I thought so. The 240/250 has a separate intake and I think is much longer than the 200. I thought about trying a 200 just before I rebuilt my last 195.6. I just figured it wasn't worth the trouble at the time to change everyting since there was't any real power difference. But that was at least 10 years ago. I had trouble finding the right water pump then, after two that weren't right (but were 195.6 pumps -- the first an older four bolt model, the next the right housing but the long shaft for a Classic) I sent my old one in to be rebuilt. Took a week, but I already had the shortblock and head rebuilt, put the new pump on as a precaution since it hadn't been changed in a while. Good thing!! Getting one now, especially on the road, would have to be tough!! -- Frank Swygert Publisher, "American Independent Magazine" (AIM) For all AMC enthusiasts http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html (free download available!) -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: RHallack <rhallack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Frank > > Way back in the late 60's~early 70's, I spent a lot of time with the > Ford 6's. > You're correct. The 250 is a different block. Similar deal to the AMC > 4.0/4.2 litre. Larger bores ( 3.50 vs 3.68 iirc) cast in and a different > cam to clear the rod bolts for a longer stroke. Also with the 250, it > shares a common tranny bolt pattern with the old 289, 302, 351 where as > the 170/200 have their own. > -- > Ron Hallack > > http://www.namdra.org/ > > > !! NAMDRA OFFICER / MEMBER # 2923 !! > In Carol Stream Ill.