ORPHAN CARS

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:49184682$1@kcnews01...
>
>> No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but
>> the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the
>> timing chains, before you bent a bunch of valves.
>
> Huh? I have driven a 1957 Ford with a 312 with over 150k original miles
> (not my car). Plenty of 50's era Chevy and Fords running around with well
> over 110K miles. I would say that almost any engine with reasonable
> maintenance can last well past 150k miles. I've never actually had to
> replace a car because of engine problems, so I don't have any idea from
> personal experience how long an engine can last (most I've ever driven a
> car I owned from new was 150k miles).


The AVERAGE for the Ford 6 was 50K and it needed valves. 75K it needed
rings. The V-8's were not much better after they left the flatheads which
ran forever.
You talk about averages. Most Chevys never made it close to 100K.

There were people in The Bronx, NY:

That had 290's running in the high 11's, a special fond memory was the
Duo-Coil Ignition distributor, that was available for the AMC.

A lot of AMX's and Javelines came with Dana 44's, a good rear. Plus they
used the Borg Warner T-10.

Great cars, that ended too soon.

RK
" krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Refinish King" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> They were an unbelievable engine.
>>
>> 100K miles, and hardly a ridge in the cylinder.
>
> I had one of the first 100 AMX's built in 1968. I ordered it before
> production started. Spec'd it out. 390 4 spd. Changed it out and tuned it
> in a Clayton Chassis dyno at a hot rod place near the Wisconsin State Fair
> I used to go out HUNTING Corvettes (427's) and Cameros (SS 396) and
> Mustangs (500KR's) and I whip them all the time. The ONLY cars I would
> back off of was the big Mopars. Nothing street wise that GM or Ford built
> bothered me.It was a damn good engine if you understood it was NOT a Chevy
> or Ford engine and you learned what it needed. Had to get rid of those
> nylon timing gears and a WEAK timing belt. I forgot to add that you needed
> a better oil pump. I did the mods and the car constantly did in the high
> 12's in the quarter to the low 13's. With ME driving. A pro drove it once
> at hit 12.5 with it. I was more into trans-am than dragging,
>
>>>> An AMC 390 looked like a Buick motor, as did all the last generation
>>>> AMC engines.
>>>
>>> Everyone had ideas that it was somebody else's engine. It was 100% AMC.
>>> Look at the degree in the V. Nobody else was close to it.
>>>
>>>> The 327 looked unique, with wide cylinder heads, and two phillips bolts
>>>> holding on the valve covers.
>>>
>>>> No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles, but
>>>> the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as you did the
>>>> timing chains, before you bent a bunch of valves.
>>>
>>> The biggest shortcoming in the AMC V-8's were the valve guides tended to
>>> wear. But a new 390. Install aftermarket guides, an aftermarket timing
>>> gear set up, get rid of the Carter AFB, put a Holley double pumper on,
>>> put a forged steel flywheel (get rid of that aluminum crap) and tune it
>>> on a chassis dyno, change distributor springs and you add almost 100 HP
>>> to the wheels.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Refinish King" > wrote in message
...
> There were people in The Bronx, NY:
>
> That had 290's running in the high 11's, a special fond memory was the
> Duo-Coil Ignition distributor, that was available for the AMC.
>
> A lot of AMX's and Javelines came with Dana 44's, a good rear. Plus they
> used the Borg Warner T-10.
>
> Great cars, that ended too soon.


I saw a couple AMX's that ran consistently in the 10's but were not STOCK -
the mods I did didn't take it out of NHRA stock rules.

" krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:49184682$1@kcnews01...
>>
>>> No other American auto maker's engines lasted close to 110K miles,
>>> but the Rambler/AMC engines made it way passed that. As long as
>>> you did the timing chains, before you bent a bunch of valves.
>>
>> Huh? I have driven a 1957 Ford with a 312 with over 150k original
>> miles (not my car). Plenty of 50's era Chevy and Fords running
>> around with well over 110K miles. I would say that almost any
>> engine with reasonable maintenance can last well past 150k miles.
>> I've never actually had to replace a car because of engine
>> problems, so I don't have any idea from personal experience how
>> long an engine can last (most I've ever driven a car I owned from
>> new was 150k miles).
>
>
> The AVERAGE for the Ford 6 was 50K and it needed valves. 75K it
> needed rings. The V-8's were not much better after they left the
> flatheads which ran forever.
> You talk about averages. Most Chevys never made it close to 100K.

I can only go with what I know. When I was growing up my parents and
grandparents owned nothing but Fords. First Ford car I can remember
was a '57 full size Ford Station Wagon (312 V8). First truck I can
remember was a '56 F100(?) with a V-8. The truck was replaced in 1962
with another Ford truck (292 V8). The car was replaced in 1964 with a
Fairlane Station Wagon (260 V8). My grandfather had a 1959 full size
Ford Fairlane (292 V8). None of these engines needed valves or rings
while we owned them. One of my high school buddies had a 1957 Ford
with a 312 (this was circa 1969). Original engine, 150k miles. Ran
fine, didn't smoke, as far as could be told, the engine was all
original (he drove it for at least 50k miles his self). The only Ford
vehicle with an in-line 6 I ever owned was a 1992 F150. In 14 years
the engine never gave me any problems. This engine was closely related
to the 6 from the 50's. I've always heard how great those old Ford 6's
were. I've seen many of them in industrial applications, so I have a
hard time believing they were junk in the 50's.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:4919899c@kcnews01...

>> The AVERAGE for the Ford 6 was 50K and it needed valves. 75K it needed
>> rings. The V-8's were not much better after they left the flatheads which
>> ran forever.
>> You talk about averages. Most Chevys never made it close to 100K.
>
> I can only go with what I know. When I was growing up my parents and
> grandparents owned nothing but Fords. First Ford car I can remember was a
> '57 full size Ford Station Wagon (312 V8). First truck I can remember was
> a '56 F100(?) with a V-8. The truck was replaced in 1962 with another Ford
> truck (292 V8). The car was replaced in 1964 with a Fairlane Station Wagon
> (260 V8). My grandfather had a 1959 full size Ford Fairlane (292 V8). None
> of these engines needed valves or rings while we owned them. One of my
> high school buddies had a 1957 Ford with a 312 (this was circa 1969).
> Original engine, 150k miles. Ran fine, didn't smoke, as far as could be
> told, the engine was all original (he drove it for at least 50k miles his
> self). The only Ford vehicle with an in-line 6 I ever owned was a 1992
> F150. In 14 years the engine never gave me any problems. This engine was
> closely related to the 6 from the 50's. I've always heard how great those
> old Ford 6's were. I've seen many of them in industrial applications, so I
> have a hard time believing they were junk in the 50's.


The old flathead Ford engine would run forever. Same with the 4cyl Fords.
Ford was always snake-bit when it came to the inline 6. Individual
experiences vary but the V-8's of the later 50's through the 80's were not
that good. I don't know who told you the Ford 6 was great. Of course the
truck engine and the car engine were different animals. In the cars upper
oiling was always a problem. Oil passages easily clogged. Lots had to do
with the kind of oil you used. If you used a straight weight Texaco oil the
engines would be okay. If you used a Pennsylvania oil you were lucky to hit
50K.You really have to separate the trucks from the cars. Ford has always
built a decent truck with few exceptions. Their cars suck.

" krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:4919899c@kcnews01...
>
>>> The AVERAGE for the Ford 6 was 50K and it needed valves. 75K it
>>> needed rings. The V-8's were not much better after they left the
>>> flatheads which ran forever.
>>> You talk about averages. Most Chevys never made it close to 100K.
>>
>> I can only go with what I know. When I was growing up my parents
>> and grandparents owned nothing but Fords. First Ford car I can
>> remember was a '57 full size Ford Station Wagon (312 V8). First
>> truck I can remember was a '56 F100(?) with a V-8. The truck was
>> replaced in 1962 with another Ford truck (292 V8). The car was
>> replaced in 1964 with a Fairlane Station Wagon (260 V8). My
>> grandfather had a 1959 full size Ford Fairlane (292 V8). None of
>> these engines needed valves or rings while we owned them. One of my
>> high school buddies had a 1957 Ford with a 312 (this was circa
>> 1969). Original engine, 150k miles. Ran fine, didn't smoke, as far
>> as could be told, the engine was all original (he drove it for at
>> least 50k miles his self). The only Ford vehicle with an in-line 6
>> I ever owned was a 1992 F150. In 14 years the engine never gave me
>> any problems. This engine was closely related to the 6 from the
>> 50's. I've always heard how great those old Ford 6's were. I've
>> seen many of them in industrial applications, so I have a hard time
>> believing they were junk in the 50's.
>
>
> The old flathead Ford engine would run forever. Same with the 4cyl
> Fords. Ford was always snake-bit when it came to the inline 6.
> Individual experiences vary but the V-8's of the later 50's through
> the 80's were not that good. I don't know who told you the Ford 6
> was great. Of course the truck engine and the car engine were
> different animals. In the cars upper oiling was always a problem.
> Oil passages easily clogged. Lots had to do with the kind of oil you
> used. If you used a straight weight Texaco oil the engines would be
> okay. If you used a Pennsylvania oil you were lucky to hit 50K.You
> really have to separate the trucks from the cars. Ford has always
> built a decent truck with few exceptions. Their cars suck.

My family has owned both Ford trucks and cars, and were happy with
both. There were two families of Ford inline 6's in the 60's through
the 80's. The old big 6 (240, 300) was directly related to the 50's
era 6 cylinder. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about it. The
144, 170, 200, 250 "small 6 family" was originally released for the
Falcons. It was also the basis for many Australian Ford engines. I've
never heard anyone say anything bad about the US version of this
engine either, except that it was hard to modify because it had an
integral intake manifold (cast with the head).

Personally I rate either of the Ford 6's as very good if somewhat
underpowered engines. The 300 six I had in my 1992 F150 was terrific.
Better than the 302 V-8 for that application. Pulled great, ran
smooth, got decent mileage. Only real problem was the weight. If made
the truck nose heavy (weighed as much as the V-8 and the center of
gravity was further forward). If they still sold it in a truck, I'd
buy it in a minute. It is a very common industrial engine.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:4919b1a0$1@kcnews01...

>> The old flathead Ford engine would run forever. Same with the 4cyl
>> Fords. Ford was always snake-bit when it came to the inline 6. Individual
>> experiences vary but the V-8's of the later 50's through the 80's were
>> not that good. I don't know who told you the Ford 6 was great. Of course
>> the truck engine and the car engine were different animals. In the cars
>> upper oiling was always a problem. Oil passages easily clogged. Lots had
>> to do with the kind of oil you used. If you used a straight weight Texaco
>> oil the engines would be okay. If you used a Pennsylvania oil you were
>> lucky to hit 50K.You really have to separate the trucks from the cars.
>> Ford has always built a decent truck with few exceptions. Their cars
>> suck.

> My family has owned both Ford trucks and cars, and were happy with both.
> There were two families of Ford inline 6's in the 60's through the 80's.
> The old big 6 (240, 300) was directly related to the 50's era 6 cylinder.
> I've never heard anyone say anything bad about it. The 144, 170, 200, 250
> "small 6 family" was originally released for the Falcons. It was also the
> basis for many Australian Ford engines. I've never heard anyone say
> anything bad about the US version of this engine either, except that it
> was hard to modify because it had an integral intake manifold (cast with
> the head).

I was attacked by Chevy owners for suggesting that thr 3.8 liter V-6 was
NOT the best engine ever devised by any manufacturer in world history. I can
find you people who believe the YUGO was the best car to ever hit the road.
By FAR better than a Rolls Royce.That's their experience and their belief. I
can only say that the Ford 6 in cars had a dismal reputation for starving
for oil especially in the upper engine.The oil passages were too small, the
oil pump too underpowered, and it was too prone to gunk up and just starve
the valve train etc till it burned up. The engines were okay IF you used the
right oil. I would suggest that HAD Mobil 1 been available in the 60's and
that had been used in the Ford 6 the engines might have held up pretty well.
HOWEVER - if you used a Pennsylvania oil 50K was a VERY optimistic figure.
If you used Taxaco Havoline or Shell Rotella the engine performed fairly
well.You just had to change the oil and filter regularly. That 6 was just
NOT a good engine when you compare it to the Mopar slant 6 or the AMC 7 main
bearing 6 or the Hudson 6. Any of which would outlast the Ford 6 by decades.

> Personally I rate either of the Ford 6's as very good if somewhat
> underpowered engines. The 300 six I had in my 1992 F150 was terrific.
> Better than the 302 V-8 for that application. Pulled great, ran smooth,
> got decent mileage. Only real problem was the weight. If made the truck
> nose heavy (weighed as much as the V-8 and the center of gravity was
> further forward). If they still sold it in a truck, I'd buy it in a
> minute. It is a very common industrial engine.

The 6 in the trucks is NOT the same engine that was in the Falcon. It
was an OKAY engine.

" krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:4919b1a0$1@kcnews01...
>
>>> The old flathead Ford engine would run forever. Same with the
>>> 4cyl Fords. Ford was always snake-bit when it came to the inline
>>> 6. Individual experiences vary but the V-8's of the later 50's
>>> through the 80's were not that good. I don't know who told you the
>>> Ford 6 was great. Of course the truck engine and the car engine
>>> were different animals. In the cars upper oiling was always a
>>> problem. Oil passages easily clogged. Lots had to do with the kind
>>> of oil you used. If you used a straight weight Texaco oil the
>>> engines would be okay. If you used a Pennsylvania oil you were
>>> lucky to hit 50K.You really have to separate the trucks from the
>>> cars. Ford has always built a decent truck with few exceptions.
>>> Their cars suck.
>
>> My family has owned both Ford trucks and cars, and were happy with
>> both. There were two families of Ford inline 6's in the 60's
>> through the 80's. The old big 6 (240, 300) was directly related to
>> the 50's era 6 cylinder. I've never heard anyone say anything bad
>> about it. The 144, 170, 200, 250 "small 6 family" was originally
>> released for the Falcons. It was also the basis for many Australian
>> Ford engines. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about the US
>> version of this engine either, except that it was hard to modify
>> because it had an integral intake manifold (cast with the head).
>
> I was attacked by Chevy owners for suggesting that thr 3.8 liter
> V-6 was NOT the best engine ever devised by any manufacturer in
> world history. I can find you people who believe the YUGO was the
> best car to ever hit the road. By FAR better than a Rolls
> Royce.That's their experience and their belief. I can only say that
> the Ford 6 in cars had a dismal reputation for starving for oil
> especially in the upper engine.The oil passages were too small, the
> oil pump too underpowered, and it was too prone to gunk up and just
> starve the valve train etc till it burned up. The engines were okay
> IF you used the right oil. I would suggest that HAD Mobil 1 been
> available in the 60's and that had been used in the Ford 6 the
> engines might have held up pretty well. HOWEVER - if you used a
> Pennsylvania oil 50K was a VERY optimistic figure. If you used
> Taxaco Havoline or Shell Rotella the engine performed fairly
> well.You just had to change the oil and filter regularly. That 6 was
> just NOT a good engine when you compare it to the Mopar slant 6 or
> the AMC 7 main bearing 6 or the Hudson 6. Any of which would outlast
> the Ford 6 by decades.

I doubt you have proof of this. I know of several Mustangs running
around with original 200 small 6s from the mid 60s. I've never heard
anyone else claim you'd have to rebuild a Ford small 6 after 50k
miles. The engines were very common in Mustangs, Falcons, and
Fairlanes when I was growing up, and I never heard of anyone having
the sort of problems you are alluding to. My cousin ran a full service
gas station / garage. I spent many hours hanging around the garage
until I was old enough to drive. I saw them do many valve jobs on
Chrysler slant sixes (apparently they were good for burning valves)
but never even saw the valve cover off a Ford small 6. I know nothing
about Hudson 6s or even AMC 6s, I've never seen one. The small town
where I grew up only had a Ford, a Chevy and a Chrysler dealer, and
for the most part, those are the only cars you ever saw around town or
in the garage. Maybe my cousin's shop got a lot of the Chryslers that
needed work because the Chrysler dealer was directly across the
street, but I sort of doubt it.

I can find lots of articles on the Ford small 6 on line. None mention
the oiling problems you allude to....

http://www.mustangmonthly.com/techar...ide/index.html
http://www.fordsix.com/tech/engine/hopup.php - actually says it has a
good oiling system
http://www.mustangandfords.com/techa...ang/index.html
http://www.fordsix.com/tech/engine/old_250.php


>> Personally I rate either of the Ford 6's as very good if somewhat
>> underpowered engines. The 300 six I had in my 1992 F150 was
>> terrific. Better than the 302 V-8 for that application. Pulled
>> great, ran smooth, got decent mileage. Only real problem was the
>> weight. If made the truck nose heavy (weighed as much as the V-8
>> and the center of gravity was further forward). If they still sold
>> it in a truck, I'd buy it in a minute. It is a very common
>> industrial engine.
>
> The 6 in the trucks is NOT the same engine that was in the
> Falcon. It was an OKAY engine.

No it isn't (I said that myself already). But the big six was sold in
full size Ford cars (both as a 240 and a 300). The small six was sold
in compacts (Falcon, Maverick, Mustang, etc.) and intermediates
(Fairlane, Torino, Granada, etc.) and at least at times in some trucks
(if you want to call Rancheros, Broncos, and Econoline vans, trucks).
When I took drivers ed in the 60's all the driver's ed cars were big
Fords with 240 sixes. In fact, most of the non-police state owned cars
at that time were big Fords with the 240 sixes. Smooth running, but
not particularly fast.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:491addc6$1@kcnews01...

> I doubt you have proof of this. I know of several Mustangs running around
> with original 200 small 6s from the mid 60s. I've never heard anyone else
> claim you'd have to rebuild a Ford small 6 after 50k miles. The engines
> were very common in Mustangs, Falcons, and Fairlanes when I was growing
> up, and I never heard of anyone having the sort of problems you are
> alluding to. My cousin ran a full service gas station / garage. I spent
> many hours hanging around the garage until I was old enough to drive. I
> saw them do many valve jobs on Chrysler slant sixes (apparently they were
> good for burning valves) but never even saw the valve cover off a Ford
> small 6. I know nothing about Hudson 6s or even AMC 6s, I've never seen
> one. The small town where I grew up only had a Ford, a Chevy and a
> Chrysler dealer, and for the most part, those are the only cars you ever
> saw around town or in the garage. Maybe my cousin's shop got a lot of the
> Chryslers that needed work because the Chrysler dealer was directly across
> the street, but I sort of doubt it.

OKAY everything but the Ford is ****! GOT YA! Been through the same
bull**** with Chevy owners. I DON'T WANT TO PLAY AGAIN!
FOR RULES everything else is ****! This crap gets old fast. Prove it? PROVE
that cars made 40+ years ago had this or that reputation???? I don't have
the time for this.

" krp" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:491addc6$1@kcnews01...
>
>> I doubt you have proof of this. I know of several Mustangs running
>> around with original 200 small 6s from the mid 60s. I've never
>> heard anyone else claim you'd have to rebuild a Ford small 6 after
>> 50k miles. The engines were very common in Mustangs, Falcons, and
>> Fairlanes when I was growing up, and I never heard of anyone
>> having the sort of problems you are alluding to. My cousin ran a
>> full service gas station / garage. I spent many hours hanging
>> around the garage until I was old enough to drive. I saw them do
>> many valve jobs on Chrysler slant sixes (apparently they were good
>> for burning valves) but never even saw the valve cover off a Ford
>> small 6. I know nothing about Hudson 6s or even AMC 6s, I've never
>> seen one. The small town where I grew up only had a Ford, a Chevy
>> and a Chrysler dealer, and for the most part, those are the only
>> cars you ever saw around town or in the garage. Maybe my cousin's
>> shop got a lot of the Chryslers that needed work because the
>> Chrysler dealer was directly across the street, but I sort of doubt
>> it.
>
> OKAY everything but the Ford is ****!

I did not say that. The only bad thing I said about Chryslers was that
I saw them do lots of valve jobs on slant 6's (a lot being fewer than
a ten in a couple of years). I also know the slant 6's were very
popular and had a great reputation. I also remember them as the engine
of choice in gasoline powered Massey-Ferguson combines. We had MF
tractors (but not a combine) and I often talked with the head mechanic
at our dealer (an old Navy guy). He loved those engines.

> GOT YA! Been through the same bull**** with Chevy owners. I DON'T
> WANT TO PLAY AGAIN!
> FOR RULES everything else is ****! This crap gets old fast. Prove
> it? PROVE that cars made 40+ years ago had this or that
> reputation???? I don't have the time for this.

I was just pointing out that your recollection didn't match mine as
far as Ford 6's were concerned. I had no opinion of AMC or Hudson 6's
because I just never was around any of them, or even people that owned
them (well except for one guy I went to college with - he had an AMC
Hornet). I certainly don't think your claim that Ford 6's routinely
required rebuilding after 50k miles is credible. I knew to many people
who had Falcons and Mustangs with 6's that never had any problems to
think that could be true. Ditto for Chevy inline 6's. I never heard
anyone complain about those. And now that you mention it, I actually
have experience with one of those. We had a 1957 Chevrolet dump truck
with some sort of inline 6. The engine was great. The rest of the
truck, no so much (mostly bad brakes and a bad transmission). We quit
using it around 1981. That old truck sat on the edge of the woods
until last year - it even had a tree growing in the bed. We finally
parked it because the brakes and transmission were beyond fixing, but
the engine still ran when we gave up on it. And the whole thing was
worth a lot as scrap last year

Ed