If you could bring back....

Car & Driver cover this about 20 years ago, all for marketing purposes.

I'm with Adsm8, those Coyotes are some Badass engines. I always had a soft spot for 302's. To me they were the perfect size and available in all sorts of platforms and transferred easily into a different one.

I realize they were low on power in the beginning, but there is a slew of bolt ons nowadays. So yes, 302's.

bronco2fan said:

I'm with Adsm8, those Coyotes are some Badass engines. I always had a soft spot for 302's. To me they were the perfect size and available in all sorts of platforms and transferred easily into a different one.

I realize they were low on power in the beginning, but there is a slew of bolt ons nowadays. So yes, 302's.

Click to expand...

I will admit, the new coyotes do run good.

As for the old 302, it really had no place in a fullsize pickup. The 300 outpulled it and got the same MPG.

By that same token, i wouldnt want a 300 in a foxbody

bronco2fan said:

I'm with Adsm8, those Coyotes are some Badass engines. I always had a soft spot for 302's. To me they were the perfect size and available in all sorts of platforms and transferred easily into a different one.

I realize they were low on power in the beginning, but there is a slew of bolt ons nowadays. So yes, 302's.

Click to expand...

In their day they were pretty respectable for power.

For power I have no complaints with my 30yo engine. It chants along at 1800rpm and cleans four 31" MT's without a care in the world.

Nah, they do ok in something light. But if you start loading them up, they really look bad next to a 300. If you got an 2wd 150 with a 5sp, and maybe 3.55s that really didnt do much towing, itd be fine.

But the 300 were used in those great 80s fuel saver package trucks, saddled with that goofy 3sp+O/D manual and a 2.47 rear. Under those conditions, a 302 would puke.

rusty ol ranger said:

Im suprised no one was brought up a 390 yet

Click to expand...

That is actually what I was going to say before I got to your post there. Next truck will be a 68 F-100 with a factory FE (supposed to be a 390 in it now). I want to keep it an FE engine, but I would love to see an FE built with modern materials and techniques plus a bell housing pattern that would accept a modern 5+ speed OD transmission. Could probably find it if I wanted to invest in a custom milled drag racing block, but wouldn't really be practical for the application. Will get as close to that as I can over time upgrading the truck. Bolt-on EFI with timing control, a trans adapter, and swapping in a later transmission will be the first things to be done. Eventually rebuilt engine with new design aftermarket heads, modern cam grind, roller rockers and lifters etc.

There is only so far you can go and still be the same basic engine. Sure you could "modernize" the Windsor or FE engines with direct injection or overhead cams, but then they wouldn't be Windsor or FE engines. All that work and the upgraded components wouldn't be compatible with the classic components, which kinda defeats the purpose IMO.

pjtoledo said:

and for those of us that are anal with precision,,,,4.948893328L = 302 cu in

still can't legitimately round it up to 5.0

Click to expand...

Sure you can.

Say engineering wants to limit to 2 decimal places for ease in referencing the engine displacement.

4.948893328L rounds to 4.95L which gets passed off to marketing.

Marketing thinks 4.95L is too long for advertising an engine and wants to round to 1 decimal place.

4.95L rounds to 5.0L

so, 4.948893328L has been legitimately rounded to 5.0L

4.948893328L = 5.0L = 302 cu in


Yeah I know it's a total load of crap. An engineer would never willingly make things easier.

rusty ol ranger said:

Nah, they do ok in something light. But if you start loading them up, they really look bad next to a 300. If you got an 2wd 150 with a 5sp, and maybe 3.55s that really didnt do much towing, itd be fine.

But the 300 were used in those great 80s fuel saver package trucks, saddled with that goofy 3sp+O/D manual and a 2.47 rear. Under those conditions, a 302 would puke.

Click to expand...

Under those conditions anything would puke.

Going by #'s a 300 doesn't really have a whole lot of difference over a 302.

Ford got pretty heavy handed with the stupid gearing well into the 90's, the 302 trucks didn't fare much better. My Ranger has 3.73's.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

Under those conditions anything would puke.

Going by #'s a 300 doesn't really have a whole lot of difference over a 302.

Ford got pretty heavy handed with the stupid gearing well into the 90's, the 302 trucks didn't fare much better. My Ranger has 3.73's.

Click to expand...

Its kind of a 2.9 vs 3.0 situation.

On paper they are close in torque, 265 for the 300, 270 for the 302, circa 94ish. Difference is the 300 has most of its torque off idle up to about 3-3500ish. In a drag race with two empty trucks, the 302 will dust a 300, hook 5 or 6 k behind them both and aim them up a good hill, that 302 is gonna be hurtin.

Not trying to knock the 302, its a good engine, just not the best for truck duty. Yes, you could get a 302 truck to outpull a 300 if you hooked the 302 up with a 4.10 rear and the 300 was saddled with a 3,08 or something, but with trannys/rears being equal the 300 shines when it comes to truck stuff.

I think a 300 I6 converted to 24v and DOHC With direct injection and the eco boost turbo but keep a similar cam profile to keep peak torque in diesel territory and we would have something.

When I bought ol yeller I was actually looking for a 300/ ZF combo so I could experiment with turbo charging it

There is quite a bit of info out there on turboing a 300. Ive never really looked into the details though. However, i know on youtube theres a 71 (IIRC) maverick running a turboed 300 thats in the 10-11 sec territory.

Also, theres a rail car called "frenchtown flyer" running a turboed (and built) 300 that was running 7s.

Check out www.fordsix.com. Those guys are nutty over the 300.

But yes, what you just said about the ecoboost and DI is what i was thinking, rework the mangement/add ons/top end but keep the super stout bottom end. Would make a great base engine in the superduty.

rusty ol ranger said:

There is quite a bit of info out there on turboing a 300. Ive never really looked into the details though. However, i know on youtube theres a 71 (IIRC) maverick running a turboed 300 thats in the 10-11 sec territory.

Also, theres a rail car called "frenchtown flyer" running a turboed (and built) 300 that was running 7s.

Check out www.fordsix.com. Those guys are nutty over the 300.

But yes, what you just said about the ecoboost and DI is what i was thinking, rework the mangement/add ons/top end but keep the super stout bottom end. Would make a great base engine in the superduty.

Click to expand...

With a cast iron block.... basically a Diesel engine that runs on gas. Have you seen the new compression ignition gas engine that Hyundai developed? Maybe use that as well

Are you talking about the Mazda Skyactive-X engine?

rusty ol ranger said:

Its kind of a 2.9 vs 3.0 situation.

On paper they are close in torque, 265 for the 300, 270 for the 302, circa 94ish. Difference is the 300 has most of its torque off idle up to about 3-3500ish. In a drag race with two empty trucks, the 302 will dust a 300, hook 5 or 6 k behind them both and aim them up a good hill, that 302 is gonna be hurtin.

Not trying to knock the 302, its a good engine, just not the best for truck duty. Yes, you could get a 302 truck to outpull a 300 if you hooked the 302 up with a 4.10 rear and the 300 was saddled with a 3,08 or something, but with trannys/rears being equal the 300 shines when it comes to truck stuff.

Click to expand...

My 302 in stock land yacht tune was rated 270 @2500rpm. In later years they wound them up another 1000+rpm for like another 5lb-ft in trucks to open up the spread between the 300 and 302.

That long block had a very healthy bottom end. Torque was brutal off idle. I got all smart because everyone said that is guttless compared to a Mustang setup. So then I went to an HO cam and E7 heads. Really woke it up... 3500+rpm.

It isn't bad down low but it isn't what it once was.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

My 302 in stock land yacht tune was rated 270 @2500rpm. In later years they wound them up another 1000+rpm for like another 5lb-ft in trucks to open up the spread between the 300 and 302.

That long block had a very healthy bottom end. Torque was brutal off idle. I got all smart because everyone said that is guttless compared to a Mustang setup. So then I went to an HO cam and E7 heads. Really woke it up... 3500+rpm.

It isn't bad down low but it isn't what it once was.

Click to expand...

What year is that 302? I ask because the 351W in my 77 LTD II was rated at 290@1600rpm. It was decent even in a 4000lb car with a 2.50 rear end. Thing had a crazy top speed to with those gears, never had the guts to string it flat out in 3rd (FMX trans) but it would peg the speedo (and then some) in 2nd.

BDAB, i heard someone was designing a compression ignited gas motor, didnt know it was hyundai. Be interesting to see how that pans out.

I think BDAB's talking about Hyundai's HCCI project. There's a bit more about it here:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/whatever-happened-hyundais-hcci-engine/

More recently, Mazda has been making headway with their Skyactiv-X project that combines spark and compression ignition at different times.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2019-mazda-3-with-skyactiv-x-compression-ignition-gas-engine-prototype-drive-review