I currently own a '96 F-150 with the 4.9L engine. From my experience and what I've read, this is a very reliable engine that should last a long time.

I'm now looking to buy a '92 to '96 Bronco with a 302 or 351W. I'm hoping either of these will improve the somewhat weak feeling the 4.9 gives me a highway speeds (I also tow a boat on occasion).

I seem to be finding an equal number of 302 and 351W Broncos out there, and I'd like to have some opinions comparing these engines (and/or with the 4.9L). I'm mostly concerned with how well each holds up over time, major maintenance items, and how long they might last. Almost all of the trucks I'm looking at already have over 100K miles on them. I've read that the 302 gets a little better milage than the 351W. Is it "plenty" for the Bronco, or would the 351W be more desirable. I'd like to keep this truck for a long time, and have something that is reliable and low maintenance.

Thanks for any comments.

 

That mainly depends on how much you may want to tweek it later. Both the 302 and the 351W have plenty of aftermarket parts out there. The biggest advantage of the 351W is simply more power on tap. The 302 is very well capable of driving any bronco around. So it depends on what you may want to do later that is the deciding factor.

 

302 and 351 are pretty similiar but the 351 has a lot more torque. Both engines can push that bronco pretty well but the 351 has the edge. Depends if you want a lot of power or are ok with a decent amount of power. Best thing would be to test drive a few different ones and see which one you like.


Primary rig is Green Thunder:
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 302, 5 spd, MSD 6A, Sunroof, CD player with 2 10" subs and some 32" BFG Muds .

Check out my Gallery for a look-see.


Then theres:
99' Mustang GT 4.6L
88' F-250 Superduty 4x4 351/c6
95' Mercury Cougar 4.6L V-8
80' E-350 300/6 with a
3 spd column shifter. Top speed is 65mph, Go Baby Go!

 

If you are going to tow, the 351w is the only choice in my opinion.

 

I pulled my boat 600 miles yesterday with my 95 F150 4.9 I know what you mean about the shortcomings at highway speeds but the 4.9 is sure bulletproof. I would go 351W without a doubt. The 2 extra cubic inches of the 302 V-8 over the 300 I-6 is obviously negligible. I don't think you will feel a difference for all your trouble. The difference in fuel mileage between a 302 and a 351 is less than you think. Especially when you are towing. It is not impossible to get better MPG from the 351 in this situation.

Dewayne

 

I have a little experience from owning both motors and riding in several trucks. For the most bullet proof engine I would say stick with the 4.9. That is a well designed motor and will last a ton of miles. If you must have more power then we must go to the 5.0 or the 5.8 discussion. I personally would rather have the 5.0 in truck because I only tow about 5% of the time and when I do it is a light trailer. I beleive that with the proper gearing / tranny combo the 5.0 is a better daily driver. The 5.8 on the other hand is a much better motor if you are worried about towing power. It has alot more low end grunt than the 5.0. However the 5.8 does tend to get about 3-6 MPG worse than the 5.0. The 5.0 I currently own get 15.8 MPG in a f250 4x4 while the f150 that I owned with a 5.8 seemed to stick at 12-13 constantly. So in my situation, since gas mileage is the main concern, I prefer the 5.0.

The 5.0 will sometimes actually get worse gas mileage than the 5.8 while towing. This is due to the fact that you have to rev it up to get the towing power that you desire.

For longevity the 4.9 will usually out last them all. The 5.0 with a roller cam will outlast the flat tappet 5.8. There are some 5.8 rollers out there but they are alot less common and they did not come stock with most rigs.

So I probably just confused you more but there never is a Perfect engine for every situation. Test drive some rigs and take a ford axle code chart with you so you know the gear ratios of the rigs that you are driving. It's not fair to compare towing power of a rig with 3.23's to a rig with 4.11's regardless of the engine!

Good Luck!

 

I'll echo the previously stated:

For towing, the 351W will be more effective and get better milage than either candidate

For a daily driver, a 302, especially with a roller cam is about as good as they get. Don't get a flat-tappet 302, I have one, and the fuel efficiency isn't much better than a 351, especially when you have unreasonably tall gears like me (2.75:1). I'd say if you have more than a 3.70 rear end ratio, then a roller cam 302 will serve you better in any case besides heavy towing, because it will make ample torque, and deal with the high RPMs a little easier. You start losing milage quickly when that longer-stroked 351 starts winding up!

'77 F100, 302 (the aftermarket Prodigy), C4
Cadet Second Lieutenant John F. Daly III
South Carolina Corps of Cadets, The Citadel
The TorqueKing

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 15-Jul-02 AT 10:26 AM (EST)]Thanks for the input. This will be a daily driver with limited towing of 2000 to maybe 4000 lbs. The 302 sounds like it would work better, but what is the roller cam vs flat tappet? How do I know if I'm getting a roller cam 302? I'm looking at '92 to '96 year model.

Thanks.

 

All Mustang 302's from 1985 on have roller cams, I'm pretty sure the trucks weren't but a few years behind, if at all, and some 5.0's even came with factory forged pistons. I'm not aware of a 351 that ever came with a roller cam, but I know that people still find a way to make them. Your 90's model will come with a roller cam.

'77 F100, 302 (the aftermarket Prodigy), C4
Cadet Second Lieutenant John F. Daly III
South Carolina Corps of Cadets, The Citadel
The TorqueKing

 

The lightning did come with a roller cam in some years but unless it was a swap into a pickup then the f150's-250's won't have it. The easiest way to tell is the firing order. The roller 5.0 has a different firing order than the flat tappet. I can't remember exactly what it is but just search this site and you should come up with something....

 

sorry I forgot to mention that the roller cams didn't go into the 5.0's until somewhere between 94 and 96. All of the blocks are drilled for the cam installation but the earlier 5.0's didn't come with them.

 

if i was going to change engines i would get the most engine for my money. i have a 351 and i love it, its fun to tell people you have one too.

 

Just to throw a monkey wrench into what was stated before, I swapped an 86 302 out of a Mark VII into one of my trucks. It was not HO, did have a roller cam and had the regular 302 firing order. This may open up your choices a little. It did get very good gas mileage. I put new earlier style flat top pistons in it(the new style pistons take narrow rings) and took all the fuel injection stuff off and converted it to carb. It also had a one piece rear main seal.

 

Hey Brett, you meant the truck engines didn't get roller cams until late 90's, right? I know that the 85 and later Mustang engines had them, as Franklin2 confirmed. The Comp Cams catalogue has the roller cam listed as stock replacement going back to 1985. This is key, the roller cam and lifters will free up no less than 30 ft*lbs, and almost 40 HP in most stock configurations, more if the RPM range is increased by aftermarket parts like roller rockers and Capacitive-discharge ignitions. Plus, the roller setup is much less friction than a flat-tappet, so you'll get lower oil temps, and longer cam bearing and timing chain life without stretch. I wish I'd done a roller motor, but in crate form, they cost at least twice as much. Don't listen to me, Franklin2's done this more than I have! That 300-6 is a great little engine, 7 main bearings for 6 rods? Nice, but you can't beat the Torque of 8 slugs being thrown around inside a Windsor block! One more warning about the older, non-roller blocks is the 2 piece rope-style rear main seal, that thing is problematic to say the least. It's the only thing that I can't get to stop leaking. I found that by only putting 5 quarts instead of the stock 6, it never loses pressure, and the oil must sit below the seal at that volume, so it leaks much less. I'm guessing that's why Fords always like to run 1 quart low on oil, then don't leak anymore. Confirmation, anyone? -TK

*off topic!*
By the way, Franklin, what do you think of retro-fit EFI systems like the Edelbrock Pro-Flo setup? I'm still planning project "Iron Eagle", the iron Roush-headed 4" stroked, 4.155" bored Dart 9.5" block with a roller cam. Oh yeah, i simulated this thing on Dyno 2000, and it spit out 562 ft*lbs of torque at 2500 RPM, and 408 HP at 5000! I was thinking that the Edelbrock fuel injection is probably a better way to go than a carb in an engine that will no doubt spend most of it's life at part-throttle, because I doubt I'll ever have enough traction to hook it up at even close to full throttle! I'm just dreaming right now, but I was wondering what you thought about this combo. Dart says that this block can be bored to 4.185 for street use, most drag racers are going 4.2" with it, I figured if I spent that much on a block, I'd stay on the small side at 4.155", to accomodate future cleanup work.

'77 F100, 302 (the aftermarket Prodigy), C4
Cadet Second Lieutenant John F. Daly III
South Carolina Corps of Cadets, The Citadel
The TorqueKing

 

I would like to thank everyone for their input. I had a 1971 F-100 SWB Stepside in the late 70's. It had a 302 with an oil bath breather and never let me down. It sounds like you are recommending the roller cam engine in all cases. The only info I've found on which exact year(s) to shop for is the following excerpt from consumerguide.com describing year to year changes for the Bronco:

"1993: Four-wheel ABS was installed in '93, replacing a 2-wheel setup. The 5.0-liter V8, at 185 horsepower, became standard. This year, the regular XLT got a monochromatic exterior (but black was not the only color offered). All but the Custom could have Touch Drive, which required an automatic transmission.

1994: A driver-side airbag came in '94. The 5.0-liter V8 added 20 horsepower and the 5.8-liter reverted to 210 horses."

I thought the move from 185 to 205 HP might have come from a switch to roller cam design, but this is not confirmed.

If anyone knows a sure bet to get (or check for) a stock roller cam engine in a late model, I would be interested in hearing about it.

This thread has been informative to me. I read somewhere that the most HP on a stock 302HO was 225. If I could get the 205 vs the 185 version, it may perform better in the Bronco. Especially since a lot of the ones I'm seeing for sale have 33" tires, but I'll save that for another forum.