Identify this motor by the heads?

jb1dsl · Jan 16, 2007

I found what looks like some kind of tag on the ear where the starter goes and it says 4A20 or 4A28?

jb1dsl · Jan 16, 2007

How about F1SE:
F:90-99 model year
1:year
S: T-Bird
E: Engine group

Not FISE

D.Hearne · Jan 16, 2007

Yea, you got it. But just because the casting number has an "S" in the third character and yours happened to come from a T-Bird (could just as easily be from a Cougar too, same car, same engines) doesn't mean the block was exclusively used in those two cars. Quite the contrary, the F1SE roller block was used in all other Ford/Merc/Lincoln vehicles as well that used the 5.0 motor. 4A20 is the date code for the engine block. Translates to January 20, 1994. "A" is January, the 20 is the day of the month, 4 is the year of the decade it was cast, that's detemined by the casting number (F1= 1991)

jb1dsl · Jan 16, 2007

Im confused now, so is it a 91 or 94???

BornInAFord · Jan 16, 2007

It's a 94. The casting numbers just indicate what was the first year that particular casting was used. Ford used the C8 (1968) rods through 2001 in the 5.0L. The date stamp 4A20, etc indicate the year, month and date.
Daniel

D.Hearne · Jan 16, 2007

BornInAFord said:
. Ford used the C8 (1968) rods through 2001 in the 5.0L.
Daniel

You sure about that? I've run across at least three 90's 5.0's that had a new rod: F1TE. And although it's a newer forging, it ain't a better one. Out of those three, two had broken rods. (rods not bolts)

96 DOHC Cobra · Jan 17, 2007

It's definitely NOT a T-Bird motor. 94 T-Birds used the 4.6 not the 5.0. It looks like a 94-95 Mustang motor from the intake. It doesn't look like a van or "F" series intake. The numbers appear too early to be an Explorer motor.

D.Hearne · Jan 17, 2007

The T-Bird and Cougar both used a 5.0 with the same intake as the 95-95 Stang. These were in the 92-up till they switched to the 4.6

jb1dsl · Jan 17, 2007

I just found a website that states they switched to a 4.6 for the 94 model year so maybe it was in a mustang and ford was using the blocks up it had from the t-bird line.

www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/tbird_history.html

D.Hearne · Jan 17, 2007

The 92-93 T-Birds used the same upper and lower that was later used on the 94-95 Stang. Both cars required a lower profile intake system. Both used the same front acessory setup. Like I said before, same engine for both, but different camshafts.

BornInAFord · Jan 17, 2007

D.Hearne said:
You sure about that? I've run across at least three 90's 5.0's that had a new rod: F1TE. And although it's a newer forging, it ain't a better one. Out of those three, two had broken rods. (rods not bolts)

You're right (as usual). I was thinking of my 1990 5.0L with the C8s. I was just trying to think from memory of examples of casting numbers used years after the original castings. I do remember that my 17 tooth RH speedometer gear has something like a C2 number (although reproduction and white, not pink or black or whatever the original color would be... )
Daniel

ratio411 · Jan 18, 2007

Are you guys sure the Tbird came with an HO???
It is definately a Tbird engine, or at least Tbird EFI setup.

Anyway, you should check the firing order.
Cars and trucks with roller 5.0s, non-HO, used the standard 302 FO.
The HO engines are the only ones that got the Windsor FO.
This may have changed for the Exploders with GT40 stuff, but for the others that is the way.
I have a non-HO roller in my truck...
Dave

jb1dsl · Jan 18, 2007

Pulled the heads tonight, they were e7's. The cylinders look like they have very low miles on them. There is a little surface rust, can this just be honed out? On one cylinder it is pretty bad but there is absolutely no ridge at the top of the cylinder and I can still the cross hone on the cylinders.

D.Hearne · Jan 19, 2007

ratio411 said:
Are you guys sure the Tbird came with an HO???
It is definately a Tbird engine, or at least Tbird EFI setup.

Anyway, you should check the firing order.
Cars and trucks with roller 5.0s, non-HO, used the standard 302 FO.
The HO engines are the only ones that got the Windsor FO.
This may have changed for the Exploders with GT40 stuff, but for the others that is the way.
I have a non-HO roller in my truck...
Dave

5.0 cams with the 351 F.O. : The GT/HO cams, The truck F4TE cam (94-97 pickup and vans w/5.0) also used in the Explorer/Mountaineer 5.0 and the roller 351's. The 93-95 "Cobra" 5.0 also used a 351 F.O. cam this one was also used in the same year's T-Bird/Cougar 5.0, hence the 10 hp lower rating, this cam is a tad less cam than the GT/HO cam.

joncash · Jan 21, 2007

Okay, so we can all agree that it came out of a Thunderbird or a 94-95 Mustang, right? Neither one of those cars came w/ forged pistons and they both have the same intake manifold... sooo who cares which one it came out of? Hypers aren't that bad anyway, they just don't like detonation.

If the cylinders still show the factory crosshone and the main and rod bearings aren't worn through to the copper, then you PROBABLY don't need to rebuild (machine shop, new internals, etc.) it yet. The best way to know for sure is to verify oil pressure and do a cranking compression test. I only know how to do this with the engine in the car, so one of the other guys might have to chime in here.

If you do plan on rebuilding it, who cares what kind of pistons it has? You've got eight paperweights. The block is a hydraulic roller (which is good, and the HO's were built w/ the same block as a regular 302 of the same era) and the crank ('80 and later 302/5.0 cranks all came w/ the 50 oz. imbalance factor, and are all cast) and rods are all usable. The heads (E7) are the same as the HO motors found in a 5.0 Mustang-- regardless of what it originally came out of(Crane makes a nice spring kit for those heads that require no machining), and please tell me you don't plan on using a factory camshaft.

The important thing about the firing order is that the cam, the distributor, and the ECU/wiring harness for the fuel injectors are all on the same sequence. If the motor is going to be carbed, all you have to do is arrange the wires apropriately on the distributor cap to the camshaft you buy, which will most likely be 13726548 if it is a hydraulic roller. If you are going to go fuel injected, start w/ the harness (all the retrofit harnesses I've seen use the 13726548 to go along w/ an HO computer), arrange the wires on the distributor cap correctly and buy a camshaft that matches it.
Simple

jb1dsl · Jan 21, 2007

Well I will be doing a complete rebuild because the crank was broke and at least one piston busted, I have not got the pistons, rods and crank out for close inspection. I have just taken the pan off so far. The one main cap I have pulled of off was showing alot of copper. I will be selling the e7's because I will be putting my edelbrock rpm's on it off my 289. I already have another 2MA crank (free) to replace the broke one, so i will probably use it and just wait on the stroker till later on. I am going to get it broke down today I hope and take it to the machine for inspection and to see what kit specs I need to order.

CAM:: I have the edelbrock rpm heads and a edelbrock rpm intake for the application so I was thinking I would just get the edelbrock rpm roller cam to match all the components. This is not a racecar just a weekend cruiser so I don't see a need for a custom grind. Anyone have suggestions for a cam: Specs 302 or 306, 10.1/c.r. or so, edelbrock rpm intake and heads, c4 with 2300-2500 stall, 8" read with 3.55's.

Also should I reuse my dizzy with a new gear or use what. Would a 85 mustang dizzy be good or keep mine?

D.Hearne · Jan 21, 2007

Just for kicks, how do you plan on getting that comp ratio? Not saying you can't, on the contrary, it's possible, but most people assume that all that's needed are flat topped pistons. But it takes the right ones.

jb1dsl · Jan 21, 2007

this kit maybe, if if i don't stroke it, my heads have been milled 20 thousandths so they are around 58cc not 60cc. Do you reccomend another kit?

http://store.summitracing.com/partd...889096+4294870280+4294891093+115&autoview=sku

I may decide to stroke it but that is still up in the air. I need to get the block to the machine shop to see what kind of bore it needs. If it needs to got to .030 overbore i will probably get a stroker kit.

D.Hearne · Jan 21, 2007

jb1dsl said:
this kit maybe, if if i don't stroke it, my heads have been milled 20 thousandths so they are around 58cc not 60cc. Do you reccomend another kit?

http://store.summitracing.com/partd...889096+4294870280+4294891093+115&autoview=sku

I may decide to stroke it but that is still up in the air. I need to get the block to the machine shop to see what kind of bore it needs. If it needs to got to .030 overbore i will probably get a stroker kit.

It took some searching but I finally found the compression height for the pistons in that kit. Those are indeed the ones necessary to get the ratio to 10 to 1. They've got a 1.619 comp height. Many small block pistons come up short with a 1.585 height and to the unwary, they mistakenly believe those are the 10 to 1 pistons. With the damage your motor's got, I'd bore it a minimum of 30 over anyway. The cylinder with the burned piston, I'll bet, needs the overbore to clean it up.

jb1dsl · Jan 21, 2007

well the piston came into contact with the crank when it broke and the motor seized so it did not cut the cylinders but I'm betting on having to go 0.030.

Identify this motor by the heads?

jb1dsl

Member

jb1dsl

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

jb1dsl

Member

BornInAFord

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

96 DOHC Cobra

D.Hearne

New Member

jb1dsl

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

BornInAFord

Member

ratio411

jb1dsl

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

joncash

just high enough to be functional

jb1dsl

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

jb1dsl

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

jb1dsl

Member

Similar threads

Identify this motor by the heads?

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

just high enough to be functional

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency