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

ford 302 to inline six conversion

 
  #46  
Old 03-05-2011, 04:49 AM
TorqueKing's Avatar
TorqueKing
TorqueKing is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 1,712
TorqueKing is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by 85e150six4mtod View Post

I can't find and don't care to spend more time researching how picky they are on the inspection. Out here, an engine swap like this is going to get the red flags up and subject you to an even more detailed inspection and approval process. On the other side, if you don't get everything hooked up right, or don't match the OEM emissions specs, you may not pass.

FWIW, get another 302 and put it back the way it was. I'd tell you the same thing if you had a 300.

Good luck with whatever you decide, but watch yourself, you don't want to end up parked without registration or having to spend more money on this than necessary.
I will definitely agree with this if your state goes crazy with the inspection. I my experience however, I've never had an inspection done by somebody who would have 1) caught the engine swap or 2) cared to throw the flag on it.

The reason I think you'll get away with it at any inspection is because in your '90, the I-6 was a factory option. They'd have to pry into the VIN to compare what it was built with an what it has now. Again, it's worth looking into because would be a serious failure if you couldn't get it registered! Still, it's not like you're showing up with a 429 big block and a pair of Holley Double-Pumpers sitting on top of a tunnel ram manifold through a hood cut-out.

The inspector would have to a (insert your favorite insult) to fail you with that swap, because it would be legal in every state I've lived in, including the King Kong of ridiculous gearhead-hater laws, California.
 
  #47  
Old 03-05-2011, 09:45 AM
85e150
85e150 is online now
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,966
85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation85e150 has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by TorqueKing View Post
I will definitely agree with this if your state goes crazy with the inspection. I my experience however, I've never had an inspection done by somebody who would have 1) caught the engine swap or 2) cared to throw the flag on it.

The reason I think you'll get away with it at any inspection is because in your '90, the I-6 was a factory option. They'd have to pry into the VIN to compare what it was built with an what it has now. Again, it's worth looking into because would be a serious failure if you couldn't get it registered! Still, it's not like you're showing up with a 429 big block and a pair of Holley Double-Pumpers sitting on top of a tunnel ram manifold through a hood cut-out.

The inspector would have to a (insert your favorite insult) to fail you with that swap, because it would be legal in every state I've lived in, including the King Kong of ridiculous gearhead-hater laws, California.
You are correct, as long as it was an OEM offering, the swap is acceptable--if it has all the OEM smog and passes at the pipe. The VIN is going to show a different motor which may get him a closer look. My point is for the OP, the swap adds cost and complexity and raises the possiblity of a problem with inspection. How much time and money he wants to spend is up to him.
 
  #48  
Old 03-05-2011, 12:45 PM
6CylBill's Avatar
6CylBill
6CylBill is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 7,021
6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by IDIDieselJohn View Post
300 = 265ft. Torque.

302 = 210ft. Torque.
Hello my friend

Baseline carb'd: 300 @ 255 ft lbs, 302 @ 230 ft lbs

EFI: 300 @ 265 ft lbs and the 302 @ 270 / 280 ft lbs.

The 302 never made 210 ft lbs that I'm aware of.
 
  #49  
Old 03-05-2011, 01:02 PM
Kapusta's Avatar
Kapusta
Kapusta is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nuts & Bolts, Mostly Nuts
Posts: 1,778
Kapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by 6CylBill View Post
Hello my friend

Baseline carb'd: 300 @ 255 ft lbs, 302 @ 230 ft lbs

EFI: 300 @ 265 ft lbs and the 302 @ 270 / 280 ft lbs.

The 302 never made 210 ft lbs that I'm aware of.
Maybe unless it was missing a few pistons.
 
  #50  
Old 03-05-2011, 01:05 PM
IDIDieselJohn's Avatar
IDIDieselJohn
IDIDieselJohn is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 8,005
IDIDieselJohn has a great reputation on FTE.IDIDieselJohn has a great reputation on FTE.IDIDieselJohn has a great reputation on FTE.IDIDieselJohn has a great reputation on FTE.IDIDieselJohn has a great reputation on FTE.
I remember seing those numbers somewhere? Wonder where the heck was that? lol


I sure did remember the 265 straight 6 though
 
  #51  
Old 03-05-2011, 01:08 PM
6CylBill's Avatar
6CylBill
6CylBill is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 7,021
6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by Kapusta View Post
Maybe unless it was missing a few pistons.


I wonder where John got those numbers from?

The 302 and 300 have always put out decent torque for their size. Even the 350's back then were only putting out 10 more ft lbs of torque. The Ford engines were putting out good pulling power for their size.

And heck the 300 is just a bored and stroked 240.

So, basically a beefed up 240 I6 was giving the Chevy 350's a time in the torque department.
 
  #52  
Old 03-05-2011, 01:11 PM
GIGGER's Avatar
GIGGER
GIGGER is online now
Posting Legend
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Bay Ont Canada
Posts: 156,791
GIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputation
hey Bill, I like that little flareside right there, sweet, Gigger
 
  #53  
Old 03-05-2011, 01:23 PM
Kapusta's Avatar
Kapusta
Kapusta is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nuts & Bolts, Mostly Nuts
Posts: 1,778
Kapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by 6CylBill View Post


I wonder where John got those numbers from?

The 302 and 300 have always put out decent torque for their size. Even the 350's back then were only putting out 10 more ft lbs of torque. The Ford engines were putting out good pulling power for their size.

And heck the 300 is just a bored and stroked 240.

So, basically a beefed up 240 I6 was giving the Chevy 350's a time in the torque department.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!....give the man a prize!
According to Wikipedia, "The 300 cu in (4.9 L) six was added for the F-series in 1965. It was essentially a 240 cu in (3.9 L) with a longer stroke. The two engines are nearly identical; the differences are in block dimensions, combustion chamber size, and the rotating assembly."
 
  #54  
Old 03-05-2011, 02:55 PM
91chevywt's Avatar
91chevywt
91chevywt is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 363
91chevywt is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by 6CylBill View Post
Hello my friend

Baseline carb'd: 300 @ 255 ft lbs, 302 @ 230 ft lbs

EFI: 300 @ 265 ft lbs and the 302 @ 270 / 280 ft lbs.

The 302 never made 210 ft lbs that I'm aware of.
One important aspect that is being ignored, is RPM of torque output. The 302 will put out peak torque at a much higher rpm, because of bore vs stroke. The 302 has a much shorter stroke in comparison to the bore diameter (about 4"x3"), while the 300 bore vs stroke is essentially square. Almost 4"x4" per cylinder. Essentially, the 300 will have a much smoother, earlier torque output vs a 302, which will require more RPMs to make the same torque. This is stock for stock of course. This also means the 6 is at a disadvantage for horsepower, which is essentially rate of torque output. Does this make either a BETTER engine? It comes down more to what the owner needs
 
  #55  
Old 03-05-2011, 03:05 PM
Kapusta's Avatar
Kapusta
Kapusta is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nuts & Bolts, Mostly Nuts
Posts: 1,778
Kapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to beholdKapusta is a splendid one to behold
It all comes down to gearing. Either engine can be "dialed" in for the job with the right transmission and differential.
 
  #56  
Old 03-05-2011, 06:07 PM
6CylBill's Avatar
6CylBill
6CylBill is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 7,021
6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.
Thanks Gigger! Awful nice of you to say. Betsy is my baby. She's like a horse to me.

91chevywt, Kapusta is right. It really just depends on the gearing.

The EFI 300 makes it's peak torque at 2,000 RPM. The 302 will make peak torque around 2,400 RPM. Not that huge of a difference.

The carb'd 300's make peak torque much lower, around 1,400 RPM.

The 300 really is more like a diesel. It's deffinately a working engine. Afteral, the airport tugs use 300 I6 engines with a C6 transmission with 1st gear locked out.

So, yes. The 300 is a better work-truck engine. But that doesn't mean the 302 can't pull or haul! It's just much happier going fast and blowing the doors off a dumb kid's Chubby or Rum truck.
 
  #57  
Old 03-05-2011, 06:22 PM
zxwut?'s Avatar
zxwut?
zxwut? is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,947
zxwut? has a good reputation on FTE.zxwut? has a good reputation on FTE.zxwut? has a good reputation on FTE.
Had a 300. It sucked. Had no power. It finally caught fire when the valve cover gasket blew out in the rear. Picked up my 2000 rustang and supercharged it. Good to go!
 
  #58  
Old 03-05-2011, 06:24 PM
GIGGER's Avatar
GIGGER
GIGGER is online now
Posting Legend
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Bay Ont Canada
Posts: 156,791
GIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputationGIGGER has a superb reputation
[quote=6CylBill;10056221]Thanks Gigger! Awful nice of you to say. Betsy is my baby. She's like a horse to me.
Just perfect for you & your dog, is that a Nite edition?
 
  #59  
Old 03-05-2011, 06:48 PM
Bdox's Avatar
Bdox
Bdox is offline
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lake Tahoe, Nevada
Posts: 28,526
Bdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputationBdox has a superb reputation
Looking at the overall torque curve, the 300's is broad and flat compared to a 302 which is peakier.
 
  #60  
Old 03-05-2011, 07:01 PM
FordManMT's Avatar
FordManMT
FordManMT is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rocky Mountians
Posts: 430
FordManMT has a very good reputation on FTE.FordManMT has a very good reputation on FTE.FordManMT has a very good reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by 91chevywt View Post
One important aspect that is being ignored, is RPM of torque output. The 302 will put out peak torque at a much higher rpm, because of bore vs stroke. The 302 has a much shorter stroke in comparison to the bore diameter (about 4"x3"), while the 300 bore vs stroke is essentially square. Almost 4"x4" per cylinder. Essentially, the 300 will have a much smoother, earlier torque output vs a 302, which will require more RPMs to make the same torque. This is stock for stock of course. This also means the 6 is at a disadvantage for horsepower, which is essentially rate of torque output. Does this make either a BETTER engine? It comes down more to what the owner needs
personaly I think the 300 is the way to go.

They are tough engines.

Im not sure how many people will believe me but on my last road trip I was driving 65mph, all highway, with my 300EFI, M50D R-2, 4x4 with manual hubs, standered cab long box, loaded down with huning gear.

And I pulled a constent 22mpg.

I am also running a slightly over sized tire. 31x10.50 mud kings, so my mileage was slightly better.


I have pulled a 21ft boat, and moved a 31ft toy hauler around out property with my 300.

That engine will never leave my truck
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: ford 302 to inline six conversion


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.