came across a 33 plymouth with a 255 in it i haven't been able to find much on the 255 were they that bad......is it the same as a 351 with less cubs??....i guess i need a tongue lashing..
If you mean the 255 SBF, it was an attempt to build a small V8 that made smog standards with decent mpg, in the pre-electronics era...much like the Chevrolet 262 and 267. Not worth doing anything with it, IMHO.
It is a smaller 302, part of the Windsor family if I recall correctly. The 351W has a taller deck height. I also agree it is not worth building besides a good running engine to get around. For peformance, just get a 302 or 351.
Garbage. Had one in a Ranchero. Looks like a early '80s 302, but with tiny ports. No power, no torque, replace right away... I remember correcly the flexplate has a odd weight on it, so replace that for one that goes with a 302 or 351 too, if you are going to do a swap.
so in the mean time could i dress whats there with 302, headers, valve covers, intakes, etc....until the 255 goes to hell....then swamp in the 302
No, not the intake. You'd have a big step in it where it goes from the regular sized intake ports to asthmatic cylinder heads. I wouldnt waste any time or money on it. Leave the good parts laying on a shelf untill you can put them on a better engine...
What Metalshapes said!! The 255 was a debored 302 (no you can't bore it out to make a 302 out of it). The inake ports are oval shaped instad of the rectangle shape the 289, 302's had, the heads also have tiny valves, and small combustion chambers so 302 head swap won't work. I wouldn't waste the time of putting a 4bbl intake on it, the port mismatch is way too much. I'd run a 350 2bbl on the stock intake. You can dress it up with valve covers, and headers, but it's still a turd. When you replace it get a complete 302, or 351W with the right flexplate, and balancer.
I would run it for now. (its a weird engine, and weird is cool right?) but once it dead just get a 302.
The 255 ci ford V8 produced 115 to 122 hp but when equiped with the variable venturi carburator they got relatively good milage. It would work well in a light weight weight 33 plymouth. I would just enjoy it untill you can round up a good replacement that would get as good or better milage with better performance. The plymouth weighed less than 2500 lbs and had 70hp. I'll bet that the 255 ford gets way more miles per gallon that the plymouth 6 that came in it and it well keep up with traffic on the freeway. The 255 Ford when equiped with the variable venturi carburator were capable of 27 mpg on the highway. Dick
What is the difference between this 255, the 260's used in the Sunbeam Alpines and the 289s? I also had a take out 247 or something like that that came from a LM Capri and have heard of other really small CU Ford v-8's. Too numerous to list? Gary
the 255 has a smaller bore and stroke than the 302. and the heads if i remember right had smaller valves and ports than a 302.. Usage The 255 V-8 Ford engine was a 302 engine the company scaled down by reducing the bore and stroke, thus making the cubic inches smaller and reducing horsepower. It went in the Mustang, Capri, Thunderbird, LTD and in some lighttrucks. Technical Specs The base Mustang used the V-8 255 cubic-inch engine with a two-barrel carburetor. The fuel and air mixture had a 8.8-to-1 compression ratio at ignition. The engine produced 119 horsepower and 194 foot-pounds of torque, or pulling power. Performance The Mustang with this engine had a top speed rating of 108 miles per hour. Its standing-to-60 mph time was an anemic 13 seconds, and its quarter-mile time was 20 seconds, which was 75 miles per hour. Even with reduced power, its fuel economy was not great, at 10 mpg in the city and 14 mpg on the highway. Read more: 1980-82 Ford 255 4.2L Specs | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_7697243_198082-ford-255-42l-specs.html#ixzz1cV6M5oL5
What's bad about the 255 is the intake ports are just way too small for just about any size engine. A set of 260 cylinder heads on the 255 would be a major upgrade (provided that the valves don't hit the cylinder walls or the top of the block). The 255 is 3" stroke (same as a 302) but with a 3.68" dia bore.
I had a couple of 260's as well... Rockin' little motor, specially if you compare it to the turd of a 255. It had smaller valves than a 289 as well, so who knows, maybe 260 heads would work on a 255. But the 260 had the same bore as a 289 and just a smaller stroke. maybe thats wat made it a nice little engine. Seriously... I wouldnt spend the money on gaskets, or the time to try and improve the 255. Like putting headers on it. You'll just have to do it all over again once you replace it. ( which I'm pretty sure you will...)
Correction. 260 did not have the same bore as a 289, but it was close enough to it that you could use 289 heads... A quick look at the wiki page shows that even the 221 had more power than the 255. So if the 260 heads wouldnt work, then the 221 heads might. ( really close in bore sizes too ) You'd basically be building a stroker 221.
Funny thing.. I like the idea of a perky 221, it would be like having an updated flathead sized engine. Small size and perhaps good mpg. Another thought... how "hot" were the Falcon Sprint 260s? What did they spec out with? Gary
"Hot" is a relative term. Compared to the 170 six it replaced, the 260 (two barrel, 164 gross hp) was pretty stout. Compared to any car with reasonable performance of the last twenty years or so, it was hopelessly slow. Of course, there is plenty of upgraded technology available now that could make one go like stink if you were so inclined. It might even look almost stock.....
I don't think the 255 Ford should be thrown in the same pile as the 301 Pontiac. It's rather more like the 273 Mopar and it's bore is actually larger than the Mopar. After all it's the 3" stroke of the 302 and a bore roughly halfway between a 221 and a 260. Can't help but think a set of heads and the HO cam from a 5.0, shorty headers and a small four barrel mounted on a Performer would really wake one of these up.
In 1980, a very urgent need to meet EPA CAFE standards led to the creation of the 255 cu in (4.2 L) version, essentially a 302 with the cylinder bores downcored to 3.68 in (93.5 mm). Rated power (SAE net) was 115-122 hp (86-91 kW), depending on year and application. Cylinder heads used smaller combustion chambers and smaller valves and the intake ports were ovals whereas the others were rectangular. The only externally visible cue was the use of an open runner intake manifold with a stamped steel lifter valley cover attached to its underside, giving the appearance of previous generation engines, such as the Y-Block and the MEL. It was optional in Fox chassis cars including the Mustang and corporate cousin Mercury Capri, Thunderbird, Fairmont, and standard equipment in the Ford LTD. Some variants (i.e. Mercury Grand Marquis) were fitted with a variable venturi carburator which were capable of highway fuel economy in excess of 27 MPG. Poorly received due to its dismal performance the 255 was dropped after the 1982 model year.
I see a lot of get a 302, hell if you are going to spend money on another Ford get a 351 Clevland. Way better engine, lots more grunt.
I had a Capri with a 255. Wouldn't spin a tire on a wet street. I put a Ranger 3.73 rear in it then it would. Mpg went to hell but with turbos and dumps it sounded good.
Thinking outside the box here. Why not get a 302 Mustang Paxton supercharger kit and bolt it on? Get some more HP out of the 255 and when it blows up you can use the supercharger for the 302 you are going to put in. And of course with a supercharger it will blow up all the sooner. Win - win! Next question how does the Ford fit the Plymouth? I know the Ford small block is a narrow engine and all the pre 55 Plymouths have clearance issues because they were never designed for a V8. Maybe the Ford will fit easier than the Chev or Dodge V8s?
The Jalopy Journal
