All of the engines you listed are shorter than the 300 six. In case you haven't noticed, every vehicle made today has a shorter engine compartment. That was the "space" saved in dropping the 300. This includes the Ranger. There's hardly room for the length of a 302 in one, let alone the 300.
actually the overall engine compartments are larger in the newer ranger...the fullsize trucks just have the windshield sitting over them making them more like a van with no doghouse to work with on the backside....
this modern setup is .....just stupid to me.
but its the way it is now...well for now anyway. i feel sorry for the dealer guys that have to work on them.
for example the difference in putting glowplugs in a 96 psd pickup and a 99 psd pickup is huge time wise....it only takes me about 1/2 hr 45 min longer to do a e seies psd glowplugs then a modern sd....
the cummins is a bit longer then the 300, and the psd package takes up more space then the 300 in my e series.
anyway the good ol 300 ford commentaries are always hystericle as well.
the one ton and dump truck uses are always good fall backs, but not in the way it is always sold.
for what they are (300 six) they do well in the later efi version.. but on direct comparitives they are just f-ing gay. since it is falling back on alot of real man tow stuff as it being a superior engine i would like to look at that a bit....
stock for stock in the carb days they are above par with a low 302 with the lug advantage being to the 300 for obvious reasons.
the 302 most certainly did power 1 ton trucks...those of us that remember the malaize period....gas lines...... and the 80's recession following it.... know for sure 1 tons had a wide selection of engines. one thing that recession did was streamline engine selections....especially in the 1 ton market.
the reason the 302 dropped was redundancy.... like admitted already there is a decent advantage on the low rpm end with the 300 in real power on the WHOLE curve..quite the stroke there..in any event call ford, go to the ford truck plant and ask on the tour. theres alot of history there.
hell 79-81 or so there was the k and b 300's the g 302, h 5.8....460 and two 400's in the trucks and i think the e series had a few more. thats on my f service manuals....power on all are dismal at best. but that is too many engines to handle......then add in the lpg versions ect....alot of waste manufacturing wise...
how anyone can consider 265 pounds of torque at 2000 rpm a supreme towing setup with only 120 hp backing it up at that peak is past my capacity to reason with. but for light use say up to 7 k its definatly just fine to get the job done..better then
most time period 302's. this is up to say 93...the following years seen the 302 come up to stang specs power wise which put the 302 at par with the 300....8-12 pounds less torque at the 2000 rpm doesnt make the 302 inferior at that point and it just gets satronger from there. but it sure as hell wasnt going in the 1 ton line either..and the 300 was shitcanned too because its was useless for modern needs as a 302 would be in a 1 ton...
the aod/4r70 and the c4 all came behind the 300 six...seems most people say contrary....in the big trucks the e40d was behind all the engines depending on how packaged. in a 1 ton its either a e4 or c6 for an auto.
back to he reality of the topic. this is a fuggin rbv forum.
a carb 300 setup will easily fit in a ranger.
the even bigger reality is these engines are extinct in regular production vehicles....300,302,351,460.
finding low mile units is hard to do.
so generally speaking basic rebuilding will be in order for best performance and reliability.
in this light the 300 is an awesome engine to build...its different and can be built with the same budget to provide similar numbers for streetable daily driver applications. a turbo inline 6 or turbo 2.3 offer as much fun as anything.
in that light it is the reason you will see me often suggest the ls engines for power swaps...sure its gm but dollar for dollar they just are hard to beat.
while personally i prefer v8's and wouldnt have a stock inline 300 over a stock type gt40 302/351...... i do encourage guys that want something different.
in the end....budget wise most guys will do better with oem v8 parts for a rbv engine swap. and generally speaking its all about budget.
this is too long already to go over all the other horseshit in this thread...so i am out for now.
regular truck engines rusty has the point....i have owned enough 300's to know that. compared to my last 302 which is pretty much oem stuff, a 300 would look less and definatly be out performed all things being equal.
Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and 
