I've seen some nice mods for the 300-I6 in Jegs like a intake manifold and a header. I'd really like to see how much power you can get out of that engine. When I purchased my 1993 F-150 from the dealer I went home happy but then I came back a month later to make a monthly payment and they had 3 other F-150's in the lot and they all have a I-6 in them. I kinda wish I got those. Instead I got my 302.

 

Personally, I would never think twice about getting a 302 over a I-6. just because theres alot of neat stuff in the aftermarket doesn't mean anything. there are more mods available for the 302 than you could ever possibly imagine. the 302 is a step up from the I-6 and dont get down because you got a 302 instead of the I-6. keep the 302 and dont even think twice about it. your better off, trust me.

 

As far as those two engines go, they do offer more for the 302.
However.
Both have a 4.00" bore, but compare the two.

300 cid 6 cylinder (50cid per cyl)
302 cid 8 cylinder (37cid per cyl)

300 6 has a stroke of 3.980 and a rod that's 6.209" long.
302 8 has a stroke of 3.00" and a rod that's 5.090" long.

That spells more basic low rpm torque potental for the 6 cylinder.

The 300 cid 12 cylinder engine (25cid per cyl) like in the Lambo is a high rpm screamer.

Bigger bore, longer stroke and a longer rod tells you there is more low rpm torque potential.
Smaller bore, shorter stroke and a shorter rod tells you there is more high rpm power potential.

So all mods equal, same weight and geared alike, the 300 6 has more useful potential than the 302 in a truck.

Just look at the BIG over the road Diesels (the same basic theory applies for gas engines as well) big bore, long stroke and a long rod, more torque!

 

I was thinking about buying a kit from Jegs that converts the 302 into a 347 stroker. Do the 347 strokers have some torque?

 

Taking a small block 351 and stroking it to 427 big block size, yes!

Taking a big block 460 and stroking it to 500+ bigger than big block size, yes!

But I will never understand spending all that money to stroke a 302 to 347 when you can just go out and buy a 351.

 

I had a talk with the maintainence man at my workplace. A guy with alot of electrical and mechanical skill. He said it literally shortens the stroke, using shorter rods. He said that if you looked at a tach on a stock engine and a tach on a stroker engine you'll see the RPM needle moving ALOT faster than a stock engine's RPM. He said that if I had it done to my truck that my rear wheels will spin and I'll be going nowhere.

 

I was raised in 350 powered Chevy's (grew up and became a Ford man; partially because the new Chevy's can't be tusted anymore, but mostly because Ford's look nicer and have better frames). What I don't understand is why GM nixed the 350. It really was a great motor and capable of lots of power. If they can get so much power out of the 5.3, why not the 5.7l 350? For that matter, why nix the 302 and 351?

Hey, anyone else wonder why we don't use cubic inches to label an engine's size anymore? I thought we were in America!

 

Yeh that 350 has been around a long time. Somewhere around the 60s sometime up until 1999. Thats over a 35 year production run. I cant think of any motor that ford had that has been around that long. I think GM figured they had to change motors someday. I sure miss the ford 460 though. It had everything you looked for in a motor. Durability,Longevity,Power and torque althought it did use the gas it would pull anything you put behind it. It had a long production run too. Id say over 25 years Im not too sure.

 

The Kenne Bell website has a article stating that the newer 4.6 and 5.4 motors have won some sort of award for reliability and all that. Maybe the newer motors are just better.

 

I drive a truck before I buy it. I want to know how the engine actually feels rather than worry about the numbers on paper. If the 300 I6 was still offered in the new trucks with the same amount of power as the old ones I would buy it. I do have a truck that matters to me as far as power goes. I take it to the dragstrip as often as possible and beat the heck out of it. As for the truck that tows it to the track (2000 F-150), I want something that makes low end grunt and gets the load moving and rides great. My 2V 5.4L does everything I need it to and gets 19MPG even with its long bed extended cab configuration. I am not going to beat any HEMI powered rams nor a chevy SS with my 5.4L and this does not bother me. If it did the 390 in my 1970 F-100 could take care of that for me. I would never dream of towing anything with my 390 truck. A 3,200 rpm stall and over 400HP gets you down the road in a big hurry but just isn't practical for reliable daily driving and towing.

 

I got to thinkin today about my old truck, a '94 F250 w/460 5spd. It was rated at something like 245 hp & 410 was the torque I think. My new V10 has 310 horse and 425. My V10 has nothing on my old 460. So what goes with the #'s. 65 horse power and 15 pounds of torque and they run pretty even. Guess the #'s arent that important. Did they change from brake hp to @ the rwhp over the years? How can such a difference not be felt when driving? Or towing for that matter.

What is the proper abreviation for Foot pounds of torque?

 

Well what I see as the problem is that a lot of people are driving trucks and suvs that used to have cars. They want a truck that rides and accelerates like a car. So the manufacturers are trying their best to get the most horsepower out of the truck to make a heavier vehicle accelerate and handle like a car. Just great, a truck built like a car, I need a truck with stiff springs and a motor that makes the majority of it's torque and hp down low to tow with and get me through the fields. That is why I stick to my older trucks, they ride like a truck, rough and bouncy, but load them up and they smooth out. And I don't have to spin the tires at 4000 rpm to get the available 345 hp and 380 ft. lbs torque, it all comes in under 2500 rpm.

T. Roberts
UFD Local 1147

 

I will state the things that jump out at me...
smog control - the epa - rear end ratio - tranny type - vehicle weight...

but still hp then = hp now
and ftlb then - ftlb now...
just what kind o thing is the hp and ftlb moving ????

 

I think the main reason we saw the demise of the 300-6, 302/351, 460 Ford, 318/360 Chrysler and 350 Chevy is due to emmissions and CAFE (corporate average fuel efficiency, or something like that). The earlier engines like 351M/400, 360/390, 427, etc were already gone for the same reasons. The tough emmissions and fuel economy standards can only be met with higher technology, electronic control, multiple valves, variable timing, etc. Those old motors were great motors, but they all have one thing in common, they are all overhead valve 2-valve/cyl iron motors and that design, although great for a truck motor, isn't efficient enough for today's and tomorow's emmisions/mileage standards.

One could say something similar about how the old flatheads were superceded by the overhead valve engines in the '50's. The reason was probably more for performance than anything else, but you still see the effect of technology even back then.

Getting back to the Windsors/460's, etc... Interestingly, those engines from the Big Three all came on the scene at about the same time (around 1968) and all left about the same time (around 1998) and were all based on earlier smaller versions that came on the scene in the early '60's. The only one that has survived is the Big Block Chevy. It too started about the same time, as a 427 in cars and as a 396 in trucks, soon grew to 454, and now we still have it as the 8.1 (496). That surprises me that Chevy didn't ditch the old big block and go to a V10 or an overhead cam V8 instead. Kudos to the Bow Tie. They probably will ditch it in the near future though...

I think eventually in the future all heavy duty light trucks will be powered by multi-valve turbodiesels and smaller trucks, suv's and cars will be running multi-valve aluminum spark ignited engines and some kind of alternative cleaner burning non-petroleum-based fuel, if the industry can ever decide on one fuel and if the gov't will ever set the wheels into motion for developing the distribution infrastructure for it.

I wouldn't mind converting to natural gas or propane, or ethanol or methanol, but part of the problem is there's no convenient way to fill up, few places to buy those fuels. Untill some agreement is made on which fuel to go with and everyone gets in line with that, gasoline will be here for a while longer. Personally I would like to see it go, and lessen our dependence on mid-east oil while decreasing air pollution.

As far as who makes the most powerful engine today, I'd say in light truck diesels it has to be the new 600 Cummins. I'm wondering if Caterpillar and John Deere will ever get into the light truck diesel market... If CAT does the R&D to develop one of thier engines for this market (3056 6.0L I-6 with aspiration, injection and electronics similar to the C-series maybe?), whoever puts it in thier truck will have a following similar to what Dodge experienced when they first put in the Cummins.

 

We're getting off topic but you mention the BBC. That fellow came on scene in about 1963 as the "Mystery Motor" in NASCAR races before GM pulled the plug. It showed first as a 396 in Chevelles and Impalas, then as a 427 in the Vette, and on into trucks. Anyway, you didn't mention the real long ranger--the 3.8 V6.

GM continued to develope that motor for many many years, cleaning it up and making it run quite well. The 4.3 version is still available.

Meanwhile, Ford goes to "modern" OHC motors and makes less power with worse mileage...... Not to mention all the size of a Boss 429 with mini motor displacement. I don't get it sometimes. Hey, if they used that variable valve thing so it had 250 lb ft at 1800 RPM and then ran to 10,000 RPM and 450HP that would be interesting but then, what could you put that in?

Please pardon random nonsense.

OH, yea, on edit, Yea, what I was thinking is last point about engines of the future. Forget all that gee whiz crap, just give me a light to medium duty oil burner with a hairdryer on it and maybe some nice new high pressure direct injection, and some low sulfer stove oil and (sounds like the MB 320 CDI engine) I'd be looking for that truck, and it could be reasonably fast, haul loads and pass the pump as well.