My grandfather was in charge of skilled trades at the Windsor Ford plant when they started making the 302 in the late 60s. I still have his overalls and some tools he made by hand at work. That plant is still producing engines.
The 80s block has locator dowls on the timing cover bolts (2) to center front crank seal. The boss block has 1/2 inch main bolts and head bolts vs 7/16 inch in regular 302 The boss block has screw in freeze plugs too.
I know every body calls them freeze plugs but that's not what they are for. The holes are cast in the block and heads for removing casting sand, these holes also get bored in two operations to finish size so the plugs press in. I do know on at least some engines the center sand shake out hole will be used to locate the block for drilling and reaming the Main Manufacturing Holes. These holes, typically 5/8 to 3/4 (16 to 19mm) are used along with the Pan Rail to locate and provide datum poi to and surfaces for all following machining operations.
@@richceglinski7543right, like people calling a high speed drill a drill bit. Or my favorite one, unloosen that bolt. Lol😅. Rates up there with the good old 3/4 cam
The cap on the Mexican was probably larger because it was a truck engine. We would get Mexicans into the plant whenever we had a shortfall from Cleveland Foundry. It was a very easily machined casting because it was pure cast iron.
Great job on describing the differences on the 302 blocks. I had a 289 C code in my first 1965 Mustang Fastback, I blew out the press in oil galley plug behind the timing chain gear revving it to 6,000 rpm, and ruined the engine using a high pressure Mellings Oil Pump. When I later built a 302 Mexican Block, I tapped out the oil galleys for screw in plugs. If I recall, Shelby used a 302 Mexican block in the 1968 GT-350's.
Screw in oil galley plugs are always the best way to go the boss 302 that I just got done building has screw in oil galley plugs . The service block that was in the Boss 302 with the dropped valve. Someone had put Loctite on the galley plugs and I couldn’t remove them. But that block is out of service for now so that will be someone else problem. That Boss block that’s in the video .
One very noticeable difference between the 70's block and the later roller block was how thick the roller block is between the crank journal area and the cam bore.
Hi Again! Had to come back and revisit. I forgot about the Mexican block. Next video you do on these, you might be able to add a Chinese block into the mix the way this Country is going. Take care. Cheers from Motown/Dearborn.
Early 302,260,289,221 and 351w had a casting lug for the clutch z bracket pivot point and the early 1963 to 1965 221,260 and early 289 had a 5 bolt bellhousing patern and only 2 core plugs per side.
Had the German four cylinder pinto motor in my 1927 Bugatti replica,fast and scary for a eight hundred pound car, how it came to Canada is beyond me. Now I want to look for the Mexican 302, along with the Chevy 302 out of the 69 crapmaro , thanks for this video on different blocks it was highly informative....👍 👍 🇨🇦
I’ll take the one on the engine stand, thank you very much!!😉🤣🤣🤣 I put together a 289 (+.030”) for my ‘65 Galaxy. It had 2-bolt mains and a cast crank. I had it very nicely balanced, and used Moroso main studs. Also ran a solid lifter cam and roller rockers. Had a built C4 trans with a 3000 RPM converter feeding a 9” rear with 4.11 Richmond gears (eventually swapped them out for 3.73s). That thing would turn 7,000 RPM no sweat. Never got the opportunity to race it, but it sure did surprise a lot of people!!😉🤣🤣 Wish I still had it!🤷♂️
Thank you there is a lot of things i didn't know about the blocks. I now will be looking for a Boss 302 block for my next build. Thank you for the info.
I find Mexican 302 engine blocks mainly in pickup trucks and they don't seem hard to find if you search 302 pickups for them. The cylinders in them don't seem to wear as well, like due to the iron used. Some people claim they are "stronger" because they heavier and thicker.
It’s getting hard for me to remember all the facts on making one of these videos but yeah there’s a lot more info to know about these blocks that’s for sure even with the casting numbers the boss 302 block in this video is actually a 1971 service replacement boss 302 block
In the late model roller blocks. The lifter bore is taller than the early block. Not all roller blocks came with a roller cam. Some came with a juice cam.
There’s also a tunnel, port 302, which is essentially a boss 302 block except it has much thicker cylinder walls and a standard boss block. It can be bored out 80 over with no problems. It’s casting number is C8FE.
@@pyleup well actually they did wind up in production cars. Several years ago I had a friend sell me a 69 boss 302 motor. Casting number on it was a C8FE, which was a tunnel port block. The tunnel, port heads turned out to be a flop, and the road racing circuit. The ports were too big and did not create enough velocity at lower RPMs. I would think they’d make a great drag racing motor as they love high RPMs.
Actually Car and Driver magazine did a road test comparing a Tunnel Port 302 , '68 Mustang to a 302 Z28 Camaro RS . Interesting article as Ford showed up with a set of Goodyear's on the Mustang that didn't fit very well , and that nobody had ever seen before . At the end of the test , the editor called Goodyear and asked them about those tires . The official answer was " we don't make a F 60 x15 " , to which the editor replied " well I've got five of them downstairs on a Mustang ". Goodyear finally confessed to making them, but were very unhappy with Ford for letting the cat out of the bag . They weren't even sure if they were going to produce and sell them at that time .
@@lorenzomaximo1818: The early 1969 Boss 302s were built with the 1968 Tunnel Port blocks and Cross-drilled steel crankshafts. The crank was never serviced by Ford Parts and Service, nor were the 1969 Boss heads with the 2.23" intake valves. All replacement heads were the 2.19" late 1969/all 1970 castings and came with four 2.19" intake valves in the box.
I remeber reading that the Mexican block also had higher nickle content..It was supposed to be similar to the period race only ford blocks...tho my memory is foggy and cant find that magazine which im refrencing.
Ford said in an article that no blocks had higher nickle but I don't believe that but the mex. Block is softer so it could expand for the heat in Mexico. Every one it taken apart had really bad wear in cylinders its hard uo get one to go .030 , I took 4 apart only 1 will clean up at .030 other 3 need to go .040
Basically the Australian 302C is a de stroked 351C with a different crank with shorter rods with 2V heads. The 302 Boss is a Windsor style block with Cleavland style heads.
You've left out the Australian 302. 9.2 inch deck, 6.025 inch rods. 30 pounds more metal in the block than a Windsor 5.0 , native cleveland closed chamber heads.These 302c are a stronger 302 Boss and they're considered the poor cousin of the 351 so they're completely disregarded as a performance engine. On paper they make good sense. 32 pound crank vs 58 pound 351 crank, better rod ratio than Windsor 8.2 inch deck. I've owned a few of these and they're as fun as ____.
Australian 302C was just de-stroked 351C plain jane 2 bolt main block. Reason why block was heavier because timing cover part of the block. Big chuck of cast iron covering timing chain so they used plate just to cover timing chain. 351w had higher deck height of 9.5 vs 351C/302C of 9.2. 302W had deck height of 8.2
@@mickvonbornemann3824 great logic there wow........ Really 2 completely different blocks but with your logic because it's just 302 somehow all of its the same.
@@pdmustgtd1013 The title was “Ford 302s” not “302 Windsors”. Besides the Boss 302 is basically a hybrid of the lighter, better oiling Windsor block with the better breathing Cleveland heads.
Hey there loved the comparison.. My memory might also be a little foggy here, though I remember something about the earliest 882-83 HO's had some issues with cranks breaking near the front two cylinders. That 351 cam firing order was tied in there, somehow.. Let the "Interwebs" kind of folks finish this thought 🤔 for us ...!?!?!?
Thanks for your information and your input on the sbf motors . Nice shop and man cave thanks for sharing….. curious if I gave you info on a 408 w I built and haven’t installed it yet but curious about what kind of horsepower and torque Im possibly looking at ? Can’t afford to do a dyno run and I’m probably 2 hours from the nearest shop that could dyno it.. it was a 4 yr build due to my income lol.. but it’s together finally.. once again thanks for your videos I enjoy watching them 👍
@@pyleup I have heard often about using drag strip results for estimating horsepower. What I don't know is whether the calculated horsepower is at the crank OR is it wheel horsepower, and is that "net" horsepower like manufacturers currently use OR "gross" horsepower figures like used up until 1970 for crank horsepower without engine accessories?
I’m 52 years old and sometimes trying to record these CZcams videos and spit out all those facts it’s hard for one guy to do it by himself but you’re right I missed it. i’d be a lot easier if I had a Teleprompter in front of me just reading from that. I never thought of myself as a guy standing in front of a camera, spitting out a bunch of facts. It sure would be easier with a couple of beers in your hand a group of guys standing around the car talking about it.
So that’s an engine that I have not seen is it a D stroked 351 Cleveland or a completely separate Cleveland block with a 3 inch stroke and 4 inch bore.
@@pyleup I'm not so sure U can call it a destroked Cleveland , it is an original production motor produced by Ford Australia ( a 4.9 litre as Ford labelled it , the 351 was labelled a 5.8 on the aircleaner and front fender up untill they stopped producing them in 1984/5 they produced them from 1973/4 to 1984/5 a long run and they were in everything from upmarket taxis , family cars, utes, wagons , panel vans, Aussie F100 to F350s ) if you call a 302 Cleveland a destroked Cleveland then you must call a 400 a stroker Cleveland ! I'd love to have a stock line up of 302C, 351C and 400 and see stock power outputs , it would be interesting to see what 50 ci extra makes on very similar almost the same engines !
OE Boss block was a stronger iron and 85-98 302's had different firing order with different lifter bore diameter I believe. The change in firing was to relieve strain on #1 main I think. Not sure of the price point of a new SVO Boss block or if it's a direct replacement.
Well the one thing I would have certainly made mention of, especially for us pheasants who can't afford the $$$ stuff, but will make a big difference when building a plain old 302. There were 2 different standard production blocks, concerning deck height. Somebody mentioned an 8.750 deck... that don't count. That's a Dart block, stuff most of us pheasants can't afford. So that being said- 68-73 had a 8.206 deck height 74-77 had an 8.229 deck 78-up returned to the 8.206 figure This is really important to know because its gonna screw up your compression figures big-time, getting these mixed up. FYI the 1977 302 was the biggest pig in the lineup with the lowest compression ratio ever had at 8.2:1(could be less) as it was the only year the tall deck was fitted with the huge crummy 69cc heads. Prior to that was either 63cc or 58cc units on the tall deck. Other than that, great job on the comparison!
Thanks for your comment. I kind of consider this kind of a history video and I appreciate all the comments. I don’t know all there is to know about the stuff I just share what I do know and I appreciate comments like yours.
@@pyleup totally agree! Your video hits a lot of the major points. I happen to have a '68 Mexican block and you are spot on. Of course, Fords are not the most popular compared to GM or Mopar, and they do alot of strange things so there's much to learn if one hasn't been in the Ford world much. Been a Ford guy since I could walk, as was my dad, with a brief stint in the Mopar world. So I just try to share as much info as I can to hopefully help out another soul confused of Fords strange ways. Once you get use to Fords "Better Ideas", its not so bad. 😁
Interesting. That would explain why my 75 Mustang ll with a 302 had huge vacuum leaks when I installed a "previously road tested" aluminum intake manifold. I doubled the intake gaskets and that solved the issue, and it lasted for over 50k miles.
@@61rampy65 if your intake required 2 gaskets on each bank, thats more than likely an intake thats been cut to fit on another block that was probably heavily decked, requiring the intake cut to match it. The 8.206 and 8.229 both utilize the same intake manifold. The taller block was just machined in such a way that it still accepted the short deck intake. Now if you were to zero deck, or in the case of the .229 block, cut as much as it allows.... then you may need to shave down the intake as well, only slightly.
The cam changes that not the block the 351 and 302ho used the same cam to shift loading to the thicker rear main bearing from the front to decrease crank wear
The Aussie made 302 is different again from the US Cleveland blocks. Iron crank, from memory big caps but 2 bolt as are the 351 in the majority. So there are at least 5 different 302 blocks from Ford.
I helped a friend replace a 302 in a picup truck. The engine was a year or two different than the truck and a long block assembly. We found out the hard way that there are like 3 different firing orders that will all start & idle but nothing more. Some of them would run wired 180 out. I'll stick with my "Mr. Potatohead" Chevys where everything fits the same holes from 153 to 454 CI.
The roller blocks are weak making any real hp and really do better with a girdle. Do love the Windsors though. They're a mighty mouse. 331ci is an amazing setup. I recall a few guys here making up to 700hp with production 351w blocks no prob.
Thanks for making a comparo of 4 blocks in 4 min and not 30...or an hour Sucks so many gotta nit pick your vid instead of thanking you for what info you put up. Glass half full!
I appreciate your comment Making these videos is a learning process and yes there was a lot more I could have said about these blocks Hopefully I will get better as time goes on
Some other differences that matter, IMO. The '68 to '80 blocks are really good blocks. In '80 or '81 Ford had to backpedal some, as they had intended to be super politically correct and dump the 302 after the '79 model year in favor of the horrible 255. Mustang fans and buyers threw a fit, especially if they test drove anything with the worthless 255 for power(pardon that overstatement). They made changes to the 302 block casting for lighter weight, meaning weaker. I took my '74 standard 302 block to a machine shop a few years ago, and you could tell they hadn't seen anything but roller blocks for a long time. When I picked it up, the machinist showed me in detail where weight and strength had been cut out of the later blocks by comparing mine and a '93 block. These days you hear people saying a 302 block will break in two if you have around 550HP. I guarantee you'll be hard pressed to find a '68-'79 block that breaks apart at that power level. Back in the OHO and FMS catalogs of the '80s, Ford, conservative as they were, said the production standard 302 block was good for 600HP, while the Boss was good for 1200. They recommended max overbore of .030 or .040 on the standard block and .060 on the Boss block. My '70 Boss is comfortably at .060 over. Saying the Boss block is a regular 302 block with 4 bolt mains and screw-in core plugs is not true. Weigh a bare one and compare it to the weight of a bare standard block. Significant weight difference. Even more of a difference between the Boss and a standard roller cam block. Then look the littlest Boss over closely. Thicker webbing/bulkeads, thicker cylinder walls ... on and on go the improvements over standard (including over the 289HP and rare 289HD). Like with the Boss 351 and especially the Boss 429, Ford said that they lost money on every Boss 302 they sold. But they got the B302 & B429 homologated for Trans Am and NASCAR, and people on the street scene learned that the B351 was the strongest "small block" of all. Richard Holdener, with a huge mass of videos available on youTube, is one of those who compared some Fords, including a stock spec Boss 351 clone, to all the famous SBCs of the day with dyno testing. B351 made the most power, B302 was second, and then came the Chevy stuff. Of course, the B302 was lacking quite a bit of torque so maybe that's not a fair statement for real-world usage by me, but it's true, for horsepower.
Thanks for making a good informative comment that taught me some important things about Ford small blocks. Especially about the one year only Boss 35. I never knew Ford made a 351 C type engine with 11 to 1 compression and a .550 lift solid lifter cam. Now let's talk about Holdners dyno test and Chevy comparison. He should have run exhaust manifolds on the Boss 351 clone because headers will always help any engine, especially any 351 C type engine. So his Hp numbers were a bit high because of that and the Holley carb. I am surprised at him bad mouthing the 289 the way he did as well. He tested what he called a" Shelby trimmed" 289 and just barely broke the 300 hp mark. Anyway his Chevy comparison engine was the Lt1 350 of 1970 which had 10.5 to 1 compression and a hydraulic cam that was about 470 lift. A true small block Chevy comparison engine however would have been the 1964 L84 327 with 11 to 1 compression and a solid lifter cam although not the 550 lift cam of the Boss 351. The L84 with mechanical fuel injection made a true 375 Hp through exhaust manifolds so it would have been an equal comparison and about the same horsepower with less cubic inches. Either way thanks for the Boss 351 lesson. It goes with my Pontiac Super Duty 455 special engine manufactured off site of GM and the much ignored Ram Air 3 Pontiac engine which was under rated at 366 Hp. As a side note Holdner did mention that the Chrysler 340 6 pack engine was also in the same category of most powerful small blocks, it's a shame those are so rare and difficult to find and get on a dyno to see how it would compare.
@@crazyoilfieldmechanic3195 He ran headers on every one of those engines in this test series, if you notice, so I don't think any had any advantage over the others in this comparison. I thought the key things about the Shelby 289 were; It was the smallest engine of the bunch by quite a bit, so really didn't didn't belong in this comparison without something like a 283 to compare to, and it was the only engine in the comparison that had horsepower and torque close to what the builder claimed for it. They rated it at 306HP and it actually put out 302HP in this test. The DZ302 Chevy and the Boss 302 were waaaaay underated, by comparison. I understand why they did it back then, but... He did test the carbureted version of the 327 you mentioned, that being the "365 HP" version. Not a pro on Chevy stuff, but my reading says that the L76 327 had all the same specs/parts as the "375 HP" Fuelie except for running a carb instead of FI. I've seen quite a few tests of the 375HP Fuelie done over the years in the various magazines, but had never seen one, even with headers, that actually made 375. Maybe I missed a key test. You're right about the B351 having more lift than the top dog 327 cams, but as per normal, the Chevy cams had a lot more duration, so each had their idiosyncracies that gave advantages (maybe). Ah, talk about sandbagging your HP numbers, Pontiac were pros at it. I recently re-watched a yT video comparing a 409 Chevy to a 421 SD, and how close they were to their claimed numbers. The "409HP" 409 showed about 406HP, while the "405HP" 421SD cranked 488HP. Talk about underating your weapon! Good stuff, and fun to reminisce about. We wouldn't have what is around now without the original muscle car era's killers.
@@Zekais he showed a picture of the hipo 289 on the dyno with exhaust manifolds was why I made that point is all. Something I had learned about that Ram Air 3 Pontiac engine was that they came factory with bleed down hydraulic lifters because the cam had crazy duration and the lifters kept it from killing the torque at low rpm but helped it breath up top. I also read where in the know Pontiac guys would buy that cam and lifters set from the dealer to get their base 400 engine to have a seat of the pants noticeable increase in power. Kind of like cutting the piece of metal off the linkage of Ram Air 3 Firebirds so the carburetor 4 barrels would open all the way !!!! Pontiac didn't want the Firbird tromping on the GTO !!! I will look for some 375 hp 327 dyno vids or articles because I know they are out there. Now tell me if the 427 side oiler that came in a Thunderbolt had plugged threaded holes for attaching a dry sump oiling system like the 427 in the GT40.........
@@crazyoilfieldmechanic3195 Yeah, I wondered if the 289 picture was from a stock photo grab-bag or what, since the only engine in that comparison that came stock with tubular headers was the Shelby 289, with the famous Tri-Y headers. Oh well... I've had quite a few FEs over the years, but am not an expert on them really. Too much conflicting info for me. I've read that all the big FE stuff (SOHC, Hi-Riser, side-oiler, etcetera) became avilable in '65, but also that the Thunderbolt had a side-oiler, though it was a '64 model. I'll have to leave it to real FE pros to answer that one, like Barry Rabotnik(sp?) at Survival Motorsports. It was dumb luck that got me my Boss 302 back in '75. The really expensive, rare stuff like a side-oiler? No luck dumb enough for that. Have never owned a side-oiler, except (sigh) in my dreams.
@Zekais There is a guy in Ames Oklahoma that has about twenty five 60's and 70's race cars in his small museum. He has 5 cars with Cammers in them and 7 with high riser 427 side oiler engines. He is kind of poor as you can see lol. I asked him about it and he didn't know but said he thought all Cammers had the drilled passages for dry sump. I looked the best I could at 2 of the Cammers. One on a stand and one in an early 70's funny car and I couldn't see any large plugged holes for it. I just know that all 427 GT40's had dry sump oiling and that the blocks were made for it and not modified for it so I don't know. I guess it will have to be a question for "Mr Cobra" as he has several original SC 427 side oiler Cobras. As an also, his naturally aspirated 289 competition Cobras most definitely put out 500 hp. A far cry from the 306 hp of a mid 60's Shelby Mustang as Holdner mentioned them having.
I have seen examples where the Mexican block main cap fasteners failed - this was a normally aspirated "built" engine it used ARP studs instead of bolts - they believed it had to do with the quality of the iron used in the block casting the threads in #2, #3 and #4 literally disintegrated
@@pyleup the threads in the Block failed allowing the studs to separate from the block - I only saw the remains of the engine it was normally aspirated aluminum heads single plane intake I don’t think the compression was outrageous it was used for road racing purposes in a 1967 Mustang
@@pyleup if I recall correctly the tops of the caps were machined flat on the top and there were some kind of steel supports that sit on top of the caps and help clamp the main bearing cap down evenly - there was no full “girdle”
Hello sir thank you for your video I have a 1968 ford 302 out of a ford van it has orange valve springs not orange stripe but completely orange springs I can't find any information about this do you know anything about this
I have seen some factory valve, springs, painted orange or they might just be aftermarkets. There’s nothing really special about them though. If you go and look at my video on how to ID a 289 Hipo you will see it has Orange valve springs I think a lot of the factory valve springs from Ford were Orange.
If you’re talking about the 95 and 93 cobra 302‘s the only thing that was different were the cylinder heads they were a better flowing cylinder head and had roller rockers but the blocks are exactly the same as the regular 5.0 the head we’re Gt 40 and GTP 40 cast-iron cylinder heads from Ford. They were some of the best factory heads for the 302 made.
@@pyleup I know the 351W roller block 'officially' began in 1994. However, I have heard that the roller blocks castings began in late 1991 - early 1992, they just weren't fully fitted with roller cams/lifters until '94. I was hoping you might know for sure. Oh well. Thank you for answering back. It's annoying when folks abandon their videos after a month or so. I appreciate the follow-up.
You didn’t mention the screw in core plugs ? And I may be wrong but didn’t Ford go with a one piece rear main seal as well on the later rollers and what not that was produced? You are right though about the scarcity of the boss 302 engine, if someone said they had one I would be skeptical and say show me !
You are right I knew about all those things but making a video and doing it yourself is hard for someone getting older. I need to do an outline on paper before I push record.
The coyote is very impressive motor steel crankshaft four bolt mains plus cross bolts I built a 2017 coyote stock . It was installed in a fox body mustang went 11:91 in the 1/4 mile 115 mph
@pyleup is there any difference in a 1993 5.0 and a 1998? ive heard theres a difference in the distributor gear or something of the sort but im not sure, rlly what i need to know is if a 1998 will swap easily into a 1993 truck
The 1998 302 would have a crank trigger coil fire system versus a distributor gear but essentially the blocks are still the same. As long as you had your 1993 stuff you should be able to retrofit the 1998 block into it but remember it will use a crank trigger instead of the distributor fire so you’ll just have to take that stuff out of it Reinstall a proper cam with the driver gear for the distributor. A 1998 Explorer 302 should have GT 40P Heads, the block in this video is a 1998 block
Supposed to take pressure off number 1 main because 1 and 5 fires after each other that's what ford said . I think the serpentine belt pulling on front of crank also has something to do with it
I had a 85 302 with a lunati .496 int. .512 exh. 351w firing order. A standard 302 cam fires cylinders 1 and 5 first putting a lot of force on the front of the crank. A 351w cam changes the firing order making the 302 a H. O. And more torque.
Looks like the front of the roller block is thicker. The block doesn't have a visible bulge from the oil galleys and main bolt thread castings like the older block to its right. I wonder if some measurements actually support this observation. Would be cool to measure and compare the thicknesses of the main webbing between these too.
I have an Australian Falcon 1997 ute with the 302 in it. I was hoping maybe someone is their sufficient material to modify a two bolt block to suit the four bolt main cap ? What other differences are there between has the Boss block over the two bolt standard block without the obvious cam and head differences
The thing to do with the 302 and the 2 bolt mains is use main studs and a girdle to make the bottom end stronger it’s probably the best you can do with the two bolt main. There’s just not enough material to convert it to a four bolt main
Question in regards to the roller lifter block? I'm looking to 302 swap a 65 mustang and was wondering if the block can be fitted with intakes and cylinder heads from the time period? Trying to build vintage looking engine with some "modern" internal updates.
To answer that question - yes, those components will interchange - BUT!!! You may (will) need to change the harmonic balancer and rewire to the 351W configuration, probably need a new timing tab as there are three different versions called A, B. or C. You will also need to change to the OE '65 timing housing for a fuel pump boss and pulleys. You will also need a new and hopefully something better then that POS distributor vacuum advance system. The oil pan and oil pump pickup need to be changed as well. Later standard or GT40 heads would also have hardened valve seats for no lead gas. My '31 has a '99 crate engine converted to carb, mech fuel pump. IIRC, the distributor installed gear height may be different on the late motors. DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST!!!!
This is a very interesting video on the 302 small block engine. But I still can't find info about why my 302 engine oil filter is way bigger then my sister engines oil filter. Mines a 89 and hers is a 92. If anyone knows more about this please let me know.
The original filter for the 302 is a FL1A oil filter that screws to the block . If it’s remote mount with an oil cooler, it might be a different size. If her Mustang is a 5.0, it should be an FL1A also. Ford lists this oil filter as factory for all 302s from 1979 to 1995
I purchased a 1966 Mustang Coupe with a 302 in it. How do I tell if the 302 is a boss 302 are not. If it is not a Boss 302, what is the hp for the other 302's. Thank you very much Charlie
Boss 302 heads are counted valve regular 289 heads are in line valve. That’s how you tell the difference. I also have a video showing the boss 302 heads they are massively different from regular 289 or 302 heads. The boss 302 only came with an aluminum four barrel intake, and a very rare, in-line carburetor intake. If your 302 is a two barrel, it’s not a boss if you can bolt your valve covers onto another small block, Ford it’s not a boss
Is it even possible to make the later 302/5.0 blocks into 4bolt main blocks? With Chevy 2 bolt blocks, it isn't hard because the material is there, but with these Ford blocks, I'm not sure.
Between 1969 to 1975. If you do find a Mexican 302-equipped car, it is likely to be a late 60's or early 70's Torino or Ranchero, both of which were occasionally outfitted with such engines and have some collector value.
You’re right the boss block has an advantage with the four bolt mains, but the hydraulic roller engine actually has thicker main webbing then any of the other blocks some say it’s actually stronger in the main web area and if you put ARP studs in it and a main girdle you’re doing pretty decent with it I’m not sure if any of the small block Ford Windsor blocks outside of the Ford racing blocks that are available will hold too much more power than 600 hp without splitting down the middle of the block
@@pyleup yeah I bought this block from a guy who swapped to the dart block in his 93 cobra, it came with arp bolts and a girdle and it was magnaflux and was fine, the guy showed me a video it was pushing 700 HP with about 23 lbs of boost and I asked how did it not split in half, he told me that the 5.0s will handle a lot of power but are limited to 6500 rpm because high rpm is what splits the block, I'm looking for 450 HP n/a with the eventual addition of a 150 shot. Also should I use moly lube or oil on those arp main bolts?
ARP bolts usually come shipped with moly grease And I just put a little of that grease on one side of the bolt threads before I install it for a main bolt or a head bolt. Just make sure you chase the threads with a clean, tap or die and blow them out with compressed air to make sure there’s nothing in there that would obstruct threads. ARP has a specific Molly lube for bolts. You should be able to order some. I would send you a picture of it, but CZcams does not let us post pics in the comments.
@@pyleup well they are used bolts but maybe I can order some but yeah I also saw that they want only 65 ft lb, is that correct? Sorry I just would like to do this right
I think 65 foot pounds is correct for small block fords on the head bolts, but you can look them up online they give out torque specs for small block fords. ARP bolts, sometimes have their own torque specs per.ARP.
The 1969 Boss 302 had a cross drilled steel crankshaft. These started to break and the service replacement crankshaft and the 1970 Boss 302 crankshaft were not cross drilled. I had a non-cross drilled 1970 Boss 302 and the crankshaft in that one broke. I'm not sure what the deal was with their steel. I believe the Boss 302 main caps were made of a different iron from the cylinder blocks, where the other 302 main caps were made of the same iron as the cylinder blocks. Certain Mexican cylinder blocks are stronger than a lot of US-made cylinder blocks.
I used the cross-drilled cranks in my drag race Boss 302s and reved them past 10,000 with zero failures. I also used prepped stock Boss 302 rods ... not those overly-large and heavy 302 OHO Trans Am rods.
@@johnjohnsn7633 I'm sure a properly made steel crank with 302 journals should hold up fine, but forgings can and do have flaws. Maybe the 1969 and 1970 cranks weren't checked that well. There was an issue with the 1969 cranks breaking and as a result, they switched to non-cross drilled cranks in 1970. All of the service replacement cranks for both years are not cross drilled. My original 1970 Boss 302 crankshaft did break and it wasn't cross drilled, so there were other problems with them. I'm sure most of them are likely good, but forged connecting rods and cranks often have some number of minor flaws that are allowed. Usually "micro cracks" can be found in all production pieces.
Looks to me like you forgot the 5.0 8.750" deck height block. You can tell them because the cylinder deck sits a little higher than the water pump boss, like a 351w does.
Great video. Was the Mexican block casting as strong as the rest? When i was young i worked with a fella that had a 360 Mexican engine in a 60s ford truck an he said the heads an block castings were weak on them
I think the Mexican block was as strong as the rest of them. A lot of racers were using the Mexican block over the standard block, but I personally cannot attest to that.
It is true that the 302 will split down the middle if you’re over 500 hp and boosted, but at a lower horsepower level, the boss 302 will handle higher RPMs than the others With its four bolt Mains and steel crank. they do make a valley reinforcement for the 302 so It can handle higher horsepower
THE 5.0 ROLLER BLOCK HAS THE THICKEST MAIN WEBS AF ALL OF THEM-EVEN THOUGH ITS 2 BOLT-CAN BE USED WITH A GIRDLE----MEXICAN BLOCKS WERE EXPRESSLY USED IN TAXI CABS--FYI
According to DV, the early flat tappet blocks are stronger but the main caps are not as beefy. He has a video on modifying for reliable 1,000HP. He gives a number for the machine shop that mills for 4 bolt caps with a machined key. The outer bolts are splayed. On top of this the lifter valley is reinforced with a high tensile plate doweled and bolted. Then the block is filled with cement to the bottom of the water inlet holes from the water pump.
Mexican blocks also came in E300 Club Wagon vans in the early 1970s, and the 5.0/roller blocks are the weakest of the 302/5.0 blocks. Many of these late blocks split under higher boost or nitrous applications( high horsepower). These blocks came from casting patterns modified to lighten the weight of the block by removing iron - which, of course, reduced strength. On turbo or nitrous builds, if the customer didn't have deep pockets and came in with the late block, I would have them find a pre 1975 block, these hold up much better under high horsepower applications - so far we haven't split one at over 620rwhp for street builds and some of our racers won't tell us how much power THEY'RE making!
LOL... My 302 block has 4 bolt mains, screw in freeze out plugs... Ooooh it has a C8 casting number... Crank wise BOSS 302's had 2 steel steel cranks a cross drilled in '69 and a solid steel crank in '70... '69 heads had 2.23 intakes '70 heads had 2.19 intakes... I have the Trans Am block, '70 heads, '69 crank... BOSS 302's used 289 HIPO rods with a special piston from TRW...
Sounds like you know your stuff Hope you can put it together someday I just finished building the 1970 Boss 302 and it’s going back to its owner soon you can check it out on my channel. There are videos of it running.
Thank-u, block needs to be tanked, needs to be over bored, I have Ford OEM valve gear for it, new OEM pan and windage tray, Form OEM valve covers for it, friend gave me an extra set of re-coned rods, want to build it factory, not sure of cam to use, I also have the factory intake, thinking of stuffing it into my Ranger... Haven't found who makes pistons for it... I even have a small block C6 for it too, lol, hey thanks for the thumbs up... Joanna... @@pyleup
Brand ICON PREMIUM SET | IC686.030 Centered pin. Designed for factory or clone Boss 302 with Cleveland style heads. ICON Forged Piston - Ford Boss 302 Rod 5.155 Dome -6cc V8 This is what I used in the 1970 Boss 302 rebuild worked great .
I have never seen a steel 302 crank that wasn't cracked i will always run a cast crank. Chevrolet had the same problem with the steel 327 cranks. I also have never had a 327 cramk that was steel not be cracked.
Ford never made a 302 from 1980 to 1983 they only made 255s. so don't use a block from these years they have the same dimensions as a 302. but the web castings are thinner and can't take the punishment of a 302 block. they have the same bore, same rod size, shorter throw on the crank, flat top Pistons, smaller cam grind, for gas mileage and smaller ports, and valves in the heads. with very small runners in the aluminum intake manifold. you can change some of these things and turn it into a 302. but 300 HP is about the limit for them after that they explode. They're great stockers if you want really good gas mileage ( only 140hp ) but that v8 rumble.
The 82 Mustang had a 302 2v, rated at 157 hp. Ford advertised that "The Boss Is Back". I had one, it was pretty fast, especially in its day, but I traded it for an 85 GT with the Holley 4v and 5 speed manual. I loved my 85!
Wrong … … the 255 had a very SMALL bore ....... & heads with little tiny valves You can't put 302 heads on a 255 . . . . Because the valves will hit the side of the cylinder wall
Yes you are correct. Being in my 50’s filming this video by myself and getting all the information out is hard I will make an outline next time to cover more details
Some Forgotten History... Ford cast a new 351w 9.2" deck sbf xe race block in 1966 (XE 93532) which got to just over 400CI in 1969 for Can-Am racing. This is were the later "351C" got most its spec's from when B knudsen pushed his own "Oldsland" inspired version through screwing up the 351W blocks development... goo gle "351w xe block" for more info. Things would have turned out very different if H Ford did not let B Knudsen screw up the SBF development program as the production 69 351windsor block was destined to become a 390/400ci eng & neither H Ford, Shelby and some sbf Ford engineers were very fond of his oldsland inspired design. H Ford should of Fired him sooner than he did, for more info... goo gle "biggest-possible-windsor-stroker fordmuscleforums"
My grandfather was in charge of skilled trades at the Windsor Ford plant when they started making the 302 in the late 60s. I still have his overalls and some tools he made by hand at work. That plant is still producing engines.
So cool. Thanks for sharing
Hence the name Cleveland vs wisnor or Romeo or lima
Si me imagino y que me estás 😊😊😮😊😊😊😊😊😊😅😊😮por
Thanks for sharing your grandfathers story. I love it when history comes out in the comments.
That’s awesome!👍
The 80s block has locator dowls on the timing cover bolts (2) to center front crank seal.
The boss block has 1/2 inch main bolts and head bolts vs 7/16 inch in regular 302
The boss block has screw in freeze plugs too.
I know every body calls them freeze plugs but that's not what they are for. The holes are cast in the block and heads for removing casting sand, these holes also get bored in two operations to finish size so the plugs press in. I do know on at least some engines the center sand shake out hole will be used to locate the block for drilling and reaming the Main Manufacturing Holes. These holes, typically 5/8 to 3/4 (16 to 19mm) are used along with the Pan Rail to locate and provide datum poi to and surfaces for all following machining operations.
Yes sir. Correct term is core plug. One of them common incorrect slang terms. Like hot water heater. Lol
@@richceglinski7543right, like people calling a high speed drill a drill bit. Or my favorite one, unloosen that bolt. Lol😅. Rates up there with the good old 3/4 cam
The cap on the Mexican was probably larger because it was a truck engine. We would get Mexicans into the plant whenever we had a shortfall from Cleveland Foundry. It was a very easily machined casting because it was pure cast iron.
Great job on describing the differences on the 302 blocks. I had a 289 C code in my first 1965 Mustang Fastback, I blew out the press in oil galley plug behind the timing chain gear revving it to 6,000 rpm, and ruined the engine using a high pressure Mellings Oil Pump. When I later built a 302 Mexican Block, I tapped out the oil galleys for screw in plugs. If I recall, Shelby used a 302 Mexican block in the 1968 GT-350's.
Screw in oil galley plugs are always the best way to go the boss 302 that I just got done building has screw in oil galley plugs . The service block that was in the Boss 302 with the dropped valve. Someone had put Loctite on the galley plugs and I couldn’t remove them. But that block is out of service for now so that will be someone else problem. That Boss block that’s in the video .
Loctite can easily be broken by heating the area with a torch, if that is all that is holding them in. 👍
Good to know the comment section and these videos is a great learning tool for a lot of people
One very noticeable difference between the 70's block and the later roller block was how thick the roller block is between the crank journal area and the cam bore.
Yes, that’s very true
They made 302's in the Ford explorer's till 2001. I heard those blocks were good.
Good flowing heads also.for stock.
Hi Again! Had to come back and revisit. I forgot about the Mexican block. Next video you do on these, you might be able to add a Chinese block into the mix the way this Country is going. Take care. Cheers from Motown/Dearborn.
Early 302,260,289,221 and 351w had a casting lug for the clutch z bracket pivot point and the early 1963 to 1965 221,260 and early 289 had a 5 bolt bellhousing patern and only 2 core plugs per side.
Good info on the clutch z bracket boss and 5 bolt, that was '65, '66-ish?
@@vrm86gt pre mid year 65 on the 5 bolt
@@frankinjeep1194 thanks!
There are some other small differences like steam hole placement and webbing thickness but they are very minor
5 bolt bellhousing is same as 200/250 ci ford six
Had the German four cylinder pinto motor in my 1927 Bugatti replica,fast and scary for a eight hundred pound car, how it came to Canada is beyond me. Now I want to look for the Mexican 302, along with the Chevy 302 out of the 69 crapmaro , thanks for this video on different blocks it was highly informative....👍 👍 🇨🇦
You’re welcome
I’ll take the one on the engine stand, thank you very much!!😉🤣🤣🤣
I put together a 289 (+.030”) for my ‘65 Galaxy. It had 2-bolt mains and a cast crank. I had it very nicely balanced, and used Moroso main studs. Also ran a solid lifter cam and roller rockers. Had a built C4 trans with a 3000 RPM converter feeding a 9” rear with 4.11 Richmond gears (eventually swapped them out for 3.73s). That thing would turn 7,000 RPM no sweat.
Never got the opportunity to race it, but it sure did surprise a lot of people!!😉🤣🤣 Wish I still had it!🤷♂️
Loved working on the “baby Windsor” in my machine shop days. They were pretty light and easy to pick up and move around by hand.
Very cool!
Excellent engines, no holds barred.
Thank you there is a lot of things i didn't know about the blocks. I now will be looking for a Boss 302 block for my next build. Thank you for the info.
No problem!
No need to look for a boss block, a quality aftermarket block will be better stronger and the same price or less than a boss block
I find Mexican 302 engine blocks mainly in pickup trucks and they don't seem hard to find if you search 302 pickups for them. The cylinders in them don't seem to wear as well, like due to the iron used. Some people claim they are "stronger" because they heavier and thicker.
Thank you for that info! Very nice to know. Which you could have thrown in some casting numbers when showing the blocks. Thanks for sharing.
It’s getting hard for me to remember all the facts on making one of these videos but yeah there’s a lot more info to know about these blocks that’s for sure even with the casting numbers the boss 302 block in this video is actually a 1971 service replacement boss 302 block
In the late model roller blocks. The lifter bore is taller than the early block.
Not all roller blocks came with a roller cam. Some came with a juice cam.
Thanks for the info
usually they call the flat tappet ones "non-HO"
@@KingJT80 true, even though they are a roller block.
Early blocks had two piece rear main seal and a hole for the Z bar. After the recast blocks had a one piece seal and no hole.
Thanks for adding more info .
There’s also a tunnel, port 302, which is essentially a boss 302 block except it has much thicker cylinder walls and a standard boss block. It can be bored out 80 over with no problems. It’s casting number is C8FE.
Good information too bad it wasn’t a factory production block mass-produced it would have been a hit
@@pyleup well actually they did wind up in production cars. Several years ago I had a friend sell me a 69 boss 302 motor. Casting number on it was a C8FE, which was a tunnel port block. The tunnel, port heads turned out to be a flop, and the road racing circuit. The ports were too big and did not create enough velocity at lower RPMs. I would think they’d make a great drag racing motor as they love high RPMs.
Actually Car and Driver magazine did a road test comparing a Tunnel Port 302 , '68 Mustang to a 302 Z28 Camaro RS . Interesting article as Ford showed up with a set of Goodyear's on the Mustang that didn't fit very well , and that nobody had ever seen before . At the end of the test , the editor called Goodyear and asked them about those tires . The official answer was " we don't make a F 60 x15 " , to which the editor replied " well I've got five of them downstairs on a Mustang ". Goodyear finally confessed to making them, but were very unhappy with Ford for letting the cat out of the bag . They weren't even sure if they were going to produce and sell them at that time .
@@lorenzomaximo1818:
The early 1969 Boss 302s were built with the 1968 Tunnel Port blocks and Cross-drilled steel crankshafts. The crank was never serviced by Ford Parts and Service, nor were the 1969 Boss heads with the 2.23" intake valves. All replacement heads were the 2.19" late 1969/all 1970 castings and came with four 2.19" intake valves in the box.
I almost completely forgot about the Mexican and Boss 302's they were a rare site 20yrs ago!
Great video ! I know i have a old magazine that did the similar walk thru! Love the video !
Thanks for watching!
I remeber reading that the Mexican block also had higher nickle content..It was supposed to be similar to the period race only ford blocks...tho my memory is foggy and cant find that magazine which im refrencing.
Ford said in an article that no blocks had higher nickle but I don't believe that but the mex. Block is softer so it could expand for the heat in Mexico. Every one it taken apart had really bad wear in cylinders its hard uo get one to go .030 , I took 4 apart only 1 will clean up at .030 other 3 need to go .040
@@lloydtrivette7505 that doesnt make any sense...Mexico isn't any hotter than Texas or Vegas..
There is no such thing as a "high nickel" block. This is a myth.
I remember something about the Mexican blocks being higher nickel content as well, but I must have read that about 3 to 4 decades ago???
@@peterhart4301 There has never been any block ever that had any significant nickel content. Tin possibly but no nickel.
Thank you for this wonderful informative video,💯👍🏻😃
My pleasure!
In Australia we had a 302C version which followed on from the 302W.
is a 302C closer to a 302 boss?
Basically the Australian 302C is a de stroked 351C with a different crank with shorter rods with 2V heads.
The 302 Boss is a Windsor style block with Cleavland style heads.
thanks, good info!
The 289 hippo and the Mexican block were pretty much identical
They are very similar.
Great Info!!! Thank you!!!!!
You bet!
The Boss crank was cross drilled for 1 year only in 1969 but not 1970 from what I have seen
I think that’s true
@@pyleup
It is: that was the 1968 Tunnel Port crank which went with the C8FE Tunnel Port block of the early '69 Boss 302s.
You've left out the Australian 302. 9.2 inch deck, 6.025 inch rods. 30 pounds more metal in the block than a Windsor 5.0 , native cleveland closed chamber heads.These 302c are a stronger 302 Boss and they're considered the poor cousin of the 351 so they're completely disregarded as a performance engine. On paper they make good sense. 32 pound crank vs 58 pound 351 crank, better rod ratio than Windsor 8.2 inch deck. I've owned a few of these and they're as fun as ____.
Australian 302C was just de-stroked 351C plain jane 2 bolt main block. Reason why block was heavier because timing cover part of the block. Big chuck of cast iron covering timing chain so they used plate just to cover timing chain. 351w had higher deck height of 9.5 vs 351C/302C of 9.2. 302W had deck height of 8.2
@@pdmustgtd1013 Still it was a 302
@@mickvonbornemann3824 great logic there wow........ Really 2 completely different blocks but with your logic because it's just 302 somehow all of its the same.
@@pdmustgtd1013Chevy also had a 302, I'm sure he thinks that's all the same too.
@@pdmustgtd1013 The title was “Ford 302s” not “302 Windsors”. Besides the Boss 302 is basically a hybrid of the lighter, better oiling Windsor block with the better breathing Cleveland heads.
Hey there loved the comparison.. My memory might also be a little foggy here, though I remember something about the earliest 882-83 HO's had some issues with cranks breaking near the front two cylinders. That 351 cam firing order was tied in there, somehow.. Let the "Interwebs" kind of folks finish this thought 🤔 for us ...!?!?!?
Thanks for your information and your input on the sbf motors . Nice shop and man cave thanks for sharing….. curious if I gave you info on a 408 w I built and haven’t installed it yet but curious about what kind of horsepower and torque Im possibly looking at ? Can’t afford to do a dyno run and I’m probably 2 hours from the nearest shop that could dyno it.. it was a 4 yr build due to my income lol.. but it’s together finally.. once again thanks for your videos I enjoy watching them 👍
You could always shoot me the information and I can give you a guess but just remember it’s just a guess at horsepower and torque
There are also horsepower programs you can put on a computer to plug in all your info
And remember, if you plan to drag race, the vehicle, weight, ET and speed will give you an approximation of horsepower
@@pyleup I have heard often about using drag strip results for estimating horsepower. What I don't know is whether the calculated horsepower is at the crank OR is it wheel horsepower, and is that "net" horsepower like manufacturers currently use OR "gross" horsepower figures like used up until 1970 for crank horsepower without engine accessories?
Difference between blocks thickness on front mains from oil galley tap and between cam journal and main.
There’s plenty of Mexican blocks around, you just have to know where to look for them.
Boss blocks had those screw in freeze from the factory which we saw & you forgot to mention ;)
I’m 52 years old and sometimes trying to record these CZcams videos and spit out all those facts it’s hard for one guy to do it by himself but you’re right I missed it. i’d be a lot easier if I had a Teleprompter in front of me just reading from that. I never thought of myself as a guy standing in front of a camera, spitting out a bunch of facts. It sure would be easier with a couple of beers in your hand a group of guys standing around the car talking about it.
Nice collection 😢
The very obvious, especially for us Aussies is the 302 Cleveland block. Far more common than the 302W
So that’s an engine that I have not seen is it a D stroked 351 Cleveland or a completely separate Cleveland block with a 3 inch stroke and 4 inch bore.
yeah, de-stroked to 3 inches with a 4 inch bore. much lighter crank too.@@pyleup
Well none of these are clevelands so that's irrelevant.
@@Terminxmanhe was talking 302 ford engines and that is what a 302 Cleveland is .
@@pyleup I'm not so sure U can call it a destroked Cleveland , it is an original production motor produced by Ford Australia ( a 4.9 litre as Ford labelled it , the 351 was labelled a 5.8 on the aircleaner and front fender up untill they stopped producing them in 1984/5 they produced them from 1973/4 to 1984/5 a long run and they were in everything from upmarket taxis , family cars, utes, wagons , panel vans, Aussie F100 to F350s ) if you call a 302 Cleveland a destroked Cleveland then you must call a 400 a stroker Cleveland ! I'd love to have a stock line up of 302C, 351C and 400 and see stock power outputs , it would be interesting to see what 50 ci extra makes on very similar almost the same engines !
OE Boss block was a stronger iron and 85-98 302's had different firing order with different lifter bore diameter I believe. The change in firing was to relieve strain on #1 main I think. Not sure of the price point of a new SVO Boss block or if it's a direct replacement.
Well the one thing I would have certainly made mention of, especially for us pheasants who can't afford the $$$ stuff, but will make a big difference when building a plain old 302.
There were 2 different standard production blocks, concerning deck height. Somebody mentioned an 8.750 deck... that don't count. That's a Dart block, stuff most of us pheasants can't afford. So that being said-
68-73 had a 8.206 deck height
74-77 had an 8.229 deck
78-up returned to the 8.206 figure
This is really important to know because its gonna screw up your compression figures big-time, getting these mixed up.
FYI the 1977 302 was the biggest pig in the lineup with the lowest compression ratio ever had at 8.2:1(could be less) as it was the only year the tall deck was fitted with the huge crummy 69cc heads. Prior to that was either 63cc or 58cc units on the tall deck.
Other than that, great job on the comparison!
Thanks for your comment. I kind of consider this kind of a history video and I appreciate all the comments. I don’t know all there is to know about the stuff I just share what I do know and I appreciate comments like yours.
If someone takes the time to watch the video and read a lot of the comments, I think there’s a lot to learn
@@pyleup totally agree! Your video hits a lot of the major points. I happen to have a '68 Mexican block and you are spot on.
Of course, Fords are not the most popular compared to GM or Mopar, and they do alot of strange things so there's much to learn if one hasn't been in the Ford world much. Been a Ford guy since I could walk, as was my dad, with a brief stint in the Mopar world. So I just try to share as much info as I can to hopefully help out another soul confused of Fords strange ways. Once you get use to Fords "Better Ideas", its not so bad. 😁
Interesting. That would explain why my 75 Mustang ll with a 302 had huge vacuum leaks when I installed a "previously road tested" aluminum intake manifold. I doubled the intake gaskets and that solved the issue, and it lasted for over 50k miles.
@@61rampy65 if your intake required 2 gaskets on each bank, thats more than likely an intake thats been cut to fit on another block that was probably heavily decked, requiring the intake cut to match it.
The 8.206 and 8.229 both utilize the same intake manifold. The taller block was just machined in such a way that it still accepted the short deck intake.
Now if you were to zero deck, or in the case of the .229 block, cut as much as it allows.... then you may need to shave down the intake as well, only slightly.
These days the choices are really between the non-roller block, the roller block, and aftermarket performance blocks.
That's true
Different firing orders too
The cam changes that not the block the 351 and 302ho used the same cam to shift loading to the thicker rear main bearing from the front to decrease crank wear
Australia had a 302 Cleveland
The Aussie made 302 is different again from the US Cleveland blocks. Iron crank, from memory big caps but 2 bolt as are the 351 in the majority. So there are at least 5 different 302 blocks from Ford.
Good information this video only generally applies to the US but if there are unknown versions of this, I’m glad for the information
@@pyleup The Detomaso's use Aussie engines exclusively so you will come across them in the US
I helped a friend replace a 302 in a picup truck. The engine was a year or two different than the truck and a long block assembly. We found out the hard way that there are like 3 different firing orders that will all start & idle but nothing more. Some of them would run wired 180 out. I'll stick with my "Mr. Potatohead" Chevys where everything fits the same holes from 153 to 454 CI.
The roller blocks are weak making any real hp and really do better with a girdle. Do love the Windsors though. They're a mighty mouse. 331ci is an amazing setup. I recall a few guys here making up to 700hp with production 351w blocks no prob.
The hydraulic roller block has less defined oil passage ways in the casting. Have they put more metal in the front main web? Or just moved it?
The hydraulic roller block has a lot more material in the main web area of the entire block than the others
Thanks for making a comparo of 4 blocks in 4 min and not 30...or an hour
Sucks so many gotta nit pick your vid instead of thanking you for what info you put up.
Glass half full!
I appreciate your comment Making these videos is a learning process and yes there was a lot more I could have said about these blocks Hopefully I will get better as time goes on
You forgot to mention the screw in freeze plugs on the boss block, which only came on a boss block.
Yep
Some other differences that matter, IMO.
The '68 to '80 blocks are really good blocks. In '80 or '81 Ford had to backpedal some, as they had intended to be super politically correct and dump the 302 after the '79 model year in favor of the horrible 255. Mustang fans and buyers threw a fit, especially if they test drove anything with the worthless 255 for power(pardon that overstatement). They made changes to the 302 block casting for lighter weight, meaning weaker. I took my '74 standard 302 block to a machine shop a few years ago, and you could tell they hadn't seen anything but roller blocks for a long time. When I picked it up, the machinist showed me in detail where weight and strength had been cut out of the later blocks by comparing mine and a '93 block. These days you hear people saying a 302 block will break in two if you have around 550HP. I guarantee you'll be hard pressed to find a '68-'79 block that breaks apart at that power level. Back in the OHO and FMS catalogs of the '80s, Ford, conservative as they were, said the production standard 302 block was good for 600HP, while the Boss was good for 1200. They recommended max overbore of .030 or .040 on the standard block and .060 on the Boss block. My '70 Boss is comfortably at .060 over.
Saying the Boss block is a regular 302 block with 4 bolt mains and screw-in core plugs is not true. Weigh a bare one and compare it to the weight of a bare standard block. Significant weight difference. Even more of a difference between the Boss and a standard roller cam block. Then look the littlest Boss over closely. Thicker webbing/bulkeads, thicker cylinder walls ... on and on go the improvements over standard (including over the 289HP and rare 289HD).
Like with the Boss 351 and especially the Boss 429, Ford said that they lost money on every Boss 302 they sold. But they got the B302 & B429 homologated for Trans Am and NASCAR, and people on the street scene learned that the B351 was the strongest "small block" of all. Richard Holdener, with a huge mass of videos available on youTube, is one of those who compared some Fords, including a stock spec Boss 351 clone, to all the famous SBCs of the day with dyno testing. B351 made the most power, B302 was second, and then came the Chevy stuff. Of course, the B302 was lacking quite a bit of torque so maybe that's not a fair statement for real-world usage by me, but it's true, for horsepower.
Thanks for making a good informative comment that taught me some important things about Ford small blocks. Especially about the one year only Boss 35. I never knew Ford made a 351 C type engine with 11 to 1 compression and a .550 lift solid lifter cam.
Now let's talk about Holdners dyno test and Chevy comparison. He should have run exhaust manifolds on the Boss 351 clone because headers will always help any engine, especially any 351 C type engine. So his Hp numbers were a bit high because of that and the Holley carb. I am surprised at him bad mouthing the 289 the way he did as well. He tested what he called a" Shelby trimmed" 289 and just barely broke the 300 hp mark.
Anyway his Chevy comparison engine was the Lt1 350 of 1970 which had 10.5 to 1 compression and a hydraulic cam that was about 470 lift. A true small block Chevy comparison engine however would have been the 1964 L84 327 with 11 to 1 compression and a solid lifter cam although not the 550 lift cam of the Boss 351. The L84 with mechanical fuel injection made a true 375 Hp through exhaust manifolds so it would have been an equal comparison and about the same horsepower with less cubic inches.
Either way thanks for the Boss 351 lesson. It goes with my Pontiac Super Duty 455 special engine manufactured off site of GM and the much ignored Ram Air 3 Pontiac engine which was under rated at 366 Hp.
As a side note Holdner did mention that the Chrysler 340 6 pack engine was also in the same category of most powerful small blocks, it's a shame those are so rare and difficult to find and get on a dyno to see how it would compare.
@@crazyoilfieldmechanic3195 He ran headers on every one of those engines in this test series, if you notice, so I don't think any had any advantage over the others in this comparison.
I thought the key things about the Shelby 289 were; It was the smallest engine of the bunch by quite a bit, so really didn't didn't belong in this comparison without something like a 283 to compare to, and it was the only engine in the comparison that had horsepower and torque close to what the builder claimed for it. They rated it at 306HP and it actually put out 302HP in this test. The DZ302 Chevy and the Boss 302 were waaaaay underated, by comparison. I understand why they did it back then, but...
He did test the carbureted version of the 327 you mentioned, that being the "365 HP" version. Not a pro on Chevy stuff, but my reading says that the L76 327 had all the same specs/parts as the "375 HP" Fuelie except for running a carb instead of FI. I've seen quite a few tests of the 375HP Fuelie done over the years in the various magazines, but had never seen one, even with headers, that actually made 375. Maybe I missed a key test. You're right about the B351 having more lift than the top dog 327 cams, but as per normal, the Chevy cams had a lot more duration, so each had their idiosyncracies that gave advantages (maybe).
Ah, talk about sandbagging your HP numbers, Pontiac were pros at it. I recently re-watched a yT video comparing a 409 Chevy to a 421 SD, and how close they were to their claimed numbers. The "409HP" 409 showed about 406HP, while the "405HP" 421SD cranked 488HP. Talk about underating your weapon!
Good stuff, and fun to reminisce about. We wouldn't have what is around now without the original muscle car era's killers.
@@Zekais he showed a picture of the hipo 289 on the dyno with exhaust manifolds was why I made that point is all. Something I had learned about that Ram Air 3 Pontiac engine was that they came factory with bleed down hydraulic lifters because the cam had crazy duration and the lifters kept it from killing the torque at low rpm but helped it breath up top. I also read where in the know Pontiac guys would buy that cam and lifters set from the dealer to get their base 400 engine to have a seat of the pants noticeable increase in power. Kind of like cutting the piece of metal off the linkage of Ram Air 3 Firebirds so the carburetor 4 barrels would open all the way !!!! Pontiac didn't want the Firbird tromping on the GTO !!! I will look for some 375 hp 327 dyno vids or articles because I know they are out there. Now tell me if the 427 side oiler that came in a Thunderbolt had plugged threaded holes for attaching a dry sump oiling system like the 427 in the GT40.........
@@crazyoilfieldmechanic3195 Yeah, I wondered if the 289 picture was from a stock photo grab-bag or what, since the only engine in that comparison that came stock with tubular headers was the Shelby 289, with the famous Tri-Y headers. Oh well...
I've had quite a few FEs over the years, but am not an expert on them really. Too much conflicting info for me. I've read that all the big FE stuff (SOHC, Hi-Riser, side-oiler, etcetera) became avilable in '65, but also that the Thunderbolt had a side-oiler, though it was a '64 model. I'll have to leave it to real FE pros to answer that one, like Barry Rabotnik(sp?) at Survival Motorsports. It was dumb luck that got me my Boss 302 back in '75. The really expensive, rare stuff like a side-oiler? No luck dumb enough for that. Have never owned a side-oiler, except (sigh) in my dreams.
@Zekais There is a guy in Ames Oklahoma that has about twenty five 60's and 70's race cars in his small museum. He has 5 cars with Cammers in them and 7 with high riser 427 side oiler engines. He is kind of poor as you can see lol. I asked him about it and he didn't know but said he thought all Cammers had the drilled passages for dry sump. I looked the best I could at 2 of the Cammers. One on a stand and one in an early 70's funny car and I couldn't see any large plugged holes for it. I just know that all 427 GT40's had dry sump oiling and that the blocks were made for it and not modified for it so I don't know. I guess it will have to be a question for "Mr Cobra" as he has several original SC 427 side oiler Cobras. As an also, his naturally aspirated 289 competition Cobras most definitely put out 500 hp. A far cry from the 306 hp of a mid 60's Shelby Mustang as Holdner mentioned them having.
There were also 302s made in Cleveland and a Windsor I believe from Canada.
I have seen examples where the Mexican block main cap fasteners failed - this was a normally aspirated "built" engine it used ARP studs instead of bolts - they believed it had to do with the quality of the iron used in the block casting the threads in #2, #3 and #4 literally disintegrated
Do you know what power level they were at? so the treads failed Not the caps.
@@pyleup the threads in the Block failed allowing the studs to separate from the block - I only saw the remains of the engine it was normally aspirated aluminum heads single plane intake I don’t think the compression was outrageous it was used for road racing purposes in a 1967 Mustang
So I guess the sustained higher RPM might’ve got to it do you know if they used a girdle for the main caps that may have helped in this situation?
@@pyleup if I recall correctly the tops of the caps were machined flat on the top and there were some kind of steel supports that sit on top of the caps and help clamp the main bearing cap down evenly - there was no full “girdle”
Hello sir thank you for your video I have a 1968 ford 302 out of a ford van it has orange valve springs not orange stripe but completely orange springs I can't find any information about this do you know anything about this
I have seen some factory valve, springs, painted orange or they might just be aftermarkets. There’s nothing really special about them though. If you go and look at my video on how to ID a 289 Hipo you will see it has Orange valve springs I think a lot of the factory valve springs from Ford were Orange.
Had a 68 J - firing order differs from some others
Have you looked at one of the newer Boss 302 blocks Ford has been selling?
The newer boss blocks are great if you’re shooting for a high horsepower build
...is the cobra version of the 302 block any different in terms of construction than the GT 5.0 version? Just curious
If you’re talking about the 95 and 93 cobra 302‘s the only thing that was different were the cylinder heads they were a better flowing cylinder head and had roller rockers but the blocks are exactly the same as the regular 5.0 the head we’re Gt 40 and GTP 40 cast-iron cylinder heads from Ford. They were some of the best factory heads for the 302 made.
What years were the 351W blocks cast with all of the 'attributes' for a roller block?
I’m not sure about the 351 Windsor, but the 302 started with the roller block in 1985 and ran through the end of the production of the 302 in 97/98
@@pyleup I know the 351W roller block 'officially' began in 1994. However, I have heard that the roller blocks castings began in late 1991 - early 1992, they just weren't fully fitted with roller cams/lifters until '94. I was hoping you might know for sure. Oh well. Thank you for answering back. It's annoying when folks abandon their videos after a month or so. I appreciate the follow-up.
F4TE block 1993-1/2 to 1997. Many have issues with cracks in the cam bearing webs
@@pyleup 302/5.0L produced thru 2001
You didn’t mention the screw in core plugs ? And I may be wrong but didn’t Ford go with a one piece rear main seal as well on the later rollers and what not that was produced? You are right though about the scarcity of the boss 302 engine, if someone said they had one I would be skeptical and say show me !
You are right I knew about all those things but making a video and doing it yourself is hard for someone getting older. I need to do an outline on paper before I push record.
How about the Coyote block? You probably don't have one of those laying around for a comparison. But, I'd love to see one of those.
The coyote is very impressive motor steel crankshaft four bolt mains plus cross bolts I built a 2017 coyote stock . It was installed in a fox body mustang went 11:91 in the 1/4 mile 115 mph
I have a 1986 302. It's the only one Carol shelby said was worth building. Extra webing.
The roller blocks do have extra material in the web area. You can see it in this video but unfortunately I forgot to point that out in the video.
@pyleup is there any difference in a 1993 5.0 and a 1998? ive heard theres a difference in the distributor gear or something of the sort but im not sure, rlly what i need to know is if a 1998 will swap easily into a 1993 truck
The 1998 302 would have a crank trigger coil fire system versus a distributor gear but essentially the blocks are still the same. As long as you had your 1993 stuff you should be able to retrofit the 1998 block into it but remember it will use a crank trigger instead of the distributor fire so you’ll just have to take that stuff out of it Reinstall a proper cam with the driver gear for the distributor. A 1998 Explorer 302 should have GT 40P Heads, the block in this video is a 1998 block
@@pyleupgotchu, thnx
Is the 1996 f150 5.0 block any good for rebuilding alittle hotter? Ive got a complete engine...
Yes to 450 hp
What was the reason for changing fireing order on the 302 and what performance did it make if anything
That is a question that I cannot answer
Because the first (mid 80s) hot rod Mustangs used the cam out of a 351w.
Supposed to take pressure off number 1 main because 1 and 5 fires after each other that's what ford said . I think the serpentine belt pulling on front of crank also has something to do with it
I had a 85 302 with a lunati .496 int. .512 exh. 351w firing order. A standard 302 cam fires cylinders 1 and 5 first putting a lot of force on the front of the crank.
A 351w cam changes the firing order making the 302 a H. O. And more torque.
Looks like the front of the roller block is thicker. The block doesn't have a visible bulge from the oil galleys and main bolt thread castings like the older block to its right. I wonder if some measurements actually support this observation.
Would be cool to measure and compare the thicknesses of the main webbing between these too.
Yes, the hydraulic roller block is thicker in the main webb area than the other blocks
I have an Australian Falcon 1997 ute with the 302 in it. I was hoping maybe someone is their sufficient material to modify a two bolt block to suit the four bolt main cap ? What other differences are there between has the Boss block over the two bolt standard block without the obvious cam and head differences
The thing to do with the 302 and the 2 bolt mains is use main studs and a girdle to make the bottom end stronger it’s probably the best you can do with the two bolt main. There’s just not enough material to convert it to a four bolt main
I thought as much thanks for that. It’s been a stout little motor and I have given it some therapy and it keeps on ticking.
Question in regards to the roller lifter block?
I'm looking to 302 swap a 65 mustang and was wondering if the block can be fitted with intakes and cylinder heads from the time period?
Trying to build vintage looking engine with some "modern" internal updates.
You don’t have to have a Modern roller 302 to run a roller cam in an older motor they make the conversion roller lifters for those older 302s and 289s
The roller cam would be the only advantage of the Modern 302, and you don’t have to have that to run a roller cam and an older motor
But to answer your question, I do think of Modern, 302 can run the cylinder heads of an older engine and the intake
Ok thank you for the information@@pyleup
To answer that question - yes, those components will interchange - BUT!!! You may (will) need to change the harmonic balancer and rewire to the 351W configuration, probably need a new timing tab as there are three different versions called A, B. or C. You will also need to change to the OE '65 timing housing for a fuel pump boss and pulleys. You will also need a new and hopefully something better then that POS distributor vacuum advance system. The oil pan and oil pump pickup need to be changed as well. Later standard or GT40 heads would also have hardened valve seats for no lead gas. My '31 has a '99 crate engine converted to carb, mech fuel pump. IIRC, the distributor installed gear height may be different on the late motors. DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST!!!!
This is a very interesting video on the 302 small block engine. But I still can't find info about why my 302 engine oil filter is way bigger then my sister engines oil filter. Mines a 89 and hers is a 92. If anyone knows more about this please let me know.
The original filter for the 302 is a FL1A oil filter that screws to the block . If it’s remote mount with an oil cooler, it might be a different size. If her Mustang is a 5.0, it should be an FL1A also. Ford lists this oil filter as factory for all 302s from 1979 to 1995
Just curious, what would a Mexican block have been originally found in?
vans and trucks
Thanx.@@pyleup
I purchased a 1966 Mustang Coupe with a 302 in it. How do I tell if the 302 is a boss 302 are not. If it is not a Boss 302, what is the hp for the other 302's.
Thank you very much
Charlie
Boss 302 heads are counted valve regular 289 heads are in line valve. That’s how you tell the difference. I also have a video showing the boss 302 heads they are massively different from regular 289 or 302 heads. The boss 302 only came with an aluminum four barrel intake, and a very rare, in-line carburetor intake. If your 302 is a two barrel, it’s not a boss if you can bolt your valve covers onto another small block, Ford it’s not a boss
Didn't boss have the cleavland heads
Yes, the boss 302 did have Cleveland style heads. Actually, the Cleveland was copied off of the boss 302.
The weirdest one i seen was in a 79 Lincoln Versailles that had a crank sensor in the rear.
Must’ve been an early TBI system they did a lot in the early 80’s
@pyleup no it was carb but the weirdest carb I ever seen
Why does the Mexican 303 block have beefier mains?
That’s probably a question for the 1960s Ford engineers I’m not sure we’re gonna get an answer to that question
Is it even possible to make the later 302/5.0 blocks into 4bolt main blocks? With Chevy 2 bolt blocks, it isn't hard because the material is there, but with these Ford blocks, I'm not sure.
A main gridle is the best way with the 302
And main studs.
@@pyleup I see. Makes me wonder how those newer Godzilla 7.3 motors are for a retrofit into say, a fox body.
With some fabrication work the Godzilla motor would make a great set up And it would make way more power than the 302 is capable of.
What years were the Mexican fee
Between 1969 to 1975. If you do find a Mexican 302-equipped car, it is likely to be a late 60's or early 70's Torino or Ranchero, both of which were occasionally outfitted with such engines and have some collector value.
I picked up a 74 mexican block several years ago. Supposedly, they're comparable in strength to a sportsman block.
A local racer uses 68-69 302 blocks in his eighth mile car. He says they are the strongest. Not including the boss of course.
I bought a 93 cobra 5.0 block that was notched for a stroker and with an engine girdle, man that boss is hands down beefier
You’re right the boss block has an advantage with the four bolt mains, but the hydraulic roller engine actually has thicker main webbing then any of the other blocks some say it’s actually stronger in the main web area and if you put ARP studs in it and a main girdle you’re doing pretty decent with it I’m not sure if any of the small block Ford Windsor blocks outside of the Ford racing blocks that are available will hold too much more power than 600 hp without splitting down the middle of the block
@@pyleup yeah I bought this block from a guy who swapped to the dart block in his 93 cobra, it came with arp bolts and a girdle and it was magnaflux and was fine, the guy showed me a video it was pushing 700 HP with about 23 lbs of boost and I asked how did it not split in half, he told me that the 5.0s will handle a lot of power but are limited to 6500 rpm because high rpm is what splits the block, I'm looking for 450 HP n/a with the eventual addition of a 150 shot. Also should I use moly lube or oil on those arp main bolts?
ARP bolts usually come shipped with moly grease And I just put a little of that grease on one side of the bolt threads before I install it for a main bolt or a head bolt. Just make sure you chase the threads with a clean, tap or die and blow them out with compressed air to make sure there’s nothing in there that would obstruct threads. ARP has a specific Molly lube for bolts. You should be able to order some. I would send you a picture of it, but CZcams does not let us post pics in the comments.
@@pyleup well they are used bolts but maybe I can order some but yeah I also saw that they want only 65 ft lb, is that correct? Sorry I just would like to do this right
I think 65 foot pounds is correct for small block fords on the head bolts, but you can look them up online they give out torque specs for small block fords. ARP bolts, sometimes have their own torque specs per.ARP.
How would I decode 289 hipo...
Go to my channel I made a video on how to decode and identify a 289 Hipo
here is a link czcams.com/video/cZHPkt6JbH4/video.html
The 1969 Boss 302 had a cross drilled steel crankshaft. These started to break and the service replacement crankshaft and the 1970 Boss 302 crankshaft were not cross drilled. I had a non-cross drilled 1970 Boss 302 and the crankshaft in that one broke. I'm not sure what the deal was with their steel. I believe the Boss 302 main caps were made of a different iron from the cylinder blocks, where the other 302 main caps were made of the same iron as the cylinder blocks. Certain Mexican cylinder blocks are stronger than a lot of US-made cylinder blocks.
Thanks for your input. Good information.
I used the cross-drilled cranks in my drag race Boss 302s and reved them past 10,000 with zero failures. I also used prepped stock Boss 302 rods ... not those overly-large and heavy 302 OHO Trans Am rods.
@@johnjohnsn7633 I'm sure a properly made steel crank with 302 journals should hold up fine, but forgings can and do have flaws. Maybe the 1969 and 1970 cranks weren't checked that well. There was an issue with the 1969 cranks breaking and as a result, they switched to non-cross drilled cranks in 1970. All of the service replacement cranks for both years are not cross drilled. My original 1970 Boss 302 crankshaft did break and it wasn't cross drilled, so there were other problems with them. I'm sure most of them are likely good, but forged connecting rods and cranks often have some number of minor flaws that are allowed. Usually "micro cracks" can be found in all production pieces.
should have shown the casting numbers
Looks to me like you forgot the 5.0 8.750" deck height block. You can tell them because the cylinder deck sits a little higher than the water pump boss, like a 351w does.
mechanical fuel pump ?
Yes all 302 but the roller block had an electronic fuel pump for the fuel injection
Great video. Was the Mexican block casting as strong as the rest? When i was young i worked with a fella that had a 360 Mexican engine in a 60s ford truck an he said the heads an block castings were weak on them
I think the Mexican block was as strong as the rest of them. A lot of racers were using the Mexican block over the standard block, but I personally cannot attest to that.
@@pyleup Mexican blocks have a higher nickel content than the others.
you forgot the Australian 302 Cleveland
Yes you’re right I probably should’ve titled it 302 Windsor but I’ve never actually seen a 302 Cleveland because I live in the USA.
Can you please explain how to convert a 5.0L Ford Explorer EFI engine to run a carb?
The hydraulic roller block is missing a water passage on the passenger side gust above the water pump. Why?
I think it was a revision Ford did to the block on the hydraulic roller block. They just didn’t need that passage.
If you do find an original Boss 302 69 or 70 , be prepared to spend the $.
We found one 1970 block 3K
@@pyleup Not Bad I’ve been seeing these blocks complete and running for over 10k .
Mexico or 4 bolt same weak front main, its not the mains that give, so y splerge on a factory same weak castings
It is true that the 302 will split down the middle if you’re over 500 hp and boosted, but at a lower horsepower level, the boss 302 will handle higher RPMs than the others With its four bolt Mains and steel crank. they do make a valley reinforcement for the 302 so It can handle higher horsepower
THE 5.0 ROLLER BLOCK HAS THE THICKEST MAIN WEBS AF ALL OF THEM-EVEN THOUGH ITS 2 BOLT-CAN BE USED WITH A GIRDLE----MEXICAN BLOCKS WERE EXPRESSLY USED IN TAXI CABS--FYI
Looking at the main webbing of the blocks, it does appear that way
I have a Mexican block that’s stock for our 78 F150 as far as I know
and that was what I was wondering-the main webs. Also can the MX main caps interchange with the other 302 blocks?
According to DV, the early flat tappet blocks are stronger but the main caps are not as beefy. He has a video on modifying for reliable 1,000HP. He gives a number for the machine shop that mills for 4 bolt caps with a machined key. The outer bolts are splayed. On top of this the lifter valley is reinforced with a high tensile plate doweled and bolted. Then the block is filled with cement to the bottom of the water inlet holes from the water pump.
Mexican blocks also came in E300 Club Wagon vans in the early 1970s, and the 5.0/roller blocks are the weakest of the 302/5.0 blocks.
Many of these late blocks split under higher boost or nitrous applications( high horsepower).
These blocks came from casting patterns modified to lighten the weight of the block by removing iron - which, of course, reduced strength.
On turbo or nitrous builds, if the customer didn't have deep pockets and came in with the late block, I would have them find a pre 1975 block, these hold up much better under high horsepower applications - so far we haven't split one at over 620rwhp for street builds and some of our racers won't tell us how much power THEY'RE making!
LOL... My 302 block has 4 bolt mains, screw in freeze out plugs... Ooooh it has a C8 casting number... Crank wise BOSS 302's had 2 steel steel cranks a cross drilled in '69 and a solid steel crank in '70... '69 heads had 2.23 intakes '70 heads had 2.19 intakes... I have the Trans Am block, '70 heads, '69 crank... BOSS 302's used 289 HIPO rods with a special piston from TRW...
Sounds like you know your stuff Hope you can put it together someday I just finished building the 1970 Boss 302 and it’s going back to its owner soon you can check it out on my channel. There are videos of it running.
Thank-u, block needs to be tanked, needs to be over bored, I have Ford OEM valve gear for it, new OEM pan and windage tray, Form OEM valve covers for it, friend gave me an extra set of re-coned rods, want to build it factory, not sure of cam to use, I also have the factory intake, thinking of stuffing it into my Ranger... Haven't found who makes pistons for it... I even have a small block C6 for it too, lol, hey thanks for the thumbs up... Joanna...
@@pyleup
Brand
ICON PREMIUM SET | IC686.030
Centered pin. Designed for factory or clone Boss 302 with Cleveland style heads.
ICON Forged Piston - Ford Boss 302 Rod 5.155 Dome -6cc V8 This is what I used in the 1970 Boss 302 rebuild worked great .
I have never seen a steel 302 crank that wasn't cracked i will always run a cast crank. Chevrolet had the same problem with the steel 327 cranks. I also have never had a 327 cramk that was steel not be cracked.
Never heard such a thing about chevy steel cranks.
Ford never made a 302 from 1980 to 1983 they only made 255s. so don't use a block from these years they have the same dimensions as a 302. but the web castings are thinner and can't take the punishment of a 302 block. they have the same bore, same rod size, shorter throw on the crank, flat top Pistons, smaller cam grind, for gas mileage and smaller ports, and valves in the heads. with very small runners in the aluminum intake manifold. you can change some of these things and turn it into a 302. but 300 HP is about the limit for them after that they explode. They're great stockers if you want really good gas mileage ( only 140hp ) but that v8 rumble.
The 82 Mustang had a 302 2v, rated at 157 hp. Ford advertised that "The Boss Is Back". I had one, it was pretty fast, especially in its day, but I traded it for an 85 GT with the Holley 4v and 5 speed manual. I loved my 85!
I also had a 1983 mustang GT 302 with 175HP
@@pyleup I believe 83 was the first year for the Holley 4v carb.
You’re right it was the first year for the Holley carburetor
Wrong … … the 255 had a very SMALL bore ....... & heads with little tiny valves
You can't put 302 heads on a 255 . . . . Because the valves will hit the side of the cylinder wall
289 special galaxy?, 289 Hipo? K code, 289 Challenger D code? Missed a few we did!
You do understand this video is about the 302 not the 289. If in that video there is a video link on how to ID a 289 Hipo which I also did.
Sadly the one thing they all have in common, they still split in the cam valley.
Yep if there over 500 hp that,s the risk. They do make a valley brace for the 302
@@pyleup Richard holdner did a video about it saying he thinks it more about the harmonics not so much about a certain power level but yea basically.
Screw in freeze plugs on the Boss?? One piece rear main seal on “ newer” 302’s??? You did not cover those items.
Yes you are correct. Being in my 50’s filming this video by myself and getting all the information out is hard I will make an outline next time to cover more details
Mexican version has very low output
The point would be to throw away the heads and intake keep just the block and then install AFR Heads a Stroker kit , good intake and enjoy 450 HP
The block is the only thing that matters in the Mexican version
Ford is famous for this stuff only to be outdone by chrysler. One of the reasons chevrolet has been so successful keep it simple.
Some Forgotten History... Ford cast a new 351w 9.2" deck sbf xe race block in 1966 (XE 93532) which got to just over 400CI in 1969 for Can-Am racing. This is were the later "351C" got most its spec's from when B knudsen pushed his own "Oldsland" inspired version through screwing up the 351W blocks development... goo gle "351w xe block" for more info.
Things would have turned out very different if H Ford did not let B Knudsen screw up the SBF development program as the production 69 351windsor block was destined to become a 390/400ci eng & neither H Ford, Shelby and some sbf Ford engineers were very fond of his oldsland inspired design. H Ford should of Fired him sooner than he did, for more info... goo gle "biggest-possible-windsor-stroker fordmuscleforums"
Thanks for the info