Wow, 20 mpg! That's something, especially for back then.

The carb'd 300's made 120 horse, so the 145 horse is a jump up. More torque also but at a higher RPM.

Years of reading and research. Only wiki suggests 165 horse. They are wrong.

I've driven 145 horse vehicles and I feel safe in promising the 300 only makes 145 horse. =)

 

I just noticed Bill...We have the SAME amount of rep bars....Yet I'm a LOT newer of a member, and about 1/2 the posts you have....LOL

CHEVY SUCKS! Now back to your regular programming

 

I would honestly trust ford published numbers then whats on wikipedia....

 

Well Wes, I reckon FTE just likes you more

 

Wouldn't say that Bill....60% of my reps are for snide, smart alecky remarks....LOL

 

gee aint that thte truth... guess we all got a side to us like that tho....haha

 

my uncle has the 6.2 diesel it had to be rebuilt at 120,000 miles he has nothing good to say about that truck lol......and i agree on the 300 specs ive seen 165hp more than anything and 265tq who knows what it really is

 

I've seen 150hp 260tq for 94-96 on one of the Ford truck sites. I'm surprised that the MAF SEFI models weren't rated higher then the SD MFI engines. I have driven several EFI 300s from 89 on up and felt the 94-95s to be the quickest.
My current 95 SD 300 seems to have more Hp than my 92 work truck or my 94 but it could be engine condition too. Not as fast as the Ford 4.2 or GM 4.3 but much faster than the Mopar 3.9. Mine will blow away any of the V6s and most small V8s when climbing steep hills.

BTW the manuals seem much faster than the automatics.
YMMV
rikard

 

You sir, are correct.....The 87-91 style trucks had 145hp/265tq....

Also, its pretty obvious...the manuals don't have to turn a TQ converter, etc.....Therefore they seem spunkier...

 

the 6.5 and the 6.2 are miserable motors if you want to get anywhere in any type of hurry. not to mention you literally cant do anything to them to make them any better in the power department. they both get good mileage though. . .and are generally pretty reliable. the guy who had to rebuild his to 3 times to 300k is just unlucky, or isnt changint his oil. 20 mpg average consistently can pretty much be attained in any of the light duty 6.2/6.5 powered vehicles (i.e. pickups, suburban, etc). the 6.5 sips a lil less fuel, but not much difference between the turbo'd motor and the non (they are both very beat).

not to beat a dead horse, but i read earlier that there was perhaps a hint of a "302 vs 305" style debate. . .well the 2 motors cannot be placed in the same category. the 305 was, and always will be, a non-performer. it was a smog motor from its inception, and really serves no purpose in the performance category. some people build them by chance (or some other "different" reason i will never undertstand), but the 305 is virtually a 350 with smaller pistons. . .that bein said, its large stroke make it a decent torquer motor (relatively speaking). GM was hoping to achieve decent mileage/emissions by using the smaller bore, but its a dead end road if you want to build a monster (of course someone can "force induction" their way to a high hp 305, but it will always be a 305). the small bore creates huge valve shroud issues, and larger-than-stock valve replacements are basically a moot effort. the 302, on the other hand, is an excellent candidate for a high-revving, high hp motor. it, unlike the 305, shares the same bore as its larger brother (351) but a shorter stroke. this gives anyone with a power lust the ability to achieve his goals via "big" heads/cam, and high rpm. chevy hasnt made a low cube performer in ages. IMO, theres no point in even bothering with a "low cube performer", when there are big cube options. or LS1's (im always an advocate of "build whatcha got", but when selecting a platform with high hp as the goal, i just wouldnt go small cube). the SBF is superior to SBC's in numerous ways, but leave it to ford to discontinue an awesome platform for an aweful one (modular). i always wonder what the blue oval motors of today would be like if there was an "arms race" between ford and chevy in the likes of "LS1 vs _________ (fords engine code for their modernized, aluminum, single cam performer)". no such luck.

 

So SideWinder, what would my '94 have? HP? Tq?

 

Ok nevermind, I found some sites and they all say:

150 HP @ 3400 RPM
260 TQ @ 2000 RPM

And the K&N Drop In Air Filter says it has a 5.32 HP Gain and 7.56 TQ and better gas mileage, not sure how much though.

 

Alec-Well...NEW, it would've had 150hp/260TQ....but you have to count in for mileage and years of use....lol

 

Thanks. It's in pretty good shape, runs real smooth. The TPS is giving me hell though.

Next thing to replace/fix.

 

My company has a fleet of Dodge trucks, some with Hemi's and a few with the Cummins. The Hemi's are overrated...we drive in the Colorado mountains regularly, the Hemi has to stay with the pedal to the floor (@ 5000+ rpm) to climb most passes. The Cummins can do 90 mph up the Eisenhower Tunnel (8% grade). The diesel Dodges have few problems but the Hemi's at 90k start to fall apart. I had an '06 F150 rental (while my Dodge was being repaired again) and the 5.4 sure feels like it has more seat of the pants power (same axle ratios). I could never get the Hemi to break it's rear tires loose, the 5.4 would do it all day long. We also had an '08 Chevy 1500 rental (again Dodge in the shop) and it was a gutless wonder. It struggled to tow a small diesel portable compressor (about 4500 lbs). My opinion the ultimate truck is a Ford F series with a Cummins motor. My latest company truck is an '07 Ram 3500 Cummins. Good truck, but my '96 F350 rides a lot smoother, even with a lift under it.