Ok...after a little homework and guesswork, it seems a '62 Ford 240 is a 2.4L with a 144 cubic inch displacement? Can anyone confirm this? I'm a Chevy guy but I'm lookin hard at this '65 Ranch Wagon in my area. It comes with a 352 4V. Another guy has what he calls a Ford 240 straight six from a 1962 Murcury Comet. I'm trying to figure out if a 144 cid can even push a '65 Wagon and would it be worth swapping engines to get better gas mileage? It will be a daily driver and gas prices are gettin stooopid!
According to Wiki (for what that is worth) The ford 240 was a 240 (3.9 liter) giving about 150HP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Straight-6_engine#240 These types of engines tended to be pretty torquey. mike
I think you were getting your straight 6 engines confused. The 240 6 was primarily a truck engine - the standard '6' in Ford trucks for a long time. They also had a 300ci 6 as well. You probably came upon the '144' designation as well, and that is a much smaller straight 6 that was standard in the Ford Falcon when it first came out. Also available was a 170ci 6.........
I agree with Krash given the info at hand. I am surprised at how often folks consider swapping out V8's in older rigs for older vintage 6's. The thing that seems to be lost on many folks is that in their time (Before emissions and smog equipment, detuning etc) the stock V8's in these cars were quite efficient. Sometimes even more so than the straight six models. The Six has to work harder than the V8 causing it to loose any edge it would have. I grew up ridding in (And currently cruise in the summer) a 1964 Plymouth Fury station wagon with the wide block 318. It has a 1 barrel carb. My folks averaged 18 mpg in the car and got over 20 on road trips. I would never consider swapping in a 6 for better mpgs. It would likely get the same or less then the V8 and the power loss would be substantial.
The 240 was actually used in the full size Fords beginning in 1965. I don't think it was ever used in the compact Comets or Falcons. I do believe that the 240 was available in the Fairlane but I could be wrong. Later Ford had a 250 available that could be had in Mavericks. Back in those days there were a slew of engine and transmission choices. The 240 in a full size Ford was rated at 150 hp with 235 ft lbs of torque. Very good engine.
My 63 country sedan and a 233 strait six and moves it along nicely, you just can't be in a hurry. but its not a slouch it just is about topped out at 65 will go faster and has more pedal but the RPMs are up there from the three on the tree.
V's may be more efficient but there is just something about those inlines that I love. After all an XKE would not be the same thing with a short little V6 in there no matter how muscular. Remember when there used to be straight eights. Hubba, hubba. mike
The 240 is the predecessor to the big block straight six 300. Basically the same block, just a bit shorter. They can be souped up really nicely. Check out http://fordsix.com/forum/index.php I have a built 200 in the Fairmont, which is a small block ford six.
Hey Aboz are you going to get that Wagon? I was looking at some info posted on OLD Ride.. http://www.oldride.com/library/1965_ford_fairlane.html and it makes me wounder... I don't see where a 352 was an Option in 65.. But it also makes me wounder about the info out there.. How much can you Take as truth...
