IcemanV8 I'm not bashing the 302. Its a great motor it just that like what everybody else says I think it doesnt really belong in a pickup. Well if your pickup is a drag racer or mudracer i would take a 302 but would much rather have a 351. I'm just wondering why in the hell would you want a 360? The only good thing i've found out from my 360 is that i cant blow the damn thing up and its gutless.

Sliver Streak, I agree with you about what you said. I never firgured it from that point of view. If it were a person lets say one that does a little crawling and their rig is their daily driver i would say the 300 would be the better choice overall. If they go with a small lift and mild gearing it would be great. If it was a serious offroader the 302 would better over the 300 but vs the 351 and 460 i would say it would come down to what kind what kind of rig you got and what kind of offroading.

IcemanV8 from what you said on all the forums ive been on you have been that you have been on you can be a *****.

 

my 302 is carbed and it has 3.08 as well as my 330 which is efi

 

I don't know why I'm going to bother, but here goes. On paper they might have the same torque, but on the pavement they aren't really even close. Ford claims around 260 ft-lbs from each engine, but at different rpms. Look at the dyno numbers in my sig and take them in. 272 ft-lbs from idle through 3000 rpm AT THE WHEELS. The truck pulled those numbers on a 250k mile long block that had headers and exhaust. That's nearly 320 ft-lbs at the flywheel. I seriously doubt I gained 60 ft-lbs from an exhaust mod. I searched and searched for a 302 dyno chart and couldn't find one. I did find one for a well built 331 stroker and it only made 318 ft-lbs @ 4000 rpm and dropped off considerably above and below that rpm.


I doubt a 302 is at its peak torque at that rpm. The 300 peaks at 2100-2400 depending on which book you believe, but it makes within 5 ft-lbs of peak from 1500 to 3000 rpm. The 300 is the one that's doing its best work at the rpms seen on the highway. With 3.08's I see 2000 rpm@ 60 in 5th and 2500@ 60 in 4th.

 

It seems that people are forgetting something very vital when comparing V8s and I6s. It's not necessarily how MUCH torque they make, or at what RPM they make it at, it's how LONG they make it for.

This is only a simulation of V8 vs I6 torque curves, the red is the I6 and the blue is the V8, but it should get across the general idea.



Even though the V8 makes MORE torque at maybe a more usable RPM, the thing to keep in mind is that when a V8 isn't making it's peak torque, it's making significantly less than it's peak. So unless it's at it's peak torque RPM, it's probably making 70% or even less.
In summation, it only makes it's peak torque for a short time and when it's not, it's not making anywhere close. That's why you see these torque monster V8s in trucks today that are boasting things like 600 torque. You might make 600 torque for a range of about 100 - 200 RPMs, but the rest of the time, you're making around 300 or less.

On the flip side, by the nature of it's design, when an I6 isn't making it's peak torque, it's still making around 90% of that or more almost all the time. That means that even though you're not at your "peak" RPM for torque, you're still making a buttload of torque at almost any RPM range. I know on a carb 300, it makes 255 torque at 1400 RPMS. However, at 1000 RPMs, it's still making around 230, and then when you rev it all the way up to 3000 and it's starting to drop of, you're still around 210 - 220. THAT is why the 300 is a torque monster.
If the 300 made torque the way a V8 did, and made 255 torque at 1400 RPMs as it does now, when it was at 1000 RPMs, instead of being at 230, it'd be sitting around 150, and when it was up at 3000 RPMs, it'd be down around 110 - 120.
I know that's a mouth full, but hopefully it'll shed some light on why a 300 is a torque king. It's not saying it's BETTER than a 302 or 351, just that when it comes to this arguement of when the engines make their torque, people seem to be forgetting a very valuable element of the I6/300 design.

 

AB nailed it. V8's almost always have a steep torque climb, and peak at a certain spot, then fall off just as quickly as it climbed.
The I6, no matter who made it, or what it runs on, will have a very fast climbing torque figure, followed by a lengthy flat, then fall off as they reach their designed RPM limit.
Torque is what moves the load, power is how fast it moves the load.

 

i disagree, man. I mean, you have the general idea down, sure. but that is a lame, lame peice of evidence to support your claims. youre telling me most V8s, let alone truck V8s, are making 100 lb-ft at 2000 rpm? absolutely wrong. Again, you have the right idea, youre just blowing it WAY out of proportion. A 351 dynograph would be great right now...

I bet i'd really set your asses on fire if i scanned the article in MM&FF where they dynoed a 5.0 mustang from idle and saw 230 lb-ft at 1300 rpm....You dare me to?

And thats just the lowly, pathetic little 302, right? Mind you the 351 has the exact same E7TE heads that the 302 HOs have....Adding 51 cubes under the same heads is going to move the power and torque curves way down.

And i am by no means disregarding your numbers on the 300. They are spot-on and your points about it being an advantage are fine. Just dont tell me that a V8, especially TRUCK V8s!!!, are making 150 lb-ft at 1000 rpm because youre wrong. I have let my mustang idle third gear uphill off the gas and it didnt die. I mean, go ahead and throw my evidence out because its in a 2900 pound coupe with 26" tires, thats what most of you stubborn 300 guys do anyways, but do not begin to blast all this bulljive about V8s all over the internet.

Where a 300 gives up absolutely everything to give you max low-end torque for minimum dollar, a 351 will cost you more, but give you twice the area under the torque and power curves. Given its larger size, it can be built for slightly higher rpm power peaks and whatnot, and let the extra cubic inches take care of low end. The 351 is proof of that. you pay more, sacrafice no low end, and have lots more power up high. Go on now, sorry i struck a soft spot, now blast more crap all over the internet about how 300s last longer and get better gas mileage and this that and the other thing completely unrelated to the topic.

Just for the record, i'd love to see a modern 300. Also, I HAVE ONE. So i know what youre all talking about. On the other hand, i can see why ford dropped it, and im really not that impressed. The only reason that motor exists is to lower the price of the base model work trucks. The one customers really want has a 351 or a 460...

 

Sorry, you must've misunderstood me. I wasn't saying anything about a 302 or a 351 making 150 ft-lbs at 1000 RPMs or that they can't make great torque. I was saying that if there was a comparable V8 of the 300 that made it's peak torque of 255 at 1400 (as the carb version of the 300 does), that the torque at higher RPMs and lower RPMs would be lower than an identical I6. It's the nature of the beast, a V8's torque curve just drops off faster than a straight six after and before it's peak. It means that a I6 makes closer to its peak MORE of the time than a V8 does. Now, a 351 may make more torque than a 300 most of the time, it's a beast and I won't deny it, but any way you look at it, it makes a lower percentage of it's peak torque throughout the RPM range than an I6. Anyone that denies this doesn't know their engines.

Also, like I said in my post, I wasn't giving any "evidence". The graph was merely for a visual representation of the way the two different engines work.

All in all, it was a factor of the equation that had been left out of the discussion to this point.

 

alright i changed my mind after writing that first post.

HERES ACTUAL EVIDENCE




peak torque on this mustang was 286.4@3400. At 1300 rpm? 234...

234 / 286.4 = .817 = 81.7% of this things torque is available at 1300 rpm. Not 70% or less, like you claim most V8s "probably are". And this is just the lowly 302 right? Also notice that at 5300 rpm, where a 300 is making NO power, and who knows how much torque (because no one dynos these things in the first place, and no one takes them that high!!!) that the mustang is making 199.2 lb-ft and 201 hp.

 

5300 RPMs? We're not talking RPM for RPM here. No one in their right mind would even take a 300 to 5300 RPMs unless it had been seriously built. There's not even any reason to. We're talking percentages of their peak torque and their max RPM. The point is what it can do with each RPM that it uses.
Comparing what RPMs they can go to is irrelevant. Yeah, my brother's Acura can go to 8500 RPMs. That means that at 7000 RPMs, it's making way more torque than my 300 could possibly make at 7000 RPMs. *scratches head* Not quite how you compare the two.

 

yeah thats fine man. im not here to fight with you or to try and get you to sell your 300. you are your own man and you do what makes you happy, thats fine. Im sorry if i got a little hostile there towards you. i have been pinned in arguments with other guys who just will not back down that 302s and 351s are crap and 300s are king, so i guess i was expecting that from you.

anyways, heres the numbers. might be a little small to read (FTE resizes this stuff), so if you have any question about the exact value of a torque or power figure at a certain value just ask.





and the whole 5300 rpm thing was my point. this 302 is down 20 lb-ft at 1300 compared to a carb'd 300 (significant, but not astronomical) but can rev like 2000 rpm more with power and torque the whole way.

 

No big deal. In all honesty I think the 302 and 351 are great motors and I didn't mean anything bad about them. I'd own one if I had more than one Bronco.

I was just trying to illustrate a point about how they make their torque differently and a very significant factor most people forget about when comparing the peak torque of the two types of engines. The torque curve of an I6 is also something that a lot of V8 guys don't know about if they don't have any experience with one.

 

basically my point is, this 302 is giving you a 4000 rpm powerband (from 1000 to 5000). 300s give you a 2000 rpm powerband (from 1000-3000). With just 20 lb-ft less at the bottom, the area under this curve still far outweighs the area under a 300s curve. There is simply more. At 3000 rpm when a 300 is ready for the next gear, this 302 is only HALFWAY done with the current one. The 20 lb-ft difference on the bottom doesnt need to be made up with 16.78:1 rear gears either.

Also, im onboard with what youre saying about how the different engine configurations will affect the shape and size of the torque and power curves. Im sure if the 300 had a head equivalent to the E7 or an edelbrock performer or something, it would be alot better off. The stock 300 is just really under-headed. It gives up nearly 2000 rpm of useful operation that a similarly sized V8 will give you for a whopping 20 lb-ft difference on the bottom. Thats all im saying.

 

Is that chart on the 5.0 at the wheels or the flywheel? Stock or modified? If it's stock they would have to be flywheel, but if it's modded they could go either way and we wouldn't be comparing apples to apples.

 

Finally, some dynographs. It suprised me how hard it is to find stock dynos of a 5.0. I wonder how those compare to EFI 5.0's in trucks. The truck 302 is 'RATED' for it's peak torque at 2400RPM. That's why I say 2400RPM. At least now we have went from the 300 making hundreds of lbs-ft of torque more than the 302 at 'low' RPM to 20 lbs-ft. A realistical, proven number. And, still, no one has said one is better than the other. The main thing I was trying to bring up is the 302 IS a capable engine. It's torque isn't as bad as everyone goes on about. Especially with just modest gearing like mine.

I know everyone in the 300 forum loves the 300, but numbers are numbers. No more guessing. And no more MSPaint drawings of dynographs from a 300 fan. Jesus, you made that 302's torque curve pathetic and made the 300-6 a temporary diesel. Post #98 shows a REAL dyno of a STOCK 5.0. It's making a very damn good torque curve. It's almost flat, too. Making nearly 250 lbs-ft of torque at, what? 1300RPM?

And about whether that dyno is at the wheels or the flywheel... I'm guessing the wheels because it says on that picture that the writer is performing the pedal pushing duties to make the dyno start below 1300RPM. Otherwise, it shouldn't say pedal pushing duties. But, either way, it shows a real torque curve.

That's true. And after seeing these dynographs, the 302 makes a good, steady, long torque curve. More like a torque 'line'.

 

If I ever grow up, I want to be just like you. :P ha ha.

Both are good engines and like you said, I'd own one if I had more than one truck. Sadly I don't. Each motor has advantages.


THIS is how we're *supposed* to debate. Good job, good job..

Iceman, I don't know where you or 5.0 got it in your heads that any of us were putting down the 5.0L. At least, I'm not aware of any sixer here that was putting down your V8's for trash.

What we've all been saying in one way or another is both engines are great. IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT.