Notices
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 1987 - 1996 Ford F-150, F-250, F-350 and larger pickups - including the 1997 heavy-duty F250/F350+ trucks
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

302 vs 302HO

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 01-04-2003, 07:04 AM
88bronc's Avatar
88bronc
88bronc is offline
New User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
302 vs 302HO

I've got an old tired stock 88 302 speed density that I need to replace. Don't want to go to the 351 too many extra parts. For those of you have switched from the standard speed density 302 to the 302 ho roller cam did you notice a tremendous power increase? Any increase in gas mileage? Looking at the numbers it appears you get a decent horsepower increase, but only a modest increase in torque. Essentially is the power, torque, economy increase worth the $800 I would have to spend for the mass air kit? Thanks.
 
  #2  
Old 01-04-2003, 11:15 AM
DeGideo's Avatar
DeGideo
DeGideo is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
302 vs 302HO

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-Jan-03 AT 12:19 PM (EST)]Your 1988 302 block is a roller block fitted with a flat tappet camshaft. To convert your block to use the Mustang 5.0L H.O. roller cam you'll need two other things from Ford Racing : #M-6253-A50 Roller Cam Conversion Kit,and #M-6500-R302 Roller Lifters.According to the techs there, if you use the stock, Mustang roller cam, you'll need the MAF conversion kit. Some say that you can still retain your stock Speed Density electronics, but you'll need a custom "chip" to tune it properly.They basically gave me a "guesstimate" for power figures using shorty headers& the 5.0L H.O. cam : 235-250 flywheel horsepower. Your EFI302 truck engine was factory rated at 185 net horsepower, so a 50-65 horsepower gain from adding a set of headers, and a mild cam sounds decent. Just for comparison here are the factory specs for the stock pre-'92 EFI302,flat tappet truck camshaft : 185 degrees duration intake/193 exhaust@.050" and .379" intake/.395" exhaust valve lift using a 1.6 ratio rocker arm , and then the Mustang roller cam :210 intake/210 exhaust@.050" and .422" intake/.448" exhaust valve lift using 1.6 rockers. My 1990 Bronco's EFI302 had a mild,RV-type camshaft(flat tappet)installed by previous owner(s). I'm not sure on the cam's exact specs,but my truck still has Speed Density electronics,and idles&drives fine.No stalling,or surginging, but it feels stronger than stock.To up your 302's power you might look into upgrading your exhaust system. I run a custom bent, true dual 2 1/4" system on mine, which works great! Good luck.
 
  #3  
Old 01-06-2003, 05:21 AM
88bronc's Avatar
88bronc
88bronc is offline
New User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
302 vs 302HO

Thanks for the reply. I like the extra horsepower, I just can't decide if I want to spend the extra $800. A lot of people on the forum complain about the stock 302 in a Bronco, but around town mine has decent power. My only complaint is on the highway where when cruising at 70 it doesn't have a lot of passing power. Thanks again.
 
  #4  
Old 01-06-2003, 07:29 AM
steve83's Avatar
steve83
steve83 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 9,987
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
302 vs 302HO

 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
xetrov
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
8
09-03-2008 12:44 AM
jostephy8
Engine Swaps
24
12-20-2007 12:01 AM
Tdvjensen
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
29
04-10-2007 12:25 PM
chris_567
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
4
04-10-2005 10:54 PM
SadButTrue
Performance & General Engine Building
11
10-17-2000 07:08 AM



Quick Reply: 302 vs 302HO



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 AM.