4.9 tech

IndyBlk5.0 said:

Honestly I think they are good engines for what they are, but not for performance applications. This is due to the fact that a 302 aftermarket is huge, and a 300 I6 aftermarket is very small.

Click to expand...

It's true the 302 aftermarket is huge and the 302 makes amazing power. By comparrison the 300 I6 aftermarket is not vey small, it's extremely small. However popular the 302 is now, there are people that want to experiment and do something different. 30 years ago the 302 was nothing more than a passenger car engine. If you wanted speed, you built 351C's and FE's if you were a Ford guy. If not into Ford, you built a Chrysler or a Chevy. To simply dismiss the 300 because of what it is shows no imagination. The hot rodder in me says "I wonder what it can do?" We know what a 5.0, Cleveland, big block and 4 cylinder can do. What else can we play with? The 300 I6 is very tough and very plentiful. Could be fun to play with and see what it can do.

Give me $5000 and a 5.0 engine and I'll order up a bunch of stuff and have a very powerful engine. But nothing anymore interesting than the other billion Mustangs out there. Innovation is falling of for the 5.0 and the 4.6 is growing, but they are not that exciting to a lot of people any more (myself included).

Give me $5000 and a 300 I6 and I'll do some creating and intersting stuff to it that hasn't been done before.

No.....unusual and forgotten engine's get my mind going. Buick Nailhead, Cadillac 472/500, Flathead Ford, Chrylser Hemi (the early ones), Ford Y-Block and Buick 215 Aluminum V8 to name but a few. Those are interesting simply because they are not a 302 Ford or a 350 Chevy. I love my 302 for what it can do, but it doesn't get me excited or interested like it used to. It's become too blah.

Quite a few I6's had siamesed intake & exhaust ports which makes tuned intake & exhaust manifolds impossible. It was easier to cast the heads & cheaper to make. Unfortunately it has a very negative impact on performance.

Ford’s small 6 (170-200 cubic inch) had the intake manifold cast as part of the head. In an attempt to get some more ponys for the NASCAR class the late 60’s vintage Falcon’s fell into, one engine builder cut off the cast on manifold and furnace brazed a flange mount to enable bolting on a tuned intake manifold. It was an expensive option and not very popular since the 221-260-289 came along about the same time.

There was a guy that a friends father knew that had a early 80's Ford F150 4x4 with the 300 I6 that he hot rodded with a cam, headers, intake and it flat smoked a lot of other vehicles on the road at the time. It hauled ass in that heavy truck.

The true, accurate differance in displacement between the 302 and the 300 is just 1.5072 cubic inches. There ultimate potentials are theoreticaly the same. Parts development is the only differance.

In this picture you can see the port layout for the 300 six. It's not siamesed. And tuned headers and intakes are both possible and available. Pic is from clifford webpage ( www.cliffordperformance.com ).

hllon - I believe the actual displacement of the 5.0L is 301.59 - give us a cc calculation on that.

tjm - "To know what RPM an engine can theoretically handle you only nee to know this. The stand piston speed is 4000 feet/second. That assumes properbuilds with high quality parts and has been around for a LONG time. Modern engines can do more. Take 4000 feet/sec and multiply by the constant 6 (don't know where it comes from, just know it's the constant). Then divide by the engine stroke. There's you max safe rpm." All due respect, if that's where your 6 grand limit came from, it's WAY overgeneralized. Using 4000 ft/sec as max piston velocity doesn't tell the whole story. Component acceleration rates (first derivative of velocity) and "jerk" rates (1st derivative of acceleration rate) must be considered also. Impacts of those rates/related forces have to be looked at in the context of block, piston, wrist pin, rod, crank and bearing design. I'd guess that with the right components, theoretically the 300 is capable of even more rpm, but whether or not anyone could/would afford to have the components made is another question.

Richker's right - you have to look at the design of the particular six. My 55 had siamesed ports - part of the reason for the peculiar sound of the motor with duals and headers was the siamesed ports on the exhaust side. #1 and 6 has there own port/primary; 2&3, and 4&5 were siamesed into a slightly larger primary. The headers looked like a 2-into-1 design for a huge 4 cylinder. As I recall, they were siamesed on the inake side as well.

Ford had a whole line of sixes for car applications (170/200/250) that had the intake manifold cast into the head. Ak Miller made a kit that allowed 3 flanges to be intalled on that manifold with some machine work and welding. It placed 3 1-bbl carbs on the head. Fuel distribution can be a problem if one center placed carb is used. The middle cylinders tend to run rich and the ends lean. While boost and fuel injection would be sweet, it's hard to beat the look of 3 side-draft Webers hanging off the side of a big six. And tuned correctly - you could match or exceed power and drivability of an injected unit, but not mileage.

As an aside, naturally aspirated racing versions of Jag's old DOHC 3.8 and 4.2L sixes (238 and 252 cubes) easily produced 350-375HP back in the 50's and 60's. Be interesting to see what could be done with more up to date technology. I'm sure the vintage racers out there have employed the tricks.

Oh - anyone know how much this I6-300 lump of iron weighs? Does anyone make an aluminum head for it (I'm dreaming)?

My formula is from an "Auto Math Handbook" I have at home. I looked in it last night to see if it specified the origin of the constant...it didn't. It did talk about the acclerating and decelerating of the piston/rod assembly and the importence of quiality components and build. With modern metalurgy the book says (claims?) that 5000 or even 6000 fps could be possible today. The book is a primer for general knowledge. The formula does seem to account for the accell./decell. stuff.

Michael Yount said:

Oh - anyone know how much this I6-300 lump of iron weighs? Does anyone make an aluminum head for it (I'm dreaming)?

Click to expand...

There is an aluminum racing head made for the 300 I6 but it has no water jackets. It's for drag racing and it's listed in the FRPP catalog.

As for weight I haven't found that yet.

The 300 I6 has always facinated me. However, I realized a long time ago that modifying one (significantly) would cost way more bills than what I have.
It would be sweet, especially if a nice hopped up I6 was in a fox. That would sure get some double takes if you know what I mean

IndyBlk5.0 said:

The 300 I6 has always facinated me. However, I realized a long time ago that modifying one (significantly) would cost way more bills than what I have.
It would be sweet, especially if a nice hopped up I6 was in a fox. That would sure get some double takes if you know what I mean

Click to expand...

No matter how much money I had I wouldn't put one in a Fox even if it did fit. Now a street rod that's a different story. A hopped up 300 I6 in a T-bucket would be an absolute riot and you could never hurt the thing. And becasue the car would be so light it wouldn't need much gear to be stupid fast. Low revs and low end power.....would be a lot of fun.

For all you six guys, I have a Jeep 258 engine in the garage, just begging for some work, available at a great price, just call quickly!

you guys are making me want to hot rod my daily driver

There used to be a Gremlin with the 258 that raced ITA in SCCA with me down in TX. Really cool car - and nothing sounded like that big six bellowing down the staights. Like a Z-car on steroids.

There was a Stovebolt 6 Digger (front engine dragster for those not sure what that is) at the dragstrip about 8 years ago that sounded absolutely wild. I was very perplexed by it when it rolled up to the line and when the run was over I was like...wow...that was pretty cool. I'll probably never forget the sound it made. Very unique.

Yeah - the stovebolt with siamesed exhaust ports kind of sounds like a 5 cyl. Audi or a radial aircraft engine to me. Weird sound - unlike most anything else.

Michael Yount said:

Yeah - the stovebolt with siamesed exhaust ports kind of sounds like a 5 cyl. Audi or a radial aircraft engine to me. Weird sound - unlike most anything else.

Click to expand...

5 cylinder Audi's...forgot about them. Talk about wierd soundin'.... They do kinda sound a little bit alike if memory serves.

arent there still I5's still floating around from the Swedes or Germans? i thought so (Volvo or Saab perhaps).

All of the Volvo's are powered by I5's these days; well, they have an I6 as well n.a. and turbo; and they just announced their first V8. Yamaha stretched the old SHO 60 degree V8 up to 4.2L for Volvo to power their sport ute. 310HP/325 lb-ft of torque.