power question

[bobbywalter]

besides being patently obvious....the cam suggestions are a key factor.


what induction are you using? truck sd efi....stock crown vic efi?? mustang stuff? 2bb or 4 bbl carb?


where is your timing?


what headers and what type of exaust setup do you have?

is it efficiently constructed?

what was your compression ratio static?

did you degree and offset the cam or is it straight up?...if straight up did you degree and verify it?


373 and 33 in tires with a stout e head, 9.5 to one cr, h piped or single 3-3.5 factory equivalent headered exaust should exceed max 2.9 torque at 1800 rpm and beyond.


the 302 is venerable to say the very least, but natural low end torque is not in the cards unless specifically constructed to that end.

i ran straight pipes out the sides for years on a cobra engine....that was a dumb move....and i knew it, but my engine had plenty with the rest of the tuning so i tolerated the occasional kick downs. once i changed the setup with a fresh engine it was ok....i ran the low rpm truck cam expecting great results....and was very disapointed....but combined with a good exaust setup the difference was incredible for road holding power....didnt change the 0 to 60 really....but held od much better.


its pretty easy to get over 200 pounds of tq at 2000 rpm with the little guys with some patience.

 

[okietheranger]

I'm useing mustang stuff efi. I set timming to what ever the sticker said can't remember excatly what. I used headman headers 8500 I think. The exhaust is duel till the muffler then it ties in to single then duel out. It's set up ok. I can remember the compression it's 9.. To somthing. Had the heads shaved and the pistons were sealed power Teflon coded ones. The cam I just stuck in with the dowel pin. I believe straight up. I didn't degree it. I really didn't think about the cam when I bought it. I just wanted it to be safe and a little lumpy. I'm sure I needed more tourqe at low end it goes pretty good at higher rpms but kinda falls on it's face after 4k. I could change the cam or change the gears I guess. Thanks for all the input. I always just kinda thought maybe I missed somthing on the motor. Every time I start it it smeams to kinda stumble then start. If that makes sense. I just thought id have shit loads more power. When I did a 4.0 swap if I had the same trucks side by side one with 4.0 and one with the 5.0 the 4.0 would knock the doors off the 5.0

 

[bobbywalter]

yeah, most people are unaware or dont realize the torque curve actuals verse peak reported numbers all around. a cursory look at the 4.0 verse the 2.9 dont look like a big deal...but a typical 302 from a oem application wont touch a 4.0 for usable torque in normal driving and the 4.0 annihilates the 2.9 in actual ability to put power to the ground.

the 302 has to be specifically constructed in general to work decent in an off road application. with big tires on the agenda....a 351 or stroker 302 is a much better idea... with adjustable cam gears and some dyno tuning time a typical gt 40 iron headed 5.0 running good rockers puts out 330 plus ft pounds before 4 k rpm peak with nearly 200 available at 1800's rpm with a good 70 mm setup on the induction end and headers similar to what you have on stock injectors.

do you have an old school tuner that specializes in fords near you?



the stock 5.0 stang with just a tune and rockers can put out real nice torque numbers and i learned over the years playing with cams and rockers running 35's with one wont be impressive at all by current engine standards offered today without dropping some serious coin into it...and forget economy from there.

the stock 4.0 has a 3.5 in stroke....the 302 has a 3 inch stroke. dont sound like much, but the difference in usable torque is incredible considering how small the numbers are all around when used in a daily driving traffic scenario.

your issue is in usable torque.

in your case and dangerranger83 i would suspect the normal use verse the powertrains you have, the 4.0 would kick its ass and get better fuel economy.


key is stroke, and like the 300 six, which may as well be 4 in...stroke means allot at low rpm power levels. the 300 wont out do a tuned 302, but typical stock to stock will feel stronger on the bottom because it is...just slower then smoke off shit in a rpm situation.


i went to a low rpm "truck torque" cam, and was pissed with the power compared to the offset degreed gt 40 setup. it did improve performance at the bottom but fell on its face before 4500 k and was a dead issue past that.... the tuning of the e cam and gt 40 setup though costly is impressive, my peak powers went down but the tuning expanded the range of power. but it would knock with cheap gas.

at the end of the day, all things considered, it is why the ls platform would be my first choice for a v8 swap today.

for a 2wd truck with small tires and low ride height, the 302 is an awesome match.....even a 150 hp wheezer will seem strong with a manual trans.

all around, 15 years ago the 302 was a decent choice...20 years ago it was a logical choice...today its not justifiable for a big 4x4 in my eyes. if you spend 4-5 grand building it you will have modern power...but not the economy.

a few years ago i watched a stock 150 reg cab run 15.3 quarters with a 3.7 base v6. there were a few v8 rangers there that sounded good, and only one ran a sub 15 quarter and it was at 88 mph just like my 302 ranger...the v6 f150 which was 1000 pounds more hit 91 a few times. what else would a guy have to see to understand.

there used to be an old saying you could have two of these three things.....cheap, power, decent fuel economy. the ls platform ended that statement when it showed up....when ford decides to support us enthusiasts again...if ever...that 3.7 in the ranger will be a great swap let alone an ecoboost or the modern 5.0.

on typical pricing index, i estimate that the 3.7 i can swap for around 3500 bux with a sub 70 k mile junkyard donor setup. i would wager in your truck platform as it stands...the 3.7 would be much better performing then what you have now. economy i am not so sure though.


maybe talk with the local tuner and go to an he type cam...or call the cam guy and work from there. if you could dynotune it it would go a long ways towards what to do. i know it should run a hell of allot better then it is with a manual trans...

 

[shane96ranger]

Try advancing your timing if you haven't already. The factory setting was 10 btdc. Take it to 12 or 13 and see how it runs. Since I put the P heads on my 302, I am getting 14 btdc on 85 octane fuel - no pinging.