Greetings to all of you!

I hope that this note finds you all in good health and warm!!!

I am contemplating, no, make it I need to replace my engine in my 69 car. As some of you know, it had a Boss 302 transplanted into it years ago by a previous owner.

The engine needs new rings (massive oil consumption!), an oversight by me, when I had it out last, and recently, I found a crack in one of the exhaust headers. I also need new mufflers, and finally, the Boss type intake sits so tall, that even with the biggest drop down air cleaner I can find, it still hits my front engine shield, something that has bugged me ever since I got the car!

Well, I'd like to correct all of the above, but since it is a pretty good sized list, I am just considering building a new engine more in line with the use of the car, and retask the finicky Boss motor in another project.... It would clean up a lot of issues.

Here is my basic outline:

Block: Mexican 302 bottom end, OR, a 5.0 roller cammed motor. I've heard that the 93ish motors had forged pistons and that the blocks have a higher nodular metal content for strength. They seem to be holding up well in a bazillion 5.0's that are racing around today! I figure my top RPM's will be in the 6500 range.

Heads: Aluminum Ford Motorsports version with 1.90" and 1.6" valve sizes. Roller rockers.

Intake: Here is where my question lies!!! Have any of you installed the Edelbrock Performer RPM manifold (not the air gap version) on your car, and what difficulties did you have with the jackshaft and are there any clearance issues with the stock shields/covers ???????

Looking forward to your responses!!!
Thanks!
Steve

PS: I STILL haven't installed the new 325# springs on my Carrera front shocks! As soon as I do, I'll report how they perform! (200#'s bottom out Frowner(( )
Original Post
Dave, I used to get 5.0 Mustang magazine. They did a lot of what they call "resto-mod mustangs and they were always dropping in FI 5.0 motors. They even make a FI body now that looks like a holley carb under an air cleaner. So you get the looks of concourse correct, with the convience and drivability, and good fuel milage of the tried and true 5.0. I bought a 90 Mustang LX 5.0. Only car I ever ordered the way I wanted it from the factory. My son has it now. Over 200K miles on it and the heads have never been off, doesn't burn a drop of oil, and is still a little torque monster. They make all kinds of hop up parts that are dirt cheap, and even the factory offers complete long blocks for less money than some bare blocks. Cheap, reliable, durable, convenient, powerfull, what's not to like?? I vote for the 5.0. But then again, I am openly prejudiced by 16 years of faithfull service. Wink
> I am contemplating, no, make it I need to replace my engine in my 69 car.
> As some of you know, it had a Boss 302 transplanted into it years ago by a
> previous owner.

Steve Liebenow faced the same issue. He had a way overbuilt Boss 302 in a
Mangusta. The jackshaft had been changed and he wanted to keep the canted
valve Boss 302 short block (turned out to have a Trans Am bottom end with
the special rods and crank) so I put together a combo using a set of Aussie
2V heads, a B&A Street Boss 302 intake and a Comp 270 cam. He seemed to
like it quite a lot. Anyway, the Street Boss is similar in height to the
Performer RPM.

BTW, I keep meaning to join PI but my procrastination knows no bounds.
I'll try to call Monday to join.

> Block: Mexican 302 bottom end, OR, a 5.0 roller cammed motor. I've heard
> that the 93ish motors had forged pistons and that the blocks have a higher
> nodular metal content for strength. I figure my top RPM's will be in the
> 6500 range.

For what you are doing, get a 5.0L roller cam short block but balance the
crank to 28.2 oz-in from the 50 oz-in factory balance factor. The 5.0L HO's
are a durable engine but the balance factor can cause the crank to crank
if you spend much time above 6000 RPM. Used to happen to the American Sedan
5.0L's. It only takes a bit of mallory metal so the cost isn't bad to get it
to 28.2 oz-in and the crank will live. This requires a matching harmonic
balancer and a matching flywheel. The 5.0L HO flywheels are 157 teeth and
your Mangusta is likely 164. It can be used or you can switch to an aluminum
flywheel for some zip. You don't want to internal balance unless you are over
7K RPM most of the time.

The late 5.0L blocks are a harder metal and wear better. I've attached a
post detailing what I found when I pulled my 5.0L HO apart at 163,000 hard
miles but it was amazing. Zero bore wear. Very good block up to around
400 HP at the tires. If you turn high RPM, the failure mode is main cap
walk (caps fretting against the bock). The 5.0L Kewl Dudez will split the
block down the center or spit the crank out the botom if they run too much
boost or nitrous.

I really like hydraulic roller cams but there are some things you need
to pay attention to if you want them to pull to 6500 RPM.

Be aware that even among H.O. engines, there were a lot of variations from
year-to-year. Compared to a standard passenger car 5.0L, my 1987 H.O.
has these differences:

forged flat top pistons (pistons are usually slightly above deck at TDC
to maximize quench, the compressed gasket provides required piston to
head clearance)
double roller timing chain
metric low tension oil rings
double sump pan with low oil level sensor
chrome plated valves
hotter roller cam with 0.440" lift
351W firing order
E7TE "truck" heads
60mm throttle body
intake manifold with larger ports (both upper and lower)
different EFI computer
cast aluminum valve covers (will work with roller rockers if
filler neck baffle removed)
true dual exhaust
different brackets and accessory locations

Certain HO's had forged pistons but the '93's had hypereutectic which
aren't as durable. I'll make a separate post with the detail changes
over the years. The Explorer motors had a short nose water pump and
front dress that might come in handy.

> Aluminum Ford Motorsports version with 1.90" and 1.6" valve sizes.

Those aluminum GT40's are an okay head for the money but for around $300
more, the AFR 165's are quite a lot better head for what you want to do.

> Roller rockers.

If you keep the spring pressure reasonable, the bolt down roller rockers
work just fine and are inexpensive. You shim them once and forget. Never
have to worry about the poly locks backing off. Ford used the 1.72:1
Crane bolt-downs in the '93 Mustang Cobra and the Scorpions are nice too.
I have the Cranes. The Boss 302 windage tray is nice to have.

> Have any of you installed the Edelbrock Performer RPM manifold

An even better intake is the Ford C90X FoMoCo intake. It was designed
by Ford and marketed through the Muscle Parts program for the 351W
head conversion package. Alex Denysenko holds IHRA and NHRA national
records with his 289 and 5.0L Mustangs and has done extensive dyno
testing on the SBF. Based upon his dyno and drag testing, Alex ranks
the high rise SBF dual plane intakes as:

Best: FoMoCo C90X
Good: Edelbrock Air Gap, Edelbrock Performer RPM, FoMoCo Shelby
lettered, FoMoCo Cobra lettered
Fair: Edelbrock F4B
Poor: Weiand Stealth, Colt 65

He also lumps the single plane Weiand Xcelerator and Torker 289 in
the poor category, along with the Offy Dual Port, Offy 360. He rates
the Victor Jr. as the best horsepower intake and the C90X as the most
flexible. Super Ford magazine did a SBF intake manifold flow comparison
test in the early '80's. Jim Miller of JME did the test and the 5 intakes
tested were all provided by Alex. They included an Offy Port-o-Sonic,
a C90X FoMoCo, a Shelby Ram Box, an Edelbrock Toker 289, and an Offy
Dial-a-Flow. The Torker 289 was the worst performer of the group.
Second best was the FoMoCo C90X surprisingly. Alex claims the C90X
still bests the latest Edelbrock Air Gap Performer RPM in making power
over a wide RPM range. As far as low profile intakes go, he rates the
factory cast iron 289 4V intake as decent to 5500 RPM on a 289/302
with a litle match porting and puts the Edelbrock Performer in the same
category. Be aware there were several versions of the C90X (including
repros). If you're interested I can tell you how to check the intakes
to know if it is a real one or not.

> what difficulties did you have with the jackshaft and are there any
> clearance issues with the stock shields/covers ???????

Do you know Steve Liebenow? You might want to pass this question by him.

> found a crack in one of the exhaust headers. I also need new mufflers,

I'm not sure if you followed the discussion in the engine forum but
there's a lot to be lost or gained in mufflers and headers with the
SBF, particualry with good cylinder heads.

Dan Jones

P.S. Here are a couple of posts that might be relevent:

Over the Christmas holiday, I pulled the 5.0L HO out of my 1987 Mustang GT.
The engine had 163,000+ hard miles and still ran fine, held good oil
pressure, and got good gas mileage but I figured it was time for a look-see
inside.

The Mustang is my daily driver and by "hard miles" I mean everything from
driving the car for extended periods at triple digit speeds (e.g. ran a
full tank with the cruise control set on 105 MPH), using it like a truck
(hauled two complete 351C's in the back from San Francisco to St. Louis
running most of the time at 90 MPH), winter driving, daily short trips
where the engine never warms up, daily bursts to yellow line, etc. In
my defense, I do allow the water temperature to stabilize before hammering
the throttle. I also do regular oil changes and whatever maintenance is
necessary. For the first 40K miles, I ran conventional oil changed at
3000 miles, after that I switched to synthetic oil (primarily Mobil 1 but
also Castrol Syntec) changed every 5000 miles.

The Mustang is the first and only car I've owned since new, so I was
curious to see what it looked like inside. Previous to the Mustang, I
had a 1979 Buick Regal as a daily driver that was purchased with 70K
miles showing on the odometer. When I opened it up, it was evident the
previous owner didn't change the oil on a regular basis. The oil pickup
screen was completely clogged (only the bypass hole was pulling oil in),
the bearings were in bad shape, the timing chain was flapping in the
wind, and there was carbon build up everywhere. My Mustang's 5.0L HO
was at the opposite end of the spectrum. The inside of the engine was
completely clean. When we ran the rifle cleaners through the oil passages,
they came out as clean as they went in. The only build up was a slight
amount on the tops of the pistons and the exhaust valves. The block showed
no wear whatsoever: no ridge and the original honing cross hatch marks were
still visible. The valves and crank were still within the tolerances for
new parts. The roller cam and lifters were fine. The cam bearings were
like new, in fact they were a bit on the tight side. Even the connecting
rod big ends were still round.

I had heard the nodular iron 5.0L blocks wore quite well but I was
surprised to see how nice the engine looked inside. I was expecting
some wear due to the fact I was running a K&N filter which probably
does not filter as well as a paper filter. Also, I spent a year in
the Mojave desert and upon my return, noticed the air inlet tube had
a gap at the bottom that allowed unfiltered air in. In all his 60+
years of engine building, my dad had never seen anything look so good,
especially given the hard usage. Strictly speaking, the only thing
the engine needed was a valve job (guides were fine, just the exhaust
seats had some pitting) and a throttle body cleaning (later versions
got a Teflon coating, mine was an early one that was uncoated aluminum).

I assume a number of things contributed to low wear: the fuel injection,
overdrive, low tension oil rings, etc. but one major contributor has to
be the synthetic oil. When my dad pulled the intake on his 1990 Lincoln's
5.0L, it showed a fair bit of build up that was not present in my engine.
His engine got regular oil changes with conventional oil and certainly
led an easier life than my Mustang. Both my brother and father have
since switched to synthetic oil in their vehcles.

Dad has a Sioux valve grinder so no outside machine work was needed.
I re-used the pistons, rods, block, crank, cam, lifters, pushrods.
Since I wasn't going to need to spend any $$$ on machine work,
balancing or new pistons I had a few dollars left in the budget and
ordered a windage tray and roller rocker arms. I also sprang for
a set of the premium Victor Reinz head gaskets. These came highly
recommended by Alex Denysenko. I replaced the intake mounted sensors
(coolant and intake air temperature) but re-used my Robert Shaw
thermostat as I was not able to find another locally (Autozone used
to carry them). I also reused the oil pressure sender (if it goes
out, it's easy to replace) and all the hoses except for the waterpump
bypass (damaged it). The hoses have a few years on them but are the
Ford Police Mustang extended life blue silicone hoses. They are still
quite pliabe. The parts list looked like:

Bendix coolant temperature sender
Bendix air charge sender
Sealed Power rings (cast iron economy set), standard 4" bore, metric
Sealed Power main bearings (0.002" under)
Clevite 77 rod bearings (0.001" under)
Fel Pro 5.0L HO gasket set
throttle body gasket set
re-used oil temperature sender
Melling M-68 standard volume oil pump (blueprinted)
Victor Rienz 3428SG head gaskets
Edelbrock aluminum water pump
serpentine belt
bypass hose
various vacuum and coolant hoses
Motorcraft ASF 42C spark plugs (copper)
fuel filter
re-used the wires, rotor and cap, all the hoses (all were recently installed)
Permatex Form-a-Gasket 300
Black RTV (use sparingly in corner of pan and intake manifold only)
J.P. Performance double roller timing chain
Comp Cams springs and retainers
Dorman core plug set
dual magnetic drain plugs
block drains (in place plugs)
Ford/Crane "Cobra" bolt-down 1.7:1 ratio roller rockers (with shims)
MPG Head Service windage tray
Paint
Gumout
Paper towels
Pioneer thermactor plugs
Thread sealer
Teflon tape
vacuum hose
fuel hose
vacuum caps
En-valve

Once the engine was out, I started disassembly and cleaning.
For some reason, Ford did not paint the block or heads. With all
the fuel injection, emissions, and accessory stuff on top and around
the engine you don't notice the paint on the heads or block.
I stripped the block and heads clean using rotary wire brushes on
the end of a die grinder. Actually, I used three die grinders with
different types of brushes so I could get into everynook and cranny.

I used a rotary wire brush wheel to remove carbon from the tops of the
pistons, removed the bearings and stuck the pistons and rods in a 5
gallon bucket of carb cleaner overnight. The next day, I rinsed them
off with Gumout spray and wiped them dry with a clean rag. There
wasn't much in the ring grooves, so I didn't use a ring groove cleaner.
I just ran an old ring around the groove to clean out any residue.

The valves cleaned up quickly on the wire brush wheel. Dad did a
standard valve job on the heads and I ground out the bumps in the
exhaust ports with a carbide cutter. This leaves a small hole in
each roof port but with the thermactor holes at the back of the
head plugged, this is of no consequence. BTW, removing the thermactor
stuff makes it much easier to work around the passenger side of the
engine which came in handy when I needed to R&R the starter several
times. The guides and valves (the 5.0L HO OEM valves have chrome
plated stems, BTW) were fine, so I reassembled the heads using the
valve seals from the Fel Pro gasket kit. The intake seals from the
kit were identical to the Ford seals but the exhaust seals were
standard looking umbrella seals with a note indecating they are made
of a superior high temperature type material and don't break down
like old umbrella seals. The OEM Ford exhaust seals were some sort
of hard plastic.

Put it all back together and it runs better than new. Revs great
and still gets 19-20 MPG around town and 24-28 MPG on the highway
(depending upon how fast I drive).



1965 - In July 1965 a running switch was made to a thinner timing chain
and cam sprocket with integral spacer. Pre-1965 (except HiPo)
used a thicker chain with separate spacer. Make sure the stack
height is correct, otherwise the fuel pump eccentric can rub
against the back of the aluminum timing cover.

1965 - 5 bolt bellhousing bolt pattern changed to 6 bolts after November
1965.

1966 - Timing cover change. Pre-1966 timing covers with aluminum water
pumps used a unique timing cover. Most aftermarket aluminum pumps
are for the post-'66 timing covers.

1968 - Timing cover changed to use a bolt on pointer. Earlier timing
covers had integral pointers.

1970 - Water pump inlet (lower radiator hose) changed to from right to
left hand side. This change was coordinated with a change from
3 to 4 bolt crank pulley and harmonic dampers. Many/most
aftermarket dampers are drilled for both types of pulleys.

1975 - Switch for points to electronic ignitions. 1975-1979 Duraspark
module with 3 prongs recommended for swaps to earlier 289/302's.

1977 - Some blocks dropped clutch linkage pilot hole (Mustang II used
cable linkage). Pre-1977 blocks have a holled drilled on the
driver's side rear corner for mechanical clutch release linkage.

1978 - Air injection passage added to cylinder heads. The passage runs
the length of head. The passage can be plugged plugs (available
from Pioneer) which screw into the passage and have threads for
accessory bolts or ground strap. High mileage passages plug up
with carbon. When grinding the humps out of the exhaust ports,
small holes leading to this passage will remain. They are of no
consequence if the end passages have been plugged, otherwise they
will be an exhaust leak.

1978 - EEC-I engine computer introduced on Lincoln Versailles. The crank
is fitted with a pulse ring in place of the oil slinger.

1979 - Changed dipstick to pass through oil pan. Pre-1979 passed through
the timing cover into the front sump pan. 1979 pans have a hole on
the driver's side and pass into a rear sump pan.

1980 - Dipstick location changed again. A hole is drilled into block,
with the dipstick entering the rear pickup oil pan. Note that
Fox-body oil pans have a small forward sump and a large rear sump
with two drain plugs.

1981 Change from 28.2 oz-in to 50 oz-in for 5.0L/302's. All 221, 289,
351W, 351C and earlier 302's were balanced to 28.2 oz-in. Later
5.0L/302 cranks were lightened which required additional mass
added to the harmonic balancer and flywheel/flexplate. It's not
uncommon for late cranks to ...

1985 - Fuel injected engines have the mechanical fuel pump boss blocked
off with a bolt on plate. Later (when?), the boss would be dropped
completely (verify).

1985 - Hydraulic roller cam

5.0L HO Evolution

1982 157 HP @ 4200 RPM
235 ft-lbs @ 1800 RPM
dual snorkel air intake with circular air filter element
2 bbl Motorcraft carb rated at 369 CFM
aluminum intake
8.5 psi mechanical fuel pump
Ford Marine camshaft
1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 firing order
260/278 degrees duration, 0.416"/0.444" lift
cast aluminum pistons
8.4:1 compression
cylinder block lightened by 15 lbs (relative to 1979 version) to 120 lbs
2-piece rear main bearing seal block and crank
electronic ignition with oil filled coil
D94e-6049-AA cylinder heads (smaller "high velocity" ports and valves)
cast iron manifolds with no exhaust gasket
2" diameter Y-pipe, transverse catalyst, single muffler with dual outlets
SROD 4 speed
7.5" Trac-Lok 3.08:1
Reciprocating assembly changed to utilize 50 oz.-in. balance factor
flywheel and 34 oz.-in. damper Cast
double row roller timing chain
Dual snorkel, high dome cover, low restriction element, air cleaner

1983 175 HP @ 4200 RPM
245 ft-lbs @ 2400 RPM
dual snorkel air intake with circular 17" air filter element
600 CFM Holley 4 barrel carb
8.5 psi mechanical fuel pump
Ford Marine camshaft
1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 firing order
260/278 degrees duration, 0.416"/0.444" lift
cast aluminum pistons
8.4:1 compression
block and crankshaft revised for one-piece rear main seal
electronic ignition with oil filled coil
D94e-6049-AA cylinder heads
cast iron manifolds with no eexhaust gasket
2" diameter inlet, 2.25" outlet Y-pipe, transverse catalyst, single
muffler with dual outlets
BW T-5 5 speed
7.5" Trac-Lok 3.08:1

1984 175 HP @ 4200 RPM
245 ft-lbs @ 2400 RPM
dual snorkel air intake with circular 17" air filter element
600 CFM Holley 4 barrel carb, redesigned choke, exhaust manifold heat
tubes removed
8.5 psi mechanical fuel pump
Ford Marine camshaft
1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 firing order
260/278 degrees duration, 0.416"/0.444" lift
cast aluminum pistons
8.4:1 compression
electronic ignition with oil filled coil
D94e-6049-AA cylinder heads
cast iron manifolds with no eexhaust gasket
2" diameter inlet, 2.25" outlet Y-pipe, transverse catalyst, single
muffler with dual outlets
BW T-5 5 speed
7.5" Trac-Lok 3.08:1 (3.27:1 optional)

1985 210 HP @ 4400 RPM
270 ft-lbs @ 3200 RPM
dual snorkel air intake with circular 17" air filter element
600 CFM Holley 4180C 4 barrel carb, diaphragm choke pull down, improved
secondary metering
8.5 psi mechanical fuel pump
hydraulic roller lifters and camshaft
266' duration, .444 valve lift
1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 firing order
266/266 degrees duration, 0.444"/0.444" lift
steel distributor gear (compatible with roller cam core)
forged aluminum pistons, thinner (metric) low-tension rings, thicker lands
8.4:1 compression
water pump revised with larger 4.4" diameter pump impeller, improved
bank-to-bank distribution
electronic ignition with oil filled coil
E5AE-6049-AA cylinder heads, revised to allow removal of roller tappets
with head in-place
stainless steel tubular exhaust manifolds with no eexhaust gasket
2.5" diameter inlet/outlet Y-pipe, inline catalyst, dual mufflers with
2.25" pipes
BW T-5 5 speed (revised ratios)
7.5" Trac-Lok 2.73:1 (3.08:1 optional)
Revised block (122 lb.) with two retainer bosses for roller tappets.

1986 200 HP @ 4000 RPM
285 ft-lbs @ 3000 RPM
EEC-IV engine control
SEFI (sequential electronic fuel injection)
19 lbs/hr fuel injectors
58mm bore throttle body
long runner EFI manifold
fender mounted flat panel air filter
39 psi in-tank electric fuel pump
hydraulic roller lifters and camshaft
1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 firing order
266/266 degrees duration, 0.444"/0.444" lift
steel distributor gear (compatible with roller cam core)
revised flat top forged aluminum pistons, metric low-tension rings (lower
tension than 1984)
9.2:1 compression
3.5" diameter water pump impellor with exit scroll
electronic ignition with oil filled coil
E6SE-6049-AA cylinder heads, revised with masked intake valves for
increased swirl and faster combustion
engine block cylinder wall thickness increased (semi-siamesed water
jackets), "squared bores" for better oil control, increased deck thickness
stainless steel tubular exhaust manifolds with no eexhaust gasket
2.25" diameter H-pipe with 4 convertors, and dual 2.25" inlet/outlet
mufflers
BW T-5 5 speed
8.8" Trac-Lok 2.73:1 (3.08:1 optional)

1987 225 HP @ 4400 RPM
300 ft-lbs @ 3000 RPM
EEC-IV engine control
SEFI (sequential electronic fuel injection)
19 lbs/hr fuel injectors
60mm bore throttle body (580 CFM)
long runner EFI manifold
fender mounted flat panel air filter
39 psi in-tank electric fuel pump
hydraulic roller lifters and camshaft
1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 firing order
266/266 degrees duration, 0.444"/0.444" lift
steel distributor gear (compatible with roller cam core)
revised forged aluminum pistons with 0.03" dish and eyebrows for piston
to valve clearance, metric low-tension rings (lower tension than 1984)
9.0:1 compression
3.5" diameter water pump impellor with exit scroll
electronic ignition with oil filled coil
Truck casting wedge cylinder heads with revised combustion chamber,
casting # E7TE-AA
engine block cylinder wall thickness increased (semi-siamesed water
jackets), increased deck thickness
stainless steel tubular exhaust manifolds with no exhaust gasket
2.25" diameter H-pipe with 4 convertors, and dual 2.25" inlet/outlet
mufflers
8.8" Trac-Lok 2.73:1 (3.08:1 optional)

1988 Basically carryover from 1987

1989-1992 -- 225 HP @ 4000

Same block, heads, intake and exhaust manifolds as 1987
Cast hypereutectic aluminum pistons
Introduction of the 55mm Mass Airflow fuel injection system.
Cams were revised to be quieter, slight power loss over the years.

1993 H.O. -- 215 HP @ 4200

1993 5.0 Cobra

Same cast hypereutectic pistons as 1993 5.0L H.O.
Cast iron GT-40 heads
Shorter duration, higher lift camshaft
1.72:1 ratio rocker arms
Cast aluminum Cobra intake
65 mm throttle body, 24 lbs-hr injectors, 70mm mass air meter
shorty headers
specially programmed EEC-IV for 24 lb/hr injectors

94/95 Mustang GT/Cobra use a shorter distributor (as much as 1/2" shorter
due to moving if the TFI module). To use this you will need the 94/95
Mustang wiring harness, computer, distributor and Ignition box. Also of
worth is the fan control module which will automatically controll cooling
fans

If you go Explorer nose, you HAVE to stay serpentine, the water pump is a
unique item and runs reverse rotation. The PS pump runs up top left side of
motor and I cut that part of the bracket off mine. I then had a guy at work
make a new idler pulley with groves in it to hold the belt and give the water
pump a bit of belt wrap. I was also able to use the stock explorer alt bracket
with tensionser pulley and Alt on the right side, which was very nice!!
Dave, since I don't own a Mangusta, I can't help on the "bolt-up" issues you raised with the Edelbrock.
I have run that manifold and for a strictly performance perspective the Ford unit that Dan is recommending does have an edge.
I do own a 68 Shelby GT350 and can tell you that I had somewhat of a delema with the engine also.
I didn't want to do box stock, 235hp with it. 68 was the first year of the 302.
What I did with it was to use the original block. The early blocks are much better cast then the '80s 5.0 versions. Those newer blocks are not as well cast and break things like mounting ears, etc. It is also said that they are higher nickle blocks then the 5.0's (here we go again)Use the erra appropriate block. Maybe find a 68 Mustang 302 block and heads.
The second thing that I did was go with a full tilt($$$) port on the original heads and use 1.94/1.60 ss valves with manganese bronze guides.
Solid lifter camshaft with roller tipped rockers (so they would fit under the original covers), screw in studs with guides, etc.
The final thing and probably most signifigant was to make it a 347. I am very, very happy that I did.
Of course I admit that I do sometimes have problems with control. I put a Blue Thunder, 2x4 "high-rise" repro on for an intake, and a pair of holley 600's.
Other then the 2x4's it looks stock. It even sounds stock with the 351w cast iron exhaust manifolds (fully ported also). Does it run stock? Dave this is me?
Would I lie to you? Of course it does (n't). 450hp wasn't stock at all.
Incidentally if you have a real Boss 302 block, in particular a 69 with a C8FE casting number, insure it for a lot. That is a "Trans-Am" block. Even if it is a later block it is still equivelent to the Motorsport A4 block. The A4 block is a "reissue of the Boss 302/ Trans-Am block.
The original posting was authored by Steven Liebenow and I simply started a thread based on it. Linda owns a 1969 Mangusta and her car runs a Boss 302 with Windsor heads, an Offenhauser manifold and a 750 Holley. This is what the car came equipped with and it performs quite well. From my experience and after seeing a number of 'Geese around, the car is too fragile to cope with high output engines. Roland is right about PI Motorsports expertise because we built from scratch the "Fox Mangusta" which had over 500 horsepower from an aluminum block with EFI and the works. Many modifications were made to the chassis to tolerate the power this car has. Unless you are willing to beef the car up, it may be wise to set your sights for around 300-400 HP max. Dave

Attachments

Photos (1)
> Linda owns a 1969 Mangusta and her car runs a Boss 302 with Windsor heads,
> an Offenhauser manifold and a 750 Holley.

Do you know which Offenhauser intake manifold? Somewhere in the library,
I have an old Peterson publication that covers a Mangusta 302 build up and
dyno test by Jery Spotts. The article said the stock Mangusta engines had
1 point lower compression than equivalent U.S. 4 barrel 302's. On the dyno,
the stock Mangusta detailed in the article put down only 110 HP at the wheels.
Weak!

I'm told there was a Sports Car Graphic series on how to use Ford performance
bits to put more go in the 'Goose. If any one has a copy, I much appreciate
it.

Dan Jones
I can't answer for Dave but I'll wager credits to navy beans that it is the 360. I ran one of those and it is a nice low manifold and ran well from idle to over 7000rpm.
I've got a Petersen article on building a 302 for the goose with 351w heads.
I remember something about it going from 110 to 250 with the mods.
I don't remenber it having a lower cr though.
The differences were a 289/271hp in a European and a 68 230hp/302 in the US.
Hello PanteraDoug! Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the Petersen article? If it is from the 80's, it may even be our old car, Linda got it in 1984. Perhaps I can trade you something for a copy of it or you could post it on this BB. Thanks again, Dave

Attachments

Photos (1)
Of course you can. I'll have to scan it for you.
I can attach it to an email.
You have to give me a while. Maybe I can get it out tonight.
I see it from across the room now.
Just ask the Harley girls not to use duct tape on me, I hate duct tape...that's repayment enough!
> I can't answer for Dave but I'll wager credits to navy beans that it is
> the 360. I ran one of those and it is a nice low manifold and ran well
> from idle to over 7000rpm.

They had EquaFlow and Dual Port versions of the 360 intake. Same external
moldline. They also had a high rise with spreadbore pattern.

> I've got a Petersen article on building a 302 for the goose with 351w heads.
> I remember something about it going from 110 to 250 with the mods.

That sounds like the article I have. I'll pull it out and see if I can
scan it in. Apparently, there was also another article (or series of articles)
done for Sports Car Graphic.

> I don't remenber it having a lower cr though.

I think the article implied DeTomaso had source industrial 302's with low
compression (and likely a smaller cam), not the J-code 302's.

Dan Jones
Thanks for fetching the article if it is not too much trouble. It would be interesting to see if the car featured was ours. We don't know a lot about the prior history of the car.
The Harley girl is out on assignment, covering the next cover story. However, our two scouts are free to help you scan the magazine. You will need a note from your wife though. DA

Attachments

Photos (1)
Gee the Girl Scouts in NY don't look like that. I gotta vist CA, I'm missing a lot!
These are two that came to the door selling Girl Scout cookies no doubt?
The article is from a Petersen's Ford Book. It is from around '75-76.
I have to look for it. I don't throw those things out. It wasn't where I thought it would be.
Do you think that Girl Scout #1 keeps anthing in her jean pockets? OOps she has no pockets, silly me.
The article is from '71. I don't know how I forgot that. I must have been distracted by someone, something, somethings...ah just ignore me.
I'm out of space unless you want a 86 Saleen ... LOL

No I have my hands full ...and I'm not a big fan of unfinished projects. I have not even inquired about the one I here is couple towns away ... but I did think about it.

Hey Doug why dont you put some wind in them 8 BAGPIPES and take a ride up here.

Ron

R
> Oh, I'm working on the scans, six pages, lost three in my documents some
> where. They're going to be too big to post. Do you want them emailed?

Could I get a copy? daniel.c.jones2@spam-me-notgmail.com (remove the
spam-me-not). I found my copy of the Peterson "Complete Ford Book"
(1972 vintage) with the details on the Mangusta engine build-up.

> I've got a Petersen article on building a 302 for the goose with 351w heads.
> I remember something about it going from 110 to 250 with the mods.

The article I have goes from 110 RWHP to 155 RWHP. They make some claims
that 110 RWHP equates to 242 HP at the crankshaft and that 145 RWHP equates
to 319 HP at the crank, neither of which compute. According to the article,
the Mangusta had a 9.5:1 compression ratio 302 that was equipped with a stock
Ford intake and 470 CFM Autolite 4 barrel carb that made 110 HP @ 5500 RPM on
Ak Miller's chassis dyno. The stock engine appears to be just a 302-2V with
the 4 barrel carb from the 302-4V but not the higher compression ratio. The
article says the lower compression was due to the lower octane fuel available
in Europe. Jerry Potts installed 351W heads and 10.5:1 compression pistons
along with a C90Z-6250-C cam (essentially a hydraulic lifter version of the
289 HiPo solid lifer cam with 290 deg adv durartion and 0.470" lift) but
retained the stock intake and carb (single point distributor, too). These
changes increased power to 145 RWHP with the 470 CFM carb which they equated
to 319 HP at the crank. Switching to a 600 CFM Autolite (still on the stock
intake), they made 155 RWHP.

The Mangusta build-up used some of the parts developed for the Ford Muscle
Parts program. In the old Muscle Parts catalog, Ford outlines 3 levels of
changes for the 289/302 SBF: Impressor, Controller and Dominator with HP
increments for each change relative to a stock 289-2V. Adding the C90X high
rise dual plane intake, 600 CFM Holley carb and an open element air cleaner
was good for 31 HP. Adding the C90Z-6250-C hydraulic cam with matching
lifters and springs along with a 289 HiPo dual point distributor was worth
40 HP. Adding tube headers was worth 15 HP for a total of 86 HP over the
200 HP 289-2V. With these parts in place, the larger port and valve '69-'70
351W heads and 10.5:1 compression pistons were worth 32 HP. Larger GT40
valves added 7 HP more for a total increase of 118-125 HP over the 289-2V.
Switching to a Lemans solid lifter cam brought the total increase to 144-155
HP over the base 289-2V. Going from a 289 to a 302 was worth 11 HP.

Though the parts are mostly obsolete these days, the sequence of part
changes is still sound. Without the C90X intake and headers, the Mangusta
modifications didn't deliver as much as they might otherwise.

Dan Jones
Dans, that's probably it. The name of the article is "The Small Ones".
Petersen. Complete Ford Book. 1972.
If you have it, then there's no sense in sending it.
I don't think that anyone would use the article for pertinent data to build an engine around. It's just a "period" article.
For one thing I personally don't think that 351-w heads are worth the effort. They loose torque and I think you can get more hp out of ported 302/289 heads.
I'm having all sorts of problems with file sizes, etc. It could be that the PC is getting ready to crash.
Give me your fax number. Email is out of the question at the moment. You can PM it to me if you would like.
> Dans, that's probably it. The name of the article is "The Small Ones".
> Petersen. Complete Ford Book. 1972.
> If you have it, then there's no sense in sending it.

Yup, that's the one. I thought maybe you had a different article. Thanks
anyway.

> I don't think that anyone would use the article for pertinent data to build
> an engine around. It's just a "period" article.

Agreed. On the other hand, the Ford Muscle Parts systems approach is still
surprisingly valid.

> They loose torque and I think you can get more hp out of ported 302/289 heads.

If you mean unported 351W versus max ported 289/302 heads, I'd agree. If
you mean, equal amounts of porting, I disagree. A mildy ported and milled
set of DOOE casting 351W heads are are worth 50 HP over production 289/302
heads. I know a IHRA/NHRA record holder who probably has more time and
money invested in ported 289 heads than anyone on the planet. Jim Kuntz
does his port work and Alex maintains it's easy to get 351W C9OE's or DOOE's
to outflow even the best professionally ported 289 heads. He'd love to
run a set of cheater 351W heads.

> For one thing I personally don't think that 351-w heads are worth the effort.

For the cost of labor these days, I'd agree. There are better options like
the AFR 165's.

> Email is out of the question at the moment.

No need to send me anything.

Dan Jones
Let's just say that my maxed 351w's I was very displeased with. My maxed 302's I'm very happy with.
Perhaps it was just that the 351's couldn't possibly live up to what I expected from them?
Perhaps it was that I didn't expect much from the 302's?
Neither was I running .600 lift with either. At .500 I'll bet they are the same head.
The exhausts ave virtually the same. The intake port pockets weren't worth arguing over.
I do know that the 351w's seemingly are the prefered head for the vintage racers now. I doubt that there is 60hp in them over the 289's, maybe 15 at the top and probably -10 less at the bottom. 15hp at the right time is pretty signifigant.
It all depends what one is building I suppose.
I believe what you say about Kuntz's heads.
He is an intelligent high tech porter. Remember that "they" only admit to you what they want you to know. It's what they don't want us to know is what we want to know.
Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×