My 302 - Page 3 - Vintage Mustang Forums

 7Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-06-2017, 03:04 PM
Senior Member
 
sixtysevenGTconv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: N.H.
Posts: 4,216
Ford MotorSports
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Ford+R...302&FORM=R5FD6

or
idea for costs:
Ford 302 Crate Engine | eBay

If you borrow a tool more than twice, you need to own it You get what you pay for!
George email: <myhawk@gsinet.net>
sixtysevenGTconv is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-06-2017, 05:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Greenstang_68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Lino Lakes Minnesota
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by OklahomaCoupe View Post
If the cylinders have to be bored can the stock heads be used or GT-40 heads be used without having anything done to them? When it comes to the pushrods and similar components, do they have to be replaced?
Yes, if the cylinders are bored over you won't have any issue using original heads or GT40s with oversized cylinders. If I were you though, no matter which heads I decided to use, I'd bring them to the same machine shop that's looking at the block. They'll make sure there are no issues with them and that your valves are still in useable shape.
As for cams, I'd say if you've got extra money sitting around go for a roller. You can get more aggressive with the cam and there's no break in that can destroy the cam and lifters. If this is a budget rebuild, flat tappet is the way to go. They are way cheaper than rollers, but there is a break in procedure that MUST be followed or else you'll wipe the lobes. As far as performance, on a cruiser / street engine I doubt you'd notice much difference, it's not really until higher RPMs that rollers really start to shine.
Greenstang_68 is offline  
post #33 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-06-2017, 08:14 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosee1955 View Post
I did a little more research and found that Ford didn't use a 5.0 in their mustangs in 80,81. They did in 79, then again. In 82. In 80,81 they used a 4.2. That said your motor if in fact is 1980, probably came out of a truck, or passenger car. Problem is it's probably no more than 160 horsepower stock. You've got a long way to go to make that motor if you use it, to put out anywhere near 300 horsepower. It can be done, but your talking heads, boring, stroking motor, cam. I guess at this point tear it down, if internal block isn't damaged, have block magnafluxed to check for cracks, and build up. I tend to side with the other guys, and buy a quality rebuild. Summit has a pretty good rep. I've had friends but motors from them for Chevys with good results. They have a 300 hp engine for $3600.00, good to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
think I read the casting numbers wrong. The seller said it was a 1976 engine and when I went to check I think I read it wrong. I'm going to check again but it looks like it's a 1976.
OklahomaCoupe is offline  
post #34 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-06-2017, 11:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Santa Clarita,CA
Posts: 153
Post the number (it should begin with D6....) and we'll put that discussion behind us.


'66 GT Fastback, 302, Edelbrock Top End, Holley 670 Street Avenger,
MSD Ignition, JBA Headers & 2.5" Exhaust , T5Z, Currie 3.55 Trac-Loc

Last edited by rhutt; 02-06-2017 at 11:37 PM.
rhutt is offline  
post #35 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 12:22 AM
LSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 1,904
Tongue 302 build

OKCoupe, can you give us some casting numbers ? Yes, you can easily hit arond 300 hp with a 302, and you can even use your factory heads. If you get a good deal on GT40s or 351W heads thats great, but the stock heads will work if your budget is limited. The bigger intake valves from a 351W can fit into the 302 head and help you a bunch. But first we need to know if you block has to be bored or not, and then choose some pistons. Most guys unintentionally get pistons that are too short. Let us know if you have to bore or not, and we will go from there. LSG
LSG is offline  
post #36 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 03:00 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 80
Casting D3C E0AE? Looks like thats a 1980? Thats my luck. So now what are my options? Use it as a core for a 5.0 out of a explorer or mountaineer?
OklahomaCoupe is offline  
post #37 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 07:41 AM
LSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 1,904
Tongue 302 build

OKCoupe, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using your 73 engine parts. You can have your 300 hp and you don't have to have a roller cam or different heads. We can work with what you have. Do you know how to measure the bore for taper ? LSG
LSG is offline  
post #38 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 09:15 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post
OKCoupe, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using your 73 engine parts. You can have your 300 hp and you don't have to have a roller cam or different heads. We can work with what you have. Do you know how to measure the bore for taper ? LSG
Great! So it is a 1973 engine? So I know, how did you get 1973 out of the casting number? I do not know how to measure for taper, how do I do that?
OklahomaCoupe is offline  
post #39 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 09:19 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 80
I just want to say thank you to everyone who has chimed in to give me their help and advice, I really appreciate it! I hope I haven't annoyed you all with all of my questions. This is my first mustang restoration and engine rebuild so its a little scary for me. I want to learn as much as I can in the process also.
OklahomaCoupe is offline  
post #40 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 10:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Santa Clarita,CA
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by OklahomaCoupe View Post
Great! So it is a 1973 engine? So I know, how did you get 1973 out of the casting number? I do not know how to measure for taper, how do I do that?
You indicated the P/N as: D3C E0AE. It should read: E0AE-D3C
It is definitely a 1980 non-roller block with a 2 piece rear main seal. Not the most desirable block, but certainly one the you can work with.

A Ford P/N begins with 4 digits like: E0AE XXX X
If the D3C were the first 3 digits, the first 2 would indicate a 1973 part. (My 302 happens to be a '73 block)


'66 GT Fastback, 302, Edelbrock Top End, Holley 670 Street Avenger,
MSD Ignition, JBA Headers & 2.5" Exhaust , T5Z, Currie 3.55 Trac-Loc

Last edited by rhutt; 02-07-2017 at 11:06 AM.
rhutt is offline  
post #41 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 11:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 15,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosee1955 View Post
I did a little more research and found that Ford didn't use a 5.0 in their mustangs in 80,81. They did in 79, then again. In 82. In 80,81 they used a 4.2. That said your motor if in fact is 1980, probably came out of a truck, or passenger car. Problem is it's probably no more than 160 horsepower stock. You've got a long way to go to make that motor if you use it, to put out anywhere near 300 horsepower. It can be done, but your talking heads, boring, stroking motor, cam. I guess at this point tear it down, if internal block isn't damaged, have block magnafluxed to check for cracks, and build up. I tend to side with the other guys, and buy a quality rebuild. Summit has a pretty good rep. I've had friends but motors from them for Chevys with good results. They have a 300 hp engine for $3600.00, good to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're forgetting to take into account that these engines were net rated with completely different testing methods. It's irrelevant what the factory hp rating was. I believe the 73 and 74 motors were rated about 135 hp. The 1982 Mustang GT 5.0 that rekindled the performance wars again was rated at whopping 157 hp. That was big stuff at the time. In 83 with just the addition of a 4V Motorcraft 4180 575 CFM carb hit 175 hp. Both of these motors used a hotter marine cam.

Tom

I'm not a complete idiot, pieces are missing.
Huskinhano is offline  
post #42 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 12:13 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutt View Post
You indicated the P/N as: D3C E0AE. It should read: E0AE-D3C
It is definitely a 1980 non-roller block with a 2 piece rear main seal. Not the most desirable block, but certainly one the you can work with.

A Ford P/N begins with 4 digits like: E0AE XXX X
If the D3C were the first 3 digits, the first 2 would indicate a 1973 part. (My 302 happens to be a '73 block)
So what is the horsepower rating for the 1980 motors? Comparing costs, how much will it cost to build the 1980 engine up vs a late 60/early 70's engine and say a 1990 roller? Or even a late 80's/early 90's mustang?

Should I just contact the seller and try to get my money back or just use this motor as a core and find a motor out of a 97/98 V8 explorer/mountaineer?

Cores at a salvage around here are $80, so I would be taking a $70 hit.
OklahomaCoupe is offline  
post #43 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 12:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Santa Clarita,CA
Posts: 153
I don't think anyone can advise you on that without knowing what your true expectations are. If you picture your car billowing clouds of tire smoke and depositing 50' strips of rubber on the pavement, I'd say flip it in favor of a more suitable candidate. If, on the other hand, you are looking to do a budget build that performs about like the 289s of the era (or maybe a little better), you've got a legit shot. Just proceed with your eyes open and never loose sight of what YOU want.
Huskinhano likes this.


'66 GT Fastback, 302, Edelbrock Top End, Holley 670 Street Avenger,
MSD Ignition, JBA Headers & 2.5" Exhaust , T5Z, Currie 3.55 Trac-Loc
rhutt is offline  
post #44 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 01:25 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 80
Would a 1988 or 1989 302 be a better option? Both have around 150,000 miles on them and ran when pulled?
OklahomaCoupe is offline  
post #45 of 154 (permalink) Old 02-07-2017, 02:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 15,537
Some of the issues are that you're new. We just don't know you too well so it's hard to give exact help. Post some pictures of the car and of the 302 you bought. Like the saying goes, a photo is worth a thousand words. Again, I'm not trying to push you into what I did. It was right for me. Some of it comes down as to what's available and how much you want to spend. One of the problems with forums, you may just need a tune up and before you now it, you'll be building a 347 with big heads and a big mechanical roller cam. Not what you wanted or needed in the first place. Don't laugh stuff like this happens.

Mustang 5.0's were and are popular swaps. But the last Mustang roller cam 5.0 sold was 1995. That's 22 years ago. These were driven hard. Back in 1995 you could find a lot of 87 to 95 motors cheap because a lot of them were crashed. The last roller cam 5.0 pushrod motor was 2001 in Explorers. Not quite the same motor but still a very good motor. They used much better heads, milder camshafts but the big advantage is they usually weren't driven as hard, usually soccer moms drove them and they are a lot newer so a better chance of finding a lower mileage motor that's still usable without rebuilding. Even with the milder cam but better heads then the Mustang 5.0, the Explorer motor will probably make more power with the same exhaust system of the Mustang. Basically what I'm saying is if you're just looking to install a complete running motor that you don't want to rebuild or modify too much in stock form cheaply this may work for you. I would estimate my motor is about 250 ish HP, maybe slightly more. It may not sound exciting but it runs real well. These cars are light, so you don't need a lot of power.

There's a ton of good used parts and a ton of cheap new parts out there for these motors. Stock heads can be made to work very well and there's nothing wrong with fixing them up other then for the expense of doing this. You could end up spending more then just buying a new set of aluminum heads. On ebay a vendor, Skipwhite sells offshore castings but does all the machining in house with USA made parts from Comp Cams and Crane. for $699 a pair I'm not looking to buy a pair but I think you could very easily spend more on stock heads and make less power. From what I've been reading on late model forums, these are pretty good heads both from quality and the power they make. Personally I'd prefer to buy USA made heads. But from the cost standpoint of either rebuilding stock heads or these. I think I would buy the Skipwhite heads. It's not a recommendation to you just what I think I would do in my case.

Tell us more about your car and exactly what your goals are. Don't be in a rush or let money burn a hole in your pocket. Post pictures, we love them!

Tom

I'm not a complete idiot, pieces are missing.
Huskinhano is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome