Changed out oil today, did grease job and tightened my idler arm to take up excessive vertical play. Had 4.2 on oil and filter, will do a UOA and switched to 10w-30 for the winter. Topped off rear diff and adjusted belts.
OCI and oil for new (to me) driving style
- Thread starter SS1970chrysler
- Start date
- Status
Good luck to you. We had a silver '77 when I was a kid when it was new and I was newer.
Side note since you mentioned the 250. I had a 200 straight six in my first car ('66 mustang); don't know the history of these engines - are they related?
Side note since you mentioned the 250. I had a 200 straight six in my first car ('66 mustang); don't know the history of these engines - are they related?
Originally Posted By: SS1970chrysler
The Granada rides like a rock compared to my Chrysler or my mother's LTD. It also handles poorly above 60mph in traffic, but handles well at 70mph if alone on road in good weather. Only my 3 59 Fords and Edsels rode worse. When a truck is coming up behind me, it pushes the car off the road, sucks it in when passing, and then pushes it off again after passing. Just some observations.
I'll take a 250 or 200 over a 302(puke) any day. The roller version was much better.
Granada's odyssey started 2 weeks ago at 39.6k miles and is averaging 24-25 mpg combined mileage.
This car's previous job here was "spare car" duty and I used a 64 Newport for work.
I'll be using my reclaimed 10w-40 and 15w-40 in warmer months and 10w-30 in winters.
Surely you cant be serious! I had a 75 Granada (5 years old at the time) and mine had the 302,I drove a friends with a 250. That thing couldnt get out of its own way!
The Granada rides like a rock compared to my Chrysler or my mother's LTD. It also handles poorly above 60mph in traffic, but handles well at 70mph if alone on road in good weather. Only my 3 59 Fords and Edsels rode worse. When a truck is coming up behind me, it pushes the car off the road, sucks it in when passing, and then pushes it off again after passing. Just some observations.
Granada's odyssey started 2 weeks ago at 39.6k miles and is averaging 24-25 mpg combined mileage.
This car's previous job here was "spare car" duty and I used a 64 Newport for work.
I'll be using my reclaimed 10w-40 and 15w-40 in warmer months and 10w-30 in winters.
Surely you cant be serious! I had a 75 Granada (5 years old at the time) and mine had the 302,I drove a friends with a 250. That thing couldnt get out of its own way!
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Really looking forward to that UOA!!!
What 10W-30 did you use?
American XT(Warren labs), it gets the job done.
Really looking forward to that UOA!!!
What 10W-30 did you use?
American XT(Warren labs), it gets the job done.
Originally Posted By: cadfaeltex
Good luck to you. We had a silver '77 when I was a kid when it was new and I was newer.
Side note since you mentioned the 250. I had a 200 straight six in my first car ('66 mustang); don't know the history of these engines - are they related?
Yes. The 170,200,250 are in the same engine family.
Good luck to you. We had a silver '77 when I was a kid when it was new and I was newer.
Side note since you mentioned the 250. I had a 200 straight six in my first car ('66 mustang); don't know the history of these engines - are they related?
Yes. The 170,200,250 are in the same engine family.
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Originally Posted By: SS1970chrysler
The Granada rides like a rock compared to my Chrysler or my mother's LTD. It also handles poorly above 60mph in traffic, but handles well at 70mph if alone on road in good weather. Only my 3 59 Fords and Edsels rode worse. When a truck is coming up behind me, it pushes the car off the road, sucks it in when passing, and then pushes it off again after passing. Just some observations.
I'll take a 250 or 200 over a 302(puke) any day. The roller version was much better.
Granada's odyssey started 2 weeks ago at 39.6k miles and is averaging 24-25 mpg combined mileage.
This car's previous job here was "spare car" duty and I used a 64 Newport for work.
I'll be using my reclaimed 10w-40 and 15w-40 in warmer months and 10w-30 in winters.
Surely you cant be serious! I had a 75 Granada (5 years old at the time) and mine had the 302,I drove a friends with a 250. That thing couldnt get out of its own way!
I've had 3 302's and 2 351 Windsors, all of which are deceased at about 100k miles. One 351 made it to 102k. The 302's got worse mileage than the 351's and sounded like they were full of marbles at 65mph on the highway. All leaked oil like a sieve and ate timing chains & oil pumps for breakfast. The I6's are slow, but dependable. Speed limit in my travels reaches 55 and 65. My 250 is capable of maintaining both, though I choose 60mph. If I go the v8 route in anything other than a cheap beater, I get the big block.
Originally Posted By: SS1970chrysler
The Granada rides like a rock compared to my Chrysler or my mother's LTD. It also handles poorly above 60mph in traffic, but handles well at 70mph if alone on road in good weather. Only my 3 59 Fords and Edsels rode worse. When a truck is coming up behind me, it pushes the car off the road, sucks it in when passing, and then pushes it off again after passing. Just some observations.
Granada's odyssey started 2 weeks ago at 39.6k miles and is averaging 24-25 mpg combined mileage.
This car's previous job here was "spare car" duty and I used a 64 Newport for work.
I'll be using my reclaimed 10w-40 and 15w-40 in warmer months and 10w-30 in winters.
Surely you cant be serious! I had a 75 Granada (5 years old at the time) and mine had the 302,I drove a friends with a 250. That thing couldnt get out of its own way!
I've had 3 302's and 2 351 Windsors, all of which are deceased at about 100k miles. One 351 made it to 102k. The 302's got worse mileage than the 351's and sounded like they were full of marbles at 65mph on the highway. All leaked oil like a sieve and ate timing chains & oil pumps for breakfast. The I6's are slow, but dependable. Speed limit in my travels reaches 55 and 65. My 250 is capable of maintaining both, though I choose 60mph. If I go the v8 route in anything other than a cheap beater, I get the big block.
Well, I do agree with you on the timing chain, and oil leaks on the 302. But I definitely liked having more power. (the whole 129 hp that it had)
Pretty sad considering today`s 4 cylinders put out that and more.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Well, I do agree with you on the timing chain, and oil leaks on the 302. But I definitely liked having more power. (the whole 129 hp that it had)
Pretty sad considering today`s 4 cylinders put out that and more.
I believe my 250 is rated at 100hp using SAE net method. I did like the 5.0 roller version and the early 289's. All my 351W's developed a rear main bearing knock. I'd use a car with a 302/351/255, but wouldn't rebuild or restore it. They just aren't worth it to me. The "M" engine family is more up to the challenge. The small blocks had poor bearing support on the mains as the block skirting only extended to the centerline of the mains, while the others were more substantial. Your mileage may vary.
Well, I do agree with you on the timing chain, and oil leaks on the 302. But I definitely liked having more power. (the whole 129 hp that it had)
I believe my 250 is rated at 100hp using SAE net method. I did like the 5.0 roller version and the early 289's. All my 351W's developed a rear main bearing knock. I'd use a car with a 302/351/255, but wouldn't rebuild or restore it. They just aren't worth it to me. The "M" engine family is more up to the challenge. The small blocks had poor bearing support on the mains as the block skirting only extended to the centerline of the mains, while the others were more substantial. Your mileage may vary.
Well, once again, best of luck to you while driving your Granada. Your maintenance and care of this car is why it's still running well and giving you such good service
Today, I completed my all-around pre-winter inspection and repairs. Changed rear diff oil(put in VWB 75w-90), replaced broken exhaust hanger near trans, and patched a hole in right rear trunk floor extension. I noted some swiss cheese holes in tailpipe on curve just before muffler. It should hold till spring.
edit: will be changing fuel filter after some good ones I ordered arrive. All the Autozone ones leak in a short time.
edit: will be changing fuel filter after some good ones I ordered arrive. All the Autozone ones leak in a short time.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SS1970chrysler
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Well, I do agree with you on the timing chain, and oil leaks on the 302. But I definitely liked having more power. (the whole 129 hp that it had)
Pretty sad considering today`s 4 cylinders put out that and more.
I believe my 250 is rated at 100hp using SAE net method. I did like the 5.0 roller version and the early 289's. All my 351W's developed a rear main bearing knock. I'd use a car with a 302/351/255, but wouldn't rebuild or restore it. They just aren't worth it to me. The "M" engine family is more up to the challenge. The small blocks had poor bearing support on the mains as the block skirting only extended to the centerline of the mains, while the others were more substantial. Your mileage may vary.
I think my 71 Maverick 200 cid had 115 bhp.That motor had good torque, but died after the off the line performance. (just didnt pull any more after the initial start) Thats where my 302 would have kept pulling.
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Well, I do agree with you on the timing chain, and oil leaks on the 302. But I definitely liked having more power. (the whole 129 hp that it had)
I believe my 250 is rated at 100hp using SAE net method. I did like the 5.0 roller version and the early 289's. All my 351W's developed a rear main bearing knock. I'd use a car with a 302/351/255, but wouldn't rebuild or restore it. They just aren't worth it to me. The "M" engine family is more up to the challenge. The small blocks had poor bearing support on the mains as the block skirting only extended to the centerline of the mains, while the others were more substantial. Your mileage may vary.
I think my 71 Maverick 200 cid had 115 bhp.That motor had good torque, but died after the off the line performance. (just didnt pull any more after the initial start) Thats where my 302 would have kept pulling.
Last edited:
I had a '71 Maverick too but it was rated at 115 SAE gross HP. According to a Ford engine manual, the same engine was rated at 102 SAE NET. In '72, a bunch of emission controls were added and the compression ratio dropped from 8.7 to 8.3:1 and SAE Net dropped to 91 hp on the 200 (some sources show as little as 85 hp) which was largely replace by the 250 by '73.
BTW, years ago I found a great handbook for the 144/170/200 and 250 ci Ford sixes by the Schjeldahl brothers, "The Ford Falcon Six Cylinder Performance Handbook. I just checked and found it was still available from Amazon at Performanc Handbook > It a great book just to learn about the engine and getting the most from it.
BTW, years ago I found a great handbook for the 144/170/200 and 250 ci Ford sixes by the Schjeldahl brothers, "The Ford Falcon Six Cylinder Performance Handbook. I just checked and found it was still available from Amazon at Performanc Handbook > It a great book just to learn about the engine and getting the most from it.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
I had a '71 Maverick too but it was rated at 115 SAE gross HP. According to a Ford engine manual, the same engine was rated at 102 SAE NET. In '72, a bunch of emission controls were added and the compression ratio dropped from 8.7 to 8.3:1 and SAE Net dropped to 91 hp on the 200 (some sources show as little as 85 hp) which was largely replace by the 250 by '73.
BTW, years ago I found a great handbook for the 144/170/200 and 250 ci Ford sixes by the Schjeldahl brothers, "The Ford Falcon Six Cylinder Performance Handbook. I just checked and found it was still available from Amazon at Performanc Handbook > It a great book just to learn about the engine and getting the most from it.
My Maverick had no power steering,no power breaks (drum all around) and this is the car I told a story about when my friends pulled a stunt on me one night.I stayed over at my gf`s house, and they retard the timing on me (to play a silly joke) yeah,and that silly joke cost me an exhaust valve!
I had a '71 Maverick too but it was rated at 115 SAE gross HP. According to a Ford engine manual, the same engine was rated at 102 SAE NET. In '72, a bunch of emission controls were added and the compression ratio dropped from 8.7 to 8.3:1 and SAE Net dropped to 91 hp on the 200 (some sources show as little as 85 hp) which was largely replace by the 250 by '73.
BTW, years ago I found a great handbook for the 144/170/200 and 250 ci Ford sixes by the Schjeldahl brothers, "The Ford Falcon Six Cylinder Performance Handbook. I just checked and found it was still available from Amazon at Performanc Handbook > It a great book just to learn about the engine and getting the most from it.
My Maverick had no power steering,no power breaks (drum all around) and this is the car I told a story about when my friends pulled a stunt on me one night.I stayed over at my gf`s house, and they retard the timing on me (to play a silly joke) yeah,and that silly joke cost me an exhaust valve!
I had a Maverick.
A '72 2 door with 250 I6. I think half the car was made from bondo and patch panels near the end. I sold it to a local Maverick collector.
If I were to build one of these 6's, my choice would be a later 200 block with the 7 main bearings. A perk to the 200 was separate intake manifold and cylinder head. The 250 has the 7 mains, but integral head and manifold.
I am keeping an eye out for a replacement or spare work car as the 8/16 mpg on my Chrysler isn't cost effective for the distance to work should something break. Hopefully, the disposable suspension setup will last me long enough as deterioration will rapidly accelerate as the miles add up. Realistically, this Granada is my best and only available option for the next 16 months.
Knock on woodgrain.
If I were to build one of these 6's, my choice would be a later 200 block with the 7 main bearings. A perk to the 200 was separate intake manifold and cylinder head. The 250 has the 7 mains, but integral head and manifold.
I am keeping an eye out for a replacement or spare work car as the 8/16 mpg on my Chrysler isn't cost effective for the distance to work should something break. Hopefully, the disposable suspension setup will last me long enough as deterioration will rapidly accelerate as the miles add up. Realistically, this Granada is my best and only available option for the next 16 months.
Knock on woodgrain.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SS1970chrysler
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Well, I do agree with you on the timing chain, and oil leaks on the 302. But I definitely liked having more power. (the whole 129 hp that it had)
Pretty sad considering today`s 4 cylinders put out that and more.
I believe my 250 is rated at 100hp using SAE net method. I did like the 5.0 roller version and the early 289's. All my 351W's developed a rear main bearing knock. I'd use a car with a 302/351/255, but wouldn't rebuild or restore it. They just aren't worth it to me. The "M" engine family is more up to the challenge. The small blocks had poor bearing support on the mains as the block skirting only extended to the centerline of the mains, while the others were more substantial. Your mileage may vary.
No different than the SBC or other small block motors really. The 351W had the disadvantage of having huge 3" mains however, whilst the 302 did not. I've owned 4 or 5 302's, two of them having over 200,000 miles on them at this point. They are all the late model (thin-wall casting) roller engines however, save the one in my boat, which is from the early 70's.
302's (and 351's) are also the cheapest Ford engines to mod, due to their huge aftermarket support (like the SBC).
But regarding the oil leaks.... yeah, can't disagree with you there. The intake manifold end seals, valve cover gaskets and rear mains have all been problem points for me. Rubber gaskets for the Explorer fix the intake and valve cover problems permanently. I've only had an RMS leak on the one that lives in front of 5spd.
I'm a big fan of the Windsor engines, but I'm specific and that really only extends immediately to the 302HO from '87-92. They last forever, had forged pistons and rods, roller valvetrain...etc. They were cheap to build up and would handle an obscene amount of abuse.
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Well, I do agree with you on the timing chain, and oil leaks on the 302. But I definitely liked having more power. (the whole 129 hp that it had)
I believe my 250 is rated at 100hp using SAE net method. I did like the 5.0 roller version and the early 289's. All my 351W's developed a rear main bearing knock. I'd use a car with a 302/351/255, but wouldn't rebuild or restore it. They just aren't worth it to me. The "M" engine family is more up to the challenge. The small blocks had poor bearing support on the mains as the block skirting only extended to the centerline of the mains, while the others were more substantial. Your mileage may vary.
No different than the SBC or other small block motors really. The 351W had the disadvantage of having huge 3" mains however, whilst the 302 did not. I've owned 4 or 5 302's, two of them having over 200,000 miles on them at this point. They are all the late model (thin-wall casting) roller engines however, save the one in my boat, which is from the early 70's.
302's (and 351's) are also the cheapest Ford engines to mod, due to their huge aftermarket support (like the SBC).
But regarding the oil leaks.... yeah, can't disagree with you there. The intake manifold end seals, valve cover gaskets and rear mains have all been problem points for me. Rubber gaskets for the Explorer fix the intake and valve cover problems permanently. I've only had an RMS leak on the one that lives in front of 5spd.
I'm a big fan of the Windsor engines, but I'm specific and that really only extends immediately to the 302HO from '87-92. They last forever, had forged pistons and rods, roller valvetrain...etc. They were cheap to build up and would handle an obscene amount of abuse.
UOA will be posted in the UOA section.
When I was in college in 1998, a guy I was in the course with was trying to get rid of a 1983 Mercury Cougar 4-door w/a 200 I-6. It was in great shape, just needed minor stuff to get it back on the road after sitting for a while.
He offered it to me dirt-cheap (like $200), and it would have been a steal. I drove a 1986 Honda Civic at the time, and didn't think it made sense to 'go backwards' with an older car.
I really should have jumped on it, and ditched the Civic. It was a nice car.
He offered it to me dirt-cheap (like $200), and it would have been a steal. I drove a 1986 Honda Civic at the time, and didn't think it made sense to 'go backwards' with an older car.
I really should have jumped on it, and ditched the Civic. It was a nice car.
If you're interested in one of these cars, there's an '81 Granada 4dr w/200 I6 and AC for sale at a local car lot/junkyard near here. Looks like it has some garage dings, but no rust.
(at 44,600m so far) Still running the cheapo 10w-30 and if anything, only change is MPG has gone down to 20.4 combined from 21.5-22 previously. Am now trying 89 octane for a bit.
- Status