Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40, mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry, rzcrisis, DoctorC, jamyers, Motorboy, fastpat, Silverback280, chad, drag-200stang, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, Jimmys61falcon, rjonah, Sooshi, Robert92867, Invectivus


PLEASE TEST ON http://dev.fordsix.com

<<<***PLEASE READ*** New Site Update >>>

Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Moderator: Mod Squad

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #1 by AnvilRW » Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:50 pm

Hey Folks - If you're not familiar with Muskegs, they were built by Bombardier with the intended use of being an all-terrain, tracked, work vehicle. Unlike most snowcat type rigs which are really only designed to be used on snow, the Muskegs have two rows of bogie wheels per side so the tracks & grousers are more fully supported. They have a very simple drivetrain, basically a huge differential (5.83-1 R&P) up front with wet brakes acting on drums on each side of the differential to steer.

These rigs were fairly popular in Colorado at one time for mining, forestry, backcountry travel, etc. They're somewhat rare now but still lots of them in the far northern climes and Canada. Mine is a 1966, was sold originally in Colorado, and was equipped with the optional Chrysler 318 Poly engine, a hydraulic winch powered from the front of the crank, and a logging arch. The winch and logging arch were lost somewhere along the Muskegs life, but I plan to replace them with a home built unit soon enough. The engine and transmission (originally a NP435) sits backwards in the hull, so the flywheel faces the front of the rig. The transmission is under your butt when you're seated and you shift it via the push rods with three levers instead of a normal shifter. It's goofy. You can learn more about Muskegs from the sales literature here:https://www.safetyoneinc.com/specsheets/pdf/MSKGTRCT.PDF

This is my Muskeg in its natural habitat:
Image

Front View in the shop:
Image

Rear View:
Image

The original Chrysler 318 Poly engine shoehorned in from the factory:
Image

On to the repower. The Poly 318 had a tough life and showed every sign of being horribly maintained. The engine had set for a long time, apparently with water in it, and the heads were shot. It ran and was usable after a carb and dizzy rebuild but had a chronic miss and fuel supply problems due to line and tank corrosion. Of all things it was the rust in the fuel tank that got me where I am now. To pull the fuel tank I had to pull the cab off. Once I had the cab off, well, you know how these things go and I found trouble everywhere I looked. Before I knew it, I had it down to the bare hull.

Originally, I thought I'd just rebuild the Poly 318. They're good engines and I have another in our '65 Dodge 300 ranch truck. The Muskeg's unit was the industrial variety and had lots of orphan parts on it. At the end of the day, I just didn't want to spend $2-3K and deal with the parts sourcing problems for a rig that needs to do real work. Then I thought I'd swap in an LA 318. It'd be a bolt in, they're cheap, plentiful, and can get parts anywhere. But again, any core I'd get would have to be rebuilt.

Enter the 240. Why a 240? Well, I had one up in the barn attached to an old, out of service, Onan genset. It had 390-hours on it when the city of Delta, CO got rid of it. I had bought it for slightly more than scrap price and wanted to use it as a backup genset but went another direction there so it sat. According to the engine serial number (C5PF-6005-A/SO-30A) it was built in 1965. The genset itself was assembled in 1968. I pulled the 240 off of the genset and started disassembling it to check it's condition before investing any real time or money in it. Pulling the valve and side cover off it appeared it was in new condition. Not a hint to sludge or burnt oil, nothing, and all the metal was bright. Which makes sense when you consider it had only spent 390-hours running on propane at 1800-rpm. I pulled the pan off and checked the bearings and they too were like new. It has a cast crank from every appearance.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

I documented the rotating assembly in the block and the average bore diameter was 4.002". Average stroke was 3.177" measured at the piston and corrected for piston rock in the bore. The average deck clearance was .0105" I was a little confused by the pistons having both directional notches and four valve reliefs but learned on the board here that 289 pistons were used so that cleared that up. I cc'd the pistons at 7.5cc average with the slight dish and valve reliefs. The head was likewise in new condition but I did notice a .020" variance in exhaust valve seat depth. It appears to be that way from the factory. The combustion chambers averaged 67cc with a 1.5cc spread. I measured an average of .374" lift at the valve stem on the intakes and .355" on the exhausts. I didn't bother with the timing events.

Image

I went to the trouble of documenting the engine because I had been told that the industrial versions were significantly different that the truck versions. I don't see this to be true with the exception of perhaps the camshaft specs. With the documentation of the engine in hand, the static compression ratio, as this engine was built, came out to 8.76 to 1 whereas my 1967 "Motor's Truck Repair Manual" shows a spec of 8.75 to 1 for the 1965 240. That's an exact match as far as I'm concerned.

Now in '66, the Muskegs were usually equipped with a 251ci Chrysler flathead 6 industrial engine rated at 115 to 125hp depending on what literature you read. The 318 Poly was an option and it was rated at 150 to 180hp, again depending on the literature. The Dodge truck specs show the Poly at 165-hp @ 3900-rpm and 260-lbs ft. of torque at 2,200-rpm. For 1965, Ford claimed the truck 240 was 150-hp @ 4,000-rpm with 234-lbs. ft of torque @ 2,000-rpm. So, the 240 is well in the hunt with the 318 Poly horsepower and torque wise. Putting a 6 back in the Muskeg will also make it vastly easier to perform maintenance on the engine.

This is were you fine folks come in. My goal is to do as much to the 240 as reasonable to optimize it for use in the Muskeg and our 7,000'+ operating altitude on the ranch. Given our altitude I'd like to boost the compression to around 9.5-1 or more. I'd also like to see if 300-lbs. ft. of torque could be found Did I mention I wanted to swap the NP435 out for a C6? I need to verify that the 240 takes a standard SBF bellhousing.

Thanks for reading.
Last edited by AnvilRW on Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9806
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #2 by bubba22349 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:28 pm

Yes you are correct all 240 & 300 Ford six blocks will have the 6 bolt bell housing pattern the same as the SBF V8's. Good luck :thumbup: :nod:
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

sdiesel
Registered User
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:33 am
Location: NW Oregon,Buxton currently

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #3 by sdiesel » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:34 am

A C6 would be a dandy upgrade for that rig.
and , is there room for a turbo?
did you get the HD manifold for exhaust? probably not, but just maybe. if so, is there room to hang a turbo off the side of that machine?
Id keep the propane fuel system myself
love the propane and to pressureize a propane system is childs play. 3-6 psi will get you the power u are looking for and eliminate the bothersome gasoline in winter issues. you can keep current pistons and rings or zero gap rings . leave everythign in block and heads just as they are except hardened seats for the propane.
this sounds like fun. the Spierings have or had, one of those over at their place some years back.
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

User avatar
Shorty
Registered User
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:30 pm
Location: southern Ontario, Canada

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #4 by Shorty » Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:15 am

np 435 to a c6 would be quite a change in ratios and may require a re gear of differential?
85 F150 on 78 bronco frame C6 np205 welded dana44 front, trussed posi nine inch rear. EFI exhaust manifolds into one 2 1/2" rolls on 35x12.5x15 Maxxis Trepador.

User avatar
powerband
FSP Moderator
Posts: 2059
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #5 by powerband » Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:20 am

my previous post:

In the mid 70's I worked as a maintenance mechanic at a the mountaintop Ski-Minne ski areas of the Lake Minnewaska Mountain House in the Shawangunk Mountains of NY's Hudson Valley.

Image

Image

I was hired because I was familiar with air cooled VW motors that the "Hedco" snow makers used and the Ford six's the Snow Trackers and Trail Groomers used.

have fun
Image . Image

hav'n fun in the Gunks'
" Everything in my garage has a story ..."

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #6 by AnvilRW » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:57 pm

sdiesel wrote:A C6 would be a dandy upgrade for that rig.
and , is there room for a turbo?
did you get the HD manifold for exhaust? probably not, but just maybe. if so, is there room to hang a turbo off the side of that machine?
Id keep the propane fuel system myself
love the propane and to pressureize a propane system is childs play. 3-6 psi will get you the power u are looking for and eliminate the bothersome gasoline in winter issues. you can keep current pistons and rings or zero gap rings . leave everythign in block and heads just as they are except hardened seats for the propane.
this sounds like fun. the Spierings have or had, one of those over at their place some years back.

Thank you. I'll have to look into pressurized propane. I'm going to stick with gas as then I don't have to mess with filling propane tanks and I already have bulk gas and diesel storage on the place.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #7 by AnvilRW » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:32 pm

Shorty wrote:np 435 to a c6 would be quite a change in ratios and may require a re gear of differential?

That's my biggest concern. I figure a higher stall torque converter will take care of a lot of it. It's a crap shoot to know for sure, but if I have to, I have room for a transfer case and I have a couple divorced units laying around or I could just get a married C6 and see if I can't clock the transfer case to be completely horizontal. I'd rather not go that route unless forced to.

The Muskeg has a top advertised speed of 25-mph. It has a 5.83:1 R&P and the drive sprocket has around a 13" pitch diameter. The C6 should have a 2.41:1 first gear (there is a low gear planetary available, iirc, a 2.71). 1st gear in the NP435 is 6.69:1. In my limited experience on our terrain, 2nd and 3rd are the most useful gears in the 435. 2nd in the 435 is 3.34:1 and 3rd is 1.79:1. 4th, of course, is 1:1 but I can't imagine it being used other than on a frozen lake.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #8 by AnvilRW » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:35 pm

powerband wrote:my previous post:

In the mid 70's I worked as a maintenance mechanic at a the mountaintop Ski-Minne ski areas of the Lake Minnewaska Mountain House in the Shawangunk Mountains of NY's Hudson Valley.

Image

Image

I was hired because I was familiar with air cooled VW motors that the "Hedco" snow makers used and the Ford six's the Snow Trackers and Trail Groomers used.

have fun
Image . Image

hav'n fun in the Gunks'

Very nice. That last pic is the exact unit I have. Muskeg MM66 with the 3-man cab. I almost bought an Activ snowcat which used ACVW power.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #9 by AnvilRW » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:42 pm

Any ideas on the picture posting problems? Still nothing on this end using the attachment function. Same message, "board quota has been reached."

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #10 by pmuller9 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:51 pm

A modified naturally aspirated 300 will make over 300 ft lbs of torque at sea level but would be hard pressed to do do so at 7000 ft elevation.
As you would expect a 240 is not going to get near those torque numbers unless you go to forced induction.

As previously suggested adding a turbocharger would allow you to meet your goal.
What rpm range are you looking at making power?

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #11 by AnvilRW » Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:27 pm

pmuller9 wrote:A modified naturally aspirated 300 will make over 300 ft lbs of torque at sea level but would be hard pressed to do do so at 7000 ft elevation.
As you would expect a 240 is not going to get near those torque numbers unless you go to forced induction.

As previously suggested adding a turbocharger would allow you to meet your goal.
What rpm range are you looking at making power?

Well, the nice thing about arbitrary goals is that you can arbitrarily change them. My first reaction is to shy away from turbo simply from the complexity and expense/maintenance aspect but on the other hand I don't have any experience with them on gas engines. I'm more inclined to just boost compression as much as I can to compensate for our altitude and work on the breathing aspects. Given the gearing/work aspect of the machine, I don't see any reason to run more than 4,000 to 4500 rpm. I'm thinking a torque converter with a stall of around 2K so I can flash to near peak torque if I need it. I have a budget of about $1,500 for the engine itself and about the same again for the transmission and remainder of the driveline. I'm a retired machinist and have have a fairly well equipped shop so I'll do all the work myself save for something that requires specialty machinery. That said, I value my time and with my years in machine shop business, I'm a big believer in not building what you can buy.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #12 by AnvilRW » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:23 pm

Folks, any idea if the Keith Black SKB312 or SKB116 pistons which are originally intended for early 289s will work with the 240? These both have the right compression height, wrist pin size, etc. I'm wondering if the dome and valve reliefs are compatible with 240 heads valve angle and location. I don't mind having to massage them. I'd like to get my effective static compression ratio up to around 9:1 for my altitude (7,000'). Was also looking at the SKB365 and rework the dome and valve pockets as necessary but noted it says it has a .400" hollow dome so it may not allow much work.

SKB312: https://uempistons.com/series-2636-kb-automotive-hyper-ford-302-5-kb312.html#!sq%3Dskb312
SKB116: https://uempistons.com/series-2512-kb-automotive-hyper-ford-302-5-kb116.html#!sq%3Dskb116
SKB365: https://uempistons.com/series-2658-kb-automotive-hyper-ford-302-5-kb365.html#!sq%3Dskb365

Related to that, how much can the 240 head be safely milled? On my head it looks like the thinnest part from the gasket surface to water is about .215". Seems like .020" would be safe enough but how far can you push it and not put the boots to yourself?

Thank you.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #13 by pmuller9 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:38 pm

Right now with a 7.5 cc piston volume, .010" deck clearance and 76 cc chamber volume your static compression ratio is 8.7 using a new Felpro .039" thick head gasket.

Raising the compression ratio to 9:1 is not enough change to make a significant change in engine torque.

If you have a flat top piston at zero deck clearance without touching the head volume you raise the compression ratio to 9.6 which may be too much with a short duration cam profile.

The other proven area of torque improvement is valve lift.
You can keep a relatively short duration cam profile to keep the power band fairly low and increase the lift to around .450" for improved overall torque.

What octane pump gas are you going to use?
Last edited by pmuller9 on Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #14 by AnvilRW » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:55 pm

pmuller9 wrote:Right now with a 7.5 cc piston volume, .010" deck clearance and 76 cc chamber volume your static compression ratio is 8.7 using a new Felpro .039" thick head gasket.

Raising the compression ratio to 9:1 is not enough change to make a significant change in engine torque.

If you have a flat top piston at zero deck clearance without touching the head volume you raise the compression ratio to 9.6 which may be too much with a short duration cam profile.

Agreed, if I was at sea level going to a lot of expense to go from 8.7:1 to 9:1 wouldn't be worth it. The issue for me is that I'm at a nominal 7,000' altitude. So to have an altitude corrected 9:1 here, I need a static compression ratio of about 10.5:1 at sea level. Right now, my effective CR is around 7.3:1.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #15 by pmuller9 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:00 pm

I misunderstood.

Yes the KB pistons you posted fit the .912" connecting rod pin diameter but you will need to check the dome to head clearance.
You will only need about 6 cc of dome volume to get near a 10.5 compression ratio.

The chamber volume changes about 1 cc per .008"
If you take some off the head and use the -3 cc piston you should get what you need

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #16 by AnvilRW » Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:58 am

pmuller9 wrote:I misunderstood.

Yes the KB pistons you posted fit the .912" connecting rod pin diameter but you will need to check the dome to head clearance.
You will only need about 6 cc of dome volume to get near a 10.5 compression ratio.

The chamber volume changes about 1 cc per .008"
If you take some off the head and use the -3 cc piston you should get what you need

No worries at all. I was wondering how much shaving the head to would change the combustion chamber. Thank you.

Also finally figured out how to load pics.

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5578
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #17 by Lazy JW » Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:24 am

International Harvester used to have optional high-compression pistons available for their farm tractors that would be used at high elevations; this was for normally aspirated gasoline engines. Forced induction probably works better.
"The White OX" 1974 F-350 300-6, Stock single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18A, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much increase is by the strength of the ox" (Proverbs 14:4)
Image

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #18 by AnvilRW » Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:09 pm

I've settled on the KB116 pistons, which if all else stays equal will give a 10.2:1 static CR and an effective CR of 8.8:1 for my elevation.

What do you folks like for rings?

The all important next step is cam & intake selection. Suggestions?

Figure I'll pop for a DUI dizzy #39820BK.

Looking hard at that new Aussie Speed intake. Damn reasonable pricing and shipping is cheap too considering where it comes from.
Last edited by AnvilRW on Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #19 by pmuller9 » Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:47 pm

A Fel-Pro 1024 head gasket has a crush thickness of .039" and a 4.18" bore.
Using a 67 cc chamber with a -2.6 cc piston at zero deck and a 4.00" piston bore I get a 9.95 compression ratio.

If you want to keep peak torque in the mid 2000 rpm range and not work the engine past 4500 I would use a cam profile with a .050" duration not much more than 200 degrees.

The Schneider 256H (13911) .448”/.448” 204/204 248/256 112 degree camshaft would be a good candidate.
The wide 112 LSA would make for a good idle while the .448" valve lift would produce good wide band torque.

The Isky 331256 (256 supercam) .450”/.450” 202/202 256/256 112deg would be another choice.

Just for reference: STOCK FORD .397”/.397” 192/192 268/268 110deg

The Ausiespeed intake has long runners that will help the smaller 240 six produce a wide power band.

You can also make an equal length long runner intake by making a plenum that bolts to the lower half of the Ford 4.9 six EFI intake.
viewtopic.php?p=623450#p623450

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #20 by AnvilRW » Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:21 pm

pmuller9 wrote:A Fel-Pro 1024 head gasket has a crush thickness of .039" and a 4.18" bore.
Using a 67 cc chamber with a -2.6 cc piston at zero deck and a 4.00" piston bore I get a 9.95 compression ratio.

If you want to keep peak torque in the mid 2000 rpm range and not work the engine past 4500 I would use a cam profile with a .050" duration not much more than 200 degrees.

The Schneider 256H (13911) .448”/.448” 204/204 248/256 112 degree camshaft would be a good candidate.
The wide 112 LSA would make for a good idle while the .448" valve lift would produce good wide band torque.

The Isky 331256 (256 supercam) .450”/.450” 202/202 256/256 112deg would be another choice.

Just for reference: STOCK FORD .397”/.397” 192/192 268/268 110deg


I think we're on the same sheet of music. I had included milling the head .020 which equals our calcs out. Do you have the cam cards for those cams or know the intake ABDC numbers? I'd like to see where the dynamic CR falls. I was looking at the Howards 280996-10 (221/221, 275/275, .501"/.501" 110-degree) which now seems to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. I know nothing about these 240/300 engines and what cams they like.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #21 by AnvilRW » Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:31 pm

pmuller9 wrote:The Ausiespeed intake has long runners that will help the smaller 240 six produce a wide power band.

You can also make an equal length long runner intake by making a plenum that bolts to the lower half of the Ford 4.9 six EFI intake.
viewtopic.php?p=623450#p623450


That intake is crazy. I just so happen to have some spare Dellorto 45 DLRAs and a think I still have a pair of Weber HPMX 44s from my old ACVW projects. Both sets are down drafts. Side drafts would be cooler.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #22 by pmuller9 » Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:38 pm

In reference to the Howards cam.
The cams with .050" durations in the 220 range produce a power band from 1200 rpm to 5000 rpm in a 300 six with a big valve slightly ported head. Peak torque is around 3000 rpm.
A 240 six will respond at a much higher rpm range.

The two cams I mentioned with 112 LSA can be set any where from 2 to 4 degrees advanced depending on where you want to shift the torque curve.
If you use 4 degrees advance that would put the intake lobe center at 108* ATDC.

Using the advertised duration the Schneider would close 52 ABDC and the Isky would close 56 ABDC

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #23 by AnvilRW » Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:28 pm

pmuller9 wrote:In reference to the Howards cam.
The cams with .050" durations in the 220 range produce a power band from 1200 rpm to 5000 rpm in a 300 six with a big valve slightly ported head. Peak torque is around 3000 rpm.
A 240 six will respond at a much higher rpm range.

The two cams I mentioned with 112 LSA can be set any where from 2 to 4 degrees advanced depending on where you want to shift the torque curve.
If you use 4 degrees advance that would put the intake lobe center at 108* ATDC.

Using the advertised duration the Schneider would close 52 ABDC and the Isky would close 56 ABDC

Thank you. I've the KB116 pistons, Hastings ductile iron rings, Isky 331256 cam and lifters, and the DUI distributor in the cart. Block has been stripped and flashing removed. Once I have the pistons in I'll have the block tanked, honed to match, and the rotating assembly balanced.

Also ordered the intake from Aussie Speed today. How about carb recommendations?

I have a spare Motorcraft 2150 altitude compensating carb that I've had great results with on Jeeps. I think they're rated at 350-cfm, iirc. I'd solder up the jets and redrill as required.

User avatar
Econoline
Registered User
Posts: 1443
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Anacortes, WA

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #24 by Econoline » Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:54 pm

That engine looks pristine. Look at those bearings. That was a good deal.
It ain't gonna fix itself

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9806
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #25 by bubba22349 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:11 pm

Wow yes that 240 engine is really nice condition. Have you put a straight edge accross the top of the valve stems yet? It's been my experience on a few Propane engine rebuilds (all of them were very clean inside too) that you will see some exhaust valve seat recession after many hours of use. I think this might be caused by propane being such a dry fuel? The special propane heads that Ford made are very good though and I used one on my 1965 F350 300 build to replace a pair of the stock heads that I was continuing to loose exhaust valve guides after the US stopped selling the leaded fuels. On Pistion's the Ford 225 HP (4V) 289's and the 271 Hi Performance 289's both used a flat top pistion those would raise your compression in your 240 a little over the standard dished type 289 2V piston that's in it. They are what I used many times when rebuilding the 2V 289's engine into mild street performance engine. Good luck :thumbup: :nod: edited
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #26 by AnvilRW » Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:29 pm

Econoline wrote:That engine looks pristine. Look at those bearings. That was a good deal.

It was in excellent condition. I've never seen a used engine so clean let alone one that was built 55 years ago and hadn't been apart since.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #27 by AnvilRW » Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:43 pm

bubba22349 wrote:Wow yes that 240 engine is really nice condition. Have you put a straight edge accross the top of the valve stems yet? Ists been my experience on a few Propane engine you would see some exhaust vale seat recession after many hours of use. The special propane heads that Ford made are very good though and I used one on my 1965 F350 300 build to replace the stock heads that were loosing exhaust valve guides after the US stopped selling unleaded fuels. On Pistion's the Ford 225 HP (4V) 289's and the 271 Hi Performance 289's both used a flat top pistion that would raise your compression a little over the standard dished type 289 2V piston it's what I used many times when rebuilding the 2V 289's. Good luck :thumbup: :nod:

I'll get the head on the table today and document the valve stem heights. I'm going to gasket match the ports and then check the seats and freshen up the valves as needed. Pistons are a done deal, I'm getting the KB116s to get my compression up for my altitude (7,000"+). Then it's putting it all back together. Might have found a C6 for a SBF that I can score and I'll need to start mocking up the new engine and trans mounts. Top priority today though is to finish the rebuild of the front axle for my CJ3A. Got to get it ready for spring.

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9806
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #28 by bubba22349 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:30 pm

Excellent I think the C6 will be perfect in the Muskeg repowererpower used with a TransGo shift kit so you can manually shift it. Togeather with the right stall speed convertor like maybe the one that was used in the 1969 & 70 Lincoln Mark III (think they were about a 2300 rpm stall) or also the ones used in the performance 351C and Cobra Jet with C6's would be be about right. Good luck on the CJ axle rebuild. :thumbup: :nod:
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #29 by AnvilRW » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:18 pm

bubba22349 wrote:Have you put a straight edge accross the top of the valve stems yet? It's been my experience on a few Propane engine rebuilds that you will see some exhaust vale seat recession after many hours of use.


Yes, you are correct. When I first disassembled the engine, I noted that there was a wide variation in how far the exhaust valves were seated in the head. After checking the valve heights today, I set cylinder 1's valves at zero and found I have a mean variation of .0331" on the exhaust valves with a maximum of .0556" So that's almost 1/16". Intakes had a mean variation of .0053" with a max of .0079". So the intakes are fine but the exhaust seats will probably need replaced.

Image

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #30 by pmuller9 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:45 pm

Love your shop and equipment.

Looking at valve springs for your cam
The stock springs are specified installed at 1.700" with a seat pressure of 80 lbs and near a 300 lb/in spring rate.
The Isky cam won't need more than 110 lbs on the seat with close to the same 300 spring rate.

Just curious what the actual installed spring height is on your cylinder head?

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6384
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #31 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:55 pm

bubba22349 wrote:Excellent I think the C6 will be perfect in the Muskeg repowererpower used with a TransGo shift kit so you can manually shift it. Togeather with the right stall speed convertor like maybe ... the ones used in the performance 351C and Cobra Jet with C6's would be be about right...



X2 ^^^

I have a street/strip '33 Willys coupe with a built 300 and a 351 CJ converter and it is an excellent match. The factory stall ( behind the 351) is 2500. Its probably a little less behind my beast.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #32 by AnvilRW » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:06 pm

pmuller9 wrote:Love your shop and equipment.

Looking at valve springs for your cam
The stock springs are specified installed at 1.700" with a seat pressure of 80 lbs and near a 300 lb/in spring rate.
The Isky cam won't need more than 110 lbs on the seat with close to the same 300 spring rate.

Just curious what the actual installed spring height is on your cylinder head?

Thanks. The installed height on #1's intake is 1.685" and the exhaust is 1.598". The difference being the exhaust's retainer and rotator is .275" thick. The intake retainer is .090". The numbers provided above is just the springs installed height and doesn't include the retainer and/or rotator.

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6384
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #33 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:16 pm

Eliminate the exhaust retainers. Use the intake type retainers on all 12 valves. I'm assuming all 12 springs in the kit will be the same.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #34 by pmuller9 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:34 pm

THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER wrote:Eliminate the exhaust retainers. Use the intake type retainers on all 12 valves. I'm assuming all 12 springs in the kit will be the same.


X2 ^^^

The Crane 96803 spring has a seat pressure of 107 lbs installed at 1.700". Spring rate is 330 lbs/in.
Use with the Comp 768 retainer. The Crane retainers in this size all have offsets.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #35 by AnvilRW » Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:36 pm

THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER wrote:Eliminate the exhaust retainers. Use the intake type retainers on all 12 valves. I'm assuming all 12 springs in the kit will be the same.
That's was the plan. Don't know if they put the rotators on all the truck/industrial 240s, but this one does have different springs for intakes and exhausts and the exhaust springs are painted yellow. There is a benefit to keeping them but it would require different springs...well, if not, it would just be more closed seat pressure but spring binding is still not a problem. Any good reason not to keep them?

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #36 by AnvilRW » Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:39 pm

pmuller9 wrote:
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER wrote:Eliminate the exhaust retainers. Use the intake type retainers on all 12 valves. I'm assuming all 12 springs in the kit will be the same.


X2 ^^^

The Crane 96803 spring has a seat pressure of 107 lbs installed at 1.700". Spring rate is 330 lbs/in.
Use with the Comp 768 retainer. The Crane retainers in this size all have offsets.
This springs look good. Cheap too. I was looking at COMP Cams Valve Springs 995-12 if I tossed the rotators.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #37 by pmuller9 » Sat Feb 22, 2020 4:57 pm

AnvilRW wrote:
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER wrote:Eliminate the exhaust retainers. Use the intake type retainers on all 12 valves. I'm assuming all 12 springs in the kit will be the same.
That's was the plan. Don't know if they put the rotators on all the truck/industrial 240s, but this one does have different springs for intakes and exhausts and the exhaust springs are painted yellow. There is a benefit to keeping them but it would require different springs...well, if not, it would just be more closed seat pressure but spring binding is still not a problem. Any good reason not to keep them?

We worry about the rotators failing under the increased spring pressure when using an aftermarket cam.

The Comp 995 spring is a double. You would have to machine the 1.000" diameter spring perch that is cast into the head to fit the ID of the spring.
Secondly the Comp 995 has a 400 lb/in spring rate which is way to high.
You really don't want more than a 250 lb open spring pressure for the sake of cam lobe longevity.

The Comp 942 is a single with good specs for most of the 300 six street cam. I chose the Crane 96803 because it is slightly lighter than the Comp 942.

The Crane 96803 single spring gives you 107 lb seat pressure at 1.700" and a 255 lb open pressure at .450" valve lift.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #38 by AnvilRW » Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:45 pm

pmuller9 wrote:
AnvilRW wrote:
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER wrote:Eliminate the exhaust retainers. Use the intake type retainers on all 12 valves. I'm assuming all 12 springs in the kit will be the same.
That's was the plan. Don't know if they put the rotators on all the truck/industrial 240s, but this one does have different springs for intakes and exhausts and the exhaust springs are painted yellow. There is a benefit to keeping them but it would require different springs...well, if not, it would just be more closed seat pressure but spring binding is still not a problem. Any good reason not to keep them?

We worry about the rotators failing under the increased spring pressure when using an aftermarket cam.

The Comp 995 spring is a double. You would have to machine the 1.000" diameter spring perch that is cast into the head to fit the ID of the spring.
Secondly the Comp 995 has a 400 lb/in spring rate which is way to high.
You really don't want more than a 250 lb open spring pressure for the sake of cam lobe longevity.

The Comp 942 is a single with good specs for most of the 300 six street cam. I chose the Crane 96803 because it is slightly lighter than the Comp 942.

The Crane 96803 single spring gives you 107 lb seat pressure at 1.700" and a 255 lb open pressure at .450" valve lift.

Huh. That's good info. Another thing I found odd was that the intake valves had normal umbrella seals but the exhausts only had an o-ring that fit into a groove below the valve locks. It's funny how different these big 6's are compared to ACVWs. Last cam I bought for my rally beetle was a Web Cam 86A, .502/.502 lift, 290/290 adv, 252/252 @.050. and 108 center. That's considered pretty mild for a 2336cc engine. Idle smooth all day long at 700rpm and all done by 6K and that's with a big valve ported head. Springs had 150 seat and 300 on the nose. Never any problems as long as you use the right oil. Learning more every day. Thanks for the help.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #39 by pmuller9 » Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:43 pm

AnvilRW wrote:[ It's funny how different these big 6's are compared to ACVWs. Last cam I bought for my rally beetle was a Web Cam 86A, .502/.502 lift, 290/290 adv, 252/252 @.050. and 108 center. That's considered pretty mild for a 2336cc engine. Idle smooth all day long at 700rpm and all done by 6K and that's with a big valve ported head. Springs had 150 seat and 300 on the nose. Never any problems as long as you use the right oil. Learning more every day. Thanks for the help.


WOW! I would have never guessed that a cam that big in a small engine would act mild.
It has been most everyones experience with an engine that has 50 cu in cylinders be it a 300 six or a 400 V8 starts to have a lopey idle once the cam profile has 0 degrees of overlap or more.
Last cam I used in a 300 six had .534/.534 lift, 288/288, 232/232 112 LSA hydraulic lifter and didn't idle smoothly till 900 rpm. Big valve ported head.
Made most of it's power from 1200 to 5500 rpm. I had 120 lbs on the seat and 300 open.
Joe Gibbs HR oil.

I like to use positive stop metal clad valve stem seals.

What I should have said was that the Isky 256 cam didn't need more than 250 lbs open pressure.
I like to keep the pressure on a hydraulic lifter low but enough to keep it tracking.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #40 by AnvilRW » Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:58 am

pmuller9 wrote:WOW! I would have never guessed that a cam that big in a small engine would act mild.
It has been most everyones experience with an engine that has 50 cu in cylinders be it a 300 six or a 400 V8 starts to have a lopey idle once the cam profile has 0 degrees of overlap or more.
Last cam I used in a 300 six had .534/.534 lift, 288/288, 232/232 112 LSA hydraulic lifter and didn't idle smoothly till 900 rpm. Big valve ported head.
Made most of it's power from 1200 to 5500 rpm. I had 120 lbs on the seat and 300 open.
Joe Gibbs HR oil.

I like to use positive stop metal clad valve stem seals.

What I should have said was that the Isky 256 cam didn't need more than 250 lbs open pressure.
I like to keep the pressure on a hydraulic lifter low but enough to keep it tracking.


Might be the ACVWs tolerate more because you have a carb venturi for every cylinder but they're also solid lifter cams so you don't get the smoothing you can get with a hyrdraulic. That engine is tuned to a little over 1hp/CI so she runs hard. It's a puzzle.

You have a part number for the seals? Are they press on or do they require machining of the guide?

What thread-in rocker arm studs are you using? ARP 134-7101 seems like a good candidate..

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #41 by pmuller9 » Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:08 am

AnvilRW wrote:You have a part number for the seals? Are they press on or do they require machining of the guide?

What thread-in rocker arm studs are you using? ARP 134-7101 seems like a good candidate..

They do require machining the guide.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-529-16

The ARP 134-7101 is one of the correct rocker studs.

The only comment I have is some of the ARP studs have a taper under the hex to help locate pushrod guide plates.
Since you do not need guide plates for your head check to see that the studs do not have the taper.

What rocker arms are you going to use?

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #42 by AnvilRW » Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:58 am

pmuller9 wrote:
AnvilRW wrote:You have a part number for the seals? Are they press on or do they require machining of the guide?

What thread-in rocker arm studs are you using? ARP 134-7101 seems like a good candidate..

They do require machining the guide.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-529-16

The ARP 134-7101 is one of the correct rocker studs.

The only comment I have is some of the ARP studs have a taper under the hex to help locate pushrod guide plates.
Since you do not need guide plates for your head check to see that the studs do not have the taper.

What rocker arms are you going to use?
Thank you for the confirmation. Haven't decided on the rocker arms. I was planning to use the stock cast units but haven't actually measured to see if they'll safely handle the extra lift. Roller rockers are overkill on this build, but at $150 for stamped steel replacements, they seem like a bargain.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3966
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #43 by pmuller9 » Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:02 am

Stock rockers will handle .450" lift.
The only consideration is that stock rockers may not actually provide a 1.6 ratio at full lift.
It would be interesting to check the actual lift.

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #44 by AnvilRW » Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:53 pm

Parts are starting to trickle in. Very impressed with Aussie Speed Performance. 8-days from the date of order it was on my doorstep and I live in the sticks!

Image

Image

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6384
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #45 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:28 pm

Looks nice and robust.

Maybe if I had my 'druthers I'd have put a couple of bosses on the floor of the plenum to make it easier to modify with stuffer/diverter blocks, "dual plane" wall, etc.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

guhfluh
Registered User
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #46 by guhfluh » Sat Feb 29, 2020 8:47 pm

It does look nice and beefy!

I'm curious what the runner ID measures out to be compared to the Offy C and Clifford competitors.

It's also interesting to me that they cast injector provisions into the runner ends, but no bosses for fuel rail hold downs. I think the Clifford is the same way? I wonder why.
1967 F-250 Crew Cab 2wd, 300 6cyl, T-170/RTS/TOD 4-speed overdrive
240 head, Offy C, EFI exhaust manifolds, Comp 268H, mandrel 2.5-3" exhaust, Edelbrock 500, Pertronix ignitor and coil, recurved dizzy. 200whp/300wtq

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9806
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #47 by bubba22349 » Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:24 pm

For Nitrous injection! :thumbup: :nod:
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6384
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #48 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:58 pm

EFI injectors are best placed at the runner outlet with the spray angled toward the backside of the intake valve.
NOS injectors are best placed further upstream to allow time for more complete vaporization and hence a denser intake charge to the cylinder.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

User avatar
68Flareside240
Registered User
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:52 am
Location: Selma, AL

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #49 by 68Flareside240 » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:15 am

Really enjoying this build thread. Looking at the pictures of the 240 during tear down, there is blue paint coming through the green. Was this green used on all Ford power products? If so, did they just pull built 240s (in blue) and repurpose and repaint them for industrial power?

AnvilRW
Registered User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:38 pm

Re: Bombardier Muskeg repower with a 240.

Post #50 by AnvilRW » Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:31 pm

68Flareside240 wrote:Really enjoying this build thread. Looking at the pictures of the 240 during tear down, there is blue paint coming through the green. Was this green used on all Ford power products? If so, did they just pull built 240s (in blue) and repurpose and repaint them for industrial power?

Thanks. It was Ford blue originally and think it was supplied to Onan that way. It appears that Onan painted it green after the engine was assembled in the genset frame. The sides of the oil pan are Onan green while the bottom of it is completely Ford blue with just some overspray on it.

Should have all the remaining engine parts together for it in the next few days and then start making it all work together. Still haven't found the C6 trans I'm looking for (truck model with the bolt on yoke on the tailshaft) but possibly have one located and still bolted to a 300 engine. I'm sure the trans will need a rebuild. I haven't done one since the early 80's so I'll get to relearn all that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests