300 vs 302

[Gotta_gofast]

The old AODs had very low converter stall. I think the the mustangs locked up at 1900rpm (WTF) and the rest were 1600. But the AOD-E and 4R70W have a much improved torque converter. Maybe there's a different torque converter behind the 4.9L?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Ive got the E4OD.

Maybe its possible Ford used different converters to match that particular engines torque peaks?

later,
Dustin

 

[Ozwynn]

again, I have not said that I like or dislike either engine. the 302 is a car engine and should remain in cars and small pick ups. the 300 has earned its right to be called a work horse, but there is a reason why it was the base engine.

 

[bobbywalter]

again, I have not said that I like or dislike either engine. the 302 is a car engine and should remain in cars and small pick ups. the 300 has earned its right to be called a work horse, but there is a reason why it was the base engine.

thats just it.....you are incorrect. the 302 and 300 do the same shit with aplomb.


the 2.9 is a car engine. so is the 3.0.


a 1/2 ton isnt a real truck work horse either....well at least back when these engines were put in them.

these current modern 1/2 tons will whoop anything from the 70's and 80's......


regardless the generation of half tons with these engines just werent total workhorses...maybe thats why there were more 302's put in them then any other engine???


as to the torque converters i know exactly what they are, i do build the aod based units and e4od and like them alot.

ust was wondering if it was understood what lockup/stall was by dustin...and it wasnt...truck can move at 600 rpm with a 3000 stall converter...that means alot


so yeah certain engines get certain setups and calibrations to thier needs.

but uhh...think about that. 1600 stall on a 3000, 2400 stall on a 302.

both with the same 410 gears, both with the same trans and tires...

both with 10 k on them, same hill. 1 mile....timed. who wins?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Depends on how much load you got on em.

Empty and Empty...id put my money on the 302....put about 10K behind them. Ill lay odds on the 300.

.......70's and 80's trucks were workhorses...well, 70's trucks, its been all downhill (IMO) since 79.

later,
Dustin

 

[choped84]

i used to have a 79 f-150 with a 300I6 on 44's and 3:50 gears and it didn't do to bad. i got pulled over by a state patrol for doing 75mph

 

[SchmigShady]

I have had a few experience with the 300. They are a workhorse engine seem to last forever and my personal opinion the best engine ford ever made. Not much of a horsepower but a lot torque.

My dad has a 1979 F-250 4x4 that original had a 400 which is a great motor too by the way. But my dad used it for plowing snow making money. But the 400 was such a gas hog he wasn’t making too much money cause he was putting gas in it all day. So we pulled it and put in the 300. A lot better on gas had the same or if not more torque at least felt like it when pulling. But it lake power. At 55mph in 4th gear the engine lugged bad working like hell. But it has 4.10 gears and engine problay has 300k on it now.

I own a 96 F-150 2wd and it’s a big difference between carb and fuel injection. Has plenty of get up and go but hits a wall at 4k. I have pulled car dollies with cars on them even another truck just like mine. Pulled them with speeds up to 85mph and the truck didn’t even break a sweet maybe only running 2400k at 85mph. But then again it’s a 5 -speed with only 3.08 gears.

Now I think the 302 is a great motor also. But I love my 300 but I do miss the v-8 sound and power. If had the choice again I would problay go with the 302. Now a 300 in a ranger that would just would be different and honestly it would get my attention before 302 since you see a lot of them now of days. Which I’m not knocking my ranger is in the plans for a 302 swap on these days since my 4.0 is a dog.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I love the 300, but ive also got a 400M in my 78 1 ton and there is a big power differnce between the 300 and 400, but theres also 100 CI more and 2 more cylinders.

The 400 and 300 are very similar in terms of powerband (both have the same borexstroke and cam profiles) Both were designed to be luggers. The 302 was designed to be a high whinding car engine.

I pulled 10,000lbs worth of bobcat and trailer with my 96, it pulled it right down the road at 60 and dead stop hills were not a problem. Keeping 60 up steep hills were though, but id still only drop to around 50.

The 300 doesnt get enough credit, and those that do knock it usually never owned one or owned one of the early 80's high geared turds.

The Carb vs EFi 300's, I had a 83 and it seemed like it had just as much torque, but the EFI one is definatly better up high.

later,
Dustin

 

[littleme13]

try and look at it this way guys. use the cummins and powerstroke or duramax as comparison. every test ever done has called the cummins the work horse for pure pulling, but the "V" series have always had better reviews on the open highway. same goes for big trucks. its usually an inline in a dump truck or rig that pulls heavy loads a short distance. but most of the newer over the road trucks are a "V" engine. once you get that weight moving it doesnt take much horsepower to keep it moving, laws of motion, but on the highway you want to be able to keep it there on hills so the "V" wins. for a dump truck its usually in the city so there is a lot of stop and go so it needs the most power off the line not really keeping it at high speeds.

now how does this relate to the 300 and the 302, same concepts. 300 are great for getting things moving but a 302 will keep it there on the highway. on a 12 mile 6% grade with 8k lbs. imma put my money on the 300 for the first 3 or 4 miles. then the 302 is gonna catch it and beat it. the 300 will simply run out of steam and the 302 is gonna pull the rpms to keep it going. seen it happen many times driving in california with the army, stupid cummins just cant keep up, 20 mph for 12 miles sucks.

and the 300 is my favorite engine so im not being biased

 

[RacinNdrummin]

It has nothing to do with the orientation of the cylinders, it has everything to do with bore/stroke/flow.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Now, take a steep grade and start both trucks from a dead stop with 8,000lbs. That 302 wont know what hit it.

later,
Dustin

 

[littleme13]

It has nothing to do with the orientation of the cylinders, it has everything to do with bore/stroke/flow.

i understand this but i was trying to put it so people would understand because it seems some are still having a hard time with it.

 

[littleme13]

Now, take a steep grade and start both trucks from a dead stop with 8,000lbs. That 302 wont know what hit it.

later,
Dustin

off the line no it wont but give it a chance to get into the right rpm and it will pull, and keep on pulling.

 

[fastpakr]

Yep. Off the line to a fraction of the way into 1st gear, the 300 may have it by a bit because torque comes on a few hundred RPM. Past that, the 302 comes on its' torque peak which holds far past the end of the 300's powerband. Result? More torque actually gets to the axle shafts on the 302 powered truck.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

But if the 302 cant get the load moving then it will never be able to hit its powerband.

Ultimatly the 300 will move more weight.

later,
Dustin