Engines

OK...I am wanting to balance power, durability, and commonality.
In your opinion:
What is the most durable commonly made Ford Engine? Once I find this out.. I can build it up!

 

I am gonnaa crawl out on a limb here and say the Windsor block.

mike

 

The 300 cubic inch straight six.

 

I was going to say the 302 for its abundance of parts and its proven longevity, however, Ort has a point.

 

Doc so many choices Widsors great so a 300 just to mix it up how about an Aussie Turbo inline 6 as they are pretty much Bullit Proof 300KWs plus a 6 speed sports shift auto (always wanted one in an early 6 cyl Ford as a sleeper)

 

Go to the junkyard and find a 70+ Ford Bronco with a 351 windsor. rebuild it in stock or almost stock form and you'll have a strong and powerful reliable engine that will give you 150K miles + Gas mileage is not much different from the 302 and compares with the 300 six as well. Heads are available in both after market and factory options. Stock exhaust manifolds fit and there is no bad side to them that I can see! I love this engine for several reasons and the extra fifty cubic inches is just a bonus! I think it is the best choice in the Ford category. I run them in my street cars and in my race cars. Just an all around good choice!
Have you seen mine?

 

The most common engine to swap into vintage Fords is the small block Chevy V8.
I'm biased because of where I was born and bred, so I'd go with the 351 Cleveland.
Ford just announced they're adding 400 new jobs to the engine plant here.:2_thumbs_up_-_anima

They're shipping them back here from Europe which makes it even better.

 

The 430 MEL

They aren't heavy for nothing and have been raced at NASCAR. You might be lucky to find a freebie from a shipwreck, since FMC continued to produce them for the marine market. If one lost the anchor somewhere, one could simply throw the mill overboard to secure the vessel. This is what happens, when an auto manufacturer owns their own steel mill

 

The last year the 351 came in a Ford vehicle was 1996. It's a great engine and as unkldave mentioned. MPG won't be much different between the 5.0L and 4.9L but it will have more torque to haul around your stuff. Go take a walk in the LKQ junkyard in Huntsville and see what engines are in most of the Ford trucks. The 4.9l while a great engine, is harder to find laying around. The absolute best choice in my opinion would be a 7.3L Powerstroke, but I know you want to go with a gas engine and a lighter chasis than a 3/4 ton.

 

As has been noted, the 351. BUT the late 80s 351 HO (or Canadian Market). Rebuild with the Edelbrock Performer heads and roller rockers, ported and polished. Up the compression a tidge while you are at it. Edelbrock Performer intake and 1401 4 bbl square bore carb metered for torque. Comp Cams highest torque cam grind. Mid length headers into a 3 inch collector, tapering to a 2 1/4 inch dual exhaust with X cross over, FlowMaster Delta Flow mufflers. All that hooked up to a heavy duty AOD transmission. Bog simple, and good for at least one million miles with proper maintenance. Also, in a 70s vintage mid-sized wagon, you will be over 40 miles to the U.S. gallon.

 

Quoting myself from a previous 40 mpg.....

On jack stands maybe.........

 

in a 70s vintage mid-sized wagon, you will be over 40 miles to the U.S. gallon.

 

If I'm doing a solid 30 mpg in a 78 Thunderbird with a 351 and 3 speed automatic, then 40 out of one with a much more advanced 351 with a 4 bbl, and overdrive, and torque converter bypass is not out of the realm of likelihood. We have had this discussion before, and so far nobody has actually discounted the number once they do the math of distance and fuel consumed! Not even you, Tedy, disputed it after I gave you the numbers. I still say, if you have not driven one of the VERY few that were built by the factory, you cannot say for sure, because you did not experience it. Your argument is based on theory, not real world driving. If theory was always correct, bumble bees would be earth-bound.

 

Tedy: Tell you what. When I get Bertha, the 78 Grand Marquis, running again, I will keep detailed logs of fuel and mileage, and YOU do the calculation, and tell me what I am doing with a FULL sized boat with a 400 (6.6 litre) engine under the hood, and then as things get done to upgrade YOU keep track of mileage. When I get to 40 mpg YOU can tell folks I did it.

 

Well Mike I have driven and owned what your claiming to get these incredible MPG figures from, in stock form.........They drank more gas in a day than I drank beer when I was a drinker

As mentioned before in another thread where people just stopped comenting on your "claims"...... "You would have people beating down your door" It's like muffler bearings... It's posted online, I guess it must be true!"

I'm not doing by "theory", I'm going from owing these engines and bringing these "claims" of MPG up with friends who build engines, Ford engines..... So why are you not driving one of your engines? Heck, I'd scrap my whole fleet if I could have a 351, that got 40MPG......

You would be a exreamly wealthy man if 40MPG in stock, and or Built up 351 were the case......you'd be so rich the oil companys would put a BOUNTY ON YOU!

Not picking a fite but..... if you can get 40 MPG out of a you built it yourself 351 in a 70's tank....... why don't you have one?