I'll answer your question for you*:

Assuming that you're correct in that Ford put more 302's in trucks than they did 300's, which I would like to see you back up, Ford puts whatever motor in the truck that sells better. Some people are REALLY hung up on having a V8 in a truck. They automatically think the six is an inferior motor, and that conclusion is born out of ignorance.

Now answer mine: Why wasn't the 302 available in anything bigger than a light-duty F-250, while the 300 was available in everything up to an F-600?

I can't *WAIT* to see your answer. Try to leave 'moron' out of this time, ok?

* Even though I shouldn't, it's obvious you already have your mind made up about the matter. You're also rude, snotty, and condescending. Those who must resort to name calling generally don't have a very good argument to make.

 

The 300 did not become Ford's BASE engine until 1977.

The 302 was the baseline engine in 1969.

The guy also wanted facts well, here's some facts for him to consider. And not my own words either...

An excerpt from the Ford F-series Pickup owners bible.

By 1968, Ford's 240 and 300-cubic-inch sixes had earned a loyal following. But light truck buyers were infected with high horsepower expectations. By 1969 the small block 302 V-8 popularized by mustang and Bronco in it's earlier 289-cubic inch form, now provided standard V8 power for the F-100 pickup. The 302, standard in 1969 meant an 8:6:1 or 9.5:1 compression ratio, depending upon application. Horsepower was an impressive 205 or 210, respectively with either 295 or 300 Ft lb torque. The ultra light weight 302 Ford shares pertinent bore / stroke diamensions with the chevy 302, each having a 4.00 inch bore and 3.00 inch stroke.

The 302, even in de-tuned two barrel carb truck form, is a dramaticly over-square engine with peak horsepower and torque at a reletively high rpm. For pure truck -type lugging power, the 300 inline six with 8:1 compression ratio and 4.00 inch bore by 3.98 inch stroke held an edge. Despite it's lower 165 horsepower, the 300 six produced 294 ft / lb of peak torque at a workable 2000 rpm. Users who valued strong lugging power and thrifty performance under load opted for the 300. The 302, noted for it's peppy cruise speed performance, served well with lighter cargos and for highway commuting.

 

Just so you know, here are direct quotes from my 1983 Ford Specifications book:
300 I-6 120 hp @ 3200 rpm, 251 ft-lb @ 1600 rpm
302 V-8 119 hp @ 3400 rpm, 250 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm
These were values for F150 4X2's with carburetors (49 states). Some very minor variations between models, transmissions, etc.
I would guess that seven main bearings gives the six longer average lifetime.
The manual also shows the 300 available in all trucks up through F350 while the 302 only up through F250 (under 8500 lb. GVWR).

 

While driving my 300 yesterday, cognizant of our "discussion", I was struck how much torque I had just off idle, in the 1000 rpm range.

 

I have a couple f-100's with 300 I6's. One with 63,000 on a rebuilt motor, production date 2/82. It was rebuilt at 270,000 and the other has 250,000, production date 10/82 and still going strong. Regular tune ups, lube all the fittings and oil changes every 2,000 like clock work. I toss in a quart of duralube's high engine treatment with every oil change. Both trucks get beaten and hammered every day and keep going strong. With keeping up the proper maintance, I think they will out last me.

 

thank you very much, that response is the type of responses i was wanting to hear...

 

The earlier trucks could of had 2 different bolt patterns. I believe it was either a 5x4.5 like the ford cars, or the larger 5x5.5. My 83 F-100 had the larger bolt pattern. It had the 300, it got just over 15mpg with the stock tires, then I lifted it with 33's and only got 9mpg.

 

It's very interesting how the 1960's numbers and the 1980's numbers differ. My book accounts for that because of the strict emissions standards being introduced later.

------

As for longevity. My truck has around 470,000 miles and is just now showing signs of worn valve guides on the original head. That is with routine maintenance and 3000 mile oil changes, using Motorcraft oil and Motorcraft tune up parts.

the 470,000 miles is I'd say 90% highway miles though. Few stop and go miles. It's only had one clutch replacement in that time as well. But it is due for another one sooner than later.


hope this helps.

 

81-F-150-Explorer,
I think the earlier (and much higher) ratings also were measured at the flywheel with no power robbing accessories attached. Air pumps, EGR valves, retarded cam timing, restrictive catalytic converters, et. al. have done a job on performance. Fortunately some has been recovered with computer controlled fuel injection.

 

i would run at least 89 octane in it to keep it from spark knockin. and fix any vacuum leaks it might develop, they can lean out the mixture and kill the engine (spark knock).i dont get in the throttle very heavy, i take off easy that way u put less of a load on the engine and lessen the chance of spark knock. u can also get the oil analized and get a good idea of how much wear metal is in it and how long to go on your drain intervals. keep up on timing adjustments and dont use cheap spark plug wires cuase you get what u pay for. i like napa belden or motorcraft wires. i always use a motorcraft oil filter and prefill it with as much oil as i can when i change oil.and u can disconect the ignition when u do an oil change and crank it over till u get oil pressure to prevent a dry start. and like was said b4 dont overheat it- a mechanical temp gauge would be a good addition, the stock electric one sux, imo. i use the older type SL engine oil in my 83 f100. i can only find it at autozone though. everything else has changed over to sm, which i dont think has zddp in it anymore and i think might be bad for the cam. flush the cooling system completely every 2 years and use distilled water and keep a 50/50 mix of antifreeze in it and the engine should last a long time. and lets knock off the name calling and bickering, we dont need that in this forum!