make sure the starter is bolted up before you put the headers on. been there, done that, found out the hard way. it's also easier to sneek the headers in while motor still on the lift, you need the room. you don't have to bolt them up, just get them in there before you bolt up the motor mount.
Dusty--Thanks!! I imagine you just saved me a whole lot of hassle. Cheers.
i think instead of trying to design and scheme up all these ideas with superchargers and other addons and aftermarket we should take a stock EFI 300 and just try to make it flow like it should, i know some of the stuff ford used was very restrictive, this engine should put out a lot more HP and TQ then it does....when i rebuild mine (this summer or next winter) i will set out to open every thing up and make it flow better but i think i will also overbore it just cause
__________________
PROJECT---95 ford f150 4x4, 300 INLINE SIX!, 5speed, SAS, 4" lift, 35x13.50 ground hawgs (sooner or later)
DD---91 ford f150 lariat, 302 v8, auto, 2wd, rust
1)Congrats and best of luck on the new engine. hope everything goes smoothly
2)Stock for stock, the intake valve on a 300 flow about 150 cfm at .500" lift. So do the E7TE heads on 302s. I think one thing, Mr. F250 Restorer, you havent thought of is that 150 * 6 is less than 150 * 8. The 302 will always outpower the 300 because it has two more intake valves to get the air in with. It also doesnt hurt that the exhaust is a little better, since it doesnt have to all squeeze in on one side of the motor. If you seriously argue that the 300 has the same or more power potential than a same sized engine with an inch less stroke, absolutely enormous aftermarket support, and 2 more intake and exhaust valves to work with, no one will take you seriously.
3)I did an excel spreadsheet comparison of Silver Streaks EFI 300 vs my 5.0 HO. If you search youll probably find it. 2800 rpm is the magic number. Under 2800, SS's 300 was ontop. After 2800, the 300 started to level off and die, while my 5.0 is going strong and holds out til about 4800 where it, too, levels off and starts to fall.
Power obviously isnt everything, which is why you chucked the 390 for the 300. But there is no question that the 390 you took out, a 302, a 351, or whatever else is going to have more power potential than the 300. Its the same response you see in every power thread on this board. You need a foundry and a 5 axis milling machine to make the really good stuff that the 300 needs to perform well by todays standards. Dont have a foundry and a 5 axis milling machine? Well, time for plan b - whatever that is.
I have access to a 5 axis mill, anyone got a foundry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0Torx
3 things
1)Congrats and best of luck on the new engine. hope everything goes smoothly
2)Stock for stock, the intake valve on a 300 flow about 150 cfm at .500" lift. So do the E7TE heads on 302s. I think one thing, Mr. F250 Restorer, you havent thought of is that 150 * 6 is less than 150 * 8. The 302 will always outpower the 300 because it has two more intake valves to get the air in with. It also doesnt hurt that the exhaust is a little better, since it doesnt have to all squeeze in on one side of the motor. If you seriously argue that the 300 has the same or more power potential than a same sized engine with an inch less stroke, absolutely enormous aftermarket support, and 2 more intake and exhaust valves to work with, no one will take you seriously.
3)I did an excel spreadsheet comparison of Silver Streaks EFI 300 vs my 5.0 HO. If you search youll probably find it. 2800 rpm is the magic number. Under 2800, SS's 300 was ontop. After 2800, the 300 started to level off and die, while my 5.0 is going strong and holds out til about 4800 where it, too, levels off and starts to fall.
Power obviously isnt everything, which is why you chucked the 390 for the 300. But there is no question that the 390 you took out, a 302, a 351, or whatever else is going to have more power potential than the 300. Its the same response you see in every power thread on this board. You need a foundry and a 5 axis milling machine to make the really good stuff that the 300 needs to perform well by todays standards. Dont have a foundry and a 5 axis milling machine? Well, time for plan b - whatever that is.
Regarding the 302 and the 300: I wonder what torque/hp results we would get if the 300 was flowing the same volume of air through the head as the 302. Then the playing field would be a bit more even.
This is where the real issue comes into play when discussing stock engines. For the last so many years, automotive designers purposefully restricted the power outputs of I6s so that the V8 upgrade was that much more appealing. If you're looking at two trucks, and one is $5000 more than the other for the V8 package, you're not really going to jump for it if the I6 only makes the same, or even just 10 less horsepower. It's all marketing.
When you look at the other side of things and start looking at I6s that were the top of the line engine, the tables turn. You've got the Jeep 4.0, and then there's the high performance ones like the Toyota Supra. The last gen of that came with 320HP and 315TQ stock. Some have been cranked out to nearly 1200+ HP.
Comparing the 300 and the 302 is difficult because there are a lot of factors. One is that the 300 was restricted stock, a lot. This is evident by 50 - 70hp gains by doing things that could have easily been done in the factory, like coming with a 4bbl carburetor, higher flowing exhaust, better heads, etc. But they purposefully didn't. The 302 came as the high performance engine for the Mustang and then the Bronco. Of course it's going to be designed from the factory to automatically flow better.
Now, that all being the case, where this would really show is exactly what F250 said, if we could get a head on each that flowed exactly the same. If it's 150cfm per valve for the 302 (150 * 8 = 1200), and 200 per valve on the 300 (200 * 6 = 1200), get the stock internals of the 300 stronger (again, they didn't build them nearly as strong from the factory because they were restricted enough to where they couldn't even rev high enough to damage anything), and then rate them RPM per RPM, then we'd see. Until then, it's difficult.
__________________
4bbl Holley 390 w/ Offenhauser DP intake. 4 speed Manual w/OD. K&N air filter, EFI manifolds, 2.5" exhaust.
3.00 rear end and 2000 RPMs @ 80mph!
This is where the real issue comes into play when discussing stock engines. For the last so many years, automotive designers purposefully restricted the power outputs of I6s so that the V8 upgrade was that much more appealing. If you're looking at two trucks, and one is $5000 more than the other for the V8 package, you're not really going to jump for it if the I6 only makes the same, or even just 10 less horsepower. It's all marketing.
When you look at the other side of things and start looking at I6s that were the top of the line engine, the tables turn. You've got the Jeep 4.0, and then there's the high performance ones like the Toyota Supra. The last gen of that came with 320HP and 315TQ stock. Some have been cranked out to nearly 1200+ HP.
Comparing the 300 and the 302 is difficult because there are a lot of factors. One is that the 300 was restricted stock, a lot. This is evident by 50 - 70hp gains by doing things that could have easily been done in the factory, like coming with a 4bbl carburetor, higher flowing exhaust, better heads, etc. But they purposefully didn't. The 302 came as the high performance engine for the Mustang and then the Bronco. Of course it's going to be designed from the factory to automatically flow better.
Now, that all being the case, where this would really show is exactly what F250 said, if we could get a head on each that flowed exactly the same. If it's 150cfm per valve for the 302 (150 * 8 = 1200), and 200 per valve on the 300 (200 * 6 = 1200), get the stock internals of the 300 stronger (again, they didn't build them nearly as strong from the factory because they were restricted enough to where they couldn't even rev high enough to damage anything), and then rate them RPM per RPM, then we'd see. Until then, it's difficult.
I agree with pretty much everything.
Couple of points:
Wasnt the jump from 302 to 351 only worth like 10 or 15 hp? We, the enthusiasts who still care enough to know 20 years later, know that thats because they have the same heads, but to the idiot consumer then, the I6 to 302 jump should be like the 302 to 351 jump. At only 10 hp, how did any 351s sell? Torque. Thats not very anaologous to the 300 to 302 jump, but my point is that they didnt necessarily restrict the 300 on purpose just for sweetening the deal on a 302. I think the head design didnt really change much from when they first came out in the 50s. Ford never really cared enough to go for broke with the 300. We'd all like to see what happened if they did, though!
Secondly, you may be able to match 150 * 8 with 200 * 6, but what happenes when you do 200 * 8? Back to the same...*LEVEL*...playing field. both the E7 heads and the 300 head flow about 150 cfm intake at .5" lift. The 300 head flows a little less exhaust than the E7 heads. Still a pretty level playing field. 302s are restricted from the factory as well. 69 and 70 Boss 302s spun to 8000 rpm or so, with peak power right near redline. A 87-93 Mustang peaks power at about 4700 rpm. Thats restricted, in my book!
...its all marketing, if they did everything we should do then there would be virtually nothing left to improve on, then what
i believe that ford along with about every other automaker while not purposefully restricting their motors they purposefully did not go balls to the wall with them like they could have and all to keep the competition close and make more money, cant have a monopoly now
__________________
PROJECT---95 ford f150 4x4, 300 INLINE SIX!, 5speed, SAS, 4" lift, 35x13.50 ground hawgs (sooner or later)
DD---91 ford f150 lariat, 302 v8, auto, 2wd, rust
...its all marketing, if they did everything we should do then there would be virtually nothing left to improve on, then what
i believe that ford along with about every other automaker while not purposefully restricting their motors they purposefully did not go balls to the wall with them like they could have and all to keep the competition close and make more money, cant have a monopoly now
That is exactly right.
The 4.9L was a "big step" for Ford. Back in the 80's Ford advertised the 300 as the "Strongest Six", and the "Best of Both Worlds! Power and MPG's!"
What Ford produced was a six banger that got the same fuel mileage as a 302, only with half the horsepower. Chebby had the 4.3L.. Same power as the 300, smaller package and therefore more veristle. The 300 is a better worker but you get my point.
Yeah, the 300 is a GREAT engine, but it was really nothing super special. The 4.3L V6 lasts a long time too, and it can fit in the S-10. Think of the 4.9L in a Ranger.
I'm going to get flamed for this because people will say "Yeah, but the 4.3L can't work like the 4.9L can." Well, probably not, but not by much. The Four Three is a good motor too, lasts a long time and is smaller.
If Ford had put their balls on the table and really put some work into the 300, they could have really had something special with more horsepower, torque without killing any more mileage.
I think the 4.9 was supposed to be a diesel. I suspect Ford was looking at a diesel for the half ton (remeber the diesel Ranger?). Instead, Ford decided to go with a Gasser that acted like a diesel. Less torque, worse fuel mileage, but hey, it fit the bill for what Ford needed; something with less power than the 302 so people would pay more money for the 302.
I'm so going to get called crazy for all of this. I'm just talking guys, don't flame me too much!
your missing something else. this was also an industreal engine too. wood chippers, cranes, sweepers, etc. there are a surpriseing number of stationary 300's still in use. one that really impressed me was in tenn, was a water pump in a quarry, ran 24/7. only stopped long enough for maintainance once a month
__________________ Charlie Join the Maryland Chapter click HERE
your missing something else. this was also an industreal engine too. wood chippers, cranes, sweepers, etc. there are a surpriseing number of stationary 300's still in use. one that really impressed me was in tenn, was a water pump in a quarry, ran 24/7. only stopped long enough for maintainance once a month
Oh that's right! I totally forgot about that. The 300 was used in UPS trucks too. I thougt that was pretty cool.
Like I said, I realize the 300 is a good working engine. I guess my main point is this; Ford could have easily made it better, and in doing so, would have made it the best six cylinder half ton truck motor ever. Which most will say it is; but it has a good number of six bangers nipping at it's heals.
With that said, I'm very glad to have a 300 in my rig. I need something bullet proof and realiable. I'm not bashing the 300 in any way.
I think they did good with everything considered. The 70's and 80's were the worst years for engines, and Ford did what they could.
BTW, the truck 5.0 doesn't come all 'souped' up like you claim while the 300 came with 'the bottom of the barrel' components. They all came choked and restricted.
__________________ 1986 F-150 5.0 EFI XLT Lariat 4x4 NP435/NP208/9" 3.50
"Custom Exhaust" and leaf spring overloads
31x10.50 15" Nothing special, but it's a damn good truck.
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.
...its all marketing, if they did everything we should do then there would be virtually nothing left to improve on, then what
