I know about those earl 300cu in motors but thought they changed.
I had a 6 cylinder F100 4x4 (took it across the Simpson). About 1980, Louisville grille. Always thought it was a Falcon motor but may be wrong about that. It had quite adequate power. Unfortunately the damn thing fell out between Birdsville and Windorah. Dropped down on the front axle and whacked the radiator. Bev sat reading for 3 hours until I chopped down a tree with a suitable curved branch and after jacking up supported the engine with ropes and chains. I then sat on the road and with small tinsnips and pliers cut the rear core out of the radiator, pinching each tube one at a time until I was left with a 2 core radiator. Refitted the radiator and drove all the way home to Brisbane with the patented branch for front mounts.
The following user(s) said Thank You: 180wannabe, PaulFH, oliver1950
Lang, I'm not Too sure..
As Paul said the early Falcon Motors had the Inlet manifold cast into the head on the same side as the Exhaust. Some time in the late 70's they went to the Crossflow head, & the early 80's to an Alloy head..
"Be who you are and say what you feel...
Because those that matter...
And those that mind....
don't matter." -
Initially they were available with US sourced 240 and 300 CID Straight-6 engines. From August 1974 the 240 CID engine was replaced with locally sourced 250 CID Straight-6 and the 300 CID was replaced by the locally sourced 302 Cleveland V-8 engines. The 302 Cleveland was a destroked 351 Cleveland built using tooling exported to Australia after the closure of the Cleveland production line. The F-100 with a 302 Cleveland model was the first Australian Sixth Gen to receive an automatic transmission as an option, the six cylinder powered models and the larger F-250 and F-350 were limited to a four-speed manual. The Canadian built 4x4 F-250 was added to the lineup in 1975 with the 300CID Straight-6 engine to supplement the locally assembled rear-wheel drive F-100, F-250 and F-350.
The 250CID Straight-6 was upgraded with a new crossflow head and rebadged as the 4.1 litre, increasing power and lowering emissions to meet new legislation being introduced in Australia. At some point during 1976, the GVM of the F-100 was quietly increased from 2,586 kg (5,701 lb) to 2,770 kg (6,107 lb) ahead of the release of the 1977 specs. In 1977, a locally assembled 4x4's F-100 with Australian built engines was added to the lineup to replace the fully imported 4x4 F-250.
In 1978, the 351 Cleveland V-8 replaced the 302 Cleveland V8 in the F-250 and F-350. The 302 Cleveland continued alongside the 351 Cleveland in the F-100. The 4.1 litre inline 6 cylinder continued to be sold across the range. In 1979, the 302 Cleveland was discontinued, leaving the standard engine as the 4.1 litre Straight-6, with the 351 Cleveland (badged as the 5., as the only upgrade, except the F-100 4x4's which was only available with the 5.8 litre V8. The F-250 and F-350 had an automatic gearbox as an option for the first time in Australia, though still only on the V8 engine.
Engine Years Power (SAE net) Torque (SAE net) Notes
240 CID Straight-6 1973–74
250 CID Straight-6 1974–79 106 hp (79 kW) @ 3500 rpm in 1975 190 lb⋅ft (258 N⋅m) @ 1400 rpm in 1975
300 CID Straight-6 1973–77 117 hp (87 kW) F-250 4x4 only after 1974
302 CID Cleveland V8 1974–79 130 hp (97 kW) @ 4000 rpm in 1975 224 lb⋅ft (304 N⋅m) @ 2200 rpm in 1975
351 CID Cleveland V8 1978–79
The 240ci engine is a bit bigger and heavier than the Falcon engine,I have always known them as a Canadian engine.I had one in a civilian 1970 F250 I once owned and worked hard,it was powerfull enough in it but you have to baby them a bit or they spit the rings out between 40 to 50,000 miles which mine did twice, in the F250 that is.When I went through the ARN lists at the War Memorial there weren't many D series that hadn't had an engine change or two.My D series had 57,000 mile on it when I bought it and its army fitted replacement engine was fairly worn in the bore in a bad way as the top rings were broken on all the pistons and had been for a long time.The annoying thing about it is Ford had an identical 300ci engine which was optional and from what I have seen of them in farm trucks was marginally more reliable,the gearbox and diff are unbreakable in the army D 400 so the extra power would not have been a problem.But I guess that the bean counters didn't want to pay the extra couple of dollars to option up to the 300ci.You would probably attract a fair bit of attention doing burnouts in a hotted up D400 at the traffic lights on a Saturday night cruise with the missus.The pictures that Tommy K put in show just how good looking they are maybe I am biased though.Cheers Ken
I have an ex-army D Series, it is a D911 and has the 6 cylinder Ford slanted diesel. It starts first crank, even if it is the middle of winter here in Bathurst and has not been run for 12 months. It is a nice little truck around the paddock, but it sits pretty hire compared to the D400, the 400 has 16" wheels and the 911 has 20" with 10:00 tyres.
Similar to Lang, brings back memories, They were the first truck I drove at the Cultana Traing Ground whilst in the army. A great little truck.
I then moved on to the WW2 Studebakers, a much more demanding vehicle!.
The following user(s) said Thank You: 180wannabe, Lang
Seems most manufacturers took Aussie customers for mugs, most evident in Aussie assembled trucks with poor build quality. I drove a 3 ton D series (past its use by date) in London. Lack of power from the slant diesel only showed on the open road and I was probably something of a menace in traffic, encouraged by the good handling and steering, ending up smashing the great "elephant ears" mirrors zooming up lanes, oh well.