All Small Six Why wasn't the 250 offered in the 1st gen bronco from the factory?

[Straightsix1984]

Ive always been curious - the 250 has the small block V8 bolt pattern right? Nice long stroke, ideal displacement volume for an EB, and I assume the engine mounts are the same as the 200 I6. I know people have swapped 250 I6 engine into EBs, and that the oil pan is one of the major issues. I guess my questions is more along the lines of why Ford never saw fit to offer the 250 as an option from the factory. It seems to me like the transmission options, engine mounts etc were a slam dunk and a torquey truck cam in a 250 would have made for a really great light truck engine. Kinda like a ranger/EB sized 300.

For that matter, the 225 slant, the 250 chevy and the Ford 240 seem to prove that the American full size truck market would accept I6 engines in the 200-250 in3 range, so why didnt Ford offer the 250 in the F100 or F150?

Sorry, I know it isnt really a very relevant question, I have just always wondered.

 

[bmbm40]

Good question. The 250 was not available until 1969? and by then the 289 was an option and v8 was very popular in general. Ford may have decided it would not be worth the mods to have the 250 as an option. And you are right even a stock 250 has plenty of torque to move the Bronco along.

 

[Ba Mustang]

V8 was always an option in the bronco and I would bet majority of the ones built came with V8s. Doesn't make sense to try and get the 250 to fit when a small amount of broncos would be ordered with it.

 

[bmbm40]

Yes the 289 became an option later in the first year of production in 1966. Now if Ford had planned for enough room for the 300 that would have been a great base six! Also why not use the 200 instead of the 170 beginning in 66 instead of waiting to make it the base engine later on? And as stated the trans options available for the 250 was the major benefit (along with more cubes) for me. And the oil pan is the only modification to work out all the rest was minor.

 

[Ba Mustang]

Yes the 289 became an option later in the first year of production in 1966. Now if Ford had planned for enough room for the 300 that would have been a great base six! Also why not use the 200 instead of the 170 beginning in 66 instead of waiting to make it the base engine later on? And as stated the trans options available for the 250 was the major benefit (along with more cubes) for me. And the oil pan is the only modification to work out all the rest was minor.

Makes me wonder if they had a surplus from the falcon and mustang so they tossed them in to the bronco to get rid of them.

 

[xctasy]

Ford had four major issues.

1.Ford had burgeoning supply problems caused by the success of the Mustang. The Early Bronco 289 V8 and non Unibody F100 289 V8 and Fairlane and LTD SBF sales then hammered 260 and 289 supply, which was now extracted from two plants, Windsor Ontario, and Cleveland No2.

2. The refit to the two plants created periodic strikes in 1967 to 1968, so the Ranchero/Fairlane Pickup engine which was a planned truck engine was pushed into service before the 1969 ultra thin wall 351W, 351C, and the FE/FT replacements, the still thin wall 400 "335" and not so thin wall 429,460 "385" Lima. Each were all heavy reworks of the SBF and MEL 430 and 462.

3.After winning Le Man's, Henry Ford II had to pay the rent, and his cost forcasts forced him to do some cutting. He eventually had Bill Gay set up an assembly plant in Detroit, with grey iron supply from either Windsor or Cleveland Plant 1 or 2, with a mission to Thin Wall every engine. The Big Six 240 and 300, and small six 250, were to be the first egg shell bore engines, but the explosion of SBF sales forced the Fairlane line to give artificial V8 replacement with extra six cylinder engines. Ford were so busy they decided to cancel extra US plant use, and play off the supply lines from England, West Germany, Mexico, Brazil and Canada, and set up another assembly plant which could access engine parts from anywhere they liked. All about emissions, cost of supply and the need to reduce the average casting wall thickness from 243 thou to 187 thou as of 1969 to pay for production costs.

4. The tall deck 250 was such a late addition because Ford Australia and Ford Argentina couldn't afford to produce thin wall SBF 221/260/289 engines with the new six bolt block, but it could make the taller 8.465 deck 188 and 221 six cylinder engines fit with Less Cost. The 250 wouldn't fit the Round Body Falcons unless the 1bbl log head carb was re engineered.Right then, Anti Trust laws before Congress ment Ford had a problem with its own acquisition of Autolite, and its use of Holley and Carter YF 1 barrel carbs in 1967 form weren't shallow enough to fit a Falcon and Ford were forced to shop elsewhere with AMC to get the shallower Carter YFA, Ford Australia used Bendix Technico patent carbs, which caused a problem because Ford no longer owned the Presolite/ Bendix patents.

Those four things gave birth to the 9.469 inch tall US 250, one year later than the 188 and 221 medium deck 8.465 inch engines used in Argentina and Australia, and almost a mighty 4 years later than the Big Six 240. Huge issues mostly caused by flogging off record numbers of SUVs and compacts, intermediates, full size cars, but mostly, Pony Car Mustangs and Cougars. The Big Block 390 and 427/428 FE's were pushed into service in Mustangs as a stop gap when the Chevelle, GTO, Camaro and Firebird started coming up with big inch 389, 396, 400 and 427s. Ford then decided to Clean Sheet the canted valve Boss 302, 351 C, and CJ 429s to ensure it met emissions and performance targets, but that took 3.5 years longer, as did the 250. The Chev Z28 302, the Aluminum head 396, the death of the Ford NASCAR SOHC, the SCCA failure of the Tunnel Port 302...Ford was under immense stress.

 

[Straightsix1984]

Gosh XCTASY - talk about a thorough response. I may have to read that a few times through, but what Im hearing is business reasons and cost savings.

as for having to compete with the 289.. yeah. I guess that makes sense, most people would probably opt for the higher cube V8. I wish it wasnt true, but it probably is.

BMBM40 - suffice it to say, I definitly understand why you did what you did. I bet that thing is awesome, and what? 100lbs lighter in the nose than if a 300 was crammed in? More?

 

[xctasy]

The problem Ford had was the stock Autolite 1100 SCA was going to have to become emissions legal for 1967 model year. So as of June 1966, every 1, 2, 4 or Triple 2bbl or Dual Quad fuel system was going to have to be completely production engineered and calibrated. Ford used the Autolite 1101 on the first 240, with a Autolite variable vac advance. All those parts workings were used on the 1969 model year Mustang Grande and Ranchero but the engine had to fit under the hoods, so Ford used a dedicated air cleaner and had to make factory drop mounts on those two X body frames. On the 250 and 300 Early Bronco conversions, everything is Really Tight. The Fuel pump and oil pan modifications are a problem. The two US Big Sixes and the US 250 are 11 inches wide, almost 2 inches wider than the stock 170 or 200s. Lot of extra work when the SBF had already gone in.

 

[bmbm40]

I am not sure of the weight difference between 250 and 300 but a reasonable guess could be at least 50 lbs?- maybe someone on here knows? Some have fitted the 300 into an early Bronco but for me it was just too much work for 17% more displacement/power. I estimate I could increase power by 17% with a cam/carb/compression ratio upgrade, nothing exotic or expensive, just proven mods.
Besides everything else xctasy knows he has a remarkably vast knowledge of Ford history such as these details above.

 

[xctasy]

Got my info from Ford USA's 1984 book on the History of Ford Motor Company'"Ford 1903 to 1984", by the Auto Consumer Guide, David L Lewis, Mike McCarville, Lorin Sorensen.

Only six errors, all of them in 1968 and 1977 model years, the most difficult ones. The errors were where Ford released written evidence of engines that existed on paper, but didn't get made in any real quantity in practice.

1. The 250 six for 1968 was a real option in Fairlane pickups,

2. the 1968 302 Tunnel Port 240 HP engine and it's Race Dual Quad Option was real, but not produced in any major numbers,

3. the semi Hemi CJ 428..no such thing,

4. In the Book, for 1977, the 4bbl 400 Ford...yes, they made a series of factory Four Barrel 400s, but they never were emissions certified, never sold, but the manifolds were made and I've seen them, and then technically scrapped for 1977. Very much the Same with the development 1978-1979 2bbl 3.3 liter option discussed by board user Mark P. The 200/2.8 liter air cleaner for the Mustang, Capri and Pinto 2bbl 2.8 liter V6 was Dual Use and has a code on it to prove it.

The other two mistakes; they are minor.

You gotta always check the Historians out. Always a paper trail, even if the evidence is burned.

 

[bmbm40]

So now we see behind the curtain!

 

[xctasy]

Jacques (Jac) Pisanno from Ford Total Performance had plans for Conelec Port Electronic Fuel injection on the 250 Mustang. The issues with advertised engines not meeting the production lines were strikes in 67, 68, and then the curtailing of Ford's Total Performance after winning LeMans. The US emissions issues were now massive, real and increasingly huge costs, the tests then showed a massive cost just to roll out EFi. If you look at all the kinds of 70-74 4V 351 Cleveland/ 69-71 Boss 302 heads, they each have bosses above the intake ports inside the rocker covers for Port Fuel injection. The Australian ( not American) GM-Holden racer Peter Brock heard about how Ford USA had been planning port EFi from day One from Al Turner. It was simply cost, not lack of engineering nauce or talent, that stopped the fruition of EFi. Jac wasn't talkin' through his a$_ because Shelby already had four wheel drive, independent rear suspension and fuel injected prototypes in 1967 and 68.

Ford was stuck in 1969 with five engine families in the 3.9 to 5 liter engine zone. Y block in Argentina, SBF, Big Six, Small Six, and the truck gasoline engine in the UK and West Germany. Plus the Willys do Brasil engines from the crumbling empire Mopar inherited from American General.

 

[xctasy]

Weight of engines aren't comprised to any real standard, especially when Air Conditioner, Power steering, generator to alternator, or manual to automatic, or even carb to fuel injection transitions are added. Starter motor or bellhousing change the weight a large amount. The quoted weights for

1.the 292 Y block with steel truck crank, 650 pounds, generator, no a/c or power steering pump, no flywheel or flexplate. 1962 literature from Consumer Guide, section 1962 Ford line up

2.The A code 2bbl 289 SBF, 465 pounds with alternator, iron intake, no a/c, no PS, equiped with auto flex plate. From that doyen of car researchers, the late Roger Huntington

3.The 240, 490 pounds, alternator, no AC, no PS, equiped with manual transmissions flywheel only. Second hand info.

4. US 250 is 2 inches wider at the crankcase and almost 89 thou taller block than the Aussie non Cross flow 250, and the Aussie one was quoted by Ford Broadmeddows Australia as 410 pounds without accessories. The estimates for the SBF flanged US 250 block are similar, but I saw 450 pounds quoted in a 1972 Popular Mechanics comparison.

Generally, without the pressure plate and bellhousing, a SBF 157 teeth flywheel weighes in at about 25 pounds.

 

[chad]

My wish would B the 300 ina bronk.
I shoulda done that - all the mods for the 250 in mine...
Some have the 300 in our vehicles (down'n back, no fire wall mods).
Many more the 250.
One long time 400m in the Commonwealth of VA.
Some (dozens?) w/the 4Bt (re-dic-U-loss).
All just fun, love the body/chassy possibilities~

 

[78_200_C4]

Got my info from Ford USA's 1984 book on the History of Ford Motor Company'"Ford 1903 to 1984", by the Auto Consumer Guide, David L Lewis, Mike McCarville, Lorin Sorensen.

Only six errors, all of them in 1968 and 1977 model years, the most difficult ones. The errors were where Ford released written evidence of engines that existed on paper, but didn't get made in any real quantity in practice.

1. The 250 six for 1968 was a real option in Fairlane pickups,

2. the 1968 302 Tunnel Port 240 HP engine and it's Race Dual Quad Option was real, but not produced in any major numbers,

3. the semi Hemi CJ 428..no such thing,

4. In the Book, for 1977, the 4bbl 400 Ford...yes, they made a series of factory Four Barrel 400s, but they never were emissions certified, never sold, but the manifolds were made and I've seen them, and then technically scrapped for 1977. Very much the Same with the development 1978-1979 2bbl 3.3 liter option discussed by board user Mark P. The 200/2.8 liter air cleaner for the Mustang, Capri and Pinto 2bbl 2.8 liter V6 was Dual Use and has a code on it to prove it.

The other two mistakes; they are minor.

You gotta always check the Historians out. Always a paper trail, even if the evidence is burned.

I bought that book. Is it trying to say that a 55-56 Crown Victoria was produced from a high roof (b-piller) sedan? If so mark up another mistake as the 55 Crown Top Victoria had the same lower roof as the 56 Victoria. The 55 Victoria had a higher roof. In other words: The 55 Crown Top Victoria had a lower roof than the 55 Victoria. The Crown Top was not built from a sedan. Many great FORD pictures and memories in that book. I drove a 56 Victoria to High School. My 1 year older brother drove a 55 Victoria. We were called the "Ford Brothers."
My brother still has his 55 Victoria.

 

[chad]

"...My 1 year older brother drove a 55 Victoria (in hi skol)....My brother still has his 55 Victoria...."
now there's a 'car guy' !

 

[78_200_C4]

"...My 1 year older brother drove a 55 Victoria (in hi skol)....My brother still has his 55 Victoria...."
now there's a 'car guy' !

My brother also has the 1950 M38 military jeep that was bought in 1959. It was used by either the navy or the air force in the US. I believe it was light blue or grey when we got it.
He also has the the 1934 5 window coupe with that I traded 4 chrome rims and a 3 spd floor shifter for when I was 17.

 

[chad]

there's an ol M37 on the property, a p/u nota jeep. It isnt going anywhere soon tho.
EB or early/1st gen bronk: 170/2.8; 200/3.3; 289, 302 (was the 351/5.8 in later yrs? I no the 400M was there '79, 300/4.9 too)
250 is OK, still not too nose heavy (I moved it back, lowered). Still wishin 4 the 300/4.9 n mine~
In the nxt life time 8^ 0