Link to an interesting read for those who like the 240/300 engine family...

[1986F150Six]

https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-ford-300-inline-six-is-one-of-the-greates-1795351528

[grumpin]

[Gary Lewis]

That's a good read.  

[Whisler]

I once read an article that claimed that the inline 6 was the most inherently balanced configuration, other than the V-10. Of course the V-12 was also that well balanced since it is 2 inline 6's joined at the crank. Don't know the truth of it, only quoting what I read.

[Ford F834]

Good summary, the one thing I don’t think is correct is the statement that the 240 CID came in cars. I believe that was the 250 straight six (I had one in a Comet) and it was substantially different than the 240 and 300’s that I’ve had.

The other strange thing is there is much speak of its torque from the long stroke... yet it is a square engine (bore and stroke are about the same). Many engines designed as pullers have a stroke even longer than the bore. I don’t think the 300 block can take any more stroke, but it would be neat if you could stroke one even more to make a sub square engine like the early Jeeps.

[Frank Wyatt]

The 240 was the base engine in many full size Ford cars like the Galaxie line until 1972 while the 200/250 was the base engine for the midsize Fairlane and other smaller Ford car lines.

[85lebaront2]

If you really want torque, the old Hudson Hornet 308 had a 3.8125 bore and a 4.5 stroke, Chevy's competitor, the 292 truck six had a 3.975 bore and a 4.125 stroke. The "big" Slant 6 had a 3.4 bore and a 4.125 stroke. It was amazing the torque Ford got from that engine. My Neighbor in Newport News had a 1968 GMC 2500 with the 305 ci V6 and a granny low 4 speed. He and I were comparing specs on that and my 1977 F150 with 300, they were pretty close, both trucks were workhorses.