Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 06-18-2004, 10:39 AM
Blue2 Blue2 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 25
Blue2 is starting off with a positive reputation.
5.0L vs 5.8L (302 vs 351)

Hi all;

I'm looking at buying a '93 E150 with a 5.8L that has a broken rod. Right now I'm exploring options for a replacement engine. I've heard that the 5.8 gets significantly poorer fuel mileage than the 5.0. Is this true in your experience?

I presently own a '92 E150 with a 5.0, and it's a great truck, but the body is rusting away, and it's impossible to get body parts for this 'orphan' body style. So I'm wondering if swapping the 5.8 for a 5.0 is worthwhile, and what parts beside the engine itself would need to be replaced.(i.e. the ECU? Exhaust/intake parts?, etc)

Pete
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-18-2004, 11:46 AM
Jimbo302's Avatar
Jimbo302 Jimbo302 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 677
Jimbo302 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
No, Yes, and not much. The intake is different, but much else is a direct swap.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-18-2004, 11:51 AM
Blue2 Blue2 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 25
Blue2 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Thanks for the reply! If there is not a significant difference in fuel economy, then why do you think the swap from 5.8 to 5.0 would be worthwhile?

Pete
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-18-2004, 11:56 AM
Jimbo302's Avatar
Jimbo302 Jimbo302 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 677
Jimbo302 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
More torque, power to haul that heavy van around.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-18-2004, 12:13 PM
dougg dougg is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 94
dougg is starting off with a positive reputation.
Below is a list of parts that are different between the 351/302. Someone correct me if I am wrong..

Flywheel
Harmonic balancer
Intake manifold
Exhaust manifolds
Exhaust Y-pipe (it is wider for the 351 so you may be able to modify it)
Accessory mounting hardware. (anything that bolt to the heads.)
Computer (some say yes some say no)


From what I have read the 351w has allot more torque, but gets about the same gas mileage. Providing you are nice to it. I say get the 351w rebuild... But I can understand that you have a good 302. You have all the parts needed for the swap(providing both have auto trans), so it would not be that hard or expensive.

Good luck..

Doug
__________________
92 F150-302-4EOD Auto-Nite supercab LongBox.
Bassani Y-pipe W/Cat flowmaster force II cat back
Front leveling springs

99 Isuzu Trooper
94 Pontiac Grandprix 3.1
04 Searay 180 Sport!

Last edited by dougg; 06-18-2004 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-18-2004, 02:14 PM
Blue2 Blue2 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 25
Blue2 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Thanks for another helpful reply. I'm not sure I want to totally disable my present van, which is why I'm weighing options. I'm leaning towards a remanufactured 5.8, unless I can find a good used one. Any major differences from 93 to the later models? That is, if I have the original 93 with it's peripherals, would a 5.8 from say, 98 present any problems?

Pete
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-18-2004, 02:40 PM
Jimbo302's Avatar
Jimbo302 Jimbo302 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 677
Jimbo302 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
In 95 they started changing them to hyd roller cams. Mass air came along in there somewhere too. The last year you will probably find one will be 97 in an HD truck. There should be no problem, as a 69 model longblock would work. The electronics are your main issue.

Last edited by Jimbo302; 06-18-2004 at 02:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-18-2004, 03:18 PM
Blue2 Blue2 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 25
Blue2 is starting off with a positive reputation.
So the 5.8 had been totally replaced by the newer genration stuff by '98? Not much chance of finding a low miler then.

Pete
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-18-2004, 04:51 PM
calazo's Avatar
calazo calazo is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bogota, Colombia
Posts: 280
calazo is starting off with a positive reputation.
Arrow I think you'd better fix the 351...

I am considering an engine swap myself and from what I've heard, the 351 (5.8) engine is better. I have actually driven both and yes, there is a big difference in power but the 302, despite being smaller doesn't get much better mileage. In fact, the 302 is more of a Mustang-like, car engine, unless modified is actually inferior than a 300 I-6 (which I have right now). Just ask Kemicalburns at the 1980-1996 Bronco forum, he did the swap (302 to 351W) and actually improved his mileage. In any case, it is a rather easy swap and the tranny bolts right on...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-07-2004, 09:02 PM
MustangGT221's Avatar
MustangGT221 MustangGT221 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Topsfield, MA
Posts: 14,944
MustangGT221 has a good reputation on FTE.MustangGT221 has a good reputation on FTE.MustangGT221 has a good reputation on FTE.
The 351 has a longer stroke (more torque) than a 302. The block is also built stronger and will withstand more punishment (supercharging/high hp).
__________________
Justin
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 393ci stroker, 5 spd, 6" lift/35s
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-08-2004, 12:03 AM
pfogle's Avatar
pfogle pfogle is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oak Harbor, OH
Posts: 8,122
pfogle has a good reputation on FTE.pfogle has a good reputation on FTE.pfogle has a good reputation on FTE.
patfogle DaPocky
My dad's 1988 302/AOD/3:55 gets 16mpg on the highway
MY 1992 351/E4OD/3:55 gets 13 to 15 on the highway depending on speed. I got 13.5 mpg at and average of 80 mph on the way home from st louis in march.
__________________
1996 F150 Regular cab, SWB, 4.9. 5speed.
- Curiosity is the root of learning. Be curious, and in turn share what you know with the curious.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-08-2004, 01:55 AM
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.
The 351W has a taller deck height than the 302. Since the deck height is taller, the stroke is longer. The banks are further apart because of the taller deck height. They are very similar engines. The 302 will have to work harder to move the truck than the 351W will. There is no replacement for displacement.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-08-2004, 02:03 PM
MustangGT221's Avatar
MustangGT221 MustangGT221 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Topsfield, MA
Posts: 14,944
MustangGT221 has a good reputation on FTE.MustangGT221 has a good reputation on FTE.MustangGT221 has a good reputation on FTE.
RPM for RPM, a 351 will burn a little more fuel because it's a bigger engine.

But the extra power means the engine doesn't have to work as hard (less fuel)...

As a good rule of thumb, the 351 will get better mileage on heavy loads/towing, and better mileage on accleration. The 302 will get better mileage just cruising along at a given speed.

There are so many variables it's hard to compair, you can't say my 302 gets 16 mph and my dad's 351 gets 10 so the 351 is worse. There could be things wrong with my dads truck (and there are) causing it to get poor mileage. The only way to tell is when they came off the assembly line and were new.

I dont think the mileage difference between a 302 and 351 should sway your decision to use either engine....the difference is too close to make it a factor.
__________________
Justin
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 393ci stroker, 5 spd, 6" lift/35s
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-08-2004, 02:15 PM
Blue2 Blue2 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 25
Blue2 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Thanks for all the replies. I may have found a relatively low mile (120000KM) 5.8l in a wrecked plow truck. It had an oil pan leak (rust), so the yard owner is going to fire it up and measure the oil pressure etc. I'll probably take it to the local rebuilder for a once over before I install it. I'm considering putting a set of headers on it as well, any recommendations?

Pete
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-08-2004, 02:29 PM
Kemicalburns's Avatar
Kemicalburns Kemicalburns is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: OregonCity,OR
Posts: 13,367
Kemicalburns has a very good reputation on FTE.Kemicalburns has a very good reputation on FTE.Kemicalburns has a very good reputation on FTE.Kemicalburns has a very good reputation on FTE.
go with shorties, gibson, jba, edelbrock bassini are all good . if you go cheap in this area you will have problems with leaks .

good luck
late
__________________
-- FOR SALE g
94 XLT 357/E4OD/Warn HS9500I
6"ProComp Stage II 35x12.5x15 BFG AT's
4.88 gears/Aussie Front/rear open
Edelbrock efi intake JBA shorty,CustomY pipe/exhaust
http://www.supermotors.org/registry/...il.php?id=4158
Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 02:29 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'95' 5.8L exhaust manifold sonsila 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 34 12-05-2012 11:22 PM
'95 5.0L swap for a '92 5.8L? Fungus232 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 12 05-09-2012 07:50 PM
Is a 5.0L flywheel the same as a 5.8L flywheel RustyBarnard Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W) 10 08-09-2011 05:09 PM
79 f150 400 to 5.8 engine and tranny swap dsd Engine Swaps 27 09-29-2009 11:26 AM
Ford Racing Mass air conv. kit? dvldog458 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 21 06-06-2008 06:38 PM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)

Tags
1996, 50, 50l, 58, 58l, bronco, deck, difference, ford, gas, height, hp, milage, mileage, vs

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


Participate In The Forums

Create new posts and participate in discussions. It's free!

Sign Up »





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 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. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup