I love West Virginia!

The 302 is a more powerful engine, nobody is disputing that. It's a V8. The 300 makes a great working engine too though.

The 4.2L is a great engine. I'm a big fan of these and I would never be afraid to buy an F-150 with a 4.2L. I think the 4.2 is more of a horsepower motor, though.

Denbar, did you see the dynograph I posted?

 

Denbar, my eyes are young, but not good enough to see the chart. The font is too small. For some reason when I saved it to my computer it got smaller I think (it's been a while). I don't know where the originial is!

Anyway, I remember the poster saying the 300 was making a great amount of torque under 2,000 rpm, and the 302 started making good torque around the same RPM level. The point was that below two grand, the 300 took the cake, but after two grand the 302 turned into a monster.

Basically, the roles of the two engines are opposite!

I would love to see dyno's on stock 300's and 302's.

But to answer your question sir, No, I do not believe it is suggesting the 300 is peaking at four grand. It should be peaking at two and dropping off from there?

I can't see the bloody chart. Is there any way to magnify it?

 

I can't see the bloody chart. Is there any way to magnify it?

I wish I could, Workin on that. My 57 y/o eyes can't C it either. It DID swell up when c/p to my mac wrd processor but still 2 sm. (4 now).
Thanks go out to Bill, again!

The bikes: 78 KZ 2 cyl 4 stroke 750, 77 Kowie 3 cyl 500 2 stroke, 57 Triumph ("Thunderbird")2 cyl 4 stroke 650.
All ridden in the early '80s in Charleston, Morgantown, Preston Co and St. Mary's, W(BG)V. Now parked in the barn @ Lawrence Swamp (in Amherst), MA. The 750 still runs & gets registered periodically. The triple (all the jap co.'s made them: 250 - 750, 2 stroke, 3 cyl) is 'too much' for me now.

 

Thanks Chad! Please let me know if you can magnify it or not and repost it.

 

I saved a copy to my PC, and when I magnify it, the font gets rather blurry. Still, I was able to tell that the shorter 2 lines are for the 300, and the longer 2 are for the 302.
The upper lines are torque, and the lower are HP.
it looks like the 300 tq peaks @ 2000, and the long curve runs from 1500 to about 3000, where it starts to fall off fast. But it stays fairly consistant from 1500 to 3000.
HP on the 300 peaks at about 3000, and starts falling off.
The 302 tq peaks @ about 3500, but is still lower than the 300's peak, and continues to fall off fairly quick after 4000.
HP on the 302 is a bit lower than the 300, until about 3000, and continues to climb thru 4000, where it levels off, and starts back down about 5000.

That's the best I can decipher thru the blurriness of the font, and the fuzziness of my 45 year old eyes......

 

6cylBill,
I enlarged the chart and enhanced the color a little, it’s a little grainy but for me it’s more readable and makes more sense to me now.

According to this chart and these two engines, the 300 has more torque. From what I can see the 300 is showing around 340-345 ft. lbs @ 2000 RPM’s (dark green line) and the 302 is showing around 320-325 ft. lbs @ 3500 RPM’s (light green line). Which seems high for both engines to me. It leaves me wondering about what has been done to both engines especially since the horsepower is pretty close to being stock for both engines. (You did say a HO 302, right?) It also leaves me wondering, since these dyno’s were done at the flywheel, how Ford rated them… at the crank or at the tires?

I also found some info at Wiki (under F-Series) which shows, depending on the year, the 300 having more torque at times that the 302. The Chilton’s book I was looking in was for 92-96 models I think and the ratings, the best I can remember, were consistent for all model years, yet Wiki shows several fluctuations. It’s interesting to say the least.

Give me a few minutes and I will try and post the chart.

 

 

Yeah, that's supposed to be a 302 HO, and the 300 is supposed to be a 300 with exhaust and maybe a cam (I can't remember, it's been too long).
I do remember when I could read the chart the 302 deffinately made more torque than the 300, just not under 2,000 rpm.

You are right though. At certain years, the 300 made the same amount of power as the 302. The older carb'd versions of the 302 were dogs (in stock form). This isn't bad mouthing the 302, though. All older engines were somewhat anemic back then. I remember looking up specs on different engines comparing them to the 300 and the older 350's didn't make hardly any more torque than the 300.. and did so at higher rpm's.

Of course, as time went on and better fuel management systems (and cam shafts?) were being produced, the 300 was left in the dust. 350's started making respectable power and the 302 was making nearly 200 horse and 300 foot pounds.

The 300 did gain about 25 horse with EFI, but lost bottom end power. It's a shame the 300 got left in the dust. I would have liked to have seen a more powerful inline developed before Ford canned the I6 platform.

Thanks again for working on the chart!

 

Denbar, what do you drive? I see you're a new user. Welcome to FTE!

 

Now that I have looked at it closer that's the way I see it too! Does this mean that hind site is NOT always 20/20?

 

I would have to agree to that 6CylBill! The 300 is just a good engine. Simple design and as durable as any. I'm thinking a twin turbo DOHC 300 would'a done the trick!

 

Thanks for the welcome! It seems like a good place to hang out.

I have a 94 F150 with a 300 in it. I also have a 99 F150 with a 5.4l engine in it. I need the 94 to pick up parts for the 99!

 

Those numbers seem high they must be gross rating(engine alone).

 

That Thunderbird is a cool bike! Warm weather is here, you need to dust her off and fire her up!

Of course, with so many in storage you're bound to be running low on room, so if that's the case there's plenty of room in my garage for that Thunderbird!

 

The way I see it, the boost in power was due to the larger size of the throttle body. The same reason for the loss in low end......
Had they used a dual butterfly, staged throttle body, it could have kept more low end, and still had the higher RPM power. Just my un-edumacated guess........

Lets face it, no matter what they do to a 300, it will never have the power available to a similar sized V8. That long (~4") stroke kills it's ability to wind high. Ironically, that same item makes for a perfect torque maker....
Yes, an I6 has the potential to make plenty of power. Look at those crazy Aussie's and their turbocharged I6 Falcon's. Straight from the factory, they can give the Holden (GM) guys and their V8's a good run for the money. I cannot figure out why ford doesn't bring that engine over here........