Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin'

Posted by Jimmie from ? (154.11.37.175) on Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 2:56AM :

In Reply to: Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' posted by cgrey8 from dialup-4.154.6.193.Dial1.Atlanta1.Level3.net (4.154.6.193) on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 at 1:47AM :

Registered Ranger

The 302 should have a lot more torque, if it's built right than the 4.0L. With my 302 that ran 14.25 sec I couldn't drive it in the rain as I was on it too much, traction was a problem. The bigger strokers require cutting the side of the cylinder wall as far as I know. The small heads of a stock engine will be somewhat of a problem as you up the displacement. I have 2 sets of 351W 1969 heads and the Windsor Jr heads that could go on a 392 (or 427 I think) 351W stroker (at least in theory) and I have a 454 oval port BBC sitting on the floor too. The BBC heads exhaust ports are huge compared to the Ford ones.

I would get taller tires and look at the overall gear ratio, I have formulas for this if you need them. You should have a posi or a locker for sure. I have the battery in the back and a 16 gallon fuel cell behind the rear axle in my short bed truck. I need a set of traction bars as I had axle hop like crazy before I installed the 9". The 9" is under spring, mono leaf, the 7.5 was over spring.

Jimmie
: I will enjoy setting all this up in my '89 Ranger, but I want to make sure the plant I install can do 250hp+. I'll be sorely disappointed with something that's only slightly better than the 4.0L I have in my '97 Ranger. It's got some tow-torque, but it sux when it comes to trying to pass someone. Terrible performance and fuel economy, I'm 0 for 2 on it. LOL

: Malcolm answered a number of my "And More questions..." via email today.

: http://www.v8-ranger.com/messages/1651.html

: I'll be posting his responses to the board tomorrow. However one thing he mentioned is that his truck's T5 1st gear is almost useless because it's so low. It revs, and before your moving good, you need to go to 2nd. He also indicated that 5th doesn't lower the RPMs that low either. He has 3.73:1 RE, so I'm thinking a 3.23:1 limited slip...I'll get a more useful 1st gear and a lower 5th which SHOULD improve the fuel economy at cruising speeds. The catch is the engine's gonna have to be built torquey enough to handle that...

: Chris

Follow Ups: Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - cgrey8 2:31PM 11/04/2004 (0) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - cgrey8 9:03AM 11/04/2004 (3) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - dave 10:13PM 11/05/2004 (1) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - Jimmie 4:13AM 11/06/2004 (0) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - Jimmie 2:24AM 11/05/2004 (0) Post a Followup Name: E-Mail: ( default ) Subject: Message: : The 302 should have a lot more torque, if it's built right than the 4.0L. With my 302 that ran 14.25 sec I couldn't drive it in the rain as I was on it too much, traction was a problem. The bigger strokers require cutting the side of the cylinder wall as far as I know. The small heads of a stock engine will be somewhat of a problem as you up the displacement. I have 2 sets of 351W 1969 heads and the Windsor Jr heads that could go on a 392 (or 427 I think) 351W stroker (at least in theory) and I have a 454 oval port BBC sitting on the floor too. The BBC heads exhaust ports are huge compared to the Ford ones. : I would get taller tires and look at the overall gear ratio, I have formulas for this if you need them. You should have a posi or a locker for sure. I have the battery in the back and a 16 gallon fuel cell behind the rear axle in my short bed truck. I need a set of traction bars as I had axle hop like crazy before I installed the 9". The 9" is under spring, mono leaf, the 7.5 was over spring. : Jimmie : : I will enjoy setting all this up in my '89 Ranger, but I want to make sure the plant I install can do 250hp+. I'll be sorely disappointed with something that's only slightly better than the 4.0L I have in my '97 Ranger. It's got some tow-torque, but it sux when it comes to trying to pass someone. Terrible performance and fuel economy, I'm 0 for 2 on it. LOL : : Malcolm answered a number of my "And More questions..." via email today. : : http://www.v8-ranger.com/messages/1651.html : : I'll be posting his responses to the board tomorrow. However one thing he mentioned is that his truck's T5 1st gear is almost useless because it's so low. It revs, and before your moving good, you need to go to 2nd. He also indicated that 5th doesn't lower the RPMs that low either. He has 3.73:1 RE, so I'm thinking a 3.23:1 limited slip...I'll get a more useful 1st gear and a lower 5th which SHOULD improve the fuel economy at cruising speeds. The catch is the engine's gonna have to be built torquey enough to handle that... : : Chris Optional Link ( default ) URL: Title: Optional Image Link ( default ) URL: