Who is familiar with the 240 I6?

I ran across something that seems to indicate the 240 has a removable intake and aftermarket parts available. This has to be a good thing... Right?

So, will a 240 engine or parts interchange with a 170/200/250?
Do they all use the same mounts?
Does the 240 have an SBF bellhousing, or is it odd like the 170/200?
Will it physically fit a Maverick?
The reason I ask that is I gather the 300 is a direct decendant of the 240.
We all know that the 300 is NOT a friendly swap for a driver Maverick.

So...
IF the 240 has an SBF bell and aftermarket/mod friendly head, AND is a simple swap into a Mav... We might have a powerplant option that can be tweaked more easily and run an AOD. Unlike the 170/200/250.

When was the 240 used?
Was it a mid-60s Mustang/Falcon engine?

Ideas?
Info?
Thoughts?

Dave

 

the 240/300 is a totally diffrent block then what the mavs got, the biggest issue with getting one into our cars is how long it is. major Rad clearence issues, tho it has been done. ive seen a few pic on fordsix.com. yes the intake does come off and from what i hear there is alot more potential to be found in the big six then the small 6. i dont think any cars got the 240/300, just vans and trucks, definatly not in any mustangs or falcons

 

So the 240 is just as tall as the 300?
Or does the 300 have a taller deck?
Similar to 302 vs 351w... Maybe?

I got what you are saying, and I'm a bit bummed.

With a 300 you have the height as an issue as well as length.

Dave

 

i honestly cant say but everything ive read the length seems to be the main issue with getting it to fit, but if its longer im sure its taller too. it seems the 240 is pretty much the same as a 300 on the outside. there maybe slight deck hight diffrences but i dont think its enough to make one fit anymore then the other

 

240 is the predecesor to the 300.Think 360/390,the only difference between the 240/300 is the rotating assembly.Externally they are identical.Used from '65-around 73 in trucks,and '65- around 70 in full size cars.

 

Tim is exactly right, the 360/390 F.E. is a good comparison. It is basically the same engine has the 300. Most 240's I have seen (including the one I own) have a valve cover in which the top is flat, 300's have a valve cover with a curved top. I have no idea why, that's just my observation. Both have the SBF pattern, and are 0 balance. I have a 240 in my '68 F100, and a 300 in my '71 F250, both are good running engines with great torque. The '71 originally had a 360 which I blew up, that 300 would blow the doors off that 360 for sure.

They sound like sewing machines at idle. They would certainly be torquey in a Maverick.

 

With the new performance parts now available for the 170,200,250 family of Ford sixes, trying to go with a 240/300 really doesn't make sense. You'll see what I mean if you check out www.classicinlines.com and read about the new aluminum head with removeable intakes.

 

the 240 I had in my 73 Pickup was one of the best running engines I ever had. That thing actually ripped the motor mounts loose because it had that much torque (added to the fact that the truck was over 15 years old at the time). But really I wish the same as you, that the 240 would fit in the Maverick a little better because it was much more of a powerhouse than the 200 or the 250 in my opinion. Coupled with the 3 on the tree manual tranny that was in the 73 pickup I loved that truck. It would pull down a brick ****house and then haul it away.

 

nother testiment to its strenght, it was used as an industrial motor in fork trucks, to power combines and as a municipal water pump motor. Nearly indestructable and there are tons of aftermarket parts for them.

 

yea ive heard of people having big industrial back-up power generators that wer basically just a 300 sitting on the floor in the basment lol

 

I did some work in a county jail, in Arkansas IIRC, and they had a propane fueled 460 (Autolite carb'd) in the corner of a utility room as a backup generator.
It was pretty old... Said 'Thunder Jet' on it.

 

Man, Those 240/300's are great racing engines! Yes, the intake is removable! Offenhauser makes a 4bbl manifold for them. They fit into a Maverick easily, you can put an Air Research (?) turbocharger on them and run 14lbs of boost up to 7200 plus RPM There was a company out there called Clifford Research that had all sorts of stuff for them. It's still out there but called Clifford????

Anyways, the 240/300 is an inch longer than 144/250 32" vs. 31" Thats back of block to front of water pump pulley flange. So use a shorter fan spacer. Oil pan sump is to the front on both of them. Height from bottom of the oil pan to top of valve cover is the same at 24 inches, same with carb height at 26". The 240/300 engine is 4 inches narrower @ 13 inches, than the smaller sixes @ 17 inches due to manifold design if I remember correctly. Starters are both on the right hand side. The water pump is different between the 240 and the 300 but I can't remember what the difference is now. 1965 was the first year for the 240 through to 1974. I think 1973 was the first year for the 300 through to 1985. In 1980 Ford started calling them 4.9 litre instead of 300 cu. in. Again I'm not sure but I think the big sixes used the same flex plate and bell housing as the 302/351w. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Early 240's had 9.2:1 compression ratio that dropped in 1971 to 8.9:1 and 8.5:1 in 1972. Hope this is usefull to somone someday. If I can find my old notes I'll update this or someone else can carry on from here.

 

"They fit into a Maverick easily."

you have pics. of these in a maverick? any...links...

...Frank...

 

if your going to do a swap like that go with 300...

 

Bellhousings are the same as small block, Flex plate or flywheel will bolt on but need to be neutral balanced,unlike small block. I ran a 240 in a1960 falcon I/Gas in the early seventies , Suprised a lot of people.