question about 85 5.0 block

shawnster · Apr 7, 2004

I got a deal on a 85 5.0 engine..The heads have just been rebuilt and it has a 303 cam..now, heres the question..the guy pulled the motor because he wanted to switch to fuel injection because this is carb'ed motor..I have a 88gt..will my fuel injection unit fit on this block? I want to build this motor this summer and still drive the stang but dont know if everything will bolt up..I got it for $150.00 and that includes engine stand

battyice · Apr 7, 2004

I'm not totally sure about the intake bolt pattern, but I know that the timing cover is a little different. Your '85 engine used a mechanical fuel pump, and the timing cover has the hole in the side for the fuel pump to bolt up to. You can either get a cover off an EFI engine, or buy a b-off plate.

dastang2 · Apr 7, 2004

it will work totally. i have a 90 block with a carb setup. i wonder why he pulled the motor when all he needed to do was get a fuel pump block plate.NUTTY i guess

Boss 351 · Apr 7, 2004

The 85 block has flat tappet cam right, it was in 86 where rollor came in?

You're EFI will fit on that block, just get a block plate as mentionned earlier. You will also need to check with your distributer because it won't match with the 85 engine cam as far as I know.

battyice · Apr 7, 2004

I have an engine out of an '85 GT in my garage as we speak. The 85's were the first year of the roller cam; thats why whenever anyone converts an EFI motor to a carb they look for an '85 distributor. The distributor has a steel gear to work with the roller cam and is easy to wire up with a duraspark module.

Sounds like you got a good deal for $150 dollars.

Did it still have the "Powered by Ford" aluminum valve covers on it?

Blue Thunder · Apr 7, 2004

I believe you can even swap the timing cover from the 88 and while the cover is off the 85, you could remove the fuel pump accentric, too. Not that either of these steps is mandatory, because as was mentioned, you can just bolt on a fuel pump b-off plate.

On a side note:
85 motors are superior to 86 motors, because Ford was trying some insane "high swirl" small port somethingorother heads in 86, that's the main reason the hp rating dropped in 86. (Not to mention they had that god awful CFI computer controlled carburetor/central fuel injection mutant thing, which sucked, too)
In fact, the debut of the "all new and improved" 1986 302 smog heads was the reason Ford finally scrapped the old 302 car head molds. So then they realized what a P.O.S. the new heads were, they had to find another 302 head casting to replace the ones they had disposed of. (the 302 truck casting.) that's why 1987 302s had the part number E7T. T for truck)

And now for the 302 history quiz, does anyone know exactly why the 302 HO has the same firing order as the 351W? (unlike it's older 302 brothers, which had the usual 15426378 order)

Mustang5L5 · Apr 7, 2004

battyice said:
Did it still have the "Powered by Ford" aluminum valve covers on it?

Are those worth anything? I have them off my '85's motor all sandblasted down to bare aluminum. I'm trying to decide what to do with them. I will be putting them back on the motor because they are just so cool.

As for the timing cover it's really no big deal. Remove the fuel pump eccentric and slap a block off plate on there and call it a day.

I beleive the pistons are notched differently than 87+ stangs so that might affect head/cam selection. I'd like to know this myself if anyone can chime in.

I also beleive the block is not as strong as an 87+ block, but i wouldn't think by much.

Other than that, same basic bottom end.

I have my '85's motor all built on a stand...just waiting for the car to get done to toss it back in

dastang2 · Apr 7, 2004

they were changed to the 351 order for 1, because it was better on the bearings and 2 it is supposed to run smoother. the cam is what changes the firing order.

battyice · Apr 7, 2004

Mustang5L5 said:
I beleive the pistons are notched differently than 87+ stangs so that might affect head/cam selection.

The '85 stock pistons are TRW hypereutectic castings with the "4-eyebrow" design. Unless you're planning on running a cam with a lot of lift and/or milling the heads, I don't think piston clearance will be a problem. The '86 engines had totally flat pistons to go along with those "high swirl" heads, very strange indeed.

Unless you're planning on running over 400hp or 6000 rpms, don't worry about the strength of that '85 block. The one out of my car had seen plenty of trips to the redline, and with 80,000 miles it had almost no ring ridge. If you're worried about strength, replace those cheap factory rod bolts with ARP replacments and have the rod's resized; then you'll really be set.

FoxChasis · Apr 8, 2004

Hypereutectic pistons are cast, not forged.

Blue Thunder · Apr 10, 2004

dastang2 said:
they were changed to the 351 order for 1, because it was better on the bearings and 2 it is supposed to run smoother. the cam is what changes the firing order.

There's history behind the change to the 351W firing order. The 302 came out in 1968, and was offered with a 4bbl and 10.5:1 compression. It was rated at 250hp, if I recall.
Anyway, the BOSS 302 soon took its performance place in 1969, followed by the 351C in 71, and the regular non-boss 302 (I refer to the standard 302s as 302W, to clarify) was placed in low-performance/light truck applications from then on. The performance camshaft grind for the 302 was discarded over the years, and then in 1982,(81.5?) when the "HO" 302 was released, Ford had no performance 302 camshafts for the motor. So they dug into their 351W Marine parts bin, and found a suitable camshaft. Thus, the HO 302s were born with the camshaft, (and firing order) of the 351W. Ford never changed back to the older 302 firing order, probably for simplicity sake.

Now the 351W, with its FAR greater recipricating mass, required(or so Ford engineers figured) the altered firing order to relieve stress on the #1 main webbing. (the old 302 "15426378" firing order hits 1 and 5 cylinders at the same time, which is putting strain on that #1 main journal)
How necessary this firing order change was in the 351W is unknown, because they also increased the main bearing size of the 351W to 3", which ended up being TOO big. (that's why NASCAR 351s have the smaller 351C journals)

I've built 351Ws for friends using whatever camshaft I happened to have laying around, and for this reason, I have installed 302 cams in them. (The 351Ws with 302 hearts have survived without issues as of yet!)

Blue Thunder · Apr 10, 2004

battyice said:
If you're worried about strength, replace those cheap factory rod bolts..

Argh!
Ford's metallurgical technology and manufacturing processes have always been far superior to any other mass-produced automobile manufacturer's! Those rod bolts(along with most every bolt on the motor) are grade eight+ in strength. Small, yes, but certainly not cheap!
Breakage of a standard 302 connecting rod in street duty is pretty much nonexistent.
ARP bolts are better, yes, (and cost a lot more to manufacture too)but I've run a lot of different engine combinations up over 7000RPM, and I've yet to do anything bad to a stock rod. They're tough even in stock form!

Blue Thunder · Apr 10, 2004

Also, ALL Ford 302 blocks produced after 1981 are weaker than the previous castings. (They're also something like 30-40 pounds lighter) Ford reduced the material present in the main webbings in the newer blocks to save weight.

question about 85 5.0 block

shawnster

New Member

battyice

New Member

dastang2

Active Member

Boss 351

Here sthhhhhhhheeeve take a picthh of my man flowe

battyice

New Member

Blue Thunder

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

dastang2

Active Member

battyice

New Member

FoxChasis

Blue Thunder

Blue Thunder

Blue Thunder

Similar threads

question about 85 5.0 block

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Here sthhhhhhhheeeve take a picthh of my man flowe

New Member

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Active Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency