Wow

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

I couldn't believe it, but I recently bought a 74 Ford Car Facts Book and inside in the Torino section was a card announcing the 250 was back! Beginning with April 1st production (how appropiate!) the dealer could order the 250 with Automatic Tranny for Base and Gran Torino 2dr's only. Can't begin to imagine how underpowered that would have been. One of these days when I have enough coin, I'll have Kevin Marti run the numbers to see how many were built. Sad thing is, with so much weight to haul around, the 250 would have gotten WORSE mileage than the 302. On that I have no doubt. Even in lighter Mavericks, the 250's got worse fuel mileage than the 302's.  The MSRP was $126! 

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
MXBrougham Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List New Member Joined: 06-December-2009 Location: Wichita Falls T Status: Offline Points: 23	Post Options Post Reply Quote MXBrougham Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Wow Posted: 12-July-2012 at 11:43AM
	I couldn't believe it, but I recently bought a 74 Ford Car Facts Book and inside in the Torino section was a card announcing the 250 was back! Beginning with April 1st production (how appropiate!) the dealer could order the 250 with Automatic Tranny for Base and Gran Torino 2dr's only. Can't begin to imagine how underpowered that would have been. One of these days when I have enough coin, I'll have Kevin Marti run the numbers to see how many were built. Sad thing is, with so much weight to haul around, the 250 would have gotten WORSE mileage than the 302. On that I have no doubt. Even in lighter Mavericks, the 250's got worse fuel mileage than the 302's. The MSRP was $126!

Robbdtme Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 06-June-2012 Location: Central WI Status: Offline Points: 765	Post Options Post Reply Quote Robbdtme Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 12-July-2012 at 12:48PM
	All I can say is It surely was not a HOT OPTION. Just a marketing thing maybe since dodge was selling the 225 slant 6 like nuts.

antlerfiend Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 14-June-2010 Location: Louisville,KY Status: Offline Points: 3023	Post Options Post Reply Quote antlerfiend Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 12-July-2012 at 4:15PM
	As much as I hate to say it, those slant sixes are awesome. I would love to run across a six banger Gran Torino. I bet if they had a 300 six they would get decent mileage. Those 300's have alot of torque.
	Alex 72 GTS (Morgan's Baby) 68 CJ Drag Car Clone 65 Mustang (first car) 77 LTD II (Drag Car) 78 Mustang II V6 4 speed

unlovedford Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 17-December-2010 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 10142	Post Options Post Reply Quote unlovedford Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13-July-2012 at 2:26AM
	I've respected every inline or slant 6 I've ever owned. Most durable engine style ever made, and will still run when it absolutely should not even turn over. LOVE the Jeep 4.0 engines. Those are the best.
	Joe 1972 Mom's Squire Wagon 1972 Torino Wagon 1976 Torino 1968 Cougar XR7-First batch 1972 Torino 460 1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous Popeye and Brutus (Rams)

robot9000 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 02-September-2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 505	Post Options Post Reply Quote robot9000 Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13-July-2012 at 3:22AM
	I actually owned one !! Some guy in my neighborhood had one for sale, 74 2 dr base model. no nothing. This was 1980 and he was the second owner. He said he bought it from the next city over who used it as a municipal vehicle and they wanted the fuel economy of the 6. It was NOT fast, but it ran fine, kept up with traffic and lived with me beating the hell out of it for 5 years. For years when I would tell anyone I had a 74 Torino with a 8 cyl, nobody would believe me !! They thought the smallest engine was a 302.
	1973 Gran Torino Sport 2010 Mazda 6 2007 Jeep Wrangler 2011 Damon Daybreak 35BD

GTW Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 21-January-2012 Location: SC Status: Offline Points: 5777	Post Options Post Reply Quote GTW Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13-July-2012 at 9:12AM
	The 200 in my Maverick and the 4.0 in my Jeep have been very reliable.
	Griffin 1973 Gran Torino station wagon 1971 Maverick 2 Door Retired 60s NHRA Anglia

Rockatansky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 30-July-2010 Location: On The Road Status: Offline Points: 5577	Post Options Post Reply Quote Rockatansky Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 14-July-2012 at 10:44AM
	with a 3.91" stroke she can get the job done, 302 has only a 3" stroke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Straight-6_engine#250 "The 250 cu. in. Inline Six was an engine option offered in 1969 in the Mustang, and 1970 in medium-sized Ford cars (Maverick). The 250 was a stroked 200, made by changing the stroke from 3.126" to 3.91". Output was 155 hp (115 kW) in the Mustang, and became the base engine in 1971. Power was re-evaluated at 98 hp (73 kW) for 1972 (due to power rating changes) and 88 hp (66 kW) the next year. The last year of production for the 250 was 1980. This engine had seven main bearings, and can be identified by the five freeze (core) plugs on the side of the block. The block uses a low mount starter and six bellhousing bolts, sharing its bellhousing with the Windsor V-8s 302-351W, late (1965–68) 289, 351 Cleveland, early 4.6, and the 240-300 CID Ford Six."
	72 GT Ute

twintornados Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 23-April-2009 Location: Central NY Status: Offline Points: 269	Post Options Post Reply Quote twintornados Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 28-August-2013 at 5:20PM
	I had a '72 with a six pot in it....uber-reliable and easy as pie to work on....she was rusty, but trusty...
	Sold the Elite so now the hunt is on for my next "toy"...

am not r2 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List New Member Joined: 03-October-2013 Location: saratoga Status: Offline Points: 2	Post Options Post Reply Quote am not r2 Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 17-June-2014 at 11:06PM
	i HAD 70 torino 4 door auto with the 250..ran great not too under powered untill it got on the high way. the nice part of the set up was the bolt patturn was the same as the v8. I always wanted to grab an AOD unit and try it. lower first gear and over drive. a win win. some day.

fordpower Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 02-September-2010 Location: willseyville,ny Status: Offline Points: 1676	Post Options Post Reply Quote fordpower Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 19-June-2014 at 9:26AM
	I have an 89 van with I believe a300 6.Its a aod would it fit in my 351?

unlovedford Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 17-December-2010 Location: Tennessee Status: Offline Points: 10142	Post Options Post Reply Quote unlovedford Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 19-June-2014 at 12:43PM
	I get great mileage (for a Torino) in my '72 wagon with the 250/3 speed manual. Not sure about that Bob.
	Joe 1972 Mom's Squire Wagon 1972 Torino Wagon 1976 Torino 1968 Cougar XR7-First batch 1972 Torino 460 1989 BroncoII/Jeeps/Titanimous Popeye and Brutus (Rams)