I was under the impression that some were painted grey??Early Mustangs had blue blocks and later models have black...just saying.
ford ran outta paintFrom what I have read it appears that from 79-early 82 the engines were blue from pan to valve covers, from mid 82 to mid late 92 they were gray from pan to valve covers, and from 93 and up the pan and valve covers were black and the block was bare.
I had a similar issue when assembling my engine. The rings I got were for an earlier model 302, where the compression rings are 5/64" and the oil control ring pack is 3/16". The later model 302 went to a metric ring pack, where the compression rings are 1.5mm thickness and the oil control ring pack is a 4mm thickness, which is ever so slightly smaller. Not exactly sure when this transition was made. It was a big enough difference that the rings did not fit inside the grooves. I would measure the ring grooves.So I bought piston rings: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/SLP-E-251K
Last night tried assembling them, but the pattern of the oil ring is such that it doesn't fit the groove on the piston. Anyone experience that? Pistons are stock-- no change.
@keel looks like you were right. Thank you for the tip! My pistons do use metric rings. Just got a set that finally fits. Now need to find some time to work on it again. Tough with the schools staring, but hoping to make some progress next week.I had a similar issue when assembling my engine. The rings I got were for an earlier model 302, where the compression rings are 5/64" and the oil control ring pack is 3/16". The later model 302 went to a metric ring pack, where the compression rings are 1.5mm thickness and the oil control ring pack is a 4mm thickness, which is ever so slightly smaller. Not exactly sure when this transition was made. It was a big enough difference that the rings did not fit inside the grooves. I would measure the ring grooves.
You may already be aware of this but I thought I should add that you have moly rings, and stock rings are cast iron. You should make sure that the finish hone on your cylinder walls are matched to the rings you have, as moly and cast iron rings have a different coarseness for the cross hatching required for proper break-in. Moly rings use a much finer grit finish than iron rings.
I have seen people put some fairly large pry bars and give it a pretty good tug testing the thrust bearing clearance.... If its too small you can remove the thrust bearing and LIGHTLY sand it on a flat surface to gain some clearance...I was following the ford rebuilding book-- there was a step that said to push the crank forward, and the thrust bearing cap backward, then torque the thrust bearing cap while applying forward pressure on the crank. I did that, but didn't see the crank move forward or backward even a hair. Watched a youtube video, and the guy moved the crank and you could see it walk.
The crank does spin nicely and easily by hand even with all the caps torqued to 65 ft lbs
Ok, I realize this is a quote from a little while back, but I’ve hear about this low dollar summit block a couple of times now, but can’t seem to find it. Does anyone have a link to them?out of curiosity-- been watching a 302 rebuild series on youtube.. A new block is like $800. Am I wrong, or why waste the money on the machine shop instead of buying brand new?
No concrete plans reallyDyno'd 311 rwhp with AFR165s (60cc pedestal mount milled 20cc), Cobra intake (before Ed Curtis ported it), and a 224/228 .555/.560 111LSA FTI cam. Had 24 lbs injectors, 65mm TB, 75mm Pro-M bullet.
I mean, I don't know what your goals really are, and that's not amazing compared to some 302 combos, but that was stout and a fun street car.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?