Stock for stock, better power...
That's debatable.
I won't say the 4.6L doesn't have more power, but so did the 302 in some applications. They are pretty much even in that regard, other than the fact the 4.6L, as I previously mentioned has a broader power band and higher redline, where as the 302 has more of a punch under 4,000rpm, better suited for daily driving. Admittedly though, the 302 in most standard configurations has less power, at least via carburetor (and non performance applications). EFI was much closer, if not the same rating or better when the 4.6L 2V came out. I believe the best power output for an EFI 302 HO was about 230, and the 4.6L's first year (non Cobra) was 215. The Boss 302 in 1969/1970 was the best factory 302 (other than Saleens etc, but those aren't technically factory, more like dealer options) with an underrated 290hp, which has been proven to be around 350ish, or 300 (roughly) at the wheels. The 4.6L later went on to much much more power, 300 being it's best with a different head design. So overall I'd say stock for stock they are pretty evenly matched.
...and better fuel economy than the 302.
Bogus. I've seen 302's crest 32mpg with the right driving and fresh engines in Bronco's of all vehicles. Neither engine are particularly good, most 302's on average get about 14-17, and in big trucks, about 12-14. I've never heard of a 4.6L doing much better than that.
I didn't say it was better in every way, just that stock vs. stock, it makes more power with better fuel economy. The chassis part is all about the choices Ford made on how to deploy it, but it's only tangentially related to the engine itself.
Read above. The chassis design is a very big part of potential fuel economy, which is why you see many more aerodynamic vehicles on the road today, than say in 1980.
And a Fatty McGee chassis built around it.
This. The 1994 Mustang was much heavier than the comparable Fox, not to mention a lot larger.
And 4 new camshafts if you want to upgrade it.
And more money. 4 camshafts = 4 times the money you have to dish out for what can only be described as a mild horsepower/torque gain if you stick with stock valve springs. You will see much more improvement with a single camshaft on a 302, though their stock springs aren't the strongest either. For example, a mild performance cam for a 302 costs $150 to maybe $200. at most, maybe $240. Hell, you can get a completely custom grind for about $180. A 4 cam set from Steeda on a DOHC 4.6L
costs a whopping $1,242. For that kind of money, you are better off building a budget 331/347 stroker out of a 302 and laying down 350whp instead of dumping a ton of money into a 4.6L P.I.G.
Seriously though. Even just valve springs for a DOHC 4.6L cost nearly $70 more. Everything is more expensive. It's been that way for a long time. I won't deny they have power potential, I've seen what they can do, but dollar for dollar, it is much more cost effective to build a 302 than to fart around with a 4.6L if you are on a budget.
I'd even put money into a 351M before a 4.6L. Yeah, I went there.
And even more power to lug the fat engine and the consequently fat chassis around.
So true.
And then it doesn't even have the good grace to rev higher than an OHV engine like a good OHC engine should.
Again, very true.
30 years of technological development to make that pig...
And then the 302 stayed in production for another 10 years while Ford was busy fixing the turd they just released called the Modular motor
Not to mention the fact the 302 sounds MUCH more sexier.
