[mercman1951]

Hi All-

What year was the last year for the 302? I have a guy with a virgin looking 302 he claims was a "test engine" for the 2000 Mustang.

In 2000, they used the 4.6. I don't have the numbers off the block (yet).

I'd like to know what the engine is, but they guy doesn't know much about it. He is 99% sure it will run but will not go to 100% The engine is in bare iron, it has factory black stamped valve covers, and what looks like a fox oil pan on it. It had no intake, but it has the water pump installed, and it has two heater hose tubes coming off it that point to the passenger side- parallel to each other. It also looks to have a sensor gear mounted behing the crank pulley. It looks like a brand new engine and the guy claims it's never been in a car.

Here is a link to the engine:
http://detroit.craigslist.org/pts/137690769.html

I want to swap my 87 EFI Town car engine out of my project ('51 Mercury) for this engine and convert it over to a carb/Duraspark, but since I can't even tell what engine it is, I'm wondering if I should bother. The price is right.

Any input is appreciated, Thanks

Mercman


http://landyachts.homestead.com/



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mercman1951 on 3/2/06 12:02pm ]</font>

 

[tonys10sec306]

the last year for a 302 in a mustang was 95. that enginecame out of a explorer

 

[dfree383]

If the price is right then whats the question?

 

[mercman1951]

The price is right for what I need...If it's something I can't use, the price is a pain in the ass, 'cause I'll have to try and get rid of it...he wants $700 for the engine as it sits. Bear in mind I have little history to go on. If this was a "test engine" maybe they flogged the **** out of it, I don't know- hell, the owner doesn't even know what he has...If I can't use it, is there enough interest on here that will take it off my hands for $700 with no if's and's or but's?



Thanks for the input so far-

mercman1951

_________________
http://landyachts.homestead.com/

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mercman1951 on 3/5/06 1:46am ]</font>

 

[gork1rogues]

He can't even spell 'motor', run away.

 

[1 Bad 88 GT]

It appears to be a an Explorer engine with P heads on it. It can be used in place of your current 5.0, you just may have to swap over the pan, WP and damper.

 

[mercman1951]

On 2006-03-03 16:28, gork1rogues wrote:
He can't even spell 'motor', run away.

LOL, Yeah, I noticed that too!

 

[dbu8554]

Well the 302 stopped in 2001 In the explorer but the black from what i understand is still the same from 87 on up so its crap in my opinon i say get a older 60's or a mexican 302 block

 

[Neal]

On 2006-03-03 19:08, 1 Bad 88 GT wrote:
It appears to be a an Explorer engine with P heads on it. It can be used in place of your current 5.0, you just may have to swap over the pan, WP and damper.

Yeah you can tell by the 4 "stripes" on the front of the driver's side head that it has P heads. That makes it a 98 to 2000 engine, IIRC. Its a decent engine, roller cam (really mild lift and duration though), hyper pistons and the P heads flow better than any other factory iron small block head.
What GT says is right, it will have a 50 oz balancer and the wrong water pump and oil pan for an early car.
$700 seems reasonable if it appears to be low miles or not run.

_________________
Neal
68 XR7 & 68 M-100

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Neal on 3/16/06 9:07pm ]</font>

 

[mercman1951]

I ended up picking it up. There is a stamp on the block under where the intake goes printed in ink that reads 11/06/2000.

It's replacing an 88 302 EFI engine and I'm going to go with a carb on it. This is for a cruiser, not a dragstrip terror, so the guts will be fine for now.

The engine is near new, came on a specially-built crate from a professional outfit of some sort. The name Roush was thrown around but who knows for sure.

Looking into the block (there is no intake on it) it looks to have been run maybe for a few minutes or hours on a dyno, there is almost no sign of use at all, and I don't think it's ever been in a car. There are no markings that it ever had any front asscessories installed on it.

All in all, I think I made a score for only giving $650 for it.

I will change out the oil pan, but the rest should be good to go with the parts I have for it already. Just need a dist. with a steel grear and I should be set.
Thanks for all the reponses

mercman1951

_________________
http://landyachts.homestead.com/

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mercman1951 on 3/17/06 1:22am ]</font>

 

[FEandGoingBroke]

Sounds awesome! Great buy!

FE

 

[dfree383]

Souds like a winner !!

 

[raheed2]

[No message]

 

[raheed2]

If this engine has the gt40p heads on it. Which were standard on the late model explorer engines, It will take special exhaust manifolds as ford changed the spark plug angle on the late model 302 heads and your current ones will not allow enough room for a couple of the plugs. There is an identifying GTPcast in at the end of the head.

 

[mercman1951]

They are those heads. I have a set of factory 87-up Mustang "shorty" headers I was going to use

I knew about this and put one of the headers up to the block for a look-see...didn't look like it would interfere.

...they won't work?

_________________
http://landyachts.homestead.com/

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mercman1951 on 3/17/06 5:12am ]</font>

 

[Neal]

They may work, especially with some short plugs, angle boots or a little dimpling. The P heads moved the plug closer to the center of the chamber and changed the angle. If the pipes clear the plugs enough to get a wrench on them that is good enough for me. Some standard headers will work and some won't sounds like yours will work.

 

[1 Bad 88 GT]

At worst you'll burn some plug wires up.


BTW just swap the gear on the dist you have to a HO gear.

 

[mercman1951]

Today I mocked up the shorty's.

All but one of the cylinders looked like they had plenty of clearance. The one that was "close" looks like a right angle boot on the plug wire would solve the problem.

Keep in mind, I was just bolting pieces on, and the engine is not installed yet...

...but so far, I can't see how on god's green earth the plug angles interfere THAT MUCH with the boot wires on shortys to necessitate a completely different shorty header design. Even if I have to modify the factory shorty's, it won't be worth whatever price I have to pay to buy the ones that are "made for" this head design.

In fact, the plugs seem angled just as much as the '87-'88 Headed non-HO 302 I've got already! If they changed the angle to better create combustion in the head on the GTP heads, the angle sure didn't change much from regular non-HO engines. I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison. Maybe I'm way off base, but after looking at my NON-HO engine and my GTP "equipped" engine, I see little difference. I was expecting something drastic, and the difference sure didn't "slap me in the face".

These Mustang shorty's aren't as far off as people would have you believe. Maybe it's a bad rumor, spread to up the sales of Ford Motorsports' "custom" shorty headers for the GTP (Explorer) headed engines.

I'm planning on running a standard set of Mustang shorty's, the assembly line variety, with modification if need be. They will run to a "off road" H-pipe exhaust tube setup I got off e-bay for a Mustang.

The guys running the fat 8.8+ wires MAY encounter a problem. But for what I intend to get out of this engine, it shouldn't be a problem for me. I don't plan to use those fat wires.

I can post pics if you would like to see what I'm talking about.


Thanks for the input thus far-
mercman

 

[1 Bad 88 GT]

The reason you're not having fitment issues with the headers is that you're using stock 5.0 headers not the aftermarket larger diameter/ larger flange headers that everyone else is swapping out the OEM stuff for.

 

[apolloxbgt]

Hey guy's newb from australia here,we got the ol' 302's untill midway through '02,last batch in the world.