Ford 4.9 300 I6 vs 5.0 302 V8

[Gas Pig]

I'v been toying with the idea for trying a EFI 4.9 I6 in one of my builds. First has anyone tried yet? Second whats the advantages of an EFI 4.9 to EFI 5.0? Also what are the disadvantages of 4.9 to 5.0?

Off the top of my head I know the Ford's 4.9 motor like almost all I6 motors are bullet in as much as they run forever. Also I6's have more low end torque over V8's. Last thing maybe the 4.9 would get a little better MPG's over 5.0.

One big down side of 4.9 vs 5.0.... much longer of a block so there would be lot more moving things around in the engine bay.

Any thoughts???

 

[broncnaz]

Might want to do a search on the 300 swap a few people have done it although I dont think anyone has done the EFI version. takes a few mods to the crossmember to fit the 300 under a bronco hood. but it can be done. Which is better 302 or 302 well hard to say it depends on what your looking for the 300 will have loads of lowend torque the 302 not as much but better midrange/topend. As for mileage again hard to say. I've heard of both the EFi versions getting about the same mileage numbers and a lot of people claim the carbed 300's got better mileage than the EFI version.
I've seen a lot of the 6cyl EFI trucks in the pick and pulls not sure why they are there dont know if there is a issue with them or what.

 

[Socal Tom]

it was done a couple of years back, with efi and an NP 435. the goal was to build a capable wheeler that weighed under 3500 lbs. You will need to search for the build thread.
Tom

 

[fungus]

it was done a couple of years back, with efi and an NP 435. the goal was to build a capable wheeler that weighed under 3500 lbs. You will need to search for the build thread.
Tom

I actually thought the 300/ 4.9 was heavier than the 302/ 5.0!? I'm all for the swap thought & would love to build one someday. Seems like the perfect "chug chug" engine for a nice crawler!

 

[tasker]

Revelation on here has the 4.9 in his....

 

[360 4V]

The 300 has the advantage of having 25% fewer pistons,valves, spark plugs and fuel injectors. A real bargin! This 300 I6 has always held fiscal appeal in my heart!

 

[bax]

the efi 6 intake manifold is very tall. You will have hood problems. The carb model is much lower. Longer is also an issue but very doable.

 

[360 4V]

I have never liked the carburation situation on an inline-six. They have terrible fuel distributin. Electronic multi port fuel injection however makes for a very desireable engine. How do you manage to fit one of these 300s in an Early Bronco?

 

[360 4V]

The tall intake on that 300 is most welcome. It does its job. I am always willing to compromise a hood to acomidate an engine of greater driveabliity.

 

[broncnaz]

I actually thought the 300/ 4.9 was heavier than the 302/ 5.0!? I'm all for the swap thought & would love to build one someday. Seems like the perfect "chug chug" engine for a nice crawler!

I'm pretty sure the 300 weighs about 13 more lbs than a stock 302. pretty close in weight either way but if you were really trying to go lighter then a 302 fitted with aluminum heads, intake and a set of headers would probably shed close to 120 lbs. Along those lines a NP435 is one of the heavier trannys but then again its usually more about gearing than weight.

 

[360 4V]

13 lbs is splitting a hair. I am more concerned with rotating mass. I read an aritcle a while back about a Jetta that lost 2.2 mpg due to a swap to low profile wheels. The new tires were the same diameter and width but where very low profile as the rim was enormous. I don't remember the exact numbers but adding ~20 lbs per wheel/tire lost over 2 mpg on the Jetta. I think that for a given tire diameter, wheel diameter and widths, the difference of a conservative street tread vs. aggressive offroad tire is ~1.5 mpg. I stand to be corrected and please do.

I wouldn't worry about the weight difference between motors. We are not racing. If you put in a 460 and your front end sagged then get stiffer springs. The torque gain from the larger heavier engines far outweighs the small penalty of a little more weight.

 

[360 4V]

What does a NP 435 weigh, 145 lbs? I think the T-18s and T-19s weigh 165 lbs. The Muncie truck transmission, the Super Muncie, 420 weighs 120 lbs and the Super Muncie 465 weighs 165 lbs. Both light weight and very strong. Neither is very practical for us.

To make it easier on us we can adopt the attitude of a heavy equipment operator. My engine is this heavy so I have heavy springs. I am not concerned with fuel economy but I fit my operating expenses with my budget.
With this line of thinking I am going to build a small block Ford under the following
premises:
heavy duty
dependability
brutal torque
simplicty
fiscal impact

300s certainly fufil these opjectives but so can small blocks. 300s are known for making brute bottom end torque but as for making the best torque in the better part of the torque curve I think either one will be only as good as you build it. I would not go through the trouble of swaping one for the other. I don't consider it of great difficulty but it just don't see the benefit. Considering the Bronco came stock with a small block Ford I find it most practical to stay with that. I could buy an aftermarket 351W block with larger bore spacing and bolt in big block displacement.

If you put a 300 in your Early Bronco I will applaud your craftsmanship.

 

[fungus]

I just found it strange that someone would swap one in thinking they're shedding pounds (not so much). Hell if I was really worried about wheelin' weight I'd drop some pounds off my mid section & not worry about my engine bay... LOL!

 

[broncnaz]

I'm not worried about the weight issue but if someone was trying to build a light weight bronco as was mentioned using a 300 that already weights more than a 302 just doesnt add up. Now if someone makes a aluminum head for the 300 then we might see its bulk come down as well. I actually have a feeling that a 302 even in stock trim is more tthan 13 lbs lighter than a 300 6. but I just took the highest numbers for the 302 and the only number i had for the 300 and its only about 13 lbs if I took the lower number for the 302 it would be closer to a 50lb differance and thats before swapping out heads or manifolds to aluminum.
I like the 300 if it was a better fit in a bronco I would swap one in. but its not a great fit at least to me so I wont be installing one.
As for the NP435 again it was mentioned that someone was trying to make a lightweight bronco the NP435 is heavier than a stock 3sp M5OD and the toploader OD trannys.
I'm more or less on the same page as you I dont really care about the wieght of the engine or tranny as long as its what i want in power and gearing. Iwas just thinking out loud about the statement that was made about trying to build a light weight bronco with heavier parts.

 

[Socal Tom]

everything i find online says the 300 is 60 lbs less than a 302. it makes 250ft lb of torque at 1800 rpm, which would really be something coupled to an np435.
Tom

 

[broncnaz]

cool I couldnt find much of anything on the 300's weight the only thing I found was that it was about 473 lbs. 302 weights I've seen listed between 420 and 460lbs again both are in stock trim.
The 300 is a torque monster for sure dont even need the np435 with it as it will chug along of course you get much above that 1800 rpm and thats where its starts waning in performance. But they can be built quite nicely as well.

 

[Viperwolf1]

I am more concerned with rotating mass.

I'm not sure there's any less rotating mass in a 300. Keep in mind the crankshaft is longer and so are the rods. Those iron parts may make up for the loss of 2 aluminum pistons.

 

[Socal Tom]

Took some work, but I finally located some stuff about the 300. Here is one link, to find more do an advanced search under username rjlougee. Unfortunatly his website isn't up any longer, but he does offer some insight.
http://classicbroncos.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34336
Tom

 

[360 4V]

What does it take to give the 302 the torque personality of a 300? I am sure the 3.98" stroke of the 300 has some to do with it. Which engine really makes more torque in the better part of the torque curve?


here is the dyno results of a 300 in a truck on a chassis dyno:
http://www.hypertech.com/products-results.aspx

The torque comes on right off idle and falls off a cliff at 2,500 rpm. I guess if I had an EFI 300 I would overhaul it, mill the block straight, mill the cylinder head, pocket port, unshroud the valves, sand smooth the combustion chambers, get long tube headers, roller rockers. I would put it on the dyno and find out how much spark advance for best possible torque. Compression ratio would be secondary to ignition timing. I would put in a keyway adjustable billet timing set. I would port match the intake manafold. I would likely step up to some 24-lb/hr fuel injectors and re-program the computer. Speed density is fine if you know how to reprogram it. The fuel injectors are just cheap junk yard ones out of a 460. Here is the fuel injector rebuild kit. http://www.rjminjectiontech.com/collections/sensors/products/inj-kit

What does everyone think on the camshaft? Would a cheap stock replacement do? With higher rpms the mechanical efficiency will go down. I would say to keep this ging a low rpm high efficiency machine. With all my ideas here it should make most of its torque between 1,000 and 3,000 rpm with a stock camshaft.

Now in review, Can a 302 be made into the stump puller that a 300 is?

 

[psbronco]

Having done the swap from a 302 to a 4.9L, I know it’s doable and the weight difference wasn’t enough to notice in the springs.

However if I could go back and do it again I would have upgraded my 302 to EFI and called it good.

Fitting the 4.9 was the most difficult part, custom motor mounts to lower the engine in-between the frame (moving or modifying the cross member along the way), dog housing the fire wall to fit lengthwise, electric fan to shorten the motor as much as possible, and a custom exhaust to fit in what little space is left. I enjoyed to fab and figuring it all out, but would have rather spent that season wheeling instead.