Other Projects - Car and Non Car Related

[Frank Wyatt]

Sometimes the other, non-Bullnose, projects make us appreciate our trucks. Perhaps that's what they are for?

Yes so very true. I really appreciate the simplicity and the room that my '81 F150 has in it's engine compartment.

[Frank Wyatt]

Yes so very true. I really appreciate the simplicity and the room that my '81 F150 has in it's engine compartment.

I was give the resulting mulch from some large stumps being ground. The 300 CI in my truck barely knew it was there, the springs said otherwise. Anyways it will be used for weed control on my garden and for some landscaping one I get a wheel barrel tomorrow.

[1986F150Six]

I was give the resulting mulch from some large stumps being ground. The 300 CI in my truck barely knew it was there, the springs said otherwise. Anyways it will be used for weed control on my garden and for some landscaping one I get a wheel barrel tomorrow.

The 300 engine was the standard engine in trucks up to F600 [medium duty], while the 302 was never offered in any truck larger than a F250.

[Frank Wyatt]

I was give the resulting mulch from some large stumps being ground. The 300 CI in my truck barely knew it was there, the springs said otherwise. Anyways it will be used for weed control on my garden and for some landscaping one I get a wheel barrel tomorrow.

The 300 engine was the standard engine in trucks up to F600 [medium duty], while the 302 was never offered in any truck larger than a F250.

When the 302 is luggin and chuggin the 300 is still pulling strong.

[Angelo Voltura]

I was give the resulting mulch from some large stumps being ground. The 300 CI in my truck barely knew it was there, the springs said otherwise. Anyways it will be used for weed control on my garden and for some landscaping one I get a wheel barrel tomorrow.

The 300 engine was the standard engine in trucks up to F600 [medium duty], while the 302 was never offered in any truck larger than a F250.

Its crazy to me how that engine could be offered in trucks so big. They make low end torque yes, but still less than 300 ft-lbs. My truck has a 300 and I absolutely love it to the moon and back, but there is no denying they are pretty gutless. I cannot imagine one in a big truck like an F600.

On the topic of stump pulling though, I think the wildest thing I ever saw my father do with his was pull out a skid steer from an 8-10 foot deep ditch on a sheet of ice, in reverse. Either than, or rip concreted fences posts out of the ground without digging them up first. I don't think I'd try either with a newer trucks.

That said I've been really pushing to get my 79 running again, that's been priority right now with me being without a vehicle, which was my own fault when I banged up my bull clip swapped 95. I pulled the cam the other day with a flat lobe, so now I'm putting a fresh top end on her so I can at least drive it before I build my 429.

[Frank Wyatt]

Its crazy to me how that engine could be offered in trucks so big. They make low end torque yes, but still less than 300 ft-lbs. My truck has a 300 and I absolutely love it to the moon and back, but there is no denying they are pretty gutless. I cannot imagine one in a big truck like an F600.

On the topic of stump pulling though, I think the wildest thing I ever saw my father do with his was pull out a skid steer from an 8-10 foot deep ditch on a sheet of ice, in reverse. Either than, or rip concreted fences posts out of the ground without digging them up first. I don't think I'd try either with a newer trucks.

That said I've been really pushing to get my 79 running again, that's been priority right now with me being without a vehicle, which was my own fault when I banged up my bull clip swapped 95. I pulled the cam the other day with a flat lobe, so now I'm putting a fresh top end on her so I can at least drive it before I build my 429.

But it's where that torque is made combined with the gearing that makes the difference. It's right in the usable driving RPM. They don't rev high but don't need to. Not for a work truck.

[Angelo Voltura]

But it's where that torque is made combined with the gearing that makes the difference. It's right in the usable driving RPM. They don't rev high but don't need to. Not for a work truck.

I get that, but 250 ft-lbs is 250 ft-lbs no matter how you look at it.

[Nothing Special]

I get that, but 250 ft-lbs is 250 ft-lbs no matter how you look at it.

And as much as people say "it's not horsepower that moves a load, it's torque" that simply isn't true. Torque with no horsepower literally doesn't move anything. It just leans on it. Once it starts moving you have power. Mathematically torque (in lb-ft) times speed (in rpm) divided by 5252 (a units constant) equals horsepower. So literally, no power means either no torque or no speed.

The result of that is horsepower is what moves the load, no matter what cute saying say. And a horsepower is a horsepower no matter what speed the engine is turning.

Where there is some truth in the old saw is that engines with low torque peaks tend to have flatter power curves. For instance, if the power peak is at 4000 rpm and the torque peak is at 2000, as speed drops from 4000 the torque keeps climbing. A bigger torque number times a smaller speed number means that power doesn't drop very fast. So a "torquey" engine is more driveable because you don't have to shift it as much to keep it in the power band.

But you can have too much of that good thing too. Heavy truck diesels have such low torque and power peaks that they need to be shifted through LOTS of gears to keep the engine in its power band.

I think the main reason 300s were used in medium trucks while 302s were not is that the low torque peak means less wear and longer engine life.

[Gary Lewis]

And as much as people say "it's not horsepower that moves a load, it's torque" that simply isn't true. Torque with no horsepower literally doesn't move anything. It just leans on it. Once it starts moving you have power. Mathematically torque (in lb-ft) times speed (in rpm) divided by 5252 (a units constant) equals horsepower. So literally, no power means either no torque or no speed.

The result of that is horsepower is what moves the load, no matter what cute saying say. And a horsepower is a horsepower no matter what speed the engine is turning.

Where there is some truth in the old saw is that engines with low torque peaks tend to have flatter power curves. For instance, if the power peak is at 4000 rpm and the torque peak is at 2000, as speed drops from 4000 the torque keeps climbing. A bigger torque number times a smaller speed number means that power doesn't drop very fast. So a "torquey" engine is more driveable because you don't have to shift it as much to keep it in the power band.

But you can have too much of that good thing too. Heavy truck diesels have such low torque and power peaks that they need to be shifted through LOTS of gears to keep the engine in its power band.

I think the main reason 300s were used in medium trucks while 302s were not is that the low torque peak means less wear and longer engine life.

Very true. But there's another factor - clutch slippage. It takes a certain amount of torque to get a truck moving, and the 300 will give you that torque at a much lower RPM than a 302. So to get the truck moving from a stop you'll have to rev the 302 more to get enough torque. And you have to slip the clutch to do that.

Perhaps the wear and tear on the clutch was a concern with why they didn't want the 302 in the heavier trucks?

[Nothing Special]

Very true. But there's another factor - clutch slippage. It takes a certain amount of torque to get a truck moving, and the 300 will give you that torque at a much lower RPM than a 302. So to get the truck moving from a stop you'll have to rev the 302 more to get enough torque. And you have to slip the clutch to do that.

Perhaps the wear and tear on the clutch was a concern with why they didn't want the 302 in the heavier trucks?

Good point. But clutches see torque, not power. So a clutch on a 302 that's revving higher doesn't necessarily need to hold as much as a clutch on a lower revving 300 (except that a 302 actually does have more torque than a 300...).