351 Windsor in place of 302? 1996 F-150 content.

I'd like more torque for towing, so I'm thinking about replacing the perfectly fine 302 in my 145k F-150 4x4 with a 351 (maybe a stroker). The main question is this: Since the truck has a mass air/OBD II ECU, do I need to change the computer, or will the existing setup adapt?

Also, what sort of tuning would be recommended to maximize towing performance/mileage, possibly at the cost of emissions, even on the 302? I know that the factory programming sacrifices performance and mileage for emissions, and I don't like that one bit.

I would go 351 and why you could stroke it just replacing the heads, cam, and adding LT headers will go a long way to get your towing power. There is a cheap way to stroke the 351. It takes a set of stock 302 pistons, stock 351 rods, and a 1/4 inch cast steel stroker crankshaft. Depending on the bore you get around +/- 380 CID. To make the most of this mod you would have to replace the items I already listed.

I know that a set of GT40 or GT40P heads, a 1993 5.0 Cobra spec cam or similar, 1.7 RR, headers, and a good intake will get you easily over 300 HP and over 350 ft/lbs and I'm being conservative. And all that at a truck like RPM and not something that you have to rev past 5K.

I have a set of E7TE heads that are ported to the RHO specifications that I intended to use, and I figured that the more displacement it had, the more likely that my old E303 cam wouldn't screw things up.

The big question is still the computer, though. Will it work, or does it need replaced, or a TwEECer or something added?

What year truck? Mass air or speed density? Which transmission do you have, and are you planning to keep it?

You can make good power with a 351 stroker, but by the time you include all the parts, and the EFI upgrades to make it all work it's going to be pricey.

You would probably be better off selling the truck and buying a clean F250 with a 460, which can be had pretty cheap. I've never seen a 351 Ford truck that got better gas mileage than the equivalent truck with a 460.

We have a '92 Bronco with a 351W, so I'm looking at all the same stuff, but without the towing requirement. I've had F150 w/ 302, and F250 w/ 460 in the past, and for towing I'd choose the 460 in a minute, if I wanted another gas truck.

Drop the pan on Windsor engine and have a look at the sizes of all the internal components.

You'll wonder how they even hold together at their stock power levels.

Keep in mind that if you go this route absolutely every swap-over component is different. Well not really, but the bulk of them. Ford 302 to 351W is not nearly as easy as Chevy 305 to 350. The 351W is wider than the 302, so almost anything that crosses the centerline of the engine is different.

In reply to Rodan:

Sorry I didn't put the year in the original post. It's a '96, the mass air/OBD II part was kind of a hint, I guess. It has an E4OD.

I should start searching for a nice, southern 460 4x4 250 super cab, I suppose. Might as well check all the boxes.

In reply to 93gsxturbo:

My thought was to find a fairly complete 351, swap in my heads and cam, and maybe stroke it, and go from there.

As mentioned if you do this swap it will be way easier if you find a donor vehicle for all of the parts that will bolt to the engine. Things like acc. brackets aren't always the same. The trans will work and you do have Mass Air so any stroke or cam within reason will run fine. Raising the power level much past 300 hp will require upgrading the injectors. 95% of 5.8Ls came with 19 lbs.

Ported E7's and the E cam will work fine on an otherwise stock 5.8L with the stock injectors but you may need to increase the fuel pressure or get bigger injectors if you do other upgrades. While the 460 is a stump puller the 5.8L will get way better mileage when you're not towing. The question is how much will you tow and how much not?

snailmont5oh wrote: Also, what sort of tuning would be recommended to maximize towing performance/mileage, possibly at the cost of emissions, even on the 302? I know that the factory programming sacrifices performance and mileage for emissions, and I don't like that one bit.

Why do you think that?

The only time emissions really hurts the fuel economy is on a cold start. Other than that, if it's working really well, it will have no impact.

And for performance, it's not emissions so much as survival of the parts to keep things cool. But running 11:1 vs 12.5:1 isn't much of a loss.

Really, emissions has to just keep out of the way.

Why a Windsor specifically? An option for that period was the 5.8 (351M). I had a 95 F150 w/5.8 (351M) OEM. Seems simple to find one of that period and just swap it all in.

wlkelley3 wrote: Why a Windsor specifically? An option for that period was the 5.8 (351M). I had a 95 F150 w/5.8 (351M) OEM. Seems simple to find one of that period and just swap it all in.

Ford stopped making the "335" series engine back in 1982. The "Cleveland" and "Modified" versions were V8's that had the small block bore "4 inches" and a big block bell housing pattern. They were offered in trucks but as I mentioned production stopped in 1982. Your 5.8L is a Windsor V8.

Comparison to Ford Windsor V8[edit]

All 335 Series V8s shared the same 4.38 in (111 mm) bore spacing and cylinder head bolt pattern as the Windsor V8s. Beyond these shared aspects, the 335 Series engines are very different internally from the somewhat similar-looking Windsor series. The 335 series V8s use smaller 14mm spark plugs and the radiator hose locations differ between the Windsor and 335 engines. The Windsor engines route coolant through the intake manifold, with the hose protruding horizontally, while the 335 engines had a dry manifold with the radiator hose connecting vertically to the cylinder block above the cam timing chain cover. The Cleveland has a square-shaped rocker cover while the Windsor has a more rounded cover. All 335 covers are secured with eight bolts; the Windsor uses six bolts. All of the 335 series engines differ from the Windsor engines by having a roughly 2-inch extension at the front of the block which forms an integrated timing cover casting.

jimbbski wrote: While the 460 is a stump puller the 5.8L will get way better mileage when you're not towing.

I've never seen a 351 get better mileage than a 460 in the equivalent truck. Hell my 351 Bronco gets 8-10, my last 460 F250 4wd extra cab got 12-14... 351s just do not get very good mileage... at least I've never heard of one that did.

Rodan wrote:

jimbbski wrote: While the 460 is a stump puller the 5.8L will get way better mileage when you're not towing.

I've never seen a 351 get better mileage than a 460 in the equivalent truck. Hell my 351 Bronco gets 8-10, my last 460 F250 4wd extra cab got 12-14... 351s just do not get very good mileage... at least I've never heard of one that did.

That has to be down to a setup problem, difference in carbs or gearing or something. Given equivalent gearing, in the same vehicle, the smaller engine will almost always get better MPG unless it's very heavily loaded and constantly in power enrichment. This is due to lower pumping losses, as the smaller engine will have the throttle open further and will be pulling less vacuum.

rslifkin wrote: That has to be down to a setup problem, difference in carbs or gearing or something. Given equivalent gearing, in the same vehicle, the smaller engine will almost always get better MPG unless it's very heavily loaded and constantly in power enrichment.

Well, consider the trucks start at ~5500lbs... they're always heavily loaded, especially with smaller engines. I don't want to get into an engineering debate, I'm just relating my own experiences, and anecdotally shared experiences with the trucks being discussed. In the equivalent truck, the 351 will always be working harder, and won't get better mileage. So you might as well have the bigger engine.

alfadriver wrote:

snailmont5oh wrote: Also, what sort of tuning would be recommended to maximize towing performance/mileage, possibly at the cost of emissions, even on the 302? I know that the factory programming sacrifices performance and mileage for emissions, and I don't like that one bit.

Why do you think that? The only time emissions really hurts the fuel economy is on a cold start. Other than that, if it's working really well, it will have no impact. And for performance, it's not emissions so much as survival of the parts to keep things cool. But running 11:1 vs 12.5:1 isn't much of a loss. Really, emissions has to just keep out of the way.

Pre-emissions engines used much more initial timing, which promotes throttle response, mileage, and cooler running. The retarded timing causes the EGTs to be higher so that the cats are happy, at the cost of efficiency.

The cam timing on many "smog motors" of the late 70s and early 80s was different as well, to the point that a timing set swap on a 79 460 with a 70 429 unit fixed a lot of the power/overheating problems with pickups that saw hard use.

Rodan wrote:

rslifkin wrote: That has to be down to a setup problem, difference in carbs or gearing or something. Given equivalent gearing, in the same vehicle, the smaller engine will almost always get better MPG unless it's very heavily loaded and constantly in power enrichment.

Well, consider the trucks start at ~5500lbs... they're always heavily loaded, especially with smaller engines. I don't want to get into an engineering debate, I'm just relating my own experiences, and anecdotally shared experiences with the trucks being discussed. In the equivalent truck, the 351 will always be working harder, and won't get better mileage. So you might as well have the bigger engine.

This is why I was thinking of a stroked Windsor. It's a big, long stroke engine in a small package. I don't want a ton of horsepower, I want a ton of torque.

I don't tow all the time, maybe 5-8 times a summer, but it's hilly here, and I hate flogging the guts out of my poor 302. When I'm not towing, my truck's still a load (5600# empty), so more torque would have a positive effect on mileage.

In reply to snailmont5oh:

That's true for carbed and early distributor engines, particularly when there's no catalyst.

That's not true for computer controlled engines. So for your '96, there's not much that you can do, easily. The spark will be controlled to as safe to knock or best spark as possible for the '96, and the fuel will mostly be stoich, until you tip in for power, and then it will go rich.

And I'm speaking for the calibration in the EECV.

Bear in mind, your generalizations are at least 10 years before your truck, and way before the truck had EFI.

In reply to alfadriver:

I figured that the computer did the same things that the carb/distributor did, only with more control. I'm always happy to learn new stuff.

In reply to snailmont5oh:

The best part of computer control is the use of the O2 sensor. That totally negates the need for low compression, retarded spark, and mild cams (to somewhat of a degree).

Which explains why we see 500hp engines that soon will be incredibly clean engines. Actually, the current crop of +500hp engines are WAY cleaner than that truck you have.

BTW, I'm not saying that you can't improve the calibration- there are some things you can play with.

It's just not as simple as turning off the emission controls. And it won't be massive.

FN2000, 2100, and 2200 are the ones to look at (which should be common knowledge by now).

Add me to the "just buy a Big Block Truck" camp. Unless you're using it a lot of miles (like 5 digit miles) per year, the fuel economy difference between a diesel or big block is going to be negligible compared to the 351.

Not to mention, once you step up to a 3/4 ton or better, you get a lot of durability enhancements for towing. Better brakes, beefier axles, better transmissions, etc.

My current tow pig is a crew cab dually K3500 (so, essentially 6 wheel drive) Chevy with a 454 big block (pre-vortec, so about 250 HP and 385 lb-ft at 1900 RPM) and a 5 speed stick, that I picked up for about $2500. The A/C even works. That's about 30 cents per pound (~8000# empty) of truck. It gets about 11 mpg not towing, 9 while towing a car hauler and car.

I just found out that the TPS on my 302 ranges from 19.2% closed to 92% at WOT. That might be something for me to look into.

snailmont5oh wrote: I just found out that the TPS on my 302 ranges from 19.2% closed to 92% at WOT. That might be something for me to look into.

That might be normal. Some TPS readings from the computer just never hit 0% or 100% even when everything is working correctly.

rslifkin wrote:

snailmont5oh wrote: I just found out that the TPS on my 302 ranges from 19.2% closed to 92% at WOT. That might be something for me to look into.

That might be normal. Some TPS readings from the computer just never hit 0% or 100% even when everything is working correctly.

i can verify that the TPS on my 5.4 in a f250 reads %20 at idle and only hits %93 at WOT, maybe its just a ford thing

Aren't the 5.4 and v10 f250 trucks stupid cheap right now?