4.6 and 302
Thread Starter
|
FTE Legend
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 37,887
Likes: 20
From: North Central Rural Sask.
4.6 and 302
Hey guys, was just reading some comparisons, and was wondering what any of you think of the 4.6 vs the 302? i have both a 1989 with a 302 5 speed, and a 97 4.6 auto, and i can tell ya with both my trucks, the 302 is faster, seems to have more power, and get way better fuel mileage, maes me wonder why ford didnt keep the 302 in the newer fancier looking trucks! what do you guys think?
Senior User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
They are both great engines but my neighbor has just the opposite opinion. He has two Ford Explorers. The '99 has the 302 and is 2wd. The '04 is 4wd with the 4.6. Both are autos with 3.55 rears. He says the 4.6 is more powerful and gets much better fuel economy, but he didn't give me any real numbers. What he really likes about the '04 the most is the IRS and the smoother ride.
The 302 has been around since '68 and is a carb engine converted to EFI. The 4.6 is OHC of more modern design.
I have a Mercury Cougar with the 4.6. It gets 26 mpg @ 72 mph on cruise control. I know trucks cannot be compared to cars, but I've never heard of a 302 anything getting 26 mpg.
The 302 has been around since '68 and is a carb engine converted to EFI. The 4.6 is OHC of more modern design.
I have a Mercury Cougar with the 4.6. It gets 26 mpg @ 72 mph on cruise control. I know trucks cannot be compared to cars, but I've never heard of a 302 anything getting 26 mpg.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 3
From: Eastern CT.
We have an 89' Bronco 5.0 all stock except K&N Filter, I think its about 180 hp, I just picked up my 04' Explorer late yesterday, with the 4.6 v-8 and I think it is 239 hp, and to me feels like it has alot more kahunas !
Thread Starter
|
FTE Legend
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 37,887
Likes: 20
From: North Central Rural Sask.
Originally Posted by daveee
I know trucks cannot be compared to cars, but I've never heard of a 302 anything getting 26 mpg.
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 22,436
Likes: 17
From: Louisville,Ky.
2.73 Gears were standard. My 88 5.0LX gets about 24mpg on the highway with 3.55 gears., but we must remember that the Mustang is about 1000lbs lighter and cuts the wind much easier. My Dad's 89 F150 5.0 AOD gets about 14 or 15mpg.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: windsor ont canada
The mustang 302 h.o and the truck 302 had little in common basically just the block.The 281 is a cammer and makes peak torque at a far lower rpm than a push rod motor.The 302 h.o made 205 hp with accessories on and the non pi 281 is 220hp.The pi heads are only good for 11hp not 30 like everyone thinks.They changed the way motors were rated in 94.
Trending Topics
New User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by preppypyro
Thats odd you say that, I actually used to own an 87 mustang gt with a 302 5 speed, with I believe 2>78 grears and it usually got 30 mpg on the highway and best it got was 35.
Hag
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
New User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
I'm a little confused on the responses... are you guys saying you disbelieve the mpg ratings i've posted? if so... cool... i'm only presenting data i've found out through personally driving my car for the last 13 years...
are you saying you've driven a tbird 302 for more than a month and not noticed similar fuel consumption rates? if so... what have you been getting?
In any case there are many more friendly places on the net... i'll be heading there... please forgive the honorable attempt at contributing to this forum...
Hag
are you saying you've driven a tbird 302 for more than a month and not noticed similar fuel consumption rates? if so... what have you been getting?
In any case there are many more friendly places on the net... i'll be heading there... please forgive the honorable attempt at contributing to this forum...
Hag
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: windsor ont canada
Last edited by matt_97xl; Jun 3, 2005 at 09:26 PM.
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Originally Posted by Hag
I'm a little confused on the responses... are you guys saying you disbelieve the mpg ratings i've posted? if so... cool... i'm only presenting data i've found out through personally driving my car for the last 13 years...
are you saying you've driven a tbird 302 for more than a month and not noticed similar fuel consumption rates? if so... what have you been getting?
In any case there are many more friendly places on the net... i'll be heading there... please forgive the honorable attempt at contributing to this forum...
Hag
are you saying you've driven a tbird 302 for more than a month and not noticed similar fuel consumption rates? if so... what have you been getting?
In any case there are many more friendly places on the net... i'll be heading there... please forgive the honorable attempt at contributing to this forum...
Hag
Let's say we give you the benefit of the doubt........I'm thinking the smoking of the tires is what's raising the BS flag.
With a 2.XX rear axle ratio and driving at 50MPH, downhill, tailwind......the MPG is possible. I just don't see tire smoke with this combo.
From now on, in order to not offend new members, we'll just take what is offered without any dispute.
Please don't leave.
Thread Starter
|
FTE Legend
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 37,887
Likes: 20
From: North Central Rural Sask.
Funny, with my stang it averaged 28 mpg, and roasted the tires, funny what any vehicle can do with a standard tranny and any gearing in the rear end, especially for roasting tires.
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Originally Posted by preppypyro
Funny, with my stang it averaged 28 mpg, and roasted the tires, funny what any vehicle can do with a standard tranny and any gearing in the rear end, especially for roasting tires.
What exactly is funny??? A guy with a T-bird that weighs 500 pounds more than your stang, has an automatic tranny AND gets 5 MPG BETTER fuel economy...............and your point?
Sounds like your stang should be doing MUCH better...