That would be nice to know. And would explain why I don't understand the 'all 302's are dogs' comments I generally see in the forums.

It looks like a bone stock 86 5.0 EFI (wish someone had swapped a 5.0 HO in it). Around 125,000 miles on the truck, so I assume it's the original engine. I'm the 2nd owner, the first owner bought it new in '86 and I still have all the papers that came with it.

So, that mainly leads me away from thinking this engine has ever even been opened up. But, I assume the tach is right. I installed it and I set it to 8 cylinders. Seems to be right because it shows me idling at around 650-700RPM.

Funny about the 318 comments. Someone only wants to compare a few select years that made the best power. How about the 5.0 HO in the stangs making 235-245hp stock in the 80's. How about the 351w HO in the Lightning that ran the same times as the 454 SS that Chevy put out for a few years? Where was Dodge in all of this?

The 318 is a good little engine. Something like a 3.91" bore and 3.3x" stroke. But I don't see them outrunning a 302. 302's run with 350's. I didn't say pull, I said run. My 86 outruns a man's black 1992ish 5-speed 1500 Chevy with a 350 everytime. From a stop it's a lot closer, but the more we go, the farther and harder I pull. That'll have to be my next vid.

 

Id like to know when the 302ho made 235-245 hp, because um, it never did in the 80s. I suppose if you call 1992-2001 a "few" select years then yes, thats when the 318 made 230hp, dodge's only problem is their transmissions were extremely power robbing and unreliable through all those years. Stock 302s are nothing to brag about.

im not going to continue to argue here however..

 

Do you have headers? I can't see someone tearing into the motor to cam it and not instal headers to match. A 300 will rev to four grand smoothly and quickly, so I have no doubt a stock 302 can rev to five grand smoothly and even more quickly. I don't think you have a cam'd 302. Just my two cents.

Oh yeah.. Wouldn't you hear a lope in your exhaust note?

 

Well that's what I'm thinking... you actually have a HO motor under the truck intake. The only 5.0 powered vehicle I have ever driven that pulls to 5k like that is a mustang, and that explains why you don't have a lumpy idle, the mustang cam idles smooth on SD. What is the plug firing order on that motor?

 

Wow this thread took a turn . Went from talking about pistons to how much dodge sucks , dodges were good back in the 60s & very early 70s. Anyway we are being infiltrated by dodge , thats worst than chevy . My 95 302 when it was stock before the HO would rev to 5000 ok , that was a roller mass air motor not sure about the 86 , i just don't think theres that much power up there unless it is a HO ?? Lew

 

I have the non-HO firing order, damn, shoulda thought of that first. Guess I don't have an HO under my hood. When my truck hits 3100RPM, it gets this throaty sound and really comes alive all the way until I let out at 5000RPM. I hit 5200RPM in one of those vids. EDIT: Actually, I think I have the non-HO firing order. I do remember that the 7th and 8th wires run together. I don't think the 5.0 HO firing order had 7 and 8 firing right next to each other.

Either it's a 'factory freak' stock 5.0, or it's possible it's had a cam swap or maybe some different heads? I don't have a 'lope', but you wouldn't necessarily have to have a lope to have an aftermarket cam. I don't know. BTW, I have never found the PCV valve on this truck. It is not where everyone tells me it's at? Any different 5.0's have the PCV valve somewhere else on them besides the truck's location? BTW, Bill, nope, I have the stock exhaust manifolds. I'm like you, you'd think if someone was going to put a cam in it, they'd do more than just a cam. The only receipt I found about "ANY" kind of mod was where he paid $90 to have a glasspack put on.

BTW, I thought some of the 80's Mustang GT's came with 245 horsepower. Guess it was 225 horsepower. Still in the 80's, though. Ford never has been king when it comes to factory horsepower, especially over the last 20 years. BUT they have, imo, put some of the best, most reliable vehicles ever made on the road.

Before I knew much of anything about vehicles, I always liked "Chevy" because they were the fastest. Then I owned a couple, and worked in a garage for 5 years... Now I'm Ford through and through. I'd rather get home everytime in 30 minutes, than get home sometimes in 25 minutes (or never make it back in a Dodge) :-) Well, in all fairness, I'm sure there is always someone who has a Dodge that has made it 300,000 miles with little to no problems... but I'd bet money that it's not as common to do that as it is in a Ford.

 

 

They are the fastest from the factory. From 1993 until 2002, they absolutely raped Mustang GT's (Fbodies/Corvettes). And now Mustangs have to compete with only Corvettes, and they get their asses handed to them on a platter stock vs stock. Damn ford and their NA 4.6's, they really were dogs compared to the same year Fbody.

 

Comparing a 5.7L 350 to a 4.6L 281, isnt really a fair comparison. Its amazing what can be done with an extra 69 cubic inches.

In my personal experience, the 4.6 moves along just fine.

 

The 5.0 mustangs were always faster than the early 4.6 mustangs ... Lew

 

The factory truck cam has about 190 deg intake duration(@50 thou, about 240 deg seat to seat) and only manages 0.380" lift at the valve. The powerband this produces does not peak at 5000rpm so there's no way you have a stock truck cam. There are lots of cams available for the old firing order too so it's certainly possible you have one.

That's interesting, so it's not in the top rear of the passenger side valve cover? Is it in the rear of the lower intake? if so post a pic of the engine.

 

What do you want me to do? Compare the 4.6 to the GM 3.8? I know it's not really 'fair', but it's what they came with. That's why, as I said, Ford was always the slower one since 1993. GM kept the big engine while Ford went smaller. I had a 4.6 HO in a 94 Thunderbird. Ran good, but made my 5.0 feel like a big block because that 4.6 was so anemic in the low RPM. Now, the 4.6 DOHC is another story, a tiny engine that packs a punch NA or with FI.

Conanski, I will get some pictures as soon as I can. Nope, there is no PCV valve on my valve cover, but I didn't check on the intake. I'll check and get pics up when I can.

 

Freakshow is right. What is the most popular motors Ford put in their pickups? The 300 and 302. What motor did Chevrolet put in their trucks more than anything? Ha ha.. It's not because Chevy is faster, per say, but it's the fact Chevy stuffed 350's into everything.

Also, Chevy has always had a better flowing exhaust system, from what I've seen. This helps too, stock per stock.

 

Well in all fairness the early 4.6's had about the same peak output as the 5.0 but less TQ due to the smaller displacement. The T-bird was also hefty compared to a Stang.. well over 4000lbs, and it would have come with towncar gearing.. 2.73 or something stupid. All totalled they were pretty sluggish unless you got the XR version. This is probably why GM dropped the 305 in the Camaro/Firebird line, just not enough motor to deliver proper sports car performance given the weight of these things. One thing I have to give GM credit for is proving you don't need multi-valves and overhead cams to get really high output from a V8. Maybe there was some heavy Cosworth influence at Ford at the time or something.. but every hotrodder in north america already knew this so why did Ford drop the pushrod motor and develop a complicated OHC monstrosity when all they really had to do was offer some updated cylinder heads and induction for the existing platform. Bolt some AFR heads on a stock 5.0HO shortblock and you got 400hp, but it takes a blower to get that kind of output from the 4.6, and it won't fit in every engine bay. It's too bad, probably would have put the company even further ahead right now if they'd gone that route.

 

I will say, some of ford's OHC engines were pretty darn decent. the v10 is the first that comes to mind. as well as the 4v DOHC models.

GM took a stab at the OHC market with the 4.6 32v northstar caddy motor and it was a horrible failure, they had so many problems with it and it was so unreliable it was horrendous. Ford's ohc variations have all prooved to be very long lasting powerplants. The 4.6 2v is nothing to be proud of but the 4v offering in the cobra's and the last of the lincoln mark series cars were very impressive. They are very complex to work on, but are very neat and useful motors, the only negative things about them is they are expensive to work on but then again you get what you pay for, and they are monstrous. I think the issue with the 5.0/5.8 was that ford just didnt choose to rework an ancient platform, so the 4.6 came out in 91 in the towncar and by 97 it was in everything. I would buy a new ford anyday but chevy's? hell no. My experiences with GM products have been nothing but negative.