300 six into 88 drop top

[wlabrum]

Now before you tell me I am an idiot it think a 300 six would be a great swap from the four banger. Has anybody ever done one before? If you are asking me why I will tell you two reasons lighter than a 5.0 and more torque. I am on a budget and the four banger is not enough power even with a turbo. Got a donor motor all ready and the 5.0 bell housing will bolt to the motor. Any real suggestions
Thanks

 

[Chrome_Rust]

I think it is something different that should be attempted...

First off, I would procure a K-Member from an early 80's inline 6 car. might help with the mounts and oil pan clearance.

Second, are you going to go fuel injected? Might have to do some major wiring... also the stock tach is not going to work.

third, hood clearance might be an issue. think 6" cowl....

Good luck, I wanna see pics.

 

[5.0Torx]

Never say never, but...

I had a '83 F250 with the 300 six cylinder in it. This was at the same time i had my 5.0. This is the only reason im replying to your post. Ive had both. Trust me when i say, each engine was in the right vehicle. Putting the 300 in a fox body, for a high performance application, is just backwards. Yes, you have more torque. From 1000 to 3000 rpm. From there on, a stock 5.0 HO shows no mercy, let alone a modified one, or a 4.6.

Ive gotten into plenty of arguments over the same basic topic on ford-trucks.com. Heres some actual scientific data i used to prove my opinion.

I used the rear wheel dyno pull off of one of the guys on ford-trucks.com with a later-model fuelie 300 versus my own 5.0s dyno graph. I then compensated (20% for his auto, 15% for my T5) the difference in driveline loss to get an estimated flywheel output. The outcome is that 2800 rpm is the magic number. Below that, the 300 is above. good for towing, not sports cars. Above 2800, the 302 just walks away. And thats a stock 5.0 fox with full exhaust. This same car is neck and neck with my brother 2000 mustang GT from any speed. It dynoed 207 rwhp and 276 rwtq.


Stick with the 5.0.

 

[5.0Torx]

Also, I dont believe the 300 is lighter than a 5.0. Its a big motor, and its all iron. The intake is iron (a 5.0 is aluminum). Its old school.

Espeically when you consider the aluminum heads, blocks, etc that you can get for a 5.0, its no contest in terms of weight.

Also, consider that the 300 has almost no aftermarket support whatsoever, compared to the 5.0.

Lets also not forget that the fox was actually designed to carry a V8, not that big ol I6.

Dont get me wrong, my 300 was great for its purpose. But itll never be a high performance motor. As you can see from my linked pictures, the 300 only out-torqued my 5.0 by 15 ft-lb. My 5.0 out-powered that 300 by SIXTY-FIVE hp...This is the result of having two more intake and two more exhaust valves. More air in = more power.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Swapping a 300 I6 into your Fox would be a big mistake IMO. You're basing your decision on bad info. The 300 I6 even if it is lighter will be marginally at best and in no way shape or form will it make any more torque or power than a comparable 302 OHV.

 

[Chuckman]

Also, I dont believe the 300 is lighter than a 5.0. Its a big motor, and its all iron. The intake is iron (a 5.0 is aluminum). Its old school.

Espeically when you consider the aluminum heads, blocks, etc that you can get for a 5.0, its no contest in terms of weight.

Also, consider that the 300 has almost no aftermarket support whatsoever, compared to the 5.0.

Lets also not forget that the fox was actually designed to carry a V8, not that big ol I6.

the 300 is DEFINITLY heavier, though the fuel-injected intakes are aluminum, and there is SOME aftermarket support, offenhauser makes 2- and 4-barrel aluminum intakes, and there are cams and headers available, but theyre all designed for truck use.

the biggest problem is just that, the 300 is a HUGE motor. length wise it would barely fit, and you'd need a big hood to be able to clear it's height. a 302 or even a 351 swap would be a much easier, simpler, and as long as you dont get crazy building the motor, cheaper endeavor.

 

[rd]

This is not a swap I would want to do. Do some searching on mounts and such for the 300. It may fit where a 302 came out of, at least for mounts and bell housing pattern.

Compare dimensions and such to the 200 in six that came in the 79 to 82 Mustangs. I think the 300 is somewhat longer, taller and heavier.

No doubt it can be done, and a 300 can be built up well, but that will be similar in cost to a v8 also.

If you are on the 300, because you like the engine, I would cut up a Ranger for it.

 

[90lxcoupe]

I am on a budget and the four banger is not enough power even with a turbo.

Have you seen what guys are doing with the 4 cyl turbo stuff? you can make those go pretty good

google huber performance

 

[njoliver]

I would like to see what a supercharged 300 would do. The little 2.3 engines are really cool too. my friend has a ford merkur and it has the 2.3 engine stock bottom end and has a cam from a ranger in it. he runs 30 pounds of boost and a 100 shot. he is making some pretty good power I not possitive but it is probably around 400 and revs really high which makes it a blast to drive

 

[Cobra912]

I wouldn't but if you would - I'd like to see it! Can't do a budget junkyard 5.0?

 

[Shaolin Crane]

dude just put a diesel in it, you'll have all the torque you need

 

[seabiscut1086]

you want a sick ass inline try importing one from australia those ford intech 4.0 turbo if its possible. if not try the next best inline 6 the toyota 2jzgte sick ass motor x10 lol i wish i had the money to do so

 

[QUICK91LX]

I love the 300-6...in a truck.

It's a good lugging, pulling engine...at slow speeds. It's an anti-performance engine. I'd also really like to know if it would even feet legnth-wise in a mustang engine bay. It takes up the better part of an F-series bay front to back

 

[raven_ghostwolf]

300 is a big six but, in 80 and 81 you could get the 200 inline six in the Mustang (can't remember what other FOX years off the top of my head n too lazy to go look it up right now) I actually had an 81 hatch that had the 200 in it. So other than the actual CID displacement inline 6 is nothing new.

I wouldn't do it if your looking for performance. If you have a donor 300, I'd try selling it and use the money towards a 5.0 or a turbo buildup on your 2.3. Just my opinion.

 

[WLDHRSE]

I knew a guy that had a 300 in a Maverick. I tried to buy that thing many times. The car was pulled off the assembly line and built for one of the corporate managers. The guy I knew bought it from him in the late-70's It had two V8 heads (don't remember small-bolck or big-block) with a cylinder cut off each then welded together by Roush. It was bored & stroked although I don't recall exact displacement. It ran oversized 427 pistons, 427 & 300 had same size cylinder bore. The intake was sheetmetal with a single Holley Dominator, and the headers were custom. I don't remember too much else except the car ran low 10's. This was in the early 90's when the Pro-5.0 cars were just running mid 9's.

300 six is one of my favorate engines, but I doubt I would ever find a good enough reason to stick one in a stang. There are some things where coolness factor over rides common sense, I don't believe this is one of them.

It will cost you more in fab work to make the 300 sit in there than it will cost to buy 302, even if you're doing your own fab work.

 

[Chuckman]

I knew a guy that had a 300 in a Maverick. I tried to buy that thing many times. The car was pulled off the assembly line and built for one of the corporate managers. The guy I knew bought it from him in the late-70's It had two V8 heads (don't remember small-bolck or big-block) with a cylinder cut off each then welded together by Roush. It was bored & stroked although I don't recall exact displacement. It ran oversized 427 pistons, 427 & 300 had same size cylinder bore. The intake was sheetmetal with a single Holley Dominator, and the headers were custom. I don't remember too much else except the car ran low 10's. This was in the early 90's when the Pro-5.0 cars were just running mid 9's.

300 six is one of my favorate engines, but I doubt I would ever find a good enough reason to stick one in a stang. There are some things where coolness factor over rides common sense, I don't believe this is one of them.

It will cost you more in fab work to make the 300 sit in there than it will cost to buy 302, even if you're doing your own fab work.

if im thinking of the same head you are, it is, iirc, 2 or 3 cleveland heads welded together. apparently the water passages dont work on it though so its a strictly race-car head. theres a guy up in the northeast who goes by frenchtown flyer (or something like that, been a couple years) that runs one in some kind of custom-built car.

 

[WLDHRSE]

if im thinking of the same head you are, it is, iirc, 2 or 3 cleveland heads welded together. apparently the water passages dont work on it though so its a strictly race-car head. theres a guy up in the northeast who goes by frenchtown flyer (or something like that, been a couple years) that runs one in some kind of custom-built car.

Someone could be doing it today, I'm not sure. The one I'm talking about was built in Jack Roush's shop in the early-mid 70's.