2007xl50

I was looking at Camaro's on the local CL as I always do. I came across a 8? sport coupe that was beat and rusty. There was an engine pix and I see one chrome valve cover so I think to myself-sweet an Iron Duke car. NOPE it was a 250 out of a 6? Nova. Not sure what trans is in it. It did say it was a 2.8 car. I cannot post a link here from work, but it's on the Youngstown OH CL under cars by owner-search by Camaro.

Just thought you guys might get a kick out of it. The 250 is not a bad old engine, but I just did not see the point of it over a 2.8.

novaderrik

they are pretty torquey and get pretty good mileage with 3.08-3.42 gears.. they are also a smooth running engine- you probably wouldn't even know it was running unless you looked at it and saw the pulleys spinning.
i bet it's a pretty awesome cruiser.
and you can get all sorts of go-fast goodies for them, if you feel so inclined..

sofakingdom

iTrader: (1)

What a pile of crap...

Talk about AHELLUVALOT of maze, and no cheese at the end.

The thing that surprises me is how they managed to get a radiator and a fan in there... that old turd is roughly 9" longer, front to rear, than a small block V8.

Sure they had lots of torque; about 250 CID of it. Same as 250 CID from any other motor. But, no HP, due to no RPM capability, like all similar in-line 6s with 6 crank throws; tached out at 3000 RPM. What a pile of dung.

And as far as gas mileage, that's a myth. Those didn't get all that much better than a V8. For a more modern example, I have 2 Cheep Bland Cherokees sitting in my driveway ATM, one with the 4.0 (~244 CID) and one with the 5.2 (318). The 318 gets 14 - 15 mpg pretty regularly; the 4.0 16 - 17 under the same conditions. Kinda sucks to give up about half the 318's already inadequate horsepucker, just to get a 10% increase in gas mileage.

But hey, it's whoever's car, and they can do what they want; to them obviously it's not (or at least, at the time, wasn't) a bad idea. Not sure they still feel the same though, after the fact. It'd be interesting to find out how satisfied they are with the fruits of their labor.

2007xl50

It will end up at Pull A part. There was a rought looking 85 SC for sale on the same CL with a "built" 350 in it. The car was in orange primer, hole cut in the hood, nasty chrome wheels on the rear with stock 14's on the front. Think Joe Dirt 3rd gen. The guy wanted like $2k or so for it. Well this past weekend I was at the Akron Oh Pull A Part and the same 85 SC was sitting there with no engine or trans-seems he pulled the driveline and junked the car. Besides being ugly the car was very rust free and nice. I ended up getting the decklid off of it for my RS.

Seems people make these Joe Dirt looking Frankin3rd gens and then try to sell them for what an Ok stock car would go for, but they never seem to sell around here.

Yeah I agree that having a 6 cyl is not that much better if at all for MPG. My one buddy had an 02 F150 with the 4.2 v6 auto in it and it got worse MPG then the same truck with a 4.6 V8 in it.

ex-x-fire

The picture is missing the radiator area.

AutoRoc

iTrader: (1)

Curious what it weighs compared to my Vortec 4200 inline 6... a lot of people say a 6.0 vortec gets better mileage than the 4200... Haha I am to prove them wrong.

Atilla the Fun

With straight sixes, there's more difference between carbureted and port injected, than with V8s. Ideally you'd figure out a fabricated intake manifold, then butcher 6 QuadraJets into 6 single-barrel carbs. With some straight-sixes, you might incorporate a couple of DualJets. A 250 is unlikely to make any more peak TQ or average TQ than say a Ford 4.0, but the 250 is likely to make much more torque at 1200 RPM. How this is good? It lets it pull taller gearing. But that alone is no guarantee of more MPG, even without the issues of dynamic compression, combustion efficiency, or mixture distribution. And we haven't even side-swiped the matter of fixed spark control versus infinitely-variable computer-controlled advance. The modern 4.2 is fine, as is the 2JZ, the RB26DETT and a few others. But a 250? Scrap.

novaderrik

you can't compare those old inline sixes to their more modern counterparts...
yes, it's true that they don't rev- but they weren't built to do that. it's best to think of them more like industrial engines that live at one rpm.
they were built to be simple, reliable, smooth, dependable, and efficient.. and they are very good at what they were built for.

the newer sixes are built to work over a broader rpm band, and as such they are a compromise all around. you couldn't pay me to put one of those new high tech 4200 Trailblazer engines in something that i wanted to use as a daily driver, but i would definitely consider an old school I6.. the best engine Ford ever made was the 300 I6, and they put those in 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks until 1996...

as for my personal experience with the old Chevy I6 engines: i used to know a guy that had a 66 Chevelle 4 door with the inline 6 and the 3 on the tree... i tried to lug that thing down and kill it, but it wouldn't happen... side stepping the clutch at idle in third gear at a stop sign only resulted in the car puttering forward, and you didn't even know the car was running until you hit the key to start it and you got that awesome grinding noise..

my other I6 experience was a 66 Ford 1/2 ton 2wd pickup with the manual trans that i had about 20 years ago.. i couldn't lug that engine down even with the camper in the back, and it knocked down mpg numbers in the high teens after i pulled the camper out of it..

Atilla the Fun

I can't abide calling a carbureted straight 6 efficient, for reasons I already posted. I had a '74 Nova with the 250, and well-tuned it never topped 22 MPG, with a wide-ratio 3-speed manual and a 2.73:1 axle. My white '78 Camaro 305 / TH350 / 2.41:1 topped 26 MPG several times. To compare theoreticals: 250 x 2287 / 3456 x 0.3 (VE) =49.6311 cfm vs 305 x 2218 / 3456 x 0.3 = 58.7231 cfm. Anyone wanna claim that big of a discrepancy is simply aerodynamics? Of course it would be more telling to have had both at the same time, do an engine swap, and repeat the tests, but these days nobody cares enough. I'd put a swirl-port 4.3 against a 250, no hesitation. Carbureted straight sixes are scrap, and not one of them can touch the 4.3 in any meaningful way.

2007xl50

I agree that the old inline 6's are tanks, but my thing was if you are going to pull a 2.8 and have to mod or make new motor mount why not just install a v8? Hell if you want to say with a 6 then pick up a cheap 2.8 or 3.1 and bolt it right in. Also I don't think the listing says what trans is in the car, but IIRC the 700R4 that was bolted to the 2.8 will not mate to the 250. The car is not super far from me and if I cared more I would go see it just for kicks. The way the market is around here I see this car not selling fast and the guy will have to about give it away.

Richboll

I couldn't find that one so it might have been sold but what's going on in that part of Ohio. Is there something in the water?

Check out this one from the same area. In "costume" no less

http://youngstown.craigslist.org/cto/3628473857.html

Atilla the Fun

As far as transmissions go, bolting up a 250 is the same as the 350 from the same year. So the 700R-4 from any 305 should bolt right up, but might push the engine into the radiator. I'd prefer a 3.4L from a '93-'94 F-car.

novaderrik

the guy probably had the I6 laying around- which makes it the easiest swap candidate.. a 700r4 for a V8 bolts right up to it, with the trickiest part of the whole swap probably being figuring out how to hook the tv cable to the 1 barrel carb..
the rwd 60 degree 2.8/3.1 V6 engines just aren't very good, either, since they were stuck with the craptastic cast iron heads with the inline valve arrangement.. and if one dies and you've got a good running old school I6 and a rwd V8 700r4 laying around then you might as well put it in. that thing would just be putting along all nice and quiet at 1500rpm at 60mph in overdrive if you put a 2.73 geared rear end in it and it would just sip the gas in an aerodynamic and light car like a Firebird.
fast- no... fuel efficient and comfortable- yes.

Atilla the Fun

The problem wasn't the heads, they respond very well to porting. The problems were the lack of displacement, and the crappy upper intake manifold.

redneckjoe

that interior scared me!

SSC

8 love inline engines the ford 300 is the best gas inline ever made to date. the biggest issue with all of them is feeding the engine. they will rev just real hard to do with a small carb and most people cant tune a larger carb well enough to make it work. best thing i found for modding inlines is converting to a motorcraft 2bbl froma a 302 jetting is spot on. fuel economy like everything depends on how you drive and gearing ivd gotten mid 20's with 250 and 300's with a carb best i could get out of my injected cj was 18. but the big question is who would buy a 3rd gen for fuel economy?


Posted from Thirdgen.org App for Android

novaderrik

i'm trying to get maximum fuel economy out of my 86. well, as much as i can get out of a 305 with vortec heads, anyways.. i've had fast cars in the past- my Nova was a beast and my 84 T Type is plenty fast- but a V8 powered rwd car that gets good fuel economy is just something that appeals to me..

Atilla the Fun

No, it isn't. THE ONLY advantage your lame 300 has over a Vortec 4200 or a 2JZ or an RB26DETT is you can find the 300 at the salvage yard for $150. The 4200 still runs around $500 complete. Who would? Everyone who ordered a 2.5L, 2.8L or 3.1L. Sporty style with sporty handling is enough for some. A few took an economy version because they couldn't afford a new Z28 or T/A, but wanted something lighter than a '70s F-car, with better handling potential than any previous F-car or any Mustang ever. Back in '82 my dad's friend bought a new 'bird and a week later swapped in a 327. Far less investment than starting with an LG4 T/A. And far better for surprising other drivers. But why not a third gen for economy? The Trans Ams have relatively good aero even today, and 3400 pounds street weight with driver and fuel is still competitive with most current 4-door V6 cars. Use an AFM LS2 with T56 for up to 35 MPG, where's the complaint? Or swap a modded L67, those will also do 400 HP and 35 MPG. Similar weight overall but slightly better weight distribution, especially if you replace the lame blower with a rear turbo.

Atilla the Fun

What's uncomfortable about a 3400 or a V8? Anyway, When you combine a 2.73:1 axle with 26" tires and a 700R-4 / 4L60E, the net result wants a 454, because I've tried that drivetrain combo with everything less, and none of it was ever really happy. A stock LT1 can cruise with even less cruise RPM, but isn't happy doing it. Nor a stock LO3, nor any other engine that came like that. Having owned and driven a well-tuned 250 with a manual trans, I can state that while it feels like it makes excellent torque from idle through 3000 RPM, no way would it be happy with a 700R-4 unless you use a 3.08:1 axle. Nothing less, and it isn't rev-happy enough, in stock form, to like any more gear either.

2007xl50

Yeah there are some real winners around here selling 3rd gens, I'm lucky to have got the cars I have for what I paid for them-not perfect, but not all bustered up or a million bucks