Seriously??
The 300 is perfect for a turbo application.
It is a low speed long stroke engine. Sure.....It will be an inefficient compared to diesel mpg vs load. But the properly matched turbo map make this engine a magnitude greater for 300 cubes.
for a gas engine it will be quite efficient power to dollar to economy.
Geared to its ability it will make great numbers at 6 Psi. A supercharger is good but the turbo is actually more expansive due to the engines already steady idle power. It don't need the supercharger low end gain.
A few hundred to diy garage turbo....that will embarrass the thousands to make a supercharged application with belt drive complications. Yeah I would be in the turbo camp.
That said Rusty is as full of shit on the 300 vs 302 stock to stock combo as the 460 vs psd stock to stock combo.
That is in real terms of exceptions vs the rule. This one time the x beat y is fine....but not the regular.
This coming from the guy that knows every part that went into the winningest 300 street stock car at.flatrock speedway. Which my dad built....
But that is an exception....
Ok first off no rusty is not full of shit.
Please explain how two engines within 20CI of each other, one making 410ftlbs@2200 and the other making 415ftlbs@2000 is going to have any real notiable difference towing assuming both are geared the same. Just cause ones diesel? Youve been breathing to much smoke man.
As for the 300 vs 302, in two similar trucks a 300 WILL beat a 302 for a short time off the line, the difference becomes even more dramatic with a load. Ive seen it happen numerous times.
Also, no, the 300 is not a "slug" that 2.0s nowadays can outwork.
You seriously think a 2.0 could survive in a 26,000GVW dump truck? No it couldnt.
The 300 is a far superior
truck engine to the 302. Period.
Would i want one in a foxbody? No. Just like i dont want a 302 in my F series.