Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

Last 302?

2K views 22 replies 11 participants last post by  mercman1951 
#1 ·
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>
 
See less See more
1
#4 ·
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>
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#9 ·
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>
 
#10 ·
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>
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#15 ·
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>
 
#16 ·
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.
 
#18 ·
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
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
there are *MANY* headers and exhaust manif. which WONT fit on those P heads
there are only SEVERAL that do... including some generic block hugging headers from summit a buddy gave me last week.... too bad they won't fit in a fox engine compartment....
 
#23 ·
As an update, here's my engine combo so far...remember, I'm not looking for a dragstrip terror here. Just a reliable cruiser.

11/2000 engine build date. It's a 5.0, one of the last for the USA. I believe it was destined for an Exploder. Somewhere down the line it went to Roush for "testing".

Budget engine on a budget...

This block has the "Explorer" timing cover, balancer, and SHORT water pump/pulleys. I will re-use the '88 Lincoln balancer and pulleys, the front cover will be replaced with one that has a fuel pump boss (new from Summit), and the water pump is brand new and for a 1990 Lincoln Town Car w/5.0 from NAPA. I ran the number (55-4052), it's a non-reverse pump for a 5.0.

I plan to use a non-traditional radiator, possibly one for a '85 Chevy pick-up.

I bought a Ford Motorsport timing cover that has the fuel pump boss, as I want to run a mechanical pump. I did not pay what Ford wants, I got a deal thru Summit. I bought the cam eccentric for the double roller timing chain, so I can use the mechanical fuel pump.

I took the stock valve covers off, there is no doubt this motor has 0 miles on it and has GTP heads. The Mustang shorty's I bought (from an '87-88 car) will work fine with the plug angles.

I have the part number of the sparkplugs neccesary to make these heads fire ('98 Explorer), available at any local auto parts store.

The 1978 2BBL intake I have bolts up just fine. I have rebuilt this same 2BBL carb 5 times on 4 different cars over the years, and all have worked well after the rebuild. They are a no-brainer. I anticipate nothing less on this rebuild. EGR bypass is easy.

I will be using a non-reverse (standard) rotation water pump that I have new laying around. If need be, I also will use the double roller timming chain that I also have new in the box laying around if this stocker (Explorer parts) prove to be incompatible with the fuel pump eccentric.

The timing cover with the fuel pump boss from Ford states that either normal or reverse-rotation pumps can be used, so I will test that theory.

I have the Fel-Pro timing cover gasket set ready to install.

The engine will be fired by a Petronix "plug n' play" 2 wire billet dizzy, and the matching "Flamethrower II" coil. No EEC IV or Duraspark wiring needed.

The entire car will be wired with an "EZ-Wire" kit. I have a Chevy S-10 Column for wiring simplicity & a tilt wheel bonus.

This engine should be a reliable performer with this fairly tame combo. I have no idea what it's horsepower potential is with the iron 2BBL intake and 2BBL Ford/Autolite carb, and I don't care. I'm more worried about making the AOD work with the carb and not burning it up. I'm going for reliablilty and smoothness in my Kustom, and I think this engine will fit the bill. With the 302/AOD combo, I expect nothing less than 15-20 MPG on the streets, and even better on the highway. With the roller cam, I expect nothing less than 150,000+ miles out of this engine with normal maintenance.

Eventually, as finances allow, a 4BBL Edelbrock intake will be in the future. I already have the 4BBL Edelbrock 650 carb, I just need to rebuild it and mate it to a new intake.

If I hit the lotto, I'll convert all this over to F.I. and be done with it

After I get the 2BBL setup running, I'll give you all a full report.

Thanks for the input so far-

Mercman

Visit my site: http://landyachts.homestead.com/firstpage.html
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top