Hello Ford Folks,

I'm new to the site here and have been doing a little reading. I'm hoping you guys can help me with my motor. I have an 83 F150 4x4 that I rebuilt about 6 years ago. The truck looks great and runs pretty well for the most part. It has a 302 with hypereutectic pistons, shorty headers, MSD ignition, Holley 4160 carb (600 cfm), Edelbrock performer intake and cam +springs. The truck runs great by itself but has a hard time when towing my boat (on hills). It has 3.55 gears and a NP 435 (granny low) 4 speed and 32 inch tires. The motor never turns more than about 3000 rpm. I'm trying to decide if I need to build up a 351 with an RV type cam or see if I can mod my current engine with an RV cam and maybe some GT-40 heads. Does anyone have any experience with getting the max torque out of a 302 at a low rpm (1500 to 2800)? I'd like to avoid regearing if able.

Thanks,
Murf

 

You have come to the right man, I have a 302 I just put toghether that is so strong that It's killing the transission. I have a list of parts below, and I hope that you do get into building motors for max torque, because most people only build for horsepower, and they are really let down when they get awful gas milage, and slow acceleration from high-duration cams. Yes, a 302 is a motor capable of pulling whatever you want, it just takes the right parts. I'll be happy to help you, don't use GT-40 heads, they're still Ford units, get some aftermarket heads is you want real performance.
John F. Daly III
The TorqueKing

Windsor Jr. Heads,
Comp Xtreme Energy 250 (hyd. flat tappet) cam,
Edelbrock 600 carb,
Weiand dual plane intake,
Crane Energizer Rockers,
ARP studs, everywhere
MSD 6A Ignition/Blaster II Coil
Flowtech headers/Dynomax twin converters
2.5" pipes, unhushed
9.7:1 static compression
Fel-Pro gaskets
Comp Hi-Energy Pushrods
Cal-Customs Finned Aluminum vintage valve covers 1960's
14x2.75" K&N dish
Dyno 2000 reports: 378 Ft*Lbs @ 3000 RPM, 329 HP @ 5500 RPM

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-May-02 AT 07:20 PM (EST)]Ditch the 302. They work great in Mustangs because Fox bodies weight 12 1/2 pounds and you can really twist the motor up. They don't have any business in a truck that is going to see any serious towing duty at low RPM's. You can't get any useful amount of torque out of a short stroke motor, unless of course, you stroke it. They were designed to push around Fairlanes, Falcons, and Mustangs. Not drag trailers down the highway! Move up to a 351W and you'll never be happier. They inherently make more low end power right out of the box. Plus it'll bolt directly in place of the 302. If you want to pull a boat and keep the 302, you will have to regear.

 

I agree that more stroke=more torque, it's a simple mechanical advantage problem, think of the leverage it creates on the crank. Don't eliminate the 302, I get 378 ft*lbs (flywheel gross) @ 3500 RPM, and 365 ft*lbs @ only 2000 RPM! True, it's much easier to do that with a 351, but now incorporate the ideal 1.62:1 stroke/rod ratio, and now you can see why the 302 is one of the most bulletproof motors that was ever born. I'm not saying that every 302 is going to go 250,000 miles, but it has a better chance than a 351w, simply because it has less reciprocating mass, therefore less mechanical wear on the short block. BTW, it also has a shorter pushrod, which means more stability and less deflection under extreme conditions. I like both engines, and they both have their features, and an appropriately-built 302 is right at home in most any application.

The TorqueKing

 

<the ideal 1.62:1 stroke/rod ratio>

Gee the Stroke/rod ratio for my 435 CI Stroker 400 is 1.619 to 1. So is this really good then ????

Boy My Motor is just getting better and better .

Can spin 8000 Rpm's without breaking a sweat and will last a while too.

 

Don't you love finding out that your stuff is the best? Must be nice, I'll be able to tell you about it one day when I build my 393 non-stroked small block beast, from the new Dart Iron Eagle block, which can take 4.185" inches of bore, that has a 1.88 s/r ratio. what a beast, my dyno 2000 says it should make over 500 ft*lbs at 2000 RPM. wow, I'm about to wet my pants....

Cadet Second Lieutenant John F. Daly III
South Carolina Corps of Cadets, The Citadel
The TorqueKing

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Back the truck up here! Do you REALLY want to debate this? You cannot compare a 302 to a 351W! It's apples and oranges! You list some respectable torque and horsepower numbers there, but I am a bit skeptical. Dyno 2000 is a computer program. By it's very nature, it is forced to assume a lot of things. In absolutely flawless, controlled conditions, it is not unfathomable to make that kind of power with a 302. But it ain't easy, or cheap. It takes skilled craftsmanship and exacting engine building technique to develop power like that with a virtually stock bottom end. And I do believe I remember you saying in an earlier post that your short block is the remains of an Autozone $19.95 rebuilt. (Blame them for your blown gasket - not Ford heads!) Want to impress me? Turn off the Hi-Po video game and show me a REAL dyno slip! While we're at it, let's talk about torque. 378 ft/lbs at 3500 RPM is just swell. How much jack have you dropped on the top end of that motor? The 351W debuted in 1969 rated at 385 ft/lbs at 3200 RPM. Right out of the box with stone stock heads (the FORD castings you hate so much), a wheezer 470 cfm carb, points-fired ignition, and single exhaust through stock iron manifolds. Please excuse me for not being impressed. If you had shelled out a few more bucks for a 351W core and built it with all those high dollar parts you've already got, you wouldn't be drooling over a stroked Dart block because you would already be pissing down your pantleg! I don't buy your arguement for durability either. Yes, some may extoll the virtues of having an "ideal" rod to stroke ratio, but you are ignoring the fact that the 351 makes MORE power at a LOWER RPM resulting in less revolutions and less resulting wear of the reciprocating assembly to achieve the same amount of work. You also haven't taken into account that when the stroke was increased to create the 351 from the 302, the diameter of the main bearing journals was increased as well, spreading the stress and wear out over a greater surface area. Pushrod deflection, fine. You have an absolutely valid point. That is until once again we consider that the 351 will not have to rev to infinity as would a 302 to make a given amount of power. Extremely high RPM's are the only place where this may become an issue. I honestly don't mean to sound so critical, but after wasting time and money on 302's only to find out that I can get the same or better results for less cash and effort, I cannot ever recommend a 289 or 302 for any application that requires a lot of low end power. Namely trucks. Just for the record, I own a '65 Mustang with a transplanted 302 and previously a late model 5.0, both of which I am ecstatic with. Let 'em spin and make their horsepower where they were meant to, and they can't be beat.

 

Oh, and shazam, you stay outta this! That's not even fair! You rolled up to a gunfight driving a tank when everybody else has pop-guns!:-staun

 

Yeah, I'd be making more power, but I have what I have, sometimes I wish I had the mighty 351, but the 302 is a terrific engine, and I am very happy with it. One day, the Dart block monster I'm gonna make will be the king of all Windsors, a stock 3.5" stroke and a 4.185" bore, yeah, 389 cubic inches, and I'll spare no expense on the bottom end. That's why I have a long time to save up, because that monster that lives under my hood now has another 200,000 miles to rock me anywhere I wanna go in America. I'll be the first to admit that not all simulations are accurate, but this one is as close as they come. It uses the cylinder filling method, which integrates cylinder pressure over a specified RPM range, which yeilds the torque, thence HP is calculated. The cylinder pressure is calculated based on extensive cam profiling and cylinder head modeling. No, I will never claim to make as much torque as your 351, but my 302 will definately get it on the street. When I'm ready for a serious torque monster, I'll build the Dart-blocked 3.85" stroke x 4.185" bore engine, with a hydraulic Xtreme Energy roller cam, and Roush 200 heads. that will be real tuff to beat, wer're talking about 550 ft*lbs at 2000 RPM here, and that is with its own lungs, no laughing gas. All I have to do is change my stroke to 3.5" on my 302, and I'll show you that the most accurate engine simulator on the market predicts a massive 433 Ft*lbs at only 2500 RPM. The funny thing is, that it doesn't effect the hosepower at all, same peak. Hey, no need to get feathers ruffled here, I have a 302, you have a 351, I enjoy the performance I get with mine, it makes damn fine torque, and the RPM capability of this engine makes it the local streetsweeper. Unless you have serious chassis mods, you can't make use of all that torque anyway, so I'd like to think that my 302 is pushing the envelope of too much torque to drive in a light truck. I'm sure yours is nice, and as soon as I get my Carter electric fuel pump, I can actually tune it to the point where I'll go get a "real" dyno slip. How does 300 ft*lbs at the wheels sound?

Cadet Second Lieutenant John F. Daly III
South Carolina Corps of Cadets, The Citadel
The TorqueKing

 

 

Hello, i imagine all this info would be the same for an 82' E150? Or are 82' and 83' different and are vans different from trucks where the engine is concerned. Im looking for same as threadstarter, TORQUE, at this point my motor is competely stock.