i love how you compare a 69 302 to a 80s 300 you both need to get your stories straight as you are both veteran posters on this site and its people like that whom give younger guys like me bad info. im not saying which is right or wrong just that you need to either not post or know what your posting about. i dont like to take sides but racin i think yoiu need to look at what your comparing before you shoot off at the fingers in this case the guy just wanted answers not a battel between which was better

 

All of this Started off of just a friendly joke, I meant nothing of it and I replied with an actual suggestion afterwards. Its a difficult task to put a EFI 302 in and not nessesary. As Far as the 69 302 goes, lets compare a 69' 300 six and You would see that the power is not all that different from the 80's models. My point was that Im sick of people glorifying the 300 and ******* the 302 when there was a reason that the 302 was put in more vehicles than the six could ever imagine, because its is a better engine.

 

The 302 is a better engine....for a car. The 300 is a better truck engine. The 302 has a short stroke with smaller displacement per cylinder. That makes for a quick-reving engina that has good top-end. The 300 would be the biggest dog in a mustang, period. It wouldnt get up any faster than my brother's f/s bronc (300). The 300's long stroke makes for pretty good torque at low rpms, and they have been proven to be very reliable engines as having been used forever. The 302 is a good engine too. Each is good in their proper application

 

thanks for clearing that up guys i dont me to complain but i see it way to much where one guy claims to know everything and the other the same but both have differnt answers and it just bothers me cause the whole reason i come here is for answers not acusations and again sorry for making this so long and thank you for the clearification

thanks
tony

 

you can't compare 60's numbers with 80's numbers, obtained differently. ford put the 300 in f-250's over the 302 for a reason. yes the 302 numbers are good, but at a much higher rpm. the 300 will pull anything, just not very fast. before my carb took a crap i was getting 18 mpg with my 300 on the highway and its in a 4x4 short bed, no cap or cover. carb took a crap now i get 9-11 mpg, and have no power. a lot of ppl don't realize how much the 1bbl screws over the 300 when it is slightly off.

 

Man Im glad I didn't say drop in a 460

 

Once again you embarass yourself.
1. Get myself a Chilton's? Chiltons is for you. My numbers come from THE authority on Ford Trucks...the Ford Motor Company 1983 Light Truck Specifications Book. Did you sit down yet?
2. It is a little ridiculous to compare 60s engines with 80s engines, but what the hay.... I do know (cause I lived then) hp ratings were calculated differently back in the 60s, much higher numbers. Maybe torque is the same situation.
3. Here are your numbers for 1983: 302 had peak torque of 250 at 2000 rpm. 300 had 250 at 1600 rpm. As for the 400 not meaning much, the whole driving experience through the power range is different.
4. The 300 equipped with a four speed overdrive had an overall city/highway rating by the EPA in 1983 at 18 mpg. (see fueleconomy.gov)
5. The 302 AOD (4OD not rated) got 15 mpg.
6. I've had mine since new in 83, driven 170,000, LB and SC included and got 21 hwy when it has new. Measured it last year on a 500 mile trip over rolling terrain...got 19.9 mpg. Excuse me if I call that 20 mpg.
7. Yes you do have more experience with Ford sixes, but you didn't learn anything in the process. Youve gone through quite a few trucks. Are you driving in circles?

 

That makes complete sense to me.

 

and all i wanted to find out was how to make my 300 last longer and in comes all this arguing... sorry guys but im sticking with my 300 because i believe its a great engine for MY truck...but to each his own

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are the one that's insane, you are rude, and you are now on my ignore list goodbye.

EDIT:

Sorry for all the hassle. If I seemed rude with my original post I apologise to everyone.

This guy is obviously trying to compare apples and oranges. A car is a car and a truck is a truck. I wouldn't have a 300 in a car either. No speed. The fact's don't lie, he is correct on that, so I suggest anybody look up the numbers on the 80's 302 and 300 engines, the EPA's mileage tests on these engines and let that speak for themselves.

-----

The 300 guttless, and doesn't get good gas mileage? he must be trying to drive it like a v8 and revving it's RPMs out of it's power range. This is my opinion only.

 

I said compare the numbers between a 69' 300 six and a 69 302, youll see a difference. And Why is it nobody can answer my question on why ford put more 302's in trucks than they did 300's. By the way ford did put 302's in f-250's and f-350's, google it. the only reason ford put the 300 in truck was it was a good <b>BASE</b> engine that the tooling had already been long paid for. Listen, you guys can keep drinking the kool-aid in your own bubble. like I said where is the facts?

 

where "are" the facts. Fourth grade English.

 

Sorry for starting an arguement. Not intended.

As for your question about wheels, I would need to look up your GVWRs, and if you have short or long wheelbase, what options were on the truck, to look it up in my book to answer your question, and even then.

The 80's F-100's came with two distinct sized wheel patterns.

The easiest way to find out is to take a tape measure and measure the distance between the lugs. A tire shop should also be able to help you out as well.

 

i was merely stating that this turned into an huge argument just from me wanting to know how to tune up my engine...i meant nothing by it except i was kinda suprised with all this...sorry to come off as im pissed because im really not...

 

Where "are" the facts... Good One. First grade English.