Ok, here's my question. The 5.0 liter was a 302 cubic inch engine. How many cubic centimeters was it? The reason I ask is becasue i heard somewhere the 5.0 was actually 4.93 liters, and it was rounded way up to the 5.0 marking. Is this true? So yeah, how many cubic centimeters was the 5.0L?

Also, the straight 6 4.9 liter engine was 300 cubic inches. How many cubic centimeters was this? Thanks all.

Ryan

 

Ahhh, the magic of metric... 4.93 liters is 4930 cc's (cubic centimeters). 4.9 liters is 4900 cc's. See the pattern here?

Also... there are 16.39 cc's in a cubic inch. You can use this number to multiply or divide in order to convert from one to the other. This tells me that the 4.93 to 302 is not exact. One of these two numbers is being rounded. The best way is to get the bore and stroke and get the exact displacement by using this formula: (pi/4) x bore x bore x stroke x number of cylinders. This means the Ford 302 is really 301.59 cubic inches. Multiply that by 16.39 and you get 4.943 liters... or 4943 cc's.

So... lets apply this same logic to my Expy's 5.4 liter. Its bore is 3.55" and its stroke is 4.16". This means it is 329.4 cubic inches. This also means it is 5398.9 cc's. Or... 5.3989 liters. Rounds to 5.4 nicely.

Rob

 

Ok, so the 302, 5.0 litre is actually 4.943 cc's, which, had Ford rounded their numbers the right way, should be called the 4.9 litre V8. Now the 300, 4.9 litre straight 6, how many cc's was that? it wasn't an even 4900 cc's. was it? Why did Ford dub the 302 a 5.0 litre, when in reality it is a 4.9 litre? Was this just done to make the distinction between the straight 6 300 and the V8 302? Weird weird stuff! Hehe, thanks again guys.

Ryan

 

Well, marketing I'm sure comes into play when 'rounding' occurs. I guess you can call it marketing rounding... not mathematical rounding!

As far as the 4.9 liter inline-six. Well, I think the bore and stroke on it is 4" and 3.96" respectively. That would put it at 298.5769 cubic inches. This means it is 4893.676 cc's. 4.9 liters is not rouding up too much...

This also means that there is only 50 cc's difference between the two. That is a small mini-bike! But, the bore and stroke differences between these two make for very different engines. With a larger bore and a smaller stroke, the 302 is a high-revving screamer! The larger stroke of the six will give it very good low-end torque. The smaller bore of the six helps keep the block short.

Both make good power... but I would bet their curves vary quite a bit!

 

Very interesting points RJ. So the stang 302 is an hp addict, and the 300 in the effies is more a grunt? Hmmmm. With this in mind about torque...I think I saw it on another post here, the new GMC envoy or trailblazer, whatever, has the I-6, but screams lots of hp, I think they also said it has good torque. So is that just from using a longer block with bigger stroke and bore? Like a 6 on steroids? I do find all this very interesting, good to know stuff. Thanks again RJ.

Ryan

 

Remember, I was using a lot of generalities when comparing the two engines -- in regards to there hp and torque (not my numbers, they were exact). There are a zillion factors to take into consideration in order to make an engine scream and make the ponies. Bore, stroke, intake, exhaust, balancing, weight, timing, etc., etc., etc. are just a few.

"Generally speaking" an engine that has a larger stroke than its bore is going to be a lower revving engine with good torque down low. Engines that have a larger bore than their stroke tend to be higher revving screamers. Of course, a lot of big-block screamers had the same bore and stroke... so this is just a generality.

Just like not all v-8s are the same, not all inline sixes are either.

 

Cool. I hope you don't mind but I used the info you gave me on the displacement over at ClubGP.com, cause they were talking about the 5.0L stang, how it wasn't really a 5.0L and wanted to know the size. I gave you due credit. If you want the link to see the conversation let me know. And as always, gracias

Ryan

 

Great discussion! I saw this in the Chilton's manual where they listed the cc's and yes the 302 should round to 4.9L. The 300 I6 stroke is 3.98, not 3.96, and works out to 4917 cc's--a mere 30 cc's smaller than the 302. As for the 5.0 designation, sure looks better on the fender of a Mustang than 4.9, but what do they do now? I bet they don't put their measly 4.6 on the side of the new Mustangs. Shame, shame, better step it up to the 5.4 so they can brag again!

The Big Block 300 I6 is a cool engine with pistons the same size as a 400 V8! There is no replacement for displacement. Smaller engines have to wind out to make power and there ain't much torque. GM's new I6 is an apparent (possibly real, but that remains to be proved) technical marvel. It has good torque on a flat curve from low rpms right up into the upper rpm ranges which for that engine is around 5 to 6 thousand--but, this is acheived by variable valve timing. Anyway (IMHO) a screamer like the GM I6 is more suited to a sports car than a pickup truck. Just give me a pickup with a big bore, torque thrustin engine. It dosen't have to be fast (after all it's a truck), but it had better have guts!

 

Yes, the 300 has the same bore (or piston size, as the previous poster termed it) as the 400, but it is only 4", the same as the 351 and even the 302. Don't quote me on this, but didn't the 289 also have a 4" bore?

I like that we've gotten onto this subject. I've always wondered why it was that when you work the math (pi*{radius of bore}^2 * stroke * # of cylinders) the 302 is 301ci, the 351 is 352, and the 400 402. The only one that lines up pretty close is the 460. Actually I lied, I just redid the 302 and I got 301.58ci. But all the others are at least a ci off. I was wondering why this is.

The Law

 

>Yes, the 300 has the same bore (or piston size, as the
>previous poster termed it) as the 400, but it is only 4",
>the same as the 351 and even the 302. Don't quote me on
>this, but didn't the 289 also have a 4" bore?

Well, I can't remember for sure. The 300 is 3.98 and 4.00 bore and stroke or vice versa. The 400 I believe is about the same B&S. I was sure the 302/351 has a smaller bore, but will have to double check. With a 4" bore the 302 and 351 would have 3 and 3.5 inch strokes which seems about right.

>I like that we've gotten onto this subject. I've always
>wondered why it was that when you work the math (pi*{radius
>of bore}^2 * stroke * # of cylinders) the 302 is 301ci, the
>351 is 352, and the 400 402. The only one that lines up
>pretty close is the 460. Actually I lied, I just redid the
>302 and I got 301.58ci. But all the others are at least a
>ci off. I was wondering why this is.

Somewhere I read that certain racing rules on engine size (NASCAR?) limited it to a certain displacement and some companies would call their engine that exact displacement, but actually would be a cubic inch smaller so there was enough margin that when the car was checked for displacement at the track there would be no chance of somehow exceeding the limit. That may explain some of the variations. I also heard Ford had a couple different blocks, both at 351 cid and so one was called 352, apparently to differentiate it--perhaps similar to the 4.9/5.0 of the 300/302 difference.

 

Thanks TallPaul. The 351/352, 400/402 thing had been buggin' me for a while.

The Law

 

>Thanks TallPaul. The 351/352, 400/402 thing had been
>buggin' me for a while.
>
>The Law

Hope I am right. Anyway, I looked up the bores and strokes and for the record:

Engine, Bore, Stroke

300 I6 4.00 3.98
289 V8 4.00 2.87
302 V8 4.00 3.00
351 V8 4.00 3.50
400 V8 4.00 4.00
460 V8 4.36 3.85

 

So the I^ has the same bore and *almost* the same stroke as the big V* 460?! Wow, the six is a big 'ol engine, huh? I know it's still 160 ci smaller, but that's still a good size, with some big pistons, huh? I used to think my 4.2L on my 99 F-150 was a big 6 cyl, which it is pretty big, but the 300 sounds to be quite a beast.

As a side question, how do you think the 4.2L V6 would compare against the 300 I6? Prolly more torque on the I6, right? I know my 99 4.2L was rated at something like 205 or 210 hp, which though it's not huge amounts it is a pretty good amount of hp for the truck, it was a small regular cab short bed 4x2 xlt automatic, so not too much weight. (Which as another side comment, for some reason I see people with the 4.2L have 2 different views. If it's a standard, it's a real dog, can seem to find the power. But auto owners like myself have been nothing but pleased with the performance of it. Quick off the line, great accel on passing, can break the tires loose real easy! Hehe)

Ryan

 

>So the I^ has the same bore and *almost* the same stroke as
>the big V* 460?!

Actually it compares with the 400 and is only off by 0.02" on the stroke.

The 4.2 V6 seems like a pretty good engine. Lot more horsepower than the I6 and the torque, though lower, is not all that far off, I am thinking 250 foot pounds or something. Should be a pretty good performing engine for the base truck model, but in the long haul I don't think it has the durability of the 300 I6. If I were buying a late model Ford truck, I would lean to Superduty for looks and in any case If I can't get an inline six, I'll take the bigger V8!

 

Inline six is more durable because of more main bearings and the rods don't share journals with other cylinders like a v engine does.