Talk:Ford straight-six engine

message: "Output was 155 hp (115 kW) in the Mustang, and became the base engine in 1971. Power was down to 98 hp (73 kW) for 1972 and just 88 hp (66 kW) the next year."
This info is wrong. The car manufacturers had to change the power measurement methode from SAE gross to SAE net in 1972.
->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower ->SAE gross horsepower.
Maybe someone who is native english speaking can correct this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.74.166 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong info

message: In the part where fourth generation inline sixes are detailed there is/was a following comment: "Pedro says his 300 has more horsepower in his crappy bronco than that. At least 4 or 500." As I'm not familiar with the 'Steward and Stevenson', I have no idea what this comment means. Can someone clarify, who this person, Pedro, is and how he is related to the subject. I find this very confusing as to me it feels like an odd, irrelevant comment...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.56.90 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More specific information needed

message: Stats for the FG Falcon Straight-6 are yet to be added. I was simply going to do this myself but thought whoever did previous ones might think i am copying their code or something.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.215.232 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FG Falcon 

message: Can someone supply a picture of the intake side of one of these engines? I think that it would be nice to clarify the manifold structure used in these motors as it is one of the special aspects of them. 
They say that because of the flow-restricting log-style unremovable intake these motors lose rapidly their low speed torque without giving much greater than standart high-end power if tried to enhance with more radical camshafts and are thus nightmare of choise for performance enthusiaths, especially the lower displacement units. I find it rather intriguing that in the basic form the 170 cid (2,8-liter) ford engine and the comparable Chrysler slant six made about the same power but due to the ford engine's handicapping intake and slant's advantage -the excessive manifold area resulting from the tilted position (allowing the usage of very well flowing manifolds)- the slant six can be tuned to put out far more power than the thriftpower ever could with it's stock cylinderhead.
By the way can someone tell does the thriftpower six have as restricting intake as the flathead v8? The flatheads manifolds make a single 180* turn but the thriftpower six's intake is longer and makes two 90* turns in different directions...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.93.188 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falcon Thriftpower six integrated intake 

message: The log head actually makes good low end torque but runs out of breath above 4500rpm. The log head  is not a bad design for a mass production street engine but is too restrictive for performance applications unless modified heavily. 
The  Australians built a very similar version of the same head but with a removable aluminum intake commonly called a Oz 250-2v head and it used to be highly sought after. The Oz 250-2V head yields about a 50hp improvement just from the better breathing ability. 
The Oz 250-2v head is no longer as sought after because Classic Inlines released a brand new modern design high swirl aluminum cylinder head with removable intake that yields about a 100hp bolt on improvement and has features that lend itself to being modernized with such features as port fuel injection. Anlushac11 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: -Thank you for the information. I was also wondering would it be possible to use this reproduction head on the 144,3cid six? My quess is that the difference of the bore makes it impossible. If such a head would be available, the 144 would make a rev happy economic powerhouse for the early Falcons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.93.188 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Log head intake 

message: I would like to know how to compute  how much horse power I have added by putting on a 390 cfm carb. hedders  and the offenhauser power intake manifold on a 300 inline ford 6 cylinder.  can you help me?  Robert Tolbert    email address  rdt1943@verizon . net  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.15.120 (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  horse power added with new equipment 

message: As would be noticed by any regular visitors to this article the entries regarding recent Australian Falcon Barra engines and FPV equivalents has been modified. I have made these modifications. The modifications were largely to update the details and slightly improve the sentence structure (which I assume is anyone's ability on this site).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.127.30 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates regarding new Falcon engines 

message: This engine was also produced in Argentina, as it is mentioned in the top - main info box. Originally there was the 144 cu in, but then the engines were gradually "souped up", until 1970, as from when -and for many years- Falcons were fitted with 188 and 221 cu in engines (also known locally as 3.0 and 3.6 litres respectively). Ranchero's pick ups also were fitted with the 188. During the '80's there was concern about mileage, and the local Ford branch developed an even more efficient version of the engine which was known as the 188 Econo-Max, which received modified intake and exhaust manifolds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.8.99 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engines in Argentina 

message: I came looking for information about Fords marine/industrial diesel engines, and were surprised that there was nothing about them here. Should the information be added to this article, or should I start a new article?PerDaniel (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Add whatever you can. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No industrial or maritime engines? 

message: There is no listing of the 3 speed manual transmissions used behind the 240/300.  They made a lot of these, especially in the mid-'60s.  I have driven a '65 with a six and 3 on the tree and a '66 that came with a six but had a transplanted 351W when I drove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.181.81 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 speed transmissions used with 240/300 six 

message: http://www.tempotopaz.com/main/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=7954&start=15
According to this link, the information about the 2.3L and 2.5L HSC/HSO four-cylinder engines being related to the 3.3L "Thrift-Power" six-cylinder may be debunked, since some people suggest the piston heights between the HSC and the Falcon Six are not exactly the same. Therefore, what gives?
WikiPro1981X (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.3L HSC, HSO Straight-4 Engines 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ford straight-six engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324085354/http://aerospecialties.com/PDF_Files/TUG_MA_Tractors.pdf to http://www.aerospecialties.com/PDF_Files/TUG_MA_Tractors.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.harlan-corp.com/NWeb/Trac_Build.asp?Key=Config&TCTMP=Yes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified