Hi guys, brand new here and just bought my first classic mustang, body and frame are pretty good, and it runs all right, but performance is far from what I am used to. So I have some questions about ford motors, are 302's all the sa,e as far as parts, like heads, intakes and stuff or is it year and/or model specifec? I have been a chevy guy all my life and this is my first ford so I am totally in the dark.
are all 302's created equal?
- Thread starter rwild1967
- Start date
there the same but different. Heads and all that kinda stuff is the same as far as bolting on. 5.0 motors from i think 87 to i 95 are roller cam motors. Boss 302s are stronger. They have a 4 bolt main. they used Cleveland style heads also which made them breathe better. ford also made blocks in mexico and those were apparently stronger than the ones made here.
First off they are not compatable with a lot of Boss 302 parts. The early ones are pretty much 289s with more stroke. Not as strong as a small block Chevy but not too bad. The later 1970s through mid 1980s were junk (thin wall casting with lots of core shift). Then there is a difference between the early and later 302 cranks with the 1 piece rear seals which use different cranks, dampers and flywheels. Also later 1980s through the end of production were equipped to use roller cams and then in the 1990s they also picked up longer main bolts. This was the best the standard 302 blocks evolved to. Unlike Chevrolet, Ford LOVED to keep changing things.
Bolt patterns on the blocks were kept the same from 68 to 2001. Heads went thru multiple variations, most stock heads sucked. With the exception of the Boss 302, all intakes for the 289/302/5.0 are interchangeable. Blocks went roller starting in 1985 and got better in 1987. The non roller blocks from 1980 to 84 are to be avoided. These were the lightweights, litterally. The best non roller blocks were the Boss 302, the "Mexican" blocks of the 70's, followed by a little known gem, the D8VE block, which was basically the Mex block but with the smaller std main caps (which were never known to be the weak link in the block anyway) There are many more SBF variations that will fill a book.
Motor mount and bellhousing patterns are the same for all 302, 351W and 351C blocks. Ditto for the 65-68 289 blocks. The 351C (Cleveland) can best be described as a Ford block topped with modified big block Chevy heads.
But when Chevy did get around to "upgrading" the SBC, they basically copied what Ford did 30-40 years before. Like moving the distributor to the front, changing the firing order to that of the Ford 351's,(the 4-7 cam swap that's now popular) then finally designing a head that, with the exception of the tall intake ports (but even then these are very similar to the 60's Highriser 427's ports) looks so much like a SBF head, that it will even bolt onto a Ford block.
And finally you left out the other changes Chevy made to the small block, like chaging the intake bolt pattern, the valve cover bolt pattern and the various waterpump changes.
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
If you can't beat 'em, copy 'em, right? 
If only Ford had just made the Boss 302 block standard for all 302s....or at least the one hecho en Mexico.
I forget, what years had the 5-bolt bellhousing? Was it the 221/260/289s up until '65?
If only Ford had just made the Boss 302 block standard for all 302s....or at least the one hecho en Mexico.I forget, what years had the 5-bolt bellhousing? Was it the 221/260/289s up until '65?
so I can drop a 351 c in and use the (suitably enhanced) c-4 thats allready there? or switch to a later model t-5 and keep my 302 without having to worry about compatability?
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
221 and 260 were 5 bolt.
Early 289s were 5 bolt, 5 bolt production stopped in 64 which means there could be a few 5 bolt in 65 models and/ or a few 6 bolt installed in late 64.
If you can't beat 'em, copy 'em, right?
I forget, what years had the 5-bolt bellhousing? Was it the 221/260/289s up until '65?
You hit that one on the head. The standard Ford offerings were always second fiddle to the standard Chevy offerings of the day. They were lacking in bottom end strength, cylinder head flow, and insufficient cylinder head clamping. But when Ford talked performance engines, the situation became flipped. I only wish there had been more of them available, or better yet, that those improved versions were the common offering! As for the 5 bolt bellhousings (and the weird engine mount bolt spacing that went with it), as stated above you are correct. In fact I still have the 5-bolt bellhousing from my 1964-1/2 Mustang in the basement.
The only thing different will be the exhaust location as far as where the outlet for either manifolds or headers goes.
While on the 302 subject, I am replacing the 289 motor in my 66 with a new 302 roller block I fortunately found on Craigs list.
I read somewhere that the mounting holes on the 302 for the water pump/and timing coming run into the block's water jacket.
Is this true and what do I need to do to prevent leaks at the bolts?
sparx
I read somewhere that the mounting holes on the 302 for the water pump/and timing coming run into the block's water jacket.
Is this true and what do I need to do to prevent leaks at the bolts?
sparx
Use thread sealer, found at your local hardware/plumbing supply store. Same goes for the 289 waterpump bolt holes, the ones you have to use it on are the two holes per side, immediately above and below the round ports where the coolant flows into the block behind the pump. And on the roller 302, you'll also need thread sealer on the lower (short) head bolts as well. The holes for these go thru the deck into the coolant jackets.
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
The roller block is also missing a boss on the driver's side for a z-bar pivot post. That's not an issue with an automatic transmission, though. It will also have dowels for aligning the timing cover. They need to be removed when using an older cover.
Plain old everyday pipe thread sealer. The teflon paste is what I use. Comes in a small can with a brush built into the lid.
