Hi A 73 Comet has become available where I live. A wikipedia article on the Mercury Comet describes the 250 cid six as with a single-barrel carburetor and rated at 98 hp (73 kW). That hp seems a little low for a 250 cubic inch engine which I figure to be about a 4.2 liter engine. But it does not show at what rpm it reads 98 hp. Does this Comet engine have as much hp and torque as my current vehicle's engine which has: Engine Type - pushrod overhead valve 12-valve V6 Engine Size - 3.8 liters / 231 cu. in. Horsepower - 215 @ 5000 rpm Torque (lb-ft)- 245 @ 4000 rpm
Those old 250 inline sixes were known for their simplicity and their longevity not their HP. The HP rating that you found is prolly a little high at 98 HP. LOL
I would think that's correct, as the 302 was rated at 138... Not exactly powerful, but you know what they say..
Great to hear it is a reliable engine. I just spoke with an engine rebuilder. Sounds like I may be barking up the wrong tree if I expect to do what my other engine does. However, if I just want to enjoy the car, it may be just right.
Wrong....and wrong. In 1972 Ford started rating horspower at the rear wheels (net horsepower) so thats why the #'s seem low. Check 71 ratings to see what it really is...my 200 ci is rated 120 hp in 71 and net rating in 72(my year) is 95... The 250 cu in (4.1 L) straight 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, modular V-8s (4.6-5.4), and the 240-300 CID Ford Six.
Not to doubt your word in any way, I´m just more happy if it´s got more HP , but are you sure...? Robert.
Net hp ratings are not the same as rear wheel hp. If Ford used wheel hp ratings the numbers would be even lower still. It's true that Ford did go from gross hp to net hp in 1972, though. So even with no physical changes, an engine's rated hp would be less in 1972 than it was in 1971. paulie
my stock 250 would chirp the tires going into 2nd if you did it just right. These old motors are pretty strong for what they are
