300 I6

[choped84]

has any body attempted to put a ford 300 I6 into a bronco II. I did some measuring and I think if i move the radiator to the back there will be room. it will be strictly for mud racing and will not be driven on the road.

[Will]

Yes. It's been done twice that I know of. I never saw evidence of the trucks actually running afterward, but I assume they did.

But the 300 has no power and for mud, you need power. A 302/5.0 is easier to fit and can make a lot more power. If you were rock crawling I would say, yeah, the 300 runs damn good at low rpms and would be a good choice.

[choped84]

I was thinking a I6 so I could stay in a 4&6 class in the local mud bogs. I've had my bronco II for two weeks and the 2.8 is gutless. I'm running stock gears and no lift with 35's. but i have a d44 ttb and a 9" with 4.88's sitting in my yard. I forgot I have an auto trany

[Will]

I think you would do as well with a 4.0 V6 and it's an easy swap. Mechanically, it goes right in.

An old carbed 300-6 was something like 120hp and 220ft#. An EFI 300-6 was 145hp and 265ft# I think. The 4.0 is 160hp and 225ft#. With just 4.10 gears on mine I had no trouble getting the tires going with 35" Hawgs in mud halfway up the doors.

[Ranger44]

Yeah, the 4.0 is a good idea, and easier swap.

[Will]

Here's a couple of pictures i copied and found on my old computer. Looks like he finished it. Never heard of it after so I don't know anything about it.
http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=506&stc=1&d=1194784651
http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=507&stc=1&d=1194784665

[predator]

hhhmmm.....i have a rebuilt 300 taking up space on the shop floor.......maybe someday...

[tpking]

you can put intake headers and bigger carb on a 300 and it would be a VERY stout motor for a 6

[choped84]

thanks for the input, i'm leaning towards a 4.0 now because its lighter than the 300 and theres more info for swaping in a 4.0

[Mutant Pony]

There are several 300's in the Mud bogs here. I've also seen a N.A. 300 do a 1/4 mile in the 7's at Mid-michigan, Rail chassis, Mech F.I. Strangest sounding rail I've ever heard.
We also have a 300 powered BII in our crew. It uses a cut down 1/2 ton chassis.
I'm not a big fan of the cologne engines but, It would be much easier to put the 4.0 in.
There are more high-performance parts available for the 300 and they are cheaper.
I wish they had a 4/6 cyl class here! I would win every time I ran. I've never been beaten by a 6 in the Mutant pony.

[rusty ol ranger]

go to fordsix.com.....an stout running 300 Inline would clean up in a class like that. Alot more torque then the 4.0....just gotta get it to spin.

The 300 runs outta steam at 3500rpm....but with some higher ratio gears in the axles, you can carry more wheel speed and keep the 300 happy at the lwoer rpms....so you get the best of both worlds.

later,
Dustin

[choped84]

thanks for all the help. I'm tired of all the Toyota's winning.

[Wanderer]

But the 300 has no power and for mud, you need power. A 302/5.0 is easier to fit and can make a lot more power. If you were rock crawling I would say, yeah, the 300 runs damn good at low rpms and would be a good choice.


HUH???:shok:... they put 240/300's in TRACTORS...plenty of power...

when I did my swap it was the sweetest of them all...much better than the 302 and 351W swaps I did..unstopable..:3gears:

truck ran all that summer till I needed the engine for my towrig/dd...:bawling:

http://sports.webshots.com/album/180514103CXkwWA

as far as a direct swap....NO WAY...3in bodylift still needed a firewall made...but it can be done...

if I had a non 4.0 RBV and wanted more power...just swap the 4.0 in it...not much less power than a stock 5.0..and easier to get to fit..less hassle!! and they WILL take a beating!!

Link to someone who saved the info..

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243

[Mutant Pony]

Wanderer, that is torque that you are talking about. Tractor motors are torque motors and so are 300's. So yes a 300 would make a good tractor motor. That is why Will said it would make a good rock crawler.
For drag racing (even in the mud) you need horse power. A 302 will beat a 300 in the mud drags. In drag racing is the ONLY time a 302 has an edge on a 300. Of course as with anything else, A well built 300 will out h.p. a badly built 302.

[choped84]

ok, so i am cutting off the frame behind the engine x-member and replacing it with 2x4" rectangle tube, useing a 300 I6 i got for $200 with an automatic and a divorce 205. i'm also swaping to fullwith dana 44 and ford 9" with 4:10 gears and 37" tires. And finaly i will be painting it!

[rusty ol ranger]

Glad to see your going down the road less traveled.

I think you'll be happy with the 300. The trick to it will be getting it to have power at higher RPMS. It can handle the Rev's, just dont make a whole lotta power that higher. You definatly will have quite a few advatages in the 4\6 class....

1- You'll have the biggest common gas 6 cylinder built (So no one can beat you in cubes)

2- While you do need high end horsepower in mud drags, you still need alot of torque to spin those big tires up to speed quickly, which is where the 300 is going to shine. If it were me id concentrate on making the best use of the 300's biggest strong point, low end torque. Concentrate on smoking people so bad off the line they cant catch ya.

3-Durbilty, your going to have a helluva time blowing that thing up.

4- Showing people that the 300 has potential.

Have fun and let us know how it turns out!

later,
Dustin

[amx68390]

in regards to the 300's not making power after 3500, i would have to disagree, for any of them, but if you are looking for higher RPM capabilities, an injected 300 would be the route to go, as they revamped the head, manifolds, (both intake and exhaust), and for your application these would be to your benifit, if you plan to stick with the factory injection, there is alot of power to be had from your local machine jobe simply with manifold/head port matching, and swapping on a throttle body from an injected 460, you just have to grind away small portion it to clear a dowel pin, theres a better description of that process on various inline six forums, bump the compression up, there only like LOW point LOW:1, and for your non existant issue with the high RPM power, if more is desired, simply put a slightly wilder cam in it, there are plenty of options available. in regards to the injection, all trucks from 86 (5.0 only, 87 for all others) to 96 (97 HD F250's and 350's) were equipped with speed density injection, not mass air. Speed density contrary to popular belief is VERY modifyable, especially if you have a stand alone controller for it (mega squirt, etc) and are CHEAP to do. another option is mechanical injection. or a clifford 4bbl aluminum intake. regardless use the 87 and up head. and if not using headers use manifolds from an 87 and up as well. also, headwork is a WHOLE other ball game, with GOBS of HP and torque being the end result.... porting, not too much or you will lose the velocity and bye bye low end torque, which you want BAD cause like the one guy said earlier, if you get em off the line they gotta work that much harder to catch up.

[amx68390]

the 4.0 can't hold a candle to the 300, if one maybe only in the area of longevity, and in a high stress application, the 300 does have 7 main bearings in comparison to the 4.0's 4.....so i am still leaning on the 300. but as for higher end power, the 4.0 (and 3.0, 2.9, 2.8) all have the same block, actually german engineered (one of the few good engineered things to come from there, anyone who wants to try to argue that, go work a a 97 jetta VR6, until then don't even talk, lol. or go look at the vacuum hose routings a a 1.8T....:fie:) ) for its debut in the pinto back in i belive 72...? the way they achieved the displacment for the 4.0 was to increase the stroke (also helped to lower emissions) the longer the stroke, the lower the revving capabilities. now i am not saying the 4.0 is not capable of high revs, not any less than a 300 that is. but if i were to stick with a V6, i would go with a SOHC 4.0, preferably out of a 05 and up stang. lets compare specs for a minute here. now i am not sure of torque numbers or peak levels for power or torque (call your dealer they will tell you in a heartbeak) but i know HP is 210..... thats the EXACT same as a 1985 mustang GT with a H.O. 5.O.... plus a bit of head work, manifold port matching, etc. also RE-Flashing the computer and putting larger capacity injectors/ higher pressure/flow pump... then you bump up the compression ratio... give it a hotter igntion.... but, i work at noon today.... so to all a goodnight

[mhughes165]

i built a nasty 300 straight 6 for my 93 ford on 44's, i will get around to taken pics of the motor sometime today, but thanks to the guys at www.cliffordperformance.com i got the VERY LAST COMPLETE top end race setup, a set of there 11-1 pistons, blueprinted crank, offy intake with a holley 750 double pumper on it, after about a week of tuning got my best pull on the engine dyno, on the motor i was puttin out 479hp at 4100 rpm's, and 534 ft lbs, at 2600 rpm's

[rusty ol ranger]

Oh...and BTW the 3.0 does NOT use the same block as the 2.8\2.9\4.0.

Actually, the best setup for high end power on a 300 is a 4bbl 390CFM Holley, on a Carbed engine, with an EFI head and EFI exhast manifolds.

go to www.fordsix.com.

later,
Dustin

[amx68390]

the pushrod 3.0? ummmmm, yeah, it is it just has a different intake.

[amx68390]

also if your not opposed to being sach religious and throwing a GM motor in there, a buick 3800 or 3300 will cook the s**t out of most other options, not to mention the longevity of those things is amazing.... but i know now that i am gonna get shot so i'll start running for cover, lol

another option is the 200/250 with a cast iron aussie head with removable aluminum 2bbl intake, just make sure its a late 67 and up 200, as the early ones still shared the 4 main block of the 144/170. i would have to see your rules for this class, can you run overhead. dual over head cam engines? if so that opens a WHOLE new playing field

[choped84]

bacicly you can run anything as long as it is stock. they dont care what its out of and you can run headers but no alum. heads, intakes and no Nos. or it will be in mod. 4/6 class.

[rusty ol ranger]

Keep the straight 6.

The 3.0 is not based off the 2.8\2.9\4.0.

The 2.8\2.9\4.0 are part of the "cologne" engine family, first designed in cologne germany for Ford of Germany. The 2.8 evolved into the 2.9, then the 2.9 evolved into the 4.0.

The 3.0 is a taurus engine from the vulcan family, atleast the 3.0pushrod is, the DOHC 3.0 is a Duratech Engine.

later,
Dustin

[Mutant Pony]

Sweet! The c-6 needs a little work to make it fast. If you know someone that builds trannies. Take the #9 roller out of an E40d. You probably don't need the low gear but, that is also available out of the E40d.
If you can't run an aftermarket intake, you should go with the factory EFI. WAY better than a single one barrel in the middle of a long engine!

[Simple_serf]

3.0 isn't from the same family...It was built at the Lima engine plant in Ohio...Just like the 2.x series, specifically for the taurus.

BTW...I like this project. The 300 is an awesome engine...I haven't been around them in trucks, but it was a common Generator engine, and they have incredible lifespans.

[rusty ol ranger]

No, dont run the factory EFI.

Run an EFI head with a 2bbl Motorcraft 2150 or a 4bbl with a holly 390. In the mud probely a 2bbl would be your best bet.

EFI head, with EFI exhaust and a Carbed 2bbl intake. Dont screw with the little 1bbl Carter. They are good for about 150CFM and a carb off an 11HP briggs will blow more air.

If you bore the 300 a little over and run Early 390 pistons in it it will bump the compression of it up a little ways, and gain more power. Port and polish the head, and do a good valve job and you'll have a bulletproof racer. Recam it and run a Duraspark dist on it. Go to www.fordsix.com and talk to frenchtown flyer. Hes got a rail car with a 300 that runs 9's.

Another trick is to run the right gears. To much gear and you'll spin it up so high so quick you'll get out of its powerband, and not enough gear and you'll waste all of the 300's great low end torque.

Like i said, use all that low end power to your advatntage.

later,
Dustin

[choped84]

ok, new problem. the c-6 has a cracked case but i have a Cruise-O-Matic off of a 300. i have never worked and these and i dont know how strong they are so any thoughts on them? it has a cast iron case with a alum. bell housing.

[Original_Ranger84]

A turbo charger would get you the high end power you need. but they are kinda expensive. Just mount one of the types that set up in the exhaust pipe and get a larger none ball bearing turbo for less cost, because the i6 already has all of the low end power it needs but with the high end a turbo will help greatly.

[rusty ol ranger]

A turbo would destroy the low end torque becasuse of lag.

The cruise-o-matic, aka, FMX is actually as strong (and some argue stronger)then a C6. But there heavy as hell with the cast iron case. They are a 50's design. I dont know if they take the parasitic loss like a C6 does, but i do know that they are hard to kill.


Im still tellin ya though, a T18 or T19 "wide ratio" 4 speed is your best bet.

later,
Dustin

[Will]

This post is so packed with misinformation I'm tempted to blow it in place.

An FMX is not as strong as a C6. And FMX is the ancestor of the AOD and the C6 is the ancestor of the E40D.

A turbo is not a high rpm performance boost. That's exacty what it is not. It does not kill your low rpm power and lag has nothing to do with low rpm power. A 2.3 turbo puts up similar numbers in the same rpm ranges as a 5.0 HO--and it's half the size. All lag is is the delay between the time you stomp on it and the time the turbo spools. If you size the turbo too large your engine won't be able to spool it up at low rpms. Most of the time the turbo is sized fairly small so it spools up quickly and then is equipped with a wastegate to keep it from over speeding. The turbo gasser cars I have driven--a Dodge Daytona, a Suzuki Swift and another Dodge sedan of some type--they all had a bit of a lag--about a quarter to a half intersection worth, then took off like mad. If you boosted a 300-6 it would spool up at a low rpm with the correct turbo. Especially with it's long stroke which already moves a lot of air at low rpms. You need to get the turbo selected for you by someone that has access to the turbo maps--three dimensional drawings that show boost and turbine speed over a variety of conditions. If you were in known territory with lots of empirical example then you could forgo that step.

The 300 does not have great low-end torque. A 460 has great low end torque. A 300 makes what torque it has at a low rpm. It has to, because it only has 300 cubic inches. You put your troops where they will do the most good and if you are going to have a chance with only 300 cubic inches, it needs to be right off the line. After that, it's going so it doesn't matter.

Jamming that long thing in a Ranger is a waste of time. A 302 is a better choice. It fits easily and can spin faster. It makes more torque--about 40ft# more at the same technology level. That's because a 300-6 is tuned so hard to run at low rpms that the air is restricted. Everyone seems to forget that air is the hardest thing to get into an engine. The fuel is easy and the spark is easy. The air is the trick. A 300-6 in any configuration has a long passage to fuel the outer cylinders. The air is a tough thing to get through in one piece. The theoretical vs. actual is what people call the volumetric efficiency and the 5.0 is much better at it. A 4.0 will outflow a 300-6. The horsepower numbers prove it. You gear up the difference in torque. A ship with a jet turbine engine definately has gearing like crazy. Your after raw horsepower. Use the gearing to adjust it. A 300-6 is a novelty installation.

[bobbywalter]

yup...i concur with will.



the aod has potential to out perform the c6....if you wanted/needed another gear its a great choice if you put money in the right places.


that said....for dragging...i would build the balls out of a 700....behind a stroker 351 setup to get 15.5 vac at idle.


fast as it gets there...307 first gear and insane launching power with the right converter....:icon_surprised:.

[bobbywalter]

well do the 351 when your done playing with stock

[rusty ol ranger]

If he runs a 302 he wont be able to run in the 4\6 cylinder class.

A 4.0L will not out torque a 300 6 cylinder.

A 302 sure as hell wont out torque a 300 6 cylinder.

A turbo would ruin one.

A FMX is stronger then an AOD, they may be the ancestor to the AOD, but like everything, the newer it gets the weaker it gets.

I agree, the 4.0 has more Horsepower then a 300, as does a 302. How do you say the 302 has 40ftlbs more torque then a 300 at the same RPM? That is WRONG. A 302 might make 10-15 more at 1000-1500 more RPM. At 1200 (or 1600 on EFI 300's) I doubt the 302 is making as much torque as even a 3.0.

Running a 300 in the mud drags all you would have to do is gear it high instead of low like you would have to with a 4.0 or 302. A 300 has the grunt to spin up 35's with 3.55 or 3.31 gears, and you would still carry the wheelspeed thats needed.

You can make up for Horsepower with gearing, all you gotta do is gear it high. An Engine with alot of low end torque (but not much horsepower) works great with higher gears, because it can stay at low RPM's and still keep the wheels turning fast.

But i guess its useless to argue with will, seeing as how if it were up to him every vehicle in the world would be powered by GM's wonderful 6.2L Diesel :rolleyes:

later,
Dustin

[Will]

First, yes, he won't be able to run in the 4/6 class. That's why I suggested a 4.0. A 4.3 GM would be better.

Next, a 4.0 WILL "out torque" a 300. That's where your understanding of torque-power breaks down. The important thing is the amount of air the engine can inhale for the length of the race. A 4.0 can inhale more air. That's a damn fact, and the only important fact. You have to look at the engine/transmission/final drive as a unit. At the rear axle shaft the 4.0 will be turning harder than the 300.

A 302 spanks a 300 (http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?superTrim=&makeid=14&logtype=7&mode=&destURL=features.jsp&year=1994&acode=USA40FOT11CA0&modelid=180&section=features&myid=3003&section=features&mode=&aff=national)--that's FIFTY HORSEPOWER!!! You want to talk about 200rpm difference in the peak? The peak means jack shit. The 300-6 is 260ft# there and the 5.0 is 270ft#. That there is FIFTY-HORSEPOWER difference mean the 300 tanks it and is making wiffle torque at 4000rpm where the 302 is stomping ass. Off idle the 300 is better. So what? It gets its ass kicked no matter what because no motor is an island. A 302 sucks in WAY MORE AIR and can burn A LOT MORE FUEL in the same time--it beats up on a 300.

Torque and power are both about HOW MUCH FUEL YOU CAN BURN. And that is exactly proportional to HOW MUCH AIR YOU CAN INGEST. It's stupid simple. Most of our arguments over the years have been because of your failure to understand this fact. I've been nice about it--trying to show you pretty charts and stuff to make it simple for you. I've never flamed you. Even now, when I'm feeling ready to unleash a tirade of verbal abuse--I resist.

You have it backwards--YOU CAN MAKE UP FOR TORQUE BY GEARING IT---NOT HORSEPOWER. Horsepower is the bottom line. It includes the function of TIME. Torque doesn't. Torque is INSTANTANEOUS--A SNAPSHOT. Torque is meaningless.

I told you jet engines were used in ships--an extreme example of torque not meaning shit. A destroyer has 4 jet engine capable of 39,000hp each (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer). The same engine family used on the C5 aircraft is used in navy ships. Not the same engine, but there is an aircraft version and a naval version. The naval version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM2500)is geared down to turn a propeller at 200rpm. You think it doesn't have torque? It doesn't without the transmission. With the transmission a destroyer can do what it is designed to do--chase subs. Turn, accelerate and manuever a 2-million pound ship takes torque. Destroyers primarily screen the fleet from subs. They go from zero to 50mph back to zero to 50mph the other way in no time at all--and they use turbines--jet engine. Airplane engines.

It's useless to argue with me? It's useless to argue with anyone. But if you argue with me, you are faced with annoying things like facts and supporting references.

[rusty ol ranger]

How the hell does torque not matter?

A school bus makes 180HP. A 302 makes more. You think a 302 would move a school bus around as good as a 5.9L B Series cummins?

Torque is a twisting Force. It takes torque to get a vehicle rolling from a dead stop. Makeing a vehicle move while it is already in motion is easy. A person could push a semi ifit was already rolling (like say, on a down hill slant) at 5MPH. A person can not budge a semi if it is sitting on flat level groud. Horsepower is meaningless unless the vehicle is moving. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 HP does you absoultly no good at all if you have 1FTLB of torque. Cause in order for the engine to spin up and make horsepower, it has to make torque to allow what ever is behind the engine to roll, whichthen allows the engine to spin up and make its HP.

A 300 6 will outpull a 4.0, and it will outpull a 302. Ask anybody whos actually had one that wasnt a "Turd special" like yours was will. If i remember correctly you had an 84 right? With an electronic carb, 3spW\OD, and probely like 2.47 gears. A 302 wouldnt of been able to even move that truck. Because it wouldnt of had the TORQUE to get the vehicle MOVING where it could have used its HORSEPOWER.

When you step on the gas in a vehicle, Torque comes into play first to get the wheels turning, the more the wheels start turning, the higher the engine revs, the more HP it makes, and thats where HP comes in.

Torque gets ya there, horsepower keeps ya there.

So yeah, a 300 might not be able to run 100MPH up a steep grade pulling 9000lbs, but either can a 302. And atleast a 300 could get that 9000lbs rolling on that steep grade, as to whre a 302 would puke.

later,
Dustin

[Will]

Dustin...

I can't argue with you anymore. As long as you feel good about your convictions, more power to ya.

[choped84]

finaly got some pics of the swap
http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr156/oregonmudder/crystals%20bronco%202/m_4f5096edd166b2d0f4540911144e1e1a.jpg
http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr156/oregonmudder/crystals%20bronco%202/m_d4950513dedd8a2a4d7154d0ce676943.jpg
http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr156/oregonmudder/crystals%20bronco%202/m_786f891e06fb0f49370a019481ba7dea.jpg
http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr156/oregonmudder/crystals%20bronco%202/broncoIII002.jpg

[rusty ol ranger]

Glad to see you went with the 300.

I dont think you'll be dissapointed.

Go to www.fordsix.com....they can really help ya out with getting what you want from it.

later,
Dustin

[MakerOfBeast]

ill have to agree with will in mud hp is the key. sure torque will get you off the line but hp is what gets u down the track. that's why all drag cars are tuned for hp even diesels cars. and you can push a rig from a standing start on flat or slightly up hill ground, we did it all the time at the truck shop i worked at,

[Gotta_gofast]

Haha, Will is right about all this misinformation! Its interesting you run a 300ci I6. Although I agree with Will in every sense about the 4.9L, I would have grabbed a 2.3T from a turbo car and thrown it in there. Give her lots of boost and some tremendous gearing so you can stay in the "happy zone" and you will have similar horsepower AND torque of mildly built smallblock V8s... only you get to compete with other 4/6s. Not to mention the light weight of your drivetrain would be a HUGE benefit for power-to-weight ratio and the advantage of "skimming across rather than sinking like an anchor". You can run a 5 speed so that you can keep it in that happy zone, too. And yes, the 2.3T will also produce more torque than a 300ci I6! The 300ci might make its peak torque at a low rpm, but this is mud racing, not cross country towing. If you can't keep those tires spinning, then you start to lose momentum and your tires won't clean themselves as efficiently. I seen a small buggy (one seat) with a Suzuki Hayabusa 1300cc engine and it whooped everything in the 2 wheel drive class because it was so light and had a tremendous power-to-weight advantage... and it sounded really good tapping rev limiter at 12,000+ rpm.

[Gotta_gofast]

Oh, and to rusty ol ranger

I will use the 1996 F-150 to give the 4.9L the benefit of the newest technology before its demise

The 4.9L produced 150hp and 260 lb-ft

The 5.0L produced 205hp and 275 lb-ft

To me, the 5.0L looks to be the better candidate for pulling AND acceleration. Ford obviously agrees, as they rated the 5.0L to tow 500lbs more than the 4.9L when both are identically equipped with a 5 speed manual.

[Mutant Pony]

Gotta_gofast, you haven't paid very good attention. He can't run a turbo or a v-8 in his class.
Will, An fmx and an aod have absolutely not one thing in common and never did.
Rusty, he said that he couldn't run an aftermarket intake manifold. That is why I recommended the EFI. You yourself said not to run the 1bbl, the efi is the only other choice. The efi will out perform a 2bbl.
Out of all the motors listed above, the only one I've seen win anything in the mud is the 300. That includes the 302.

[choped84]

the mud bogs that had those rules have now closed down so im putting a clifford 4bbl intake manifold with a throttle body fuel injection. im also making a custom header for it to clear the frame a little better

[Gotta_gofast]

Hold on here, let me dig out my "RANGER V8 binder"... Found it, chapter 1: Engine. Nope, Chapter 2: Transmission YES. Scan a little more... here we go.

These are all personal notes, so I do not know where the specific information came from as I built the truck 2 years ago and these are just all the parts, notes, ect from the build. Having said that, there is an article here in my own private "AOD TECH" that states "The AOD and FMX share a similar compound planetary geartrain" Umm, further down I state "The only difference in powerflow is that [the AOD] splits the torque between the Torque Converter driven shaft and the Direct input shaft Since most of my information came from AOD books, Len Bertrand (LenTech) and the internet, you should be able to find and verify the information. Looks like the FMX influenced the AOD...

You are right, I totally forgot about the whole turbo deal. :blush: But, now he says the rules have changed!

If the 300ci I6 must stay, then I think some headwork and a mild cam are going to be your friend. You've gotta rev that motor! Get it to pull hard up to 4500rpm or more. I think fuel injection will be your best bet, also.

[CRAZ28]

I like the swap, I drive an f-150 with the 300 and it pulls. It has the power, I put all the shingles from my roof into the back, truck weighed over 10,000 lbs on the scale, and drove like it had 1000 lbs in the back. (no overloads)

[rusty ol ranger]

I didnt see where he had to keep the stock intake.

In that case yes a EFI 300 would be best. They are capable of 3500-4000rpm, the 300 runs a 7 main bearing bottom end that will handle about all the RPM you can throw at it. Just gotta work the top end over to get it to breathe.

I never argued the 302 makes more peak power then the 300, but if you had a torque curve chart compare both engines at 1600RPM. Thats where the 300 shines.

500lbs is not a significant number anyways. Load both of them up untill one of them pukes and the 302 will be the loser, everytime.

Now, with a light load, (under 5000lbs) on flat ground, and with a stick shift, with 4.11 gears, the 302 would walk a 300.

But saddle both trucks with some weight, (say atleast a 8500LB trailer), some high gears (like 3.55's or even 3.08's), an automatic and a 4wd longbox truck and aim them up a hill, the 302's mustang roots will begin to show as the 300 is reminisent of a tractor, slow but never runs outta grunt.

later,
Dustin