Pirate 4x4 banner

swapping a 5.0 for a 4.9?

6K views 50 replies 16 participants last post by  66WarPony 
#1 ·
I have a 91 f150 beater truck that I use for firewood, hunting, and hauling anything that doesnt need a 1 ton or gooseneck.

Single cab, shortbed 4x4, 5spd. The truck is basically stock other than I swapped a zf5 in it a couple years ago and that was a HUGE improvement but the 302 is still a gutless wonder.

Question is, is the 4.9 a feasible swap? OR should I build the 302 for torque when the time comes?

It would be nice too to pick up a few MPGs too if possible, not so much to save $ (that would be nice) but more since the truck only has an 18 gallon tank and more range would be nice.

I have dont some searching but this doesnt seem to be a real common swap or my searching skills suck.

I know where a 96 2wd truck is I can get that has the 4.9 in it and MAF.

From all the reading I have dont I cant imagine I wouldnt love an I-6 in this truck just not sure how much of a bolt in deal this will be.


Any info or insight is appreciated. And sorry if this has been covered but I can not find much on it.
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
I have a 91 f150 beater truck that I use for firewood, hunting, and hauling anything that doesnt need a 1 ton or gooseneck.

Single cab, shortbed 4x4, 5spd. The truck is basically stock other than I swapped a zf5 in it a couple years ago and that was a HUGE improvement but the 302 is still a gutless wonder.

Question is, is the 4.9 a feasible swap? OR should I build the 302 for torque when the time comes?

It would be nice too to pick up a few MPGs too if possible, not so much to save $ (that would be nice) but more since the truck only has an 18 gallon tank and more range would be nice.

I have dont some searching but this doesnt seem to be a real common swap or my searching skills suck.

I know where a 96 2wd truck is I can get that has the 4.9 in it and MAF.

From all the reading I have dont I cant imagine I wouldnt love an I-6 in this truck just not sure how much of a bolt in deal this will be.

Any info or insight is appreciated. And sorry if this has been covered but I can not find much on it.
You're a day late. You've been here since '07. You know better!!

In stock form both are powerless turds by modern standards. Since this is your "beater truck" there's a 50/50 chance you're a moron who expects your ~30yo truck to have comparable off the line performance to whatever more modern car you're daily driving or you're one of the idiots who expects the 300 to be able to lug up hills at 1200rpm in 5th like a modern diesel in an empty truck.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume neither of these is true. Since we're not in newb-tech, you didn't even mention the axle ratio of your current truck and Googling "300 vs 302" you would have turned up a ton threads from various forums saying what I'm about to say and you supposedly searched I think that's fairly generous.

A swap is worth it if you don't have a parts truck lying around and your current electrical system hasn't been chewed up by a rat.

The '96 MAF setup is only really worth it if you're going to spend a lot of time building the engine and need a more tune-able ECU and a MAF sensor. It's a minor reliability downgrade over the speed density system just as a limitation of MAF based systems.

Stick an Explorer 5.0 in it and don't be afraid to let it rev. If you buy a donor try to find one with 4.10s (unlikely because EPA) so you only need to find a 4.10 front 3rd when you decide you want deeper gears.

The 300 is a great engine but if you want more power cheaply in a 5.0 truck swapping a 300 is not the way to do it.
 
#3 · (Edited)
You could have saved yourself a lot of time and just typed out the last half of that but a guess you like spewing insults like most on here.

Youre assumptions are about as far off as could be. This is the truck I daily drive. I live and work on several thousand acres and spend most of my time off of the pavement. Didnt say anything about pulling hills or 1200 rpms. I want something to lug around in the woods in first or second gear, not rev to the moon. I want off idle torque, like let the clutch out and ease off and not worry about blipping the throttle to keep it from stalling. If I want to pull a trailer bigger than a 6x12 or will be on the pavement I have other trucks for that.

I appreciate the info but the MAF stuff is especially helpful, I though it was more worth while than that but know little of ford EFI.

The point of the whole thread was really about is this a bolt in swap, or more time that its worth. I have no doubt the 300 would be head and shoulders better for my application. This wasnt about 300 vs 302, as you mentioned there is plenty of info on that out there. I was more concerned with the physical limitations/wiring/etc and if any of these are issues that make the swap more of a pain than its worth.

Gears are 3.55 or 3.54. Tires are 32s.

Youre right, I have been here since 07. Its not that I dont know better, but there are still some on there that try to help from time to time instead of flame someone at every chance they get. You managed to do both, so to you sir I say bravo.

Thanks for the reply.

Oh and I was going to post this yesterday but didnt get around to it, I'll make sure my next question will be posted on a Tuesday.
 
#8 ·
Meh... You are all a bunch of douche nozzles. The 300 has its place.

If it were me I would find a 86-89 f series with a 300 and get the full harness and computer. It is a simple swap using that harness.

You might need some motor mount pedestals,

Or say fuck it and go older and put a carb on it and screw the wiring. the carb linkage would be fun to fab too.

I looked into swapping a 360 out and putting an EFI 300 in for the simplicity and lack of oil leaks... ;)
 
#9 · (Edited)
If it were me I would find a 86-89 f series with a 300 and get the full harness and computer. It is a simple swap using that harness.
We might be douches but you're not too bright.

The 86 won't have EFI

Everything '87 through '95 will be the same electronics (not counting the injector blower motor that everyone deletes when it stops working).

The '92+ fuel system is better because it has in tank high pressure pumps and no selector valve or frame rail pump.

:flipoff2:

My truck has a 300 BTW and I have two more that need vehicles. The 300 is great but going out of your way to swap a stock one into a 302 truck doesn't gain you much.
 
#11 ·
@wap: fwiw, I am doing this swap. I have a 96 F150 MAF 4.9 with Comp Cams 0.456 lift cam, 4.56 gears that I've yet to swap in, 33's that I'll change out for 35's, and a built 4R70W with manual valve body I'm currently amassing parts for. Do what you want to do motor wise, don't let anyone tell you different. I've only had Broncos with 6's: the 3.3 in my 66 that I swapped for a 4.1 and loved both motors. This is my first Bronco with a V8 and I hate it. The 4.9, built 4R70W, and 35's should be in by this summer.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
#12 ·
The 300 six is if you are towing or loaded every day, 302 is for dd and occasional towing.
I had a beautiful low mileage 96 f150 4.9 5spd 3.54 2wd 30" tire I used for dd and towing car trailer. I couldn't break 15mpg empty, and it was screaming at 70mph. It would handle that trailer pretty nice, and pull down 11mpg loaded.

I traded it for a tractor, needing a new truck, dug a hammered 95 bronco, 5.0 5spd 3.54 31s out of the back yard. It got 16mpg, ran 85mph smooth, was almost fun to drive, towing was a different game, 7-8mpg, slower, more revs, occasional 2 lo to get out of a pinch.

Keep the 5.0 and let it rev, use your other truck for towing
 
#14 · (Edited)
My opinion, because more seem needed here :flipoff2:

The 300 is a waste of time as others have said. The 302 makes just as much torque just at a few more revs. As someone said and I'm too lazy to quote, don't be afraid to rev the 302 a bit. I think peak torque stock is around 2800rpm it's not gonna make impressive torque under 2 but they will rev 3+ all day. They aren't like modem cammers that love revs but they're a long ways off from modern diesels too. They aren't impressive under 2k. Google where the torque curve is and it'll start to make sense. The bonus is with a good exhaust they sound sweet spinning 3k :grinpimp:

You've already done the best mod you can do to these trucks with the ZF. If your 302 is in decent shape as far as compression etc I'd spend aprox $500 on the following.

Sixlitre tune up but with 14-16 timing instead of the recommended 12. I run 14 but I've got a buddy that swears by 16. Neither of us have ever had detonation issues nor has anyone else I know running agressive timing. And yes this is on 87 octane. Do this before anything. It's $100 and an hour. If you don't notice it your dense or your motor is F'd :flipoff2:

Exhaust. The stock exhaust on these things are garbage. The cheap version is manifold back high flow stuff. I run 2.5" off the headers into a high flow y with a single 3" out on my 351. Built in the garage in an afternoon. Some will say this is too big. I say the truck has never felt as responsive at low rpm or gotten better mileage. If you have money add headers to that equation. Summit sales rebranded pace setters for around $200.

Ditch the stock fan. Seriously that thing sucks juice. Budget version is a Taurus or Tbird (or other) from the junkyard, plenty of info on the internet about these swaps. If you live somewhere warm you might need a little more fan and have to spend some money in the aftermarket.

If you've still got money you can play with the intake via K&N or similar but I think it matters less on these motors. I run a $10 paper drop in and replace it twice a year with oil changes.

MAF won't add power by itself, it will allow you to make more power if you wanted to cam it or do heads, etc but that starts getting into big bucks.

This is my advice from 15 years of experience in milking power and mileage out of these motors on the cheap. Do some or all of the above and I bet you'll be happy with the motor.
 
#15 · (Edited)
Going back to the whole point of the potential swap was to gain low end lugging ability. Like creeping up a bank with a bed full of firewood. Not pulling a trailer down the interstate. This truck hasnt been more than 10 miles from home in at least a decade. It literally stays off road and the little bit of towing it does is off road and usually not above 2nd gear. I will occasionally put 1500-2000lbs of mineral in the bed and ease around pastures putting it out. Not haul a buggy to moab.

I'm glad for the debate to continue here but I wasnt at all concerned with 302 vs 300, just what was involved in the swap.

Thanks for all the input/advice/opinions.

I'll look into the sixlitre tune up an other stuff but this motor is pretty tired. I put head gaskets in it a couple years ago and decided agains doing the Gt40 stuff then at least without a rebuild. A couple of the cylinders didnt look great and didnt seem worth spending any $ on.
 
#16 ·
Going back to the whole point of the potential swap was to gain low end lugging ability. Like creeping up a bank with a bed full of firewood. Not pulling a trailer down the interstate. This truck hasnt been more than 10 miles from home in at least a decade. It literally stays off road and the little bit of towing it does is off road and usually not above 2nd gear. I will occasionally put 1500-2000lbs of mineral in the bed and ease around pastures putting it out. Not haul a buggy to moab.
And we're all telling you that for that use the difference made by 302 vs 300 is negligible and you should be running the deepest gears and most massive flywheel you can get your hands on.
 
#19 ·
@wap: here are the peak torque/hp numbers for both motors...

300 ('96)
TQ: 260 ft/lbs @ 2000 rpm
HP: 150 ft/lbs @ 3400 rpm

302 ('96)
TQ: 275 ft/lbs @ 2400 rpm
HP: 205 ft/lbs @ 3800 rpm

351 (Lightning)
TQ: 340 ft/lbs @ 3200 rpm
HP: 240 ft/lbs @ 4200 rpm

(Info from http://www.f150hub.com/specs/351w.html)

The numbers for the 302 are on par with what comes up in internet searches for GT40's (5 hp/200 rpm deviation, https://www.google.com/search?clien...oq=96+ford+5.0+specs&aqs=mobile-gws-lite..0l3). It's logically safe to say that the GT40 upgrade really isn't an upgrade unless you're running a '72 to '84 302. It does gain you 15 ft/lbs of TQ, & 55 ft/lbs of HP over the 300, but I don't know if that's convincing enough, given what you want to use the truck for. FWIW, the GT40 upper and lower intake manifolds should at least be port matched to make use of that power, IMHO.

The argument that the 300 is a boat anchor is false. It's performance is going to be determined largely in part by your tranny, gears, and cam, the last of which I cannot stress enough. The flow restriction is the head, and you can get it flowed and the ports worked, to eliminate that. I am not proposing that it will ever flow better than a pair of Edelbrock Performers, but I'll take the leftover money and put 5 lbs of turbo boost to that 300 any day of the week, and eat Lightning 351's for breakfast. There's a guy on fordsix.com running low 10's in a Maverick with a turbo and junkyard 300, but I digress...

If you want the low rpm, stump-pulling power, go with the 300. The motor will probably even outlast the truck. Make sure you gear the truck for the rpm range that you'll see the most. At the minimum, you should do the sixlitre tuneup, but consider headers and a cam.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
#33 ·
Again... if this is just a back 40 farm crawler hauler wagon puller...

Quit F'kin around.

OBS Ford 6.9/7.3 idi diesel with the ZF.... Torque of a 460ci, MPG of a 300ci... and simple stupid.

Trying to do farm duties and daily an f150 seems like you have the wrong truck to begin with.

Sell F150

Buy F250 with a 300ci gasser and ZF
Buy F350 with a 6.9/7.3 IDI (Yes it a slow turd[so is the 300] but its also dumb/cheap to work on)

Hate dodge crap but a first gen D250/D350 with a Cummins is an option too but prices are dumb nutz now.


Not quite sure why everyone is talking TTB axles etc etc etc... he has a F150 F.F.S... anything will be an upgrade in strength.
 
#35 ·
Didn't realize we had so many 300 haters. :laughing:

But I wouldn't swap one in if I already had a running 302. Definitely not if I had a 351. If I had a 300 already, I would have to put a small turbocharger on it to get what I wanted.


They had/have their place though. They were fine industrial engines, but never got any substantial cylinder head redesign, even when they went to EFI. Really a shame, because they could handle some abuse. It's also a shame nobody ever offered an aftermarket aluminum head that was affordable. Even if Procomp put out an aluminum china casting, barely better than the stock design (like most of their cylinder head offerings), it would be a dream come true for anybody with one of these engines with regards to compression and ease of porting.

A cross flow head redesign would have been fantastic.
 
#48 ·
Your last link has some not quite right info when it comes to the bigger ttb's.

Either way all of these arguments are hilarious.

There is no guarantee what ratio a D50 TTB has based on engine. The only guarantee is gears that match 3.55's or 4.10's, as that's all that came in 8 lug trucks of this era with a Sterling rear. I have parted multiple small block F350 crews with 3.55's. Over 8500 F250, 300/5 speed with 3.55 rear, yep, parted one of those too.
SRW 7.3 truck with 4.10's? Have one sitting in the yard.

Ford built whatever was on the order sheet. There was no you ordered this engine/trans so you get this gear.

As for the 300, A) the torque peak was advertised everywhere from 1200 to 2400, with no cam or cam timing change, and the EFI head didn't really change much either. That torque curve is pretty flat.

B) Ford did develop a crossflow head when they developed the EFI. It out performed the 302, and dumpsters full of them went to the scrapyard. Google Frenchtownflyer. He was a Ford engineer on the 5.0HO program at the time and rescued a few of those heads, runs one on his rail dragster.

I wouldn't be that inclined to swap an EFI truck 302 to 300, largely because I wouldn't have bought a 5.0 truck to begin with, but I have swapped from an overbuilt 302 to a built 300 in a carbed truck when I changed the trucks purpose with good results.
 
#51 · (Edited)
Good to know, and I stand corrected. Yeah, we got a little off track, but that's how we lean out bad info. Maybe I'll add that to the gofastbroncos.com thread. I read a little about the crossflow head you mentioned, that's pretty cool. Another guy is working on an aluminum head, but it's not a crossflow design. I thought about forgoing a 4.9L and getting my hands on a factory turboed 4.1L Ford Barra, but they're too expensive.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top