Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2018 Contributors:
StarDiero75, curts56, DannyG, B RON CO, wsa111, Captainslow42, falconcritter
Econoline, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, 95FordFleetside, turbo6, Max_Effort, WorldChampGramp
cr_bobcat, C.S.Designs, pmuller9, gus91326, rwbrooks50, rocklord, drag-200stang, Big64my79Effie, CNC-Dude, gb500

2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry

Unknown->> M.Ketterer, T.Smith, J.Myers, P.McIntire - Please PM me (1966Mustang) and lemme know who you are!

300 ford six -2016

Moderator: Mod Squad

sdiesel
Registered User
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:33 am
Location: NW Oregon,Buxton currently

300 ford six -2016

Post #1 by sdiesel » Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:51 am

What would our inline look like today if Ford's people had continued the engine.
how would it differ in design, construction technique and materials?

how would it run?
Eco boost? maybe

if you were on the design team(s) what would you push for?


honest HP/TQ possibilities?
a long love affair with the 300 six.
my lastest and final fling is a fresh 300 in an 88 ford f350 dually 4X flatbed

Fordman75
Registered User
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:43 am
Location: Southern, Minnesota

Re: 300 ford six -2016

Post #2 by Fordman75 » Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:27 pm

I would say picture the Coyote 5.0L DOHC head stretched to an inline 6. And an aluminum block with cross bolted main caps and a couple turbos. Basically an inline 6 version of the Coyote 5.0L with two turbos. :shock: :twisted:
Ted

54 Ford F100/F150 4x4
300, NP435 4spd, NP205 transfercase

1986F150six
Registered User
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:11 pm
Location: Northwest Alabama

Re: 300 ford six -2016

Post #3 by 1986F150six » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:25 pm

sdiesel wrote:What would our inline look like today if Ford's people had continued the engine.
how would it differ in design, construction technique and materials?

If you were on the design team(s) what would you push for?


honest HP/TQ possibilities?


I dare say that if the 300/4.9L engine had survived, it would be quite impressive. The Frenchtown Flyer and StrangeRanger [?; I have not read any of his threads recently] seem to have the "inside" information regarding what Ford was thinking and the developmental work [R&D].

I always read and reread whatever they say. I am going to "throw out" a few of the ideas and hopefully one of the previously mentioned respected members will have time to fill in some of the blanks. If there is any error, it will be mine as I am repeating what I remember and as I understood it to be, and not quoting or representing either of the two gentlemen.

As many know, large trucks [F600] were equipped with a heavy duty exhaust manifold [2 1/2" outlet; straight down] to improve flow at wide open throttle. Some of these engines had forged crankshafts.

At some point [before F.I.], test engines were equipped with a log intake manifold much like the one for a single 1 barrel carburetor, but were cast with the base for a 2 barrel [like Motorcraft 2100/2150]. The two barrels were parallel to the cylinders.

F.I. came with new exhaust for better breathing as well as an increase in compression.

Once F.I. was introduced, there was developmental work testing variable displacement [using modern terminology]. Three cylinders could be deactivated [lifters as well as injectors] under light load [cruise] conditions. This would likely be for enhanced fuel mileage.

There was a test engine developed with a turbocharger. I am pretty sure The Frenchtown Flyer shared that this was after F.I. and that particular engine made more power than the then current 460 V8. I have wondered if the H.D. log manifold was used for this test engine?

At some point, a cross flow head was developed. I do not know if it was used with F.I., but imagine so. I, also, do not know if the turbocharged version [previous paragraph] utilized the cross flow head or not. The Frenchtown Flyer has proven that the cross flow head can certainly flow enough to produce some serious power numbers!!!

I do hope that those with the true "inside scoop" will someday write a book of the history of the 300/4.9L engine family. Hint! Hint!

In my quest for gas mileage, I would love to be able to gain access to the prototype 2 barrel log intake and the H.D. exhaust manifold. Some will likely point out that the F.I. exhaust manifolds flow as well or better, but I like the looks of the H.D. exhaust plus it does provide a source for heat directly to the intake manifold, even though there are those who do not need that if in warm climates.

:)

User avatar
CoupeBoy
VIP Member
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Fargo, ND
Contact:

Re: 300 ford six -2016

Post #4 by CoupeBoy » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:06 pm

*if* the 300 had continued, by now I'd think that it would be much more modern.
Re-engineer to be cast aluminum instead of cast iron to lose some weight.
Crossflow heads with multiple valves and hemispherical chambers.
Yes, i'd like to have thought that they would split the heads into 2 separate pieces to reduce head warpage and gasket weeping. Similar to what is done on some diesel engines.
Direct injection.
At first I thought twin cam, but then I remembered reading about Hydraulic Electric Unit Injectors (HEUI) and with the good setup, you could have individual HEU on each valve stem, you could control lift, duration, opening and closing timing, there would be no more ramp. For cylinder deactivation, it wouldn't be just turning off cylinder fuel delivery (as is the case with my wife's 5.3), but you could also leave the valves open so the "dead' cylinders wouldn't build any pressure at all.This is from a document called

"Hydraulically Actuated Electronic Unit Injector (HEUI) Systems"
Electro-hydraulic valve operation (cam-less diesel engines)
HEUI technology has also enabled the integration of valve-train operation into this high pressure
actuation system. Currently, International DT series truck engines use an
internal compression release brake operated using the same high pressure oil supply used
for the injectors. Anticipated soon is the release of the cam-less diesel by International
Truck and Engine Company which integrates electro-hydraulic operation of intake and
exhaust valves with HEUI oil system supply. These engines have demonstrated the
tremendous advantages of variable valve timing, valve lift, and duration which provides
for ultimate control of engine operation. Engine breathing is optimized for each engine
load and speed condition allowing the engine to produce the lowest emissions and best
330
performance characteristics without the constraints of a mechanical, fixed geometry
camshaft.
Hydraulic actuation of valves also permits the use of compression-less starts allowing the
use of smaller starting motors and fewer batteries. An engine can be easily cranked with
exhaust valves slightly open allowing high initial cranking RPM with minimum power
required. Subsequently closing the valves in one or all cylinders at the correct time will
allow the engine to start. These engines are also capable of displacement on demand
(DOD) which means cylinders can be cut-out with minimal parasitic loss of power until
they are needed. Hydraulically actuated valve operation also enables the use of engine
based compression release braking systems without additional components required of
conventional compression release brakes


And of course, it would need a turbo, something similar to the 6.7PSD
An Inside Look At The 6.7 Power Stroke Including 2015 Updates
For the 6.7, Garrett, designed a single turbocharger that worked as a sequential turbocharger. The exhaust side of the turbocharger works as any variable geometry turbo. While the exhaust inlets are not side by side, the functionality of the exhaust is the same.

On the compressor side of things, everything is different. The compressor cover is really two compressor covers in one. This is due to the unique design of the compressor wheel or should we say wheels. What Garrett did was to utilize a single turbine shaft to power a single compressor wheel with Siamese profiles.

2011 Ford F-Series Super DutyWith basically having two compressor wheels, they essentially act as a twin turbo system. They will flow twice the mass or volume at the same pressure of a single turbo. When you take into account the reverse flowing heads, and variable geometry turbo, this system is able to provide massive flow at the top end, but also respond extremely well at the lower RPM range.

I'd guess at hp/tq numbers, but I've never been too good at that.

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6013
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Re: 300 ford six -2016

Post #5 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:07 pm

1986F150six stated things as I understand them. One thing - the 300 turbo truck reportedly "ran like a 460", but I do not know for sure if it made similar power numbers or if some of the perf increase was due to it probably did not have to have as heavy of a chassis. I do not remember if it was a XFLO. I seem to remember it was.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

sdiesel
Registered User
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:33 am
Location: NW Oregon,Buxton currently

Re: 300 ford six -2016

Post #6 by sdiesel » Mon Aug 22, 2016 12:48 am

oh my.
aluminum, steel liners, forged internals, direct injected, turbo, heui, thats enough to make me weep. cop ignition of course

how about cooling system where the manifold feeds the 5 freeze plugs from electric water pump. a heat exchanger intercooler ala f550

maybe wet sump to lower the height of the engine
450 hp @5000.
400 tq at 2800
a long love affair with the 300 six.
my lastest and final fling is a fresh 300 in an 88 ford f350 dually 4X flatbed

deere114
Registered User
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: 300 ford six -2016

Post #7 by deere114 » Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:27 am

450hp at 5000 would be reasonable. That 400 ft lbs i think could be more like 450 ft lbs at 2000...... That is if they could build that much cylinder pressure down low without producing too much nox emissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shorty and 5 guests