302 OR 352??

[charliemccraney]

Yep. And everything else being equal, when you increase displacement, you increase compression and that helps from idle all the way to peak. If done and driven right, I don't see any reason 390ci wouldn't get better mileage than 352ci. My 292 is now 26ci larger than stock (approximately the same percentage increase as 352 to 390) and it gets better mileage than it did when it was stock. When you have more torque, you don't need as much throttle for the same acceleration so if you can resist putting your foot in it, it will get better mileage. You can even use a cam that has a performance sound to it, maybe a very slight lope, if you wish. It has a lot to do with the way you drive it.

[ICEMAN6166]

Come on Ruthie, we're in Texas, go big or go home. The bigger, the better. Everything is big in Texas.
J

just one thing bigger than Texas

[supersmitty]

I am running a stock 73 390 with a two barrel. The only thing I changed is the exhaust to 2 1/4 pipe with flowmasters. I get decent mileage and a ton of torque. I can pull a steep hill in 4th gear no problem. I serious doubt a 302, even a roller, can do that stock with such a heavy truck. Plus I am a big block lover.

[Greg D]

Some seem to forget that a roller cam 302 and a flat tappet 302 are pretty far apart in torque & HP.
most post 1970 302s were low compression smog motors that made real HP in the range of a 200 CI 6.
The roller engines changed that - they also had better heads.
The EFI F 150s didn't get the roller cam engine but have a better intake for torque.
Now,
restore the truck bone stock, get a roller 5.0 from an Explorer (they have cast iron GT 40 heads) and use the truck intake and detail it all up - this would be very "Slick"..................

[Toyz]

Some seem to forget that a roller cam 302 and a flat tappet 302 are pretty far apart in torque & HP.
most post 1970 302s were low compression smog motors that made real HP in the range of a 200 CI 6.
The roller engines changed that - they also had better heads.
The EFI F 150s didn't get the roller cam engine but have a better intake for torque.
Now,
restore the truck bone stock, get a roller 5.0 from an Explorer (they have cast iron GT 40 heads) and use the truck intake and detail it all up - this would be very "Slick"..................

There's always been controversy as to the "roller" truck engines. I understand mine is the "roller block"; I've never had occassion to find out if it has the roller lifters. I suspect it does not, just for the reasons both of us stated.
Where's Hawk , or the unmentionable "ND"?
Paul

[totten]

I put the 352 in for torque. I wish mine had come with 352. My 66 has 300 with cruiseomatic .

[Greg D]

There's always been controversy as to the "roller" truck engines. I understand mine is the "roller block"; I've never had occassion to find out if it has the roller lifters. I suspect it does not, just for the reasons both of us stated.
Where's Hawk , or the unmentionable "ND"?
Paul

Sometime in the 90s Ford started using the roller block in trucks also - but with a flat tappet cam.
As you know the roller cam & lifters is double the price of the flat tappet - think is was just cause they discontinued the earlier block. I believe the truck heads are different than the HO heads too. In 96 the 351 were roller block s too (think roller blocks were also used in ALL Lightnings) - same deal though - flat tappets.
The roller block is a little stronger (not much though) - main difference is the deeper lifter bores.
Some have stated not being a fan of 302s (me either usually) - the roller cam engine is a whole different animal though.

[Uncle Skip]

just one thing bigger than Texas

Yeah Brian, but Texas doesn't shut down in the winter time, our mosquito's don't make a blip on the local airport radar when they fly, and we have daylight pretty much every day of the year. Besides, we have real Texas BBQ brisket and fajitas.... not moose meat and cabbage.
And an added plus is, we don't have bears that can eat a semi truck in one sitting.
You do, however, have Sarah Palin.
But as things even out, it's still scoreboard Texas.....
(a disclaimer here. My uncle was an Indian agent in Alaska for decades after WWII, and I when I visited him in the summer of '62, that is one of the things he served me for dinner. I still love moose meat and cabbage..)

[Toyz]

There's always been controversy as to the "roller" truck engines. I understand mine is the "roller block"; I've never had occassion to find out if it has the roller lifters. I suspect it does not, just for the reasons both of us stated.
Where's Hawk , or the unmentionable "ND"?
Paul

Sometime in the 90s Ford started using the roller block in trucks also - but with a flat tappet cam.
As you know the roller cam & lifters is double the price of the flat tappet - think is was just cause they discontinued the earlier block. I believe the truck heads are different than the HO heads too. In 96 the 351 were roller block s too (think roller blocks were also used in ALL Lightnings) - same deal though - flat tappets.
The roller block is a little stronger (not much though) - main difference is the deeper lifter bores.
Some have stated not being a fan of 302s (me either usually) - the roller cam engine is a whole different animal though.

I'll buy that if you add: ALL GEN I Lightnings. Supposedly, the 96 Lightnings were roller cam. My 351 is, and all appearances is that it came that way originally! There are a few other desirable changes on the Lightning engines; heads (so/so), pistons, etc.
Your last statement sums it up; to me these engines were the pinnacle of street performance cam in block small blocks.
Paul

[ezernut9mm]

some, but not all 93 lightning blocks were roller ready, but all 94 and 95's were. i forget the production number start, but my 93, number 24xx was not.

[shocker998md]

im big block biased. freshen up a 390 and it will be good to go. Ive got a 352 in mine right now thats pretty worn out and has all the simple stuff. Petronix in a rebuild distributer, headers, edelbrock performer intake with a 600 edelbrock carb, isky 262 super cam and it does ok. The 390 thats getting built, thats a hole different animal. I like FE's, the only other thing id run in a slick would be a 460 if I got one that didnt have a drivetrain in it.

[shocker998md]

oh yea, you asked about MPGS too. Either myself or my wife daily drives the truck. On the highway it sees 13-15 mpg with that setup above. It has a c-6 255/60/15 tires out back and 355 gears.

In town I really dont care about MPG so I dont know. We put 18k on the truck last year, and all highway trips were done with a gps for miles and then thats how we got the MPGS.

Im thinking the 390 will be about the same on the highway, but alot worse in town

[Max]

You guys all ran Ruth off. Shame on you!

[Toyz]

Hell, she asked , although I am not sure how she took some of my remarks at GwtC!
Sorry, Ruth, you should know by now I'm sometimes a little outspoken
i would suspect she's a little busy about now, and it seems to be spreading in the area!
Paul

[65Lover]

They haven't run me off Max! All suggestions are being mulled over, just might have to wait until the job situation gets ironed out!! DOH!!

Definitely gonna sell the tranny that came behind the 352 after it's cleaned up or may sell as is

Huge "Thank you's" to all of you who responded. All of your opinions count!!