The 302 (along with the virtually identical 289) have probably the best racing heritage of any production based engines; far exceeding the SBC's racing heritage. This occured during the 60's and 70's, so most people today are not aware.

The SBF was purposely designed to be extra light weight and compact, because this was the primary problem with the previous Y-block. With the Y-block, you had a motor that weighed almost as much as an FE motor, but only displaced about 5 liters. This emphasis on lightness and smallness should not be translated to mean weakness. The reciprocating weights are low, and that, along with proper reciprocating geometry, translates to outstanding durability, even at sustained very high engine speeds. The above average quality of the engineering made the SBF a natural for racing applications.

The SBF was first raced at Indy in 1963 with a podium finish (all the SBC based motors DNFed). This began a dynasty of dominance in Indy racing that lasted until 1977, when it was eventually superceded by the Ford Cosworth. More production based versions of the SBF were very successful throughout the 60's; ranging from Shelby 289's to the Boss 302.

It should of come as no surprize when a new generation discovered that the 5.0L HO was very good at street racing, and continues to be one of the prime performers on drag strips world wide.

The 351w was designed to be a larger version of the 302 for use in heavier vehicles. Low end tourqe is mostly a function of displacement. To maintain the same rod ratio with increased stroke, it was required that the block be raised. Another design change in view of more lugging power was wider bearing surfaces. This however, along with increased weights, does reduce the high RPM redline of the 351w compared to a comparably built 302.

 

So, if the 302 carried the racing herritage, why did ford put the 5.8L in the Lightning?

 

weight.......it's a truck

 

If you were getting rid of a 1968 302 J code I'd buy it in an instant...

 

As for the 351W in the Lightning, why not? Ford did make a Mustang prototype with a 351W. They still sell the camshaft for it.

 

i love them!!

 

my 302 in my 89 ford ran excellent. it only had headers and dual exhaust for mods, and a 4 speed behind it. It never lost a race to my buddies 351s or 460s!

 

The 302 is a great little engine, I love mine. It pulls my extended cab F150 along just fine, a racer it sure isn't but for a daily driver engine it does just fine. Having a automatic and 3.55 gears helps her quite a bit too. Theres no doubt the truck could use a little more engine.

All the stories here just go to show you how much heart that "little car engine" has. Its one thing to run 200,000 miles being used in a commuter car, it says something completely different when it last that long being used and abused in a work truck.

I also happen to have a 300 and a 351 in my truck stable. I will admit they're both better suited for a work truck. I have great respect for the 300, 302, and 351, I'd have a hard time choosing a favorite between the 3, I like them all for different reasons/purposes.

 

I happen to be a fan of the 302 and prefer them over the 351W for most of my own applications. When I got my Tiger it had a 302 in it (in place of the original 260) and while the 302 is of course a perfect fit, it takes some finnessing to stuff a 351W into the already confined space of the Tiger's engine compartment. In a 2500 pound car, the 302 has plenty of torque ( )

When I was racing, I chose to use a 302 for several reasons. One was that I already had a lot of 302 parts from playing with different combinations for the Tiger, and another was that I wanted to build an engine that would rev freely and the 351W's 3" mains can have some friction problems at 7200 RPM, whereas my 302 would run at that speed all night happily (with reworked stock rods, I might add).

Another factor for me in both these applications is the increased weight of the 351W. I didn't want any more weight on the front axle of either of these vehicles than I already had.

Of course, we're talking about trucks here, which is a whole different ball of wax. If I had a full sized truck with a 302 I might very well want a 351W in it. If I had a full sized Bronco, I might very well be happy with a 302 in it...but since I don't have either, I guess it's a moot point...

But all in all, I love the 302 and will keep using them. It's what I chose to swap into my Ranger, I'm planning to put one in my boat, and don't think it hasn't crossed my mind to swap one into my Range Rover when the under-powered 3.9 finally takes a dump on me...

 

That 302 might be an upgrade for the aluminum chunks they're using in the Rovers........351 in a lightning...well...the whole "there is no replacement for displacement" mentality....not to mention they ditched the Cast Iron heads for aluminum ones to drop some weight on it(plus bigger valves)......course they had to with that heavy thing they call an E4OD........speaking of lightnings...what were the differences between a 90's model 5.0 and the Lightning motors.....besides cubes and the heads and intake.

 

Since when did the 351W Lightnings have aluminum heads ? And what 90's 5.0 are you wanting to compare to? There were at least 7 different 5.0's in factory applications. There was what was refered to by Ford as the "base" 5.0 used in the cars (roller cammed with E6 heads), the pickups and vans started with a roller block but flat tappet equipped 5.0, then in 92 were upgraded with the "base" roller used in the cars, then graduated to the F4TE roller cam in 94, then Mass Air EFI starting in 94 as well (but not all got MAF systems) Then there was the T-Bird/Cougar 5.0, in std form and cammed up in 93 with the GT40 roller cam. Then there was the Stang's 5.0 HO and the 93-95 "Cobra" 5.0. Lastly there was the Explorer/Mountaineer 5.0, which was basically the Stang Cobra motor, but cammed down with the truck F4TE cam.

 

Hmmm...thought Lightnings had aluminum GT 40 heads...and I apologize for being so ignorant as not to know that there are a dozen variants of the 302's designed built and assembled in the 90's...I was actually referring to the 95 5.0's with the E7TE heads and the *****ty cam........

 

The Lightnings had the iron GT40 heads. And that ****ty cam in the 95's is actually a pretty good piece. It's just marginally less cam than the 5.0 H.O cam was. Ten degrees less duration & .030 less lift on the intake side, with a 1* wider LSA. Put 1.7 rockers on it with a carb and it'll run like an EFI motor. (256/266 advertised duration, lift is .445/.473 with 1.7 rockers, 116* LSA) This is also the same cam used in the 96-2001 Explorer/Mountaineer 5.0 and the roller cammed 95-97 351W.

 

funny you should say that, i saw a 5.8 Mustang, supercharged at the "World Of Wheels" at the Bayside Expo Center in boston, really cool, i didnt know those were prototypes

 

Commenting on the gear ratio. I cannot possibly go through 4 pages while drunk. let alone 2 am.

But, my 91 nite was running 302 with 3.08 gears, and I never had trouble with any sort of hauling application.
My 95 has a 302, and it runs good. cept for its tired, and wasn't properly taken care of before me. I can only do so much for the poor thing. =\
It still has plenty of spunk, and power, just no gas mileage.

302's for the win.

351 is great motor. But the 302 does a lot of heavy lifting for ford.

Okay, i read the last page.

95 302 cams.

Mine needs WAY more cam.
It sucks ***** on the cam market.