Can someone please tell me what the stock hp & torque are on my truck below? I have been looking everywhere.

 

Don't know what your stock numbers are, but you're gonna regret putting a 302 in your truck. Same displacement, but only a 3"stroke=really pitiful low end torque.

 

IIRC, you get about 120hp and 250ish lb/ft with the stock 1bbl intake and carb.

 

That is the best numbers I could come up with. Thanks for the help. So why then does everyone say that a 302 doesn't do as well?

Here are the #'s

1984 CFI 302 - 140 hp@3200
250 ft/lbs@1600

1981 1 bbl 300 - 120 hp@2800
246 ft/lbs@2000

So by the numbers, the 302 has more torque (actually basically the same) but at a lower rpm than the 300. I thought this was the opposite? And of course it puts out more hp. I like the advantages to a 302 because of the way it winds up compared to the 300.

 

a 302 dosnt have near the bore the 300 has thus it will make less low rpm torque.

 

based on my knowledge of the EFI versions, those numbers don't seem to ad up right.

The 300 deffinitly has the low end advantage, the stroke is longer.


The 300 really is a fantastic engine. The 302 is also known for being a great ford smallblock, for street rods and upgradeability and such. In a truck though, the 300 is king. You're getting the low end power you need for a truck, and you're getting one of the most dependable truck engines out there.

For a mustang... the 300 would probably suck. Sure if you mod it you would do wheel stands down the strip in first and second gear, but you could only pull a quarter mile in civic time. It just can't rev and make the power.

If someone in an identical truck with a 302 wanted to race my 300, i'd say no today, but ask him to come back in 5 years. Then we'll see who's still runnin strong.

 

dont know bout that 84, but an efi truck 302 makes 285lb/ft @ about 2500-3000 rpm, not for sure, but its higher up than a 300 by a noticable margain. with equal hardware (meaing bigger intake and a slightly better flowing head) the 300 could pounce a 302, espically in torque because of its i6 design and long stroke.

 

I think there is a typo in that earlier message. The 302 should get peak torque around 2600 rpm not 1600. The '69 302 was rated 300 ft lbs (Gross?) at 2600. Maybe I can look up the '81 tonight.

 

I was wondering about the same thing, paul. That # came out of the chiltons repair manual for the '84 crown vic station wagon. It seems to me like 1600 is too low.

 

I've got an 87 EFI 302 and the torque peak is right around 2500-2600 rpm.

 

The latest year I have that I can get the numbers from the same book on is 73. For that year the 300 is 132 hp@ 3600, 241 ft-lbs@1800. The 302 is 157 hp@ 4000rpm and 249 ft-lbs at 2600 rpm. The fact that the 302 will outrev the 300 is a non issue in a 4000+lb truck. It doesn't matter that it can make 360 ft-lbs@4200 rpm and 375 hp @ 6200 because it will never see that many rpm in the real world. You could make it work if you insalled some 4.56 gears, but then your mileage and driveability will suck. I'll take my 300 with 300 ft-lbs @ 1500 rpm over a screaming 302 any day.

I am one of the few people in this forum that drag race regularly. My truck will destroy a comparably prepared 302 truck in the 1/4 mile. It isn't even a race. Actually, the truck I raced my last time to the track wasn't comparably equipped. He had slicks, I was on street tires; and from the sound of his truck he had a little cam in it. Still beat him by 4-5 lenths.

 

300 is better engine for a truck period. might be a little sluggish on long steep hills but overall its a monster. if u have a 5 speed ur better off then an auto. mine is an auto and its quick as hell off the line and through 2nd but then it dies. a few, simple mods and the 300 will keep up and even smoke a 302, plus the bottem end on a 300 is better and stronger (7 main caps vs 2 main caps on a 302). over at fordsix.com someone said the 300 is the best kept secret in drag racing...

 

That would be FrenchtownFlyer. 10.31 @ 133 on a slick track isn't too shabby IMO.


-=Whittey=-

 

What are you guys smoking? The 302 is a far superior engine for drag racing in the 1/4 mile. The 1/8 mile may be a different story, but an inline-6 with such a long stroke can NEVER rev high enough to put out the horespower that a 302 can be made to do. There are Mustangs that run 7-8 second 1/4s

Torque curve is definitely important when it comes to power, but when you are able to have a flat torque curve and sustain that curve like the 302 can do, that is what you want for drag racing, not a curve as flat as Kansas, but only lasts for a short time until the engine hits redline. A 302 of today with EFI can, and will destroy any truck motor geared for torque in a straight drag race. If you load the motors down, it may be a different story, but we're not racing trailers down a dragstrip (Unless you're in that Ford commercial with the diesels racing, which is a great commercial )

You can have a car engine put out as much torque as say a Caterpillar diesel. You just need to rev that sucker to high hell (10,000 RPMs or more) and sustain it there. This is stupid, and why diesels are such great engines because they can put out the same torque at 1,500 RPMs or so, which puts almost no strain on the parts.

Still, I dunno about you guys, but a 1,000 lbs/ft+ Cat. Diesel vs. a 280 lbs/ft 302 Mustang is going to be a pretty short race in the favor of the Mustang (The Cat. would pull off one hell of a 60' though ) . Gearing can make up for torque deficiency, but not horsepower, and horsepower is what wins the 1/4. My Explorer has 4.10 gears and a 250 lbs/ft motor in it, but still only pulls off a 16.1 1/4 because of the inadequate horespower (210 @ 5,200 RPMs, and also the barn-door aerodynamics). It'll sure as hell smoke any sports car from 0-30 though Not downing y'alls 300s because that is one heck of a nice torque output for a 6-cylinder, but when you want to go fast, you need to have torque AND horsepower. Still a Ford engine though, so it gets a thumbs-up from me

 

What are you guys smoking? The 302 is a far superior engine for drag racing in the 1/4 mile. The 1/8 mile may be a different story, but an inline-6 with such a long stroke can NEVER rev high enough to put out the horespower that a 302 can be made to do.

If it's geared to use the torque it works just fine. Like I said before, I've raced 302 trucks with more mods than I've got and wasted them. And I'm talking about at the dragstrip, not on the street.

[b]There are Mustangs that run 7-8 second 1/4s [/b[

Who cares about Mustangs? Those 7-8 second Mustangs weigh 2500 lbs, are geared to the moon, and for the most part have slicks 14 inches wide. There are a few running deep in the 8's on drag radials now, but they are far from street cars regardless. Using an 8 second Mustang as an argument for the 302 being a better engine for drag racing is ludicrous, especially when most of the cars running that fast are using a stroked 351 or artificial aspiration.

Torque curve is definitely important when it comes to power, but when you are able to have a flat torque curve and sustain that curve like the 302 can do, that is what you want for drag racing, not a curve as flat as Kansas, but only lasts for a short time until the engine hits redline.

In one breath you are saying that the flat torque curve of a 302 is what you want and need, in the next you say a flat torque curve is worthless at the track. Which is it? Since we're talking about torque curves, you won't get a flat one out of a 302. I'm sure you could build a 302 that would have a fairly flat torque curve, but doing so would produce such low peak HP rpm the result would suck.

A 302 of today with EFI can, and will destroy any truck motor geared for torque in a straight drag race.

Once again, been there, done that, proved it wrong already. Yes if you build a 400 hp 302 and put 4.56 gears behind it you can run about 13.5-14.0 in the 1/4 and get mileage and driveabilty that truly suck. With a very moderately built 300 you could go nearly as fast with 3.08 or 3.55 gears and still have very good street manners.

If load the motors down, it may be a different story, but we're not racing trailers down a dragstrip (Unless you're in that Ford commercial with the diesels racing, which is a great commercial )

If you take two trucks in street trim and truck A is faster than truck B, truck A will also be faster than truck B when loaded.

You can have a car engine put out as much torque as say a Caterpillar diesel. You just need to rev that sucker to high hell (10,000 RPMs or more) and sustain it there. This is stupid, and why diesels are such great engines because they can put out the same torque at 1,500 RPMs or so, which puts almost no strain on the parts.

Revving an engine will not build more torque, it will build more HP. That is why the 300 is a much better truck than a 302. The 300 can be built to make about 250 hp without exceeding 4200-4400 rpm. A low hp peak means the peak torque is higher and occurs at a low rpm. A 250 hp 300 will likely make about 330-340 ft-lbs below 3000 rpm. A 302 with similar power will be revving roughly 800-1000 rpm higher and making a lot less torque, maybe only 300-310 ft-lbs, and at a higher, less useful rpm.

Still, I dunno about you guys, but a 1,000 lbs/ft+ Cat. Diesel vs. a 280 lbs/ft 302 Mustang is going to be a pretty short race in the favor of the Mustang (The Cat. would pull off one hell of a 60' though ) .

Of course the Stang would win, the vehicle the Cat is in probably weighs 14000 lbs. If you put the Cat engine in a car the same weight as the Stang and geared it to favor the torque the Cat would win hands down. This was a really poor example on your part, just like the 8 second Mustang was.

Gearing can make up for torque deficiency, but not horsepower, and horsepower is what wins the 1/4.

Wrong again. Torque is what accelerates a vehicle, hp determines it's top speed. Obviously there is a point at which power is more important, but when you get there you have to starting using deeper gears to compensate for something. That something is torque. Lower gears multiply the torque at the rear tires. When you build a screaming 302 you have the potential for more top speed, but you won't get there very quikly with 3.08 gears. Swap to 4.10's and the story changes. You have sacrificed some top speed for the ability to accelerate quickly, exactly as you would by building a 300 instead of a 302.

My Explorer has 4.10 gears and a 250 lbs/ft motor in it, but still only pulls off a 16.1 1/4 because of the inadequate horespower (210 @ 5,200 RPMs, and also the barn-door aerodynamics). It'll sure as hell smoke any sports car from 0-30 though

Why don't you post your 60 ft. times and mph numbers as well? They tell just as much about vehicle performance as the ET. Most street cars are at 30 mph at around the 60 ft mark and turn 60 ft's about 1.95. I seriously doubt your Explorer will match that number. My Lightning 60ft's about 2.03 most of the time and I know from previous experience an Explorer won't stick with it off the line. That Explorer would probably be faster with less gear. My truck would be right on your heels with only 170-180 hp if it weighed 3860 (from Edmunds.com) like the Explorer.

Not downing y'alls 300s because that is one heck of a nice torque output for a 6-cylinder, but when you want to go fast, you need to have torque AND horsepower.

At least we agree on something. However, I know of a turbo 460 powered 57 Ford Wagon that has 300 rwhp and 714 rwtq that runs 12 flat@117 in the 1/4 with 3.00 gears. A good combination is the most important thing, but in a heavy truck the 302 is very difficult to to make work. If you just want to throw money at it, you can force it to go fast, but low end torque is much easier and cheaper to build, and much easier to get down the track.

FWIW, my truck is basically stock. The last time at the track it had headers, 19lb injectors, and an adjustable fuel pressure regulator as the only mods. It also has 230k miles on it. If I drove a 302 like I drive this 300 it would have called it quits a long time ago. I can't wait to freshen up this 300 and run some some low 15's with it.