Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Bronco > 1978 - 1996 Big Bronco
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


1978 - 1996 Big Bronco SPONSORED BY:

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #31  
Old 07-01-2011, 10:42 AM
AbandonedBronco's Avatar
AbandonedBronco AbandonedBronco is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 4,869
AbandonedBronco has a great reputation on FTE.AbandonedBronco has a great reputation on FTE.AbandonedBronco has a great reputation on FTE.AbandonedBronco has a great reputation on FTE.AbandonedBronco has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 85e150six4mtod View Post
Just not as much as a 351w....
True enough.
__________________
1981 Ford Bronco. 300I6 Offenhauser DP Intake Holley 600 4bbl, 31" BFG A/T, NP435, 3.00 rear 9" EFI Manifolds. 2.5" high flow cat/muffler.
1984 Ford Bronco. 300I6 Offenhauser C Intake Holley 600 4bbl, 31" BFG A/T, NP435, 3.55 rear 8.8" EFI Manifolds. 2.5" high flow cat/muffler.
Supermotors Pics
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-01-2011, 02:26 PM
greystreak92's Avatar
greystreak92 greystreak92 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gateway to the West
Posts: 9,032
greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.
And if you like revving the heads off your 351 to maintain that greater torque, go right ahead... I'll get just a little less torque and stop at half the gas stations... at 2 grand the difference in negligible and the 300 does it with two FEWER cylinders. I'll re-gear or run a ZF and have enough torque to yank a house off its foundation and still have enough fuel to carry the rubble to the dump.
__________________
The only stupid question is the one you DON'T ask!

Big Bronco FAQ's

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-01-2011, 09:32 PM
ManfredVonRichtofen's Avatar
ManfredVonRichtofen ManfredVonRichtofen is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Georgia
Posts: 2,587
ManfredVonRichtofen has a great reputation on FTE.ManfredVonRichtofen has a great reputation on FTE.ManfredVonRichtofen has a great reputation on FTE.ManfredVonRichtofen has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greystreak92 View Post
And if you like revving the heads off your 351 to maintain that greater torque, go right ahead... I'll get just a little less torque and stop at half the gas stations... at 2 grand the difference in negligible and the 300 does it with two FEWER cylinders. I'll re-gear or run a ZF and have enough torque to yank a house off its foundation and still have enough fuel to carry the rubble to the dump.
Oh, and the 300 is lighter...so a plus offroad.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-02-2011, 05:42 PM
86_cookiemonster 86_cookiemonster is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 19
86_cookiemonster is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManfredVonRichtofen View Post
Dude,trust me 300s can provide HP as well as more torque if you build them correctly. If not, they wouldn't be used in drag racing.
I think this prooves your point pretty well.

YouTube - ‪6 cyl ford out pulls big block chevy‬‏
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-02-2011, 06:20 PM
Black Ford XLT's Avatar
Black Ford XLT Black Ford XLT is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Swansea SC
Posts: 829
Black Ford XLT is starting off with a positive reputation.
I surely agree with 85 on that one, I have both a 300 in my 1985 and a 351 in my 1992 Bronco. It handles good has power but top end towing sucks , plus the fuel mileage is about the same as the 351 (nontowing) . Towing in city and 55mph roads is ok, TR
__________________
1985 F-150,4x4

1992 Bronco-XLT
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-02-2011, 07:18 PM
mako5972 mako5972 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ocala, Florida
Posts: 532
mako5972 is new and has a neutral reputation at this point.
It looks like the Ford had a limited slip differential and the Chevrolet definately had an open differential. The Ford had better traction and that is why it pulled better, and not because it had more torque.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-02-2011, 07:33 PM
85e150six4mtod 85e150six4mtod is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,030
85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by greystreak92 View Post
And if you like revving the heads off your 351 to maintain that greater torque, go right ahead... I'll get just a little less torque and stop at half the gas stations... at 2 grand the difference in negligible and the 300 does it with two FEWER cylinders. I'll re-gear or run a ZF and have enough torque to yank a house off its foundation and still have enough fuel to carry the rubble to the dump.
Go back and read the links, especially the 1990 Ford brochure.

"Revving the heads off your 351...." Think the heads will pop off at 2800 rpm?

The 300 is just fine, but it doesn't outpower a 351w. If you read the OP's post he's looking for MORE lowend. Best I can figure at any given RPM the 351 is right close if not more in MOST cases, and add as little as 200 rpm and it beats the six.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-02-2011, 07:54 PM
ErrorS ErrorS is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,746
ErrorS is starting off with a positive reputation.
In the end I realized it's just a gearing issue anyways. When I have it offroad in 4-lo, it's scary how much torque goes to the wheels.. so obviously, lower gearing would give me what I'm looking for.

Edit: I'm still sorta wanting a 300 though. I've decided I'm going to try and keep my motor running for a while longer (cheating soon-to-be EX takes all my money!) when the time comes I might seriously consider a built 300. I just feel like the 351w isn't a truck motor, it just has that feeling behind it. It's a pain to work on, even worse than the wide 400 in my 78', I can't get to parts I need to when its time to work on them.. things like the rear main and the oil-pan seal are such large jobs that it's something I only wanna do when I pull the motor. Then wanting to refurbish my heads, again, too much of a job on the 351w.. I don't care how well it runs, there wont be a day that goes by I don't pop my hood for something and the 351w is just too much of a pain.
It just doesn't match my driving style or how I expect a truck to feel when I hit the gas if that makes any sense...
__________________
1990 - Bronco. 351W. E40OD

Run codes first, ask questions later.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-02-2011, 08:05 PM
mako5972 mako5972 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ocala, Florida
Posts: 532
mako5972 is new and has a neutral reputation at this point.
I have heard of people doubling up their transfer cases for super gear reduction. There was a guy on this site a few years back who did it (he called his truck Superbeast and it had a 460 putting out some serious horsepower). I saw the how to in the archives years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-02-2011, 08:23 PM
85e150six4mtod 85e150six4mtod is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,030
85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErrorS View Post
In the end I realized it's just a gearing issue anyways. When I have it offroad in 4-lo, it's scary how much torque goes to the wheels.. so obviously, lower gearing would give me what I'm looking for.

Edit: I'm still sorta wanting a 300 though. I've decided I'm going to try and keep my motor running for a while longer (cheating soon-to-be EX takes all my money!) when the time comes I might seriously consider a built 300. I just feel like the 351w isn't a truck motor, it just has that feeling behind it. It's a pain to work on, even worse than the wide 400 in my 78', I can't get to parts I need to when its time to work on them.. things like the rear main and the oil-pan seal are such large jobs that it's something I only wanna do when I pull the motor. Then wanting to refurbish my heads, again, too much of a job on the 351w.. I don't care how well it runs, there wont be a day that goes by I don't pop my hood for something and the 351w is just too much of a pain.
It just doesn't match my driving style or how I expect a truck to feel when I hit the gas if that makes any sense...
Fair enough. The inlines are easier to work on--unless they are in a VAN!!! But even then, I can't imagine trying to work on a 460 or oil burner in a van.... My current brand x truck is an inline 4--LOTS of room to work on that baby....seems it could use another 100 lb/ft though....
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-02-2011, 09:19 PM
ErrorS ErrorS is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,746
ErrorS is starting off with a positive reputation.
A guy I wheeled with for a while here had two transfer cases in his Toyota. Thing has a tiny 4-cylinder on propane and had more than enough torque to pull itself around, fully caged with 44'' crawler tires up revines and up hills and everything else, fully locked all four wheels. I can't imagine the size axles he had.. I doubt the Bronco had as much torque as he did at the wheels and with an engine far less than half the size with a huge weight disadvantage.
__________________
1990 - Bronco. 351W. E40OD

Run codes first, ask questions later.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-02-2011, 09:55 PM
ErrorS ErrorS is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,746
ErrorS is starting off with a positive reputation.
I should just do what this guy did:

Untitled Document

i'd like that center console anyways, I hate the 1990s interior with a passion.
__________________
1990 - Bronco. 351W. E40OD

Run codes first, ask questions later.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-03-2011, 03:02 AM
greystreak92's Avatar
greystreak92 greystreak92 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gateway to the West
Posts: 9,032
greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 85e150six4mtod View Post
Go back and read the links, especially the 1990 Ford brochure.

"Revving the heads off your 351...." Think the heads will pop off at 2800 rpm?

The 300 is just fine, but it doesn't outpower a 351w. If you read the OP's post he's looking for MORE lowend. Best I can figure at any given RPM the 351 is right close if not more in MOST cases, and add as little as 200 rpm and it beats the six.
I never claimed it did. I said I'll take the mileage and torque much lower in the rpm band and drive the 300 100,000 miles further than you ever will with the 351 before it needs overhauling. The point (which you missed by the way) was that the 300 does a helluva lot better developing and maintaining it's torque for many many miles more andmany gallons fewer than the 351.
__________________
The only stupid question is the one you DON'T ask!

Big Bronco FAQ's

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-03-2011, 09:22 PM
85e150six4mtod 85e150six4mtod is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,030
85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation
I see your point, I had a 300 for many years. But "rev the heads off a 351w" compared to a 300 is just slightly overstated, dontchyathink?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-04-2011, 12:12 PM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is online now
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,239
Conanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud of
Yeah that's just a little bit overstated and not terribly accurate either. High teens fuel milage is entirely possible with a 351, and there are lots of 351's out there with 300k or more on the clock so I don't see reliability being an issue either. Then factor in how cheap and easy(cam and headers) it is to get the kind of power(close to 400tq and 300hp) that a 300 couldn't approach with 3 times as much money, and it's no contest.
__________________
Paul (Conan) O'Brien

1990 5.0HO AOD XLT X-Cab F150 3.55LS, 1994 3.0L 5-sp x-cab Ranger 3.45, 2004 3.0L 5-sp X-cab Ranger Edge 4.10, 2004 2.5L 5-spd Subaru Legacy
1996 Kawasaki ZX11D, 2004 Honda 599, 2008 Kawasaki KLR650
Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2011, 12:12 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Bronco > 1978 - 1996 Big Bronco

Tags
1978, 2004, 300, 351, 351m, 370, 460, chart, curve, expedition, f150, ford, power, specs, straight, torque

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup