I presently have a 460, but the more I think about it I am contemplating an engine swap. Anyway, its more of a pipe dream but in a straight pulling contest 4.10 gears in each, what would win? In addition say I was pulling 10k or so, would the 300 get comparable or less mileage to the 460?

 

This is a very interesting question as you are comparing apples and oranges so to speak.

Here are the pros and cons...

The 460 has more HP than the 300.
The 300 has more torque at lower RPMs than the 460.

Both are capable of pulling 10K, but the 460 will do it faster. The 300 is the little engine that could so to speak. It will do it slowly but surely.

With the same setup 4.10s gears etc..
The fuel mileage with the 460 is around 6 to 10.
The fuel mileage with the 300 is around 10.

The 4.10 gearing is way too low for a 300. It will scream like a banshee and be out of it's RPM range. But it will pull like a tractor at low RPMs. No speed at all.

3.50 gears would be the lowest I'd put with a 300. If you want good gas mileage with the 300 you need to cruise between 1200 and 2100 rpms at your cruising speed. Closer to 1500 to 1800. So if you want good mileage at 60 MPH, then make the RPMs around 1500 to 1800 with the 300, and gear it accordingly.

 

Great thanks bud, I really love those little 300's.

 

81 F150 - Curious - do you have the dyno charts that show the torque curves of the 460 and 300 back to back?

I agree with your sentiment - it's a very apples and oranges comparison. I'm trying to come up with a similar analogy, but nothing appropriate for a public forum seems to come to mind.

 

So if I get this right a better comparison would be between a 300 and a small diesel say a 4bt cummins? The both make torque down low which I thought was one of the primary benefits of a 460?

 

A 300 will move a heck of a lot. So will a 460. But, the 460 will certainly move it faster......
It's not how much do you want to move, but how fast do you want to move it?

 

There's no replacement for displacement.

The 460 cu in motor displaces 160 more cu in of air than a 300. If you're going to be building an engine, the 460 will be able to pull a lot more stuff.

The aftermarket support for the 460 is quite a bit better, although there's more stuff for it in the "wild" range (IE, <10 sec quarter mile dragsters) than there is in the towing sector.

I'm really curious to see the dyno curve for both motors, the 300 makes 255 lb-ft torque (which is quite impressive!) but the 460 makes 380 (in 83). I would not call my 460 a high-revving engine. I'd be surprised if the 300 made more torque than the 460 from 1500 on.

From http://www3.telus.net/cbradley/Engin...fications.html

For the inline 6:
122 hp @ 3000 rpm
255 ft/lb @ 1400 rpm

The only stats I can find for the 460 is an 87:
230hp @ 3600 rpm
390lb-ft @ 2000.
I'd be very surprised if it was making less than 255 @ 1400, mine certainly doesn't feel like a beast awakens at 2k.

 

Well I have both... I am running a basically stock 460 in the Bronco, to say the least it's a lot of fun... anywhere and anyway you drive it. I have two F150 4wds with 300s backed by manual transmissions. The 96 has a ZF 5 speed with 3.55 gears running a 32" tire. It has plenty of grunt and still cruises comfortably on the freeway at 75+ mph. The 84 has the old granny 4 speed with 4.10s and 33s (now 35s) it has tons of grunt and would cruise the interstate comfortably at 65 mph. My two cents for what it's worth... both engines are extremely durable and dependable, they both have gobs of low end torque. However the 460 also has mid and top end power, which is where the (stock) 300s fall short. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, it more depends on the application it's being used for. For a toy or heavy tow rig, nothing beats a healthy 460... for a driver I'd rather have the 300.
John

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. My 83 is a restomod project and a dump runner. I have no need for a truck in my day-to-day life, but it does come in handy for picking up plywood and lumber every couple of months.

If I were buying a new truck and thinking smartly, I'd be in a half-ton with a small V8, not a 3/4-HD big block.

 

The torque of the 300 drops after 1400, so the 460 will make more torque after 1400 RPMs...

The specs for the inline six in 1987:
145 HP @ 3400
265 ft/lb @ 2000

The specs for the 460 in 1983:
200Hp/245Hp @ 3800
375/390Ft/Lb @ 2000.

The impressive numbers come from engines before 1972 and the smog age.

1968 300-6
170HP @ 3800
283ft/Lb @ 1600

1968 460:
365Hp @ 4600
500Ft/lb @ 2800

Hmmm.... makes me want to get a pre 1972 pickup again...

 

Have to be careful when posting pre-72 numbers, though. The industry switched how they rated power around 71 from gross HP to net HP numbers.

Prior to SAE-net hp, they would measure engines on an engine dyno with no accessories and next to no exhaust system (similar to how many crate motors are tested).

There is a counterpoint; engines did drop in performance as well due to a mandate to run on unleaded gas (lower compression) and increased emissions constraints. The actual power that a late 60's 460 made is somewhat less than the 365 quoted, I would wager high 200s (say, 270-290hp).

You can look at 71 + 72 Corvette specs, as they switched from gross to net HP in those years, and the engines mostly maintain the same state of tune.
small block:
1970 LT1 (pre emissions) 370 HP (gross)
1971 LT1: 330 HP (gross)
1972 LT1: 255 hp (net)

big block:
1970 LS5 (pre emissions) 390 HP (gross)
1971: 365 hp
1972: 270 hp

I'd *love* to have my 83 up to 500 tq... it's in the plan!

 

I don't know where you got that crazy idea but it's just plain wrong. A 460 will make more torque across the board at all RPM than a 300, same for HP at any given RPM.

According to DD my mild 460 makes 568 ft/lbs at 2000-3000 RPM, completely flat. Then it drops about 40 ft/lbs per 500 RPM and eventually drops more sharply. It's an '86 Supercab F-250 with ZF5, Dana 60 up front, 4" lift on 35" tires with 3.55:1 gears weighing in at 6000 lbs. It is a torque monster right off idle. Turning around corners and such around town puts me at higher RPM in 2nd gear or bottom of third. I use bottom of third at about 800 RPM and it accelerated quickly when I tap the gas with no lugging. There's not really any clutch dragging going on, it's not necessary. The thing is pure torque from right off idle. Doesn't sweat pulling my 5000 lbs boat at all, just goes. The 385 series makes a ton of torque.

One of my buddies has two trucks, a '95 shortbed 2wd with 300 and M5OD. I never drove it but he drags the clutch a lot to get rolling. The other is a '93 F-250 lifted 6" on 35" with Dana 60 up front, 4.10:1 gears, ZF5, EFI 351w. Basically a spitting image of my truck but a small block but a 351w.

Anyhow, I drove that truck a few times and the first time I did I stalled it a bunch of times. Also it wanted to lug all the time driving around town unless I kept it in a lower gear and let it rev a little more. It's been so long since I drove anything with a small engine, even though his weighs less and has lower gears at 4.10:1 it still has no torque. We have the same trans with same gear ratios in the trans. He was laughing until I let him drive my truck then he knew exactly why I kept stalling his. So we're building a 460 for his truck now.


That being said, your MPG difference with a 300 six in a lifted supercab will be negligible. You'll spend about the same money to build each engine, but the minimal fuel savings with a 300 will not be enough to outweigh how much you'll hate driving a truck that can't get out of it's own way. Unless you gear it out the wazoo in which case MPG might be worse than a 460.

 

568 is not stock numbers for the year models in question... So congratulations. Exactly what types of mild modifications did you do to it?

As was stated the 460 gets 390 maximum @2000 RPM in stock form. Most were lower. This I grant you is with the stock smog crap on it too.

As was also stated the 300 gets 255 max @ 1400 stock form, but people have gone crazy and doubled that with duel carbs. Anything above 1400 and the 300 will start to lose torque as built stock 1980-1986.

As was stated by shark racer, I would also like to see dinos of both engines stock between 650 and 1500.


There must be something wrong with that 300. What you describe is nothing like the 300 I have in my truck at all. And the 95 is supposed to have 10ft/lbs more torque at 265ft/lbs at 2000 RPMs instead of 255 at 1400 like my 1981. Saying the 300 has no torque is a contradiction in terms. The 300-6 forum will definately argue with you there too.

You see I've had just the opposite experience to you. The 300 I have will turn rings around the counties 460 below 1000 RPMs. It's possible that there is something wrong with that 460 I will possibly conceed.

I actually think if he doesn't re-gear the truck and just swaps engines around he will get about the same mileage. 10-MPG average.

Gearing it out the wazoo would be the worst thing you can do to the 300, and overwinding them is the most comon mistake people do who drive them. Anything over 3000 RPM is a waste of gasoline on a carbed truck. I never wind my 300 past 3000 RPM, and cruise with it at 2100 at 65.

My truck will pull an 8% grade in first gear, (T-18 with 225-75-15 tires and 2.75 rear gear) at idle 650 RPM without any push of the excelerator from me.

It will also do 0 to 60 in about 12 seconds aprox. For a 30 year old truck with a 300 I do not call that bad, and this is never winding it above 3000 RPM.

Here's one on Youtube doing it in about 15 seconds. I started the counter at 2 seconds as this is when the speedo moved, and stopped it at 17 as this is when the speedo hit 60. This equals 15 seconds 0-60.

YouTube - &#x202a;0 to 60 1992 Ford F150, 4.9L 5 speed.&#x202c;&rlm;

Here's another on youtube at 12 seconds aprox, which matches mine.

YouTube - &#x202a;93 F150 300 0-60&#x202c;&rlm;

I think the 300 can get out of it's own way just fine.

 

A 300 can pull a heck of a weight. I used my 300 powered truck to drag a trailer that was somewhere in the 6-7K range. Trailer itself is between 2.5-3K, and it was loaded with a full size 74 ford pickup, probably another 3.5-4K since it's an FE/C6 powered truck. total gross, somewhere around 9-10K. Not bad for a stock 300, C6, and 2.75 gear ratio, especially given the 31 x 10.50 - 15's raise the gearing to an effective ratio of 2.47*. I certainly had no trouble getting up to, or holding 55 MPH, plus I got right at 12 MPG on the trip.
Given that, I'd say a 300 in a 5-6K truck would have no problem getting up to speed, or holding speed, and it certainly wouldn't be a gashog. A truck alone would have much less rolling resistance that a truck and trailer combined, especially considering the brick-like areodynamics of the truck that was on the trailer.

*RPM at any given speed is within 1% of the same as a 2.47 axle and stock 215/75-15 tires most commonly used on trucks with the 2.47 axle ratio.

Since I know you won't believe me, here's a pic of the combo:

 

I believe it. I've done something simular even on a short trip.

The 300 was the standard engine for F-100/F-150/F-250/F-350

The 300-HD was even offered in the F-600.

If it couldn't do the work, it wouldn't have been factory installed in these trucks.

For instance the 302 was never installed in a F-350 or F-600.

The 460 wasn't in the F-600 either. The V8 in those were the 370 or 429s.