300 vs 302

[fordmandan87]

I'd go 302 over a 300 anyday....

Ill take the 300 gotta love that inline torque and reliability

 

[Psychopete]

Both good engines.

Pete

 

[BlackBII]

I like both.

But, the 300 seems to run out of steam too quickly in stock form.

 

[Sunk]

There is more aftermarket out there for the 302, and if we're talking about putting one into an RBV, the 300 is a tighter fit due to the length.

 

[07rangersport]

Both good. Which one you get depends on what you want to do with it.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Off road/Crawling/Use as a truck- 300

Racing/showing off-302

The 300 is an awesome engine. Tons of torque and as reliable as can get. Probely the toughest (gas) engine ever built, its only real downfall is it runs outta steam at about 3500RPM, but if you crawling, pulling, climbing, etc, you cant beat it.

The 302, im not really a fan of. There fast, high whinders. Usual small block attributes. They wont pull like a 300 (givin the same gearing), but they will run circles around one, there downfall is they Dont have the torque of a 300, and a 351 is just as easy to put in an RBV.

later,
Dustin

 

[fordmandan87]

has anyone ever done a 300 swap into a rbv?

 

[Psychopete]

has anyone ever done a 300 swap into a rbv?

Yes, look around the site, it's been covered before.

Pete

 

[RacinNdrummin]

Off road/Crawling/Use as a truck- 300

Racing/showing off-302

The 300 is an awesome engine. Tons of torque and as reliable as can get. Probely the toughest (gas) engine ever built, its only real downfall is it runs outta steam at about 3500RPM, but if you crawling, pulling, climbing, etc, you cant beat it.

The 302, im not really a fan of. There fast, high whinders. Usual small block attributes. They wont pull like a 300 (givin the same gearing), but they will run circles around one, there downfall is they Dont have the torque of a 300, and a 351 is just as easy to put in an RBV.

later,
Dustin

I hate it when people say the 300 has all this torque, and a 302 doesnt.

Ive had several 300's/4.9's and several 302's/5.0's and even had both a 300 and 302 in the same truck and I will tell you there is not a whole lot of difference in torque and the 6 is just plain gutless up top.

An explorer 5.0 will hand any 300 its ass in the torque department, and even a plain jane F4TE 302 is its equal as far as torque goes.

As I always tell people in this arguement, you can either tow your boat at 25 with the 300 or tow it at 45 with the 302.

Both are very reliable engines, but the 302 does have a whole lot more aftermarket and its a smaller engine.

 

[Ozwynn]

the 302 is a crappy towing engine.

 

[RacinNdrummin]

It is not, it has plenty of torque, youve just been brainwashed.

 

[rangerdanger9398]

i think the 300 6 is the best motor in the world

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

It is not, it has plenty of torque, youve just been brainwashed.

In between the early 70's and when they were put into Explorers they were gutless turds. Short stroke, restrictive heads and laughable compression meant the 302 took a big hit to the knees when emissions stuff came into play.

But they have a unlimited aftermarket that can more than make up for it.

For a RBV swap, the question is 302 vs 351, 300's are too long to fit and not end up looking like a hack job. A warmed up 302 is plenty for a RVB sized truck, but they don't do much besides burn a lot of gas in a fullsize.

Honestly I would pick a 351W over any of them, and I would take a 400 over that if I had the chance in a fullsize truck.

 

[Will]

There's one cubic inch difference and the same technology. The only concrete difference is in the stroke. DO you want to hear this? Stop reading if you don't.

A longer stroke is essential when you are trying to get a small engine to do a big job. The 300-6 made it into U-Hual trucks. The thing about the long stroke is airspeed. A long stroke doesn't mean more leverage. It's not a bicycle. The pistons are moving much faster in a 300 than a 302 at the same rpm. The 300 is running faster than the 302 at the same rpms. The 300 has better cylinder filling at low rpms. It runs great at low rpms. That's what a truck wants. It feels like an electric motor. Lots of low rpm Buzz.

But that's it. It doesn't make MORE torque, it most likely makes less peak torque. The 302 has more valve and piston head area. If you add up all of the combustion area, the 300 has only 6/8's the area as they have the same size bore. WHne the 302 is buzzing, it's going to have the air moving better than the 300 at it's peak because it has more valve area to work with. For pulling form a stop, you really can't match the 300-6 with a 302 just by using gears. But you can come so close as doesn't matter. And anywhere in the higher rpm ranges the 302 is going to beat the 300 senseless with it's valve-piston area and rpms. A 300-6 was at best a 165hp motor. A 302 in a truck was at best a 200hp motor. And it looks like a 6/8's advantage to me. I would rather have a 302 if I had to go down the highway. That 35hp is meaningful. People here are willing to pay $40 for a Tornado in the intake for a pretend advantage. Hill by hill the 302 truck is going to leave the 300 truck behind. At best, the 300 could pull a good 3 feet on the 302 from a stop. Then the 302 drives away.

 

[Sunk]

In between the early 70's and when they were put into Explorers they were gutless turds. Short stroke, restrictive heads and laughable compression meant the 302 took a big hit to the knees when emissions stuff came into play.

But they have a unlimited aftermarket that can more than make up for it.

For a RBV swap, the question is 302 vs 351, 300's are too long to fit and not end up looking like a hack job. A warmed up 302 is plenty for a RVB sized truck, but they don't do much besides burn a lot of gas in a fullsize.

Honestly I would pick a 351W over any of them, and I would take a 400 over that if I had the chance in a fullsize truck.

Well if we're picking any motor, I'd take 351C. But the 400 is a great motor too, tons of torque. Not as much available in the aftermarket though.

There's one cubic inch difference and the same technology. The only concrete difference is in the stroke. DO you want to hear this? Stop reading if you don't.

A longer stroke is essential when you are trying to get a small engine to do a big job. The 300-6 made it into U-Hual trucks. The thing about the long stroke is airspeed. A long stroke doesn't mean more leverage. It's not a bicycle. The pistons are moving much faster in a 300 than a 302 at the same rpm. The 300 is running faster than the 302 at the same rpms. The 300 has better cylinder filling at low rpms. It runs great at low rpms. That's what a truck wants. It feels like an electric motor. Lots of low rpm Buzz.

But that's it. It doesn't make MORE torque, it most likely makes less peak torque. The 302 has more valve and piston head area. If you add up all of the combustion area, the 300 has only 6/8's the area as they have the same size bore. WHne the 302 is buzzing, it's going to have the air moving better than the 300 at it's peak because it has more valve area to work with. For pulling form a stop, you really can't match the 300-6 with a 302 just by using gears. But you can come so close as doesn't matter. And anywhere in the higher rpm ranges the 302 is going to beat the 300 senseless with it's valve-piston area and rpms. A 300-6 was at best a 165hp motor. A 302 in a truck was at best a 200hp motor. And it looks like a 6/8's advantage to me. I would rather have a 302 if I had to go down the highway. That 35hp is meaningful. People here are willing to pay $40 for a Tornado in the intake for a pretend advantage. Hill by hill the 302 truck is going to leave the 300 truck behind. At best, the 300 could pull a good 3 feet on the 302 from a stop. Then the 302 drives away.

Well said.