Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey guys looking for a dependable engine on a older ford truck. I really like the body shape of older fords 80s - 90s
but ive heard the i6 is one of the most dependable motors. Was wondering what year is that ford that came with that motor
If not, what older trucks you guys recommend that is pretty much a bulletproof engine? I do not mind doing an engine rebuild when the time gets going (which is what i did on an XJ jeep) and after the rebuild on the jeep, it just keeps on going since it was easy and cheap to work with. Now, I just need a truck to haul things around
so opinions which trucks i should go for? doesnt have to be ford, but I prefer an older model I can ding around as long as its really reliable
The 300-L6 has a LONG history of its own. But the 300-L6 is a Lima engine.
It came in a 240 in earlier years, up to '74? or so. From there, it was upgraded to 300-L6 all the way up to '96. The 300 was considered obsolete technology by the late '90s and was dropped.
Other bulletproof motors was as you noted: Chrysler 4.0L. Also Slant 225. For GM, it's the 250-L6. Any '60s-'80s L6 was considered virtually bulletproof, really.
the 240/300 ford big six is hard to kill. you need a nuclear warhead to kill one, and you can resurrect by putting in a new battery.
the 300 came out in the early 70s and ran through the early 90s, and came in ford trucks and vans, so they are out there in large numbers.the 240 came out in the mid 60s and ran until the 300 replaced it. you an find the 240 in some full size cars, as well as trucks and vans.
and these engines are very capable performers given a few choice modifications. check out FORDSIX PERFORMANCE • Index page for a lot of good information on the big six.
The 300-L6 has a LONG history of its own. But the 300-L6 is a Lima engine.
It came in a 240 in earlier years, up to '74? or so. From there, it was upgraded to 300-L6 all the way up to '96. The 300 was considered obsolete technology by the late '90s and was dropped.
Other bulletproof motors was as you noted: Chrysler 4.0L. Also Slant 225. For GM, it's the 250-L6. Any '60s-'80s L6 was considered virtually bulletproof, really.
thanks for all the info guys - so I should pretty much look for a 6 cyl Ford f150 that is 1990 - 1996? or did f250s have them as well?
The 300-L6 has a LONG history of its own. But the 300-L6 is a Lima engine.
It came in a 240 in earlier years, up to '74? or so. From there, it was upgraded to 300-L6 all the way up to '96. The 300 was considered obsolete technology by the late '90s and was dropped.
Other bulletproof motors was as you noted: Chrysler 4.0L. Also Slant 225. For GM, it's the 250-L6. Any '60s-'80s L6 was considered virtually bulletproof, really.
thanks for all the info guys - so I should pretty much look for a 6 cyl Ford f150 that is 1990 - 1996? or did f250s have them as well?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57729
I had the 300 in a 1990 Bronco. That engine had plenty of power, and never a problem in the 138,000 miles I drove it. The weakness was in the automatic E4OD transmission. Research carefully, and get one either before E4OD or after it had been out 2-3 years, 92-96 to get the 300 with it. Our E4OD had to be rebuilt at 130,000 miles, and the transmission shop at that time upgraded to a stronger torque converter, as was recommended by a Ford TSB but there was no recall.
I had the 300 in a 1990 Bronco. That engine had plenty of power, and never a problem in the 138,000 miles I drove it. The weakness was in the automatic E4OD transmission. Research carefully, and get one either before E4OD or after it had been out 2-3 years, 92-96 to get the 300 with it. Our E4OD had to be rebuilt at 130,000 miles, and the transmission shop at that time upgraded to a stronger torque converter, as was recommended by a Ford TSB but there was no recall.
thanks for the input! But I am still a little confused on what years/model the f150s had these reliable engines and/or even transmissions. To my understanding it seems F150s 1992 - 1996 had these engines correct?
thanks for the input! But I am still a little confused on what years/model the f150s had these reliable engines and/or even transmissions. To my understanding it seems F150s 1992 - 1996 had these engines correct?
What about the older f250s / f350s?
the 240/300 came in F100/F150 from about 1963-1996. the 240 ran from about 1963 to about 1972 or so, and the 300 replaced it and ran through 1996.
The 300-L6 has a LONG history of its own. But the 300-L6 is a Lima engine.
It came in a 240 in earlier years, up to '74? or so. From there, it was upgraded to 300-L6 all the way up to '96. The 300 was considered obsolete technology by the late '90s and was dropped.
Hell, it was obsolete well before that, to be honest.
Yeah, the 300 has some good low-end a smidge off idle, but it does nothing but make noise beyond ~2000 rpms or so.
My friend had a wrecker with the 300 in it. I drove it a few times with a load and I could see why he'd take even a 302 over it for pulling.
So, OP, any of those Ford engines (302 and 351W included) were quite reliable for the time. If you ever have to rebuild, you can grab a 5.0L from a 96-01 Exploder and work with that. They had better breathing intakes and heads.
Yes, the 300 was ran from 73 to 96. It was available in F250 and F350s. Great low end. Good tonque off the line. Not a high revving engine. It isn't fast.
Look at 88 to 96 with the EFI. I ran anywhere from 15 to 19 mpg in the day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.