You're getting blinded by stroke man.

You're getting blinded by something, but I don't know what it is. We are both saying the same thing in 90% of this thread.

Only 2 other Ford motors that I can think of off the top of my head have a longer stroke, the 400 and the 1.6L Kia motor. How 'bout this.....

There aren't many higher, but there are a few equal such as the 410 and 428. Speaking of the 410, let's compare it to the 406. They are very similar in displacement, but the 410 is 4.05x3.98, the 406 is 4.13x3.78. The 406 is 10.9:1 compression, the 410 is 10.5:1 and they have the same cam. Here are the power and torque numbers: 406, 385 hp@5800, 444 ft-lbs@3400. 410, 330 hp@4800, 444 ft-lbs@2800. The 406 does have slightly larger valves than the 410. The torques are identical, but the 410 peaks 600 rpm earlier. The 406 makes 55 more hp, but needs an extra 1000 rpm to do it. The longer stroke engine makes more torque in the low end. Of course those are factory claimed numbers and may or may not be accurate.

5" bore. 2.547 stroke. 100psi MEP. 1963lbs. 416 ft lbs....
6" bore. 1.769 stroke. 100psi MEP. 2827lbs. 416 ft lbs....
3" bore. 7.076 stroke. 100psi MEP. 707lbs. 416 ft lbs....

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but here it is again. For a given bore size, more stroke will make more torque even though the hp is equal. The longer stroke will also make its power and torque at a lower rpm. Comparing bores that are 3, 5 and 6" is pointless.

Displacement and MEP is what gives you your torque. Stroke is just one way of getting that displacement.

Once again, for a fixed bore diameter there is only one way to increase displacement and that is with stroke.

I don't think there is was a 302 made that didn't make the same or slightly more torque than a 300. The 300 just has it all at a lower rpm.

1972, 302 159hp@4000 rpm, 250 ft-lbs@2400; 300 165 hp@3600 rpm, 294 ft-lbs@2000 rpm. Granted this was the first year of the net rating system so the numbers may or may not be accurate, but that's what is listed. It is interesting to note that the 302 had 8.2:1 compression and a 2 barrel carb, while the 300 only had 7.9:1 and a 1 barrel.

My point was, is and will continue to be that for a given quantity of airflow, the 300 will make the same power as the 302, but will make more torque and will do it at a lower rpm.

To quote Moran and Shapiro, "For two engines of equal displacement volume, the one with higher mean effective pressure would produce the greater net work and, if the engines run at the same speed, greater power". The words can be swapped around to say that two engines of equal displacement volume and of equal power will have different net work if they operate at different rpm. Or something like that......

Just for kicks I fired up DD2K today and threw a few combinations at it. Keeping every parameter the same except for number of cylinders, bore and stroke I got these nubmers:

302, 339hp@5500, 363 ft-lbs@ 4000
300, 280hp@5000, 353 ft-lbs@2000

2000 rpm is the lowest DD2K makes a prediction, so the 300 probably makes more torque below there. Where the 302 peaks at 363 ft-lbs, the 300 is still making 340 ft-lbs.

To get the torque peaks up where I could see the true torque peaks I tried a 280 degree cam and got these numbers:

302, 344 hp@6000, 347 ft-lbs@4500
300, 293 hp@5500, 332 ft-lbs@4000

In both examples the 300 was more productive up to about 3500-3800 rpm, then the 302 took over. The 300 doesn't make the peak numbers the 302 does, and it won't without some breathing help, but it does a lot better at low rpm.

 

Absolutely amazing what can blossom from a simple little question like "what are my stock hp & torque?". There is a wealth of knowledge (or BS) around here.

I love this site!

 

yeah i've been following this thread for a while.

These guys make me feel like a Tacoma in a monster truck rally

 

Or add more cylinders.


Ok. Lets start this all over again because we are clearly having communication issues here.

Here is what I am saying.
1) 300 and 302 can make the same power with ease.
2) 300 and 302 will make the same torque.
3) Total overall airflow into an engine dictates horsepower.
4) Displacement is where it is at, stroke is only a way to get it. The only time you have to take stroke into thought is when calculating displacement, rod/stroke ratio, cam selection, porting and quality of material for rpm you intend to run.

As for your DD2k runs, I have a question. What did you use for head flow numbers? If you didn't specify on a per-cylinder basis and have the 302 with 25% less flow per cylinder (because each cylinder has 25% less displacement) then your numbers are off (as evidenced that the 302 has more hp). At that point you have higher total airflow and then you're not comparing apples to apples. Also, look at IMEP, torque and VE.


-=Whittey=-

 

Ok, so everyone knows that the 300 has been choked off more than Bart when Homer gets pissed at him. Why would they do such a thing? I'll tell you why. Ford choked the life out of the 300 simply because they didn't want their "base" 1/2 ton truck motor to be able to out power, out haul, out pull, out anything their other truck motors. If one were to design a head similar to the one FRPP offers in their catalog (although through a seperate company), and put water passages in it so you could run it on the street (HINT HINT HINT!!!!!), couple that with an Offy or Clifford intake and exhaust, and a decent carb, the 300 would be able to out everything just about everything Ford, or anyone else, could possibly throw at it shy of a big block or a turbo diesel. And I'd like to agree with whoever said that the majority of truck motors being built these days are for "get up and go" and not work. I was impressed when I heard that GMC came out with it's version of the I6 with something like 280hp or whatever it is.....until I found out where it makes it's power....too high up in the RPM range to do anything "work" related with it. Sure, these motors get upwards of 17-20 mpg, while mine only gets from 11-15 mpg (due to gas prices, I baby the hell outta mine so I get 15mpg). But, if you were to stick a 2500lb trailer behind my truck and one of these newer trucks, I bet you I'd still be able to get at least 13 or 14 mpg while the other truck would be getting probably 12-14mpg, because they would have to rev the engine higher to pull the trailer.

 

I have a 72 crewcab 4x4 -300I6 this thing has gotta weigh 4-5K
Girlfriend has 92 F150 shortbox stepside 4x4 - EFI 5.0 it's weight a BUNCH less
Mine is actually faster all around and my God the torque. Starts every day, runs excellent, gets 18mph with a 4 speed on the highway, not sure how many miles on it- 100K-200K ? who cares- things runs like new and probably will for a long, long time. Not a speed racer by any means, but its an awesome daily driving pickup. Best motor ever, glad I didn't swap it for a 429 I was originally planning for it.

 

"Ok, so everyone knows that the 300 has been choked off more than Bart when Homer gets pissed at him. Why would they do such a thing? I'll tell you why. Ford choked the life out of the 300 simply because they didn't want their "base" 1/2 ton truck motor to be able to out power, out haul, out pull, out anything their other truck motors."

I'll buy that! I read that back when Ford came out with their inline six flathead (early 40s I think) it out powered the flathead V8 and so they quickly tweaked the V8 to have slightly more power than the six.

 

I'm gunna start slapping the heck out of these performance companies for not making a 300 head...

There's so many 300s around but they're all used in trucks and vans! If they threw it in a stang.... we would have so many parts to pick from.

 

I just wrote an email to Trick Flow and Edelbrock asking if they would ever consider building us 300 guys a head and possibly an EFI intake. I'll post the replies when I get them, and if we don't like the replies, then I have this erie feeling that Trick Flow and Edelbrock will be getting many an email from those of us who don't. Then, maybe they'll consider building us a head.

 

Or add more cylinders.

That's a given. I have yet to see anyone add a cylinder to an engine, I've seen lots of strokers.

Here is what I am saying.
1) 300 and 302 can make the same power with ease.
2) 300 and 302 will make the same torque.
3) Total overall airflow into an engine dictates horsepower.
4) Displacement is where it is at, stroke is only a way to get it. The only time you have to take stroke into thought is when calculating displacement, rod/stroke ratio, cam selection, porting and quality of material for rpm you intend to run.

I agree on all counts. The only claim I'm making is that the 300 will make it's power and torque at a lower rpm than a 302 with equal power or torque. If you build engines that spin 7-8000 rpm it might be a different story, but for a street engine the 300 can do the same job at a lower rpm.

As for your DD2k runs, I have a question. What did you use for head flow numbers? If you didn't specify on a per-cylinder basis and have the 302 with 25% less flow per cylinder (because each cylinder has 25% less displacement) then your numbers are off (as evidenced that the 302 has more hp). At that point you have higher total airflow and then you're not comparing apples to apples. Also, look at IMEP, torque and VE.

I used a generic engine combination and changed nothing but the stroke and number of cylinders. The head flow numbers I used were from a ported GM LT1 head I used on a customers car a while back. I used them because they were already loaded in the program. Induction flow was set at 600 cfm for both engines because neither of them needed near that much for the projected power. Basically, each engine had as much air as it could swallow.

The IMEP, torque and VE for the 300 was basically higher through 3500rpm. I don't have a way to post the charts, so I'll average the numbers for each engine up to 3500 rpm, and from 4000-6000. The 302 was projected to made peak power at 6000. These are not true averages, but averages of individual data points at 500 rpm intervals.

up to 3500:

300, IMEP 204.00, torque 322.25, VE 77.73
302, IMEP 194.32, torque 311.50, VE 74.96

4000-6000

300, IMEP 191.04, torque 297.00, VE 82.10
302, IMEP 202.48, torque 331.20, VE 84.64

The averages pretty much tell the tale, but not as much so as the graphs. The 302 is at or above 80% VE from 3500-6500 rpm, the 300 from 3500-5500. You can see on the graphs that the 50ci cylinders on the 300 are pretty easy to fill at low rpm, but can't breathe once it approaches 4000 rpm. What is interesting about the two engines (at least to me) is that if you change the 302 to bump the low end up to 300 levels, the power falls off quite a bit. If you allow the 300 to breathe and make the same power as the 302, the torque doesn't seem to fall off. I havn't tried to do anything scientific with that, just a trend I noticed while I was plugging numbers.

 

Wow, you can sure tell who owns 300's, here. Majisto is right what are you guys smok'n. A 300I6 will Never be a better 1/4 engine than the 302. Stock on stock even the 302 smokes the 300 in a 1/4. The lower torque curve is evident in about 300 ft then it's then 302 waving by, by. I've had both. As far as the 300 pulling more that's whacked. The 302 will shift more in the hills, but the speedo will remain constant. The only way a 300 can be deemed superior is if someone cannot stand 3500 RPM which is the design of all 150's and 1500 trucks now. And as far as reliability there is no engine more reliable than both even 5 years from now. Like I said I have had both and there's no way my I6 would have pulled more than my 302, but I was happy with both..

 

Even FMC admitted by act that the 302 can't haul. Tbe 300 was the base engine all the way up to the F600 trucks (or around there). Could you even get a 302 in an F350? (seriously. I'm almost positive you couldn't (except maybe '88) but I could be wrong)


-=Whittey=-

 

The 300 is a better engine for hauling and stuff, much better, but the 302 will still whip it on the road.

I think the thing with the 300 is that the torque curve starts at idle, and goes up to 2000rpm then it just drops. It isn't really much of a curve either... thing is a beast even at idle. So allthough the truck pulls real strong at low range, it needs the torque at high rpm to be able to really accellerate.

If you look at what you guys have been posting, it suprises me that you think a 300 would keep up with a 302.

I'm not one to argue about this though, you guys obviously know what you're talking about

just throwin my cents out at ya.

 

We posted (repeatedly) that airflow = hp. This is why ANY engine can make horsepower (and why they use 3, 4, 5, up to 8 (that i'm aware of) valves per cylinder, to make breathing soooooooo easy).


-=Whittey=-

 

8??