Im lookin around at getting a used f-150
somewhere around an 85-90, hopefully an extended cab with/without 4x4

im curious on what the better engine is?
which one guzzles more gas?

And would anyone know the MPG's for each engine

Thanks a lot

 

They're both excellent engines. The efi 300 had 150hp/260ft/lbs, the 302 had 185hp/270ft/lbs in 1990. 1985 was a transition year for ford, some 300's had efi and others had carb. 1985 was also the first year for efi on the 302. As for mileage, the 300 will get better mileage if equipped with a manual otherwise for an automatic they would be close to the same as the 302. First off, what do you use the truck for? Is it a commuter vehicle? Do you like to race with it? I imagine the towing compacities are close. I'm guessing for mileage, a 2wd 300 with 3.55 gears and automatic, stock will get around 14-16, where the 302 will get around 13-16. As for length of life, I think the 300 would last a bit longer. It had 7 main bearings.

------------------
toydestroyer1@yahoo.com

"Sleeper"


1993 F-150 302/e4od/355 Limited slip. dual exhuast w/o mufflers, 2 1/4" pipes, Echo Tips, Summit Racing headers, MSd Wires/Motorcraft Plugs, hypertech powermodule, 4 degree advance,Blaster Coil,MSd 6A Ignition, TPS Mod,5% dark tint, Ford Bed mat, Bundy Chrome Drop bumper, Wrap-around bug deflector, 2-tone tan/brown. Alpine cd player and Pioneer speakers, with tweeters No room for anything else.

1989 F-150 XLT 4x4 302/Aod MM hubs, true duals with turbo mufflers, maroon/grey middle, est 200hp

 

Basically, the 300 is a truck engine and the 302 is a car engine. If you use your truck as a truck (haul, tow, etc.) get a 300; if you use it as a daily driver, general transport, etc. get a 302. If you're looking at performance mods, you can build either engine up, but you can go a lot farther a lot cheaper with a 302.

FWIW a 351 is probably a better engine than either of them, but has a drinking problem

[This message has been edited by StrangeRanger (edited 05-07-2000).]

 

Ibanez,

I'm going to strongly suggest the 300, and for one reason.... mine's for sale, great truck, contact me if you're interested!

Neal Coppola
njcoppola@aol.com

------------------
'94 F-150, 4.9 6cyl., K&N FIPK, Mangecor 8mm wires. Gibson 3" Side Swept, MSD Blaster Coil, superchip. Just stolen: Pioneer DEH-P835R Head Unit, Rockford Fosgate 200a1 pushing 2 RF 10" subs. Pirelli Scorpion A/T 255/75/15. Est. 200 hp 300ft/lb. Torque! Not bad for a straight 6!! Also driving the girlfriend's '94 Mercury Grand Marquis.

 

I think StrangeRanger said it best. I've owned both, although my 300 was in a'84 and the 302 was in a '94. The V8 is fun to drive but for pullin' or haulin' I'd take the I-6. I don't think the MPG difference would be worth worrying about. Remember, that's a BIG 6.

 

Go with a 300-6 or a 351. The 302 will get very comparable mileage to a 351...and you get an engine that will actually move the truck.

------------------
99 XLT 5.4L SC 4x4 ORP Wedgewood Waldoch - 3.55LS, grey/blue leather, wood dash and door inserts, Lund Deflector, Trenz Billet Antennae, Clear Corner Lenses...and too many things on my want list!
1977 1/2 F250 4x4 "Low Boy" 400-4spd

 

I'm curious why you guys think the 300 is a better engine for a "truck" than the 302? I'm not saying the 300 is a bad engine. I feel its better than a v-6, but is it better than the 302, just because of lower rpm power? The hp and torque are higher on the 302, wouldn't that make it better? My uncle has a 92 4x4 with a 300/E40d, and his really struggles at high speeds, but is a bit quicker, at low speeds, than my 89 302 4x4. Does this make it a better truck engine?

I really don't agree with that statement at all. No body I know, with a 351 can come close to any 302 in mileage in a truck,,, NO ONE! The best mileage I have ever heard from a 351 was 16, the best out of a 302 was 24. There's a big difference there, pal! I do agree the 351 is a pullin/haulin motor. The 302 was a great engine, it can/and will keep up with a 351.
The 351 in 94 had 210hp/330ft/lbs and the 302 had 205hp and 275ft/lbs. I don't see much of a difference in power there. Maybe for towing.

[This message has been edited by Pastmaster (edited 05-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Pastmaster (edited 05-10-2000).]

 

Basically, the published HP and torque numbers don't reflect the real world when it comes to the 351 and the 302. It's not the (published) peak figures that matter, it's the values throughout the entire rev band. 5 HP difference at peak is nothing, a 15-20 HP difference at lower RPMs which tapers off to a mere 5 HP gain at peak is massive. The 351 makes more low end power than a 300 and more high end than a 302 and will outdo either of them at virtually anything except mileage, where it quite literally sucks.

 

I see what your saying SR...My experience with the 351 and my family/friends comments aren't in favor of the 351 really. In other words, haven't really heard anything good about them. I've driven several, and don't see a big difference over the 302. I haven't personally owned either, so I can't really say anything. My dad had 4 since since the 70's and about 19 of the 302's. I am sure with a larger displacement its a better heavy duty operator. Poor mileage is exactly right though.

[This message has been edited by Pastmaster (edited 05-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Pastmaster (edited 05-11-2000).]

 

Big 6 is right. Bigger than the base model v8 they are curently using. The 300 I6 gets its power at very low rpm, with torque peeking at about 2000 rpm and hp peaking at around 3800... its definately a workhorse.

------------------
1993 F-150 SWB Supercab 4.9l 4 speed auto w/ OD, 3.55 gears, K&N fipk, Custom Exhaust w/ Flowmaster.

But to chip or not to chip? Hmmmmm...

 

In 92 my dad and I both bought new trucks. Mine was 300 I6, 5spd, 2.73 rear gears. his was a 302, auto, 3.55 rear gears, he could get 18mpg consistantly while I only averaged 16.8 mpg. Both were Std. cab long beds. Used to drive me nuts cause 90% of my driving was on the highway. At least mine was better looking.

[This message has been edited by ps398 (edited 05-11-2000).]

 

My truck is a 1988 F-150, manual transmission, and 302. And, I consistantly get 18 mpg. On trips to my grandmothers house, I get about 22 mpg. I have a junker '86 F-150 I use for winter, it has a 300. It is fun to drive, but gets only about 15 mpg. But, it is also carburated.

 

Your lucky you have a carbed 300, the carbed 300's have more hp than the early efi'd ones do...

 

A notable difference that I have found on my 300I6 is the power is just right with the 3.08 ring, just about middle ground for both top end and real good for the low end....not as good as a 4:11 but good for what I do.
I use mine to tow whatever, including my father in laws 28 ft cabin cruiser to Lake Erie,loaded with a months worth of gear. It does look a little small in front of that boat but it pulls well.
I have had both and a friend of mine uses his in his towing business. It is a real heavy setup F350 that gets around 11MPG.
I am very happy with mine:-)

------------------
1995 F150 XL 4x2 4.9L 5spd Twin I-Beam Front Suspension Gabriel Sport Ride 3 stage Nitrogen Shocks 3.08 rear axle, Autolite Platinum Plugs Side gapped, Exact Wires.Turbo Catback Exhaust. Goodyear Workhorse Extragrip Tires.

 

I'd like to share a bit of my own experience.
I too struggled with which motor to get, the dealership had two identical trucks but one with the 300-I6, the other with a 302. Both were 5 speeds with 3.55 rear gears. After agonizing for days, I went with the 302. I am not dissapointed, I get 18-20 Mpg and it sounds really good with dual exhaust. Just my two cents...
1995 XL 2wd long bed.