The big long 300 can make monstrous torque. It will also keep on running long after that Maverick is a pile of rusted parts with minimal care. All of those positives may not out weigh the negatives of a really long and heavy crank that means the 300 I6 doesn't rev as readily as other motors. It's also cast iron and if memory serves the same weight as the 302 V8.
Now, the Aussie's are still using that motor in some serious applications. They've updated the head, intake, and exhaust side. They've turbocharged it and turned the motor in a monster. Numbers like 362 hp and close to 400 ft lbs of torque were produced via factory motors. Citation needed you said? Ok. I got a page right here.
The last paragraph on that page reads:
The Ford Inline six in racing
The Ford Inline six has had a small though colorful career in racing, which has increased in recent years due to the rising popularity of the motor and the availability of performance parts. The big 240's and 300's offered stronger torque at lower engine speed than most V8's of comparable displacement, while sacrificing peak power because of their square bore/stroke. The long stroke combined with the longer crankshaft creates problems at higher engine speed, and most stock cast iron pieces are not recommended for service above 5000 rpm. The engine also weighs more than a V8 of similar displacement due to the longer length. The most desirable engines are those from mid-1960s dump trucks, as they have forged steel crankshafts and high-flow exhaust manifolds.[1]
A recent yet giant step in Ford Inline six racing has been performed by McLearran Motorsports in Tucson AZ. The McLearrans, Wil and Kelly, have achieved enough notice that their 1963 Ford Falcon has been seen in several magazines and was scheduled to make an appearance on the show Pinks.
The 1963 Falcon driven by McLearran Motorsports' Kelly McLearran has been dyno tested at 323 rwhp @ 4500 rpm and 502 rwtq @ 2650 rpm. The car has run a best time of 10.89 seconds at 1/4 mile, with Kelly driving.
jstein77 wrote:
5.0 fits in just fine as well.
PS Aren't you tired of that avatar yet? It's like watching a train wreck.
IIRC 5.0 ,or perhaps it was the 289, was a rarely seen option for the Maverick GT.
There is a guy in my town who has this great looking ''Eleanor" style Maverick. It sounds hokey but it works. Similar to this with the side exhaust.
GTwannaB wrote:
There is a guy in my town who has this great looking ''Eleanor" style Maverick. It sounds hokey but it works. Similar to this with the side exhaust.
I dig the E36 M3 out of that not least of which because it's inexpensive. Yet it also pushes all the muscle car buttons without the Barrett-Jackson muscle car up charge.
"Grabber...it'll grab your wallet and still won't run"
Car Craft circa 1971
GTwannaB wrote:
There is a guy in my town who has this great looking ''Eleanor" style Maverick. It sounds hokey but it works. Similar to this with the side exhaust.
Drop it about an inch and a half, lose the stripes and those side pipes and I'd be all over that like white on rice.
Just in case anyone's feeling ambitious...
http://desmoines.craigslist.org/cto/2618945462.html
I think this is a better deal.
http://huntsville.craigslist.org/cto/2675673597.html
I had a 74 Mav. Bumpers can be swapped but its a bit of a pain. Its not just the bumpers, its the brackets and trim behind it, etc. Mine had a super-wheezy 302 from the factory and it was surprisingly quick. They're light and relatively rigid.
Versailles had 9" with brakes and its a direct swap, but good luck finding one for under $1000. You have a couple more GRM options. The 8.8" in later explorers had discs and its only a couple inches wider. The factory 8" as also very capable, but you can get a 9" center section from an early truck with the smaller tubes and weld your tubes into the 9" center. That's how Shelby first put 9" in the first Shelby 'stangs... take the factory 8" tubes out and weld a 9" center section in its place.
The 8" diff will take some abuse though.
If its anything like my 68' Fairlane - which it should be, the handling isn't very impressive. Mustang style up front, leafs in back. Makes a great cheap cruiser though. Looks like a small torino.
Nitroracer wrote:
If its anything like my 68' Fairlane - which it should be, the handling isn't very impressive.
Given the choice, I'd take the Fairlane.
They're plenty cheap too if you just want an old cruiser. The old fords and dodges don't have the demand and price tags of the general motors brands.
I've noticed this sizeable price differential! Something like your Fairlane would certainly be on my list if I could have a second car.
