read that off one of those bronco goo-roo sites i was pondering thru...but i must have read bad info...
Jake: No I didn't. Honest. I ran outta gas. I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from outta town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts. It wasn't my fault I swear to god!! (Takes off his glasses)
anybody here remember what this thread was about in the first place?

 

I love the 302's! They usually last a long time. I had a 302 in my old 82 f-100, it ran to 200,000 miles till it got tired. Although, I have not had the same luck with the one in my 88 Bronco. At 84,000 the oil pump froze and blew the engine. I have a fresh 5.0 H.O. in it now. If you look in my gallery you can see the swap. Overall the stock 302 is a little underpowered for a truck, but with just a few mods they can really come to life! Now if I can just find a supercharger for my Bronco!

 

yo, MASS AIR?

 

Nope, I still have speed density.

 

The purpose of this forum is to make intelligent comparisons of other makes against ford. They don't have to be in favor of Ford but they must be reasonable in any matter or direction.

Back on track gents

 

Anyone that says a 302 is a crap engine just simply isn't mechanically knowledgeable period. The 302 all the way up to the one i have in my 89 lincoln town car, is a very good engine!!!!, i also have a question on mine, but will make a new topic above....Janet

 

I had a 302 in my '90 F150 and had 160,000+ miles on it when sold.

 

wow, i cant beleave that someone could call a 302 a bad engine. even the one that i pulled out of my bronco that only had a couple thousand miles still ran, even with the back two rods and two chunks of camshaft sitting in the oil pan.(piston froze at the bottem of the bore). my dad uses cargo vans for a living and have had many of them approach 300,000 mile's. one even topped it. it still ran too, but it was very wore out. (although most of them lost the nylon timing chain at around 150-200k)

i cant even think of very many engines that were better from a design standpoint. its not that bad to work on them (when you have too that is!)

i just got a 68 302 for my 61 falcon. its one of the 4v moters with 10.00:1 compression. its got a wiend intake mallory ignition, and a cam that i know absolutely nothing about, but i dont know how it runs yet, im having bellhousing/starter/flywheel problems. but im sure its gonna make my bird fly!

 

There are people who like nothing but big blocks and others who love their small blocks. People will manage to nit pick at some tiny reason, real or not, to say one engine is trash as compared with another. That's just life and the way it'll always be.

I don't put much faith in blatant statements that such and such is junk. Now, I do have my own opinions, from experience of 40+ years of driving and maintaining my own vehicles and helping others with theirs. But I think for the most part, I'll just keep some things to myself .... until prodded far enough.

 

I've had some late 70's or early 80's 302's that didn't put out much power, but they still ran well. Even the one in the 80 T-Bird I had, and when I pulled it apart, the piston skirts were cracked or broken off on nearly every cylinder. It had over 200,000 miles on it though. The earliest truck I ever had with a 9" was 65, and it had the 5 on 5 1/2" bolt pattern. Some 80 and 81 F100's had the car bolt pattern, as did some of the vans. My 67 Mustang GTA fastback came with a 9", also. Back to the subject, I prefer the 302 over the 351, and like it the same as the 289.

 

Hey Steve
Why the preference of the 302 over the 351? Just curious...

 

i think the 302 is a wonder of a block. Best small block i ever drove aside from the 88 302 4V H.O. You can do so much to make that a screamer. 347 Crank Kit will Boost you up a lot of H.P. In '68 for my 302 4V is was rated at 245hp. Which is not bad considering all the weight. But the cougar just flies as it is. FORD Small block is nice, FORD always consider boosting hp out of small block. I too, would rather choose 302 from 351 due to just the weight. But parts for 302 are easy to find and easier to mod up.

 

I have an '86 F150 EFI with a 302, auto trans. and 198,000 miles on it. I got rear ended last week by a Toyota Camery (brand new). The old man hit me pretty darn hard, enough to make my head smack the rear window and see stars. I shook it off and got out to check on the ol' man who was pretty shook up but o.k. I then looked at the damage, that plastic and fiberglass import was going home on a flatbed tow truck. As for my truck, the only damage was that god awful green paint my trailer hitch scraped off the hood. After swapping info i took off and got a few miles down the road before i felt my engine lurch forward and then die. I thought first about the inertia switch which somehow managed to remain open after being hit hard. I spent another hour checking wires and harness connectors with no luck. I finally gave up and had it towed home (which is kinda embarassing). I started replacing ignition components and $300 dollars later it still wouldnt start. It had spark, and fuel the only other thing it needed was compression which i had no way to test other than holding my thumb over the spark plug hole and cranking the engine to see if it blows my thumb off, and it did! So after having pulled all my hair out I decided to check my timing chain and gears. As soon as i pulled that timing chain cover off i knew i had found the problem, the chain had more slack in it than the pants those kids wear around their ankles these days, and the camshaft gear was nothing but nubs, not teeth, but nubs! Upon closer inspection i noticed it was a nylon gear which appeared to have a trace of metal in it. I thought to myself, why nylon? And after a lil research i found out it was to cut down on noise. Screw the noise i want metal! Thats why i bought this Ford truck, cause its all metal, it's tuff! I bought cast iron gears and a new chain, got it back together and turned the key. It never sounded better, i test drove it and it never ran better. I have a lot to learn about all the high tech computer controled aspects of the engine, but by far the most reliable, and perfectly suited engine for my needs and everyday driving that ive ever owned, and ive owned lots! I expect it to run another 200,000 easy, as long as tune ups and inspections on the wires and undercarriage are done on time.
The 302 is perfect for anything from grocery shopping to towing trailers and boats.

 

and it's just a 5.0 liter gas saving sucker

 

I like the 302 better then the 351 for several reasons. The main reason, is that it handles the high rpm's better. I'm sure that it's possible to make a 351 handle it almost as well. I just haven't had the pleasure to try to build a screamer 351 yet.
The crank on the 351 has larger mains then the 302, so there is more friction. Also the 351 crank is heavier, as are the rods. Of course these are all reasons that would make the 351 a better low rpm torque monster for a work truck, but I don't build work trucks. I've seen many people tell others that you can build a 351 for the same cost as a 302, but that isn't true. The intake manifold costs more for the 351, as does a rebuild kit, crankshaft, rods, aftermarket oil pan, oil pump, the distributor, and I'm sure I've missed a few parts. Open up a Summit catalog if you think I'm full of it. The 351 in my 93 Lighting was pretty good for a stock truck, but for a whole lot less money, my 65 F100 with a home built mild 302 would smoke the Lightning in every way except comfort and handling. I'm not very impressed with the 351 in my 96 Bronco either. It runs fine and all, but it's a dog. It will barely spin the tires on wet pavement, and I got beat in a short distance race by a F150 with a 300 straight 6. A buddy of mine with a stock 94 F150 4wd with a 302 raced the same truck that beat mine, and he won (barely).
Same gears and everthing, but I'm sure the Bronco weighs more. It's just what I prefer. Between the size and weight of the 302, the availability and cost of a 302 compared to a 351, the reliability that's been proven to me many times over, and the sound of a 302 at 7000+ rpm's, I can't understand how anybody could think it's a bad engine design.