving will break far more easily.

 

[Anonymous]

Visually, can you see clear obvious cast lines, even tho they were ground down after? Like other cast pieces your familiar with?Sign its cast, not forged.The shoulder where the rod bearings attach; 1/8" on cast, 1/4" on forged.You can also tell from the #, someone with the right book help us out here? I'm in the same boat as you, '64 262, and I haven't had the need/reason to pull the oilpan and look yet, so I'm just crossing my fingers and HOPING its forged. However, a good engine nonetheless.Jim

 

[texas_rat_trap]

Yep just 4 hours from Billings.

IIRC the 223 has 4 main bearings on the crank. I am going to guess that the 262 is the same. Some folks feel that with only 4 mains (vs 7mains for the succeeding 240-300 engines) the 223-262's were not as strong an engine. I have a different opinion. I believe the 223-262's were better balanced, and that going to 7 mains was a cost saving measure, in that it was cheaper to add bearings than to spend the time and labor balancing everything to the enth degree. I owned 3 different 223's way back when, and they all ran like sewing machines compared to my current 300's. I love my 300's and wouldnt trade em, but they sound/feel "coarse" compared to a good running 223.

I heard one time (But never confirmed by looking it up) that back in the day, Rolls Royce would balance thier engines to the point that they only required 2 main bearings to run and hold up just fine. Sounds plausible to me.[/quote


I think I am the "some folks" referred to here as I am constantly reminding people about the 4 mains in these engines. To clarify my position: I run and fully intend to keep on running a 223. It is a very good engine, and has enough get up and go for what I want it for (it also gives me 23 MPG on the highway in my old pickup). When I remind someone about the 4 main setup is when I am posting in regard to someone asking about doing a lot of modifying to get more out of a (in my opinion) good enough engine. I have been wrenching since the early 50s and have seen a lot of things and ideas come and go over the years(some good-some not so good). These 4 main crankshafts, because of the additional crank throw between mains, do not handle the added torque that well. As designed, it is a very good setup, and when additional stresses are added they have a tendency to fail - hence my warnings. I did not and will not ever try to impart the position that these are bad engines. I have seen too many times that people do this or that to engines, and if it does not work out or there is a major failure, the engine is "no good", when it is no fault of the engine or design. Sorry this got a little long, just trying to clarify.

OT When were you in there? I was USMC 1957-1967.
Fred

I've done heavy modification to my 223..and the way the machine shop built the engine...Knowing I Was Gonna be Hard on it I think it will be just fine with the 4 main bearings...Its all in the grade of the bolts and torque on them so they don't stretch & the type valves & springs I used from A different year / make stronger, type of piston rings cause of the higher compression & shaving the extra casting from the mould off so it doesn't break off and cause a premature failure etc., etc... and if blows up I know were there are at least 10 other 223's around here. Thats part of HotRodding I think...the harder you are on them somethings bound to happen sooner or later...But if I diddn't want a challenge I would of put a Small Block Chevy in it like everybody else in this town...like everybody tells me here "why didn't you put a V8 in it", You know what F@uck them if the don't get it..they think painting there Rod like an Easter Egg and hanggin every piece of billet they can find & puttin' a SBC in it is Kool. Sorry for the Rampage but if your worried about stuff like gas mileage and the other things that come along with driving these Old vehicles...maybe you should buy a Honda Hybrid. But thats just my opinion.

-Dustin-