quick question

[5.0Torx]

hey all

I was talking to a buddy who had a 5.0 mustang a while back, and is currently putting a 5.0 in an RX7. He said that the 5.0 blocks in the 87-93 mustangs were a bit weaker than the 60s and 70s blocks. I was just wondering if this was true.

thanks

 

[LiquidGT]

Yep, thats why you hear so many stories about these blocks spitting in half ...And thats why they make all those girdles too.

 

[5.0Torx]

i have the 302 from my 68 cougar...would it be worth keeping for a future stroker build?

 

[Strippt88]

Interesting, makes one wonder, as they used different alloys/methods to make the V8's from the 80's, undoubtedly cuz of "progress" from the 60's, how long can we expect ones made today, with all the "technology" and experts saying they're improved, to really last. Specially if the 40 year old ones are still better? Broke car company's just want to stay in business, dooya think they want- hell, care, if what they make today will last 40 years?

 

[stykthyn]

its in the metal mix, I am sure the newer ones were weaker to keep costs down, back then it didnt matter.

 

[NIKwoaC]

My understanding of it is that thin-wall casting technology hadn't come very far in the late 60's, so the engine blocks were cast in the foundry with more metal, resulting in thicker webbing and cylinder walls, etc. The blocks were heavy and cost more to produce, but could withstand a few more horsepower before they split in half. Same goes for 60's era 351W blocks.

As technology evolved into the 70s and 80s, metal casting technology got better and we were able to produce blocks with similar longevity and reliability (cooling efficiency, bore wear, etc) with less material, resulting in reduced production costs and lighter block weight. Consider the poor performance from the cars of the 70's too, where 300 HP was considered insane.

Fast forward to the late 90s, where computer aided design (CAD) and finite element analysis (FEA) has enabled us to make superior castings at similar costs, getting us the best of both worlds in terms of weight, production costs, and actual block strength. The Mod motor block is a perfect example, with some of these factory castings surviving into 1000+ HP range (with the proper forged internals). GM's LS series engines are also a good example.

On a similar note, its also my understanding that any claim that the recent "Mexican" truck 302 blocks are any stronger is bogus. They weigh a few pounds more than similar "American" cast 302 blocks, but the added material is NOT in structural areas in the block. They may be made from a slightly different alloy, but I don't know anything about that.

Sorry about the novel, nothing to do here at work and I just finished my second cup of coffee.

 

[Adams91LX]

In 1968 production of 302 blocks in Mexico using the original reworked tooling that produced 289 hipo blocks. They have a higher nickel content with the thicker main webs. Somewhere on the block there is a M to denote
that it was produced in Mexico such as 302M. Ford used these as factory replacement engines for warranty work.If you find one, you have as about as beefy of a 302 block you can find in factory form.They use HIPO style main caps. They are considered to be thick wall castings similar to what was produced in the states prior to 1974. Examples of differences between late model blocks and the thick wall castings are blind holes(early) vs open holes(late) for the main cap bolt. When you see the late models split in half it's at those bolt holes. The other difference is in the webbing near the mains. The early blocks are noticeably thicker than the late models. Lifter valley says Hecho en Mexico.

 

[5.0Torx]

thanks for the info. ill see what i got!

 

[Strippt88]

My understanding of it is that thin-wall casting technology hadn't come very far in the late 60's, so the engine blocks were cast in the foundry with more metal, resulting in thicker webbing and cylinder walls, etc. The blocks were heavy and cost more to produce, but could withstand a few more horsepower before they split in half. Same goes for 60's era 351W blocks.

As technology evolved into the 70s and 80s, metal casting technology got better and we were able to produce blocks with similar longevity and reliability (cooling efficiency, bore wear, etc) with less material, resulting in reduced production costs and lighter block weight. Consider the poor performance from the cars of the 70's too, where 300 HP was considered insane.

Fast forward to the late 90s, where computer aided design (CAD) and finite element analysis (FEA) has enabled us to make superior castings at similar costs, getting us the best of both worlds in terms of weight, production costs, and actual block strength. The Mod motor block is a perfect example, with some of these factory castings surviving into 1000+ HP range (with the proper forged internals). GM's LS series engines are also a good example.

On a similar note, its also my understanding that any claim that the recent "Mexican" truck 302 blocks are any stronger is bogus. They weigh a few pounds more than similar "American" cast 302 blocks, but the added material is NOT in structural areas in the block. They may be made from a slightly different alloy, but I don't know anything about that.

Sorry about the novel, nothing to do here at work and I just finished my second cup of coffee.

No novel, good info won't necessarily be short- there are far too many people that proceed with the idea that everyone has ADD, and try to condense their point way too much. My question actually isn't in the production capabilities, where on paper, anyway, we're supposed to be way ahead of 40 year old technology. It has more to do with, well, business and ethics, which our illustrious big 3 are at least a century behind. Packard was a good example. If said company makes a car that lasts too long, the customer won't be back for another anytime soon. Therefore, they sell fewer cars- and nobody-specially the competition, is happy. If aforementioned car company is in the proverbial deep chit, they want to sell you more of their self proclaimed "better" technology a lot more often. The numbers are all wonderful, the LS1 sure runs great now, at 3 or 5 years old. Hows that going to work in 40 years? Do the great business and technological minds of our automakers, who have wanted to turn bigger numbers forever, want their cars to wear out, or do what the cars of the 60's did? I'm suspicious of these clowns interests. The 5.0 of the 80's was supposed to be a huge advance, and was in several respects. Yet now we find out, like here, a weakness is kinda built into it. The highly educated and paid builders knew it would break, or they just suddenly got stupid? In the 60's, the metal was at times a shortcoming, it wanted to rust almost from day 1, yet we can confidently rebuild just about any of their motors and run another 100K. My grandfather used to say over and over, "They don't build 'em like they used to!" He seems smarter all the time. Now thats a novel!