This subject may have been beaten to death but I have not seen a head to head combat of the two camps. If it is post elsewhere, please let me know.
I am partial to the 3.4L V6 and find that my total car had to be upgraded to make the most of that engine as-is. As is, for street purpose, my almost standard suspension works well but for autocross, the car could use a little more suspension tweaks. If installing all the suspension upgrades and spend another $3-8,000 on the underside of the car- beyond what is already there, at that point when the car is already turning in some extremely fast times, a person could go a few tenths of a second quicker with a large engine. Mind you this is all theory and my car is not being moved from the 3.4L as it is VERY quick, I have always wondered why so many stop at a 302 if going for more power. I can't believe the end results are that much lower priced, just easier to find. I have also read the LSx can be as nearly heavy as the 302. Is there anyone out there with this experience?
Having worked with other conversions and engines, I have asked myself which I would do if I had to "keep up with the Joneses"- a Ford 302 or one of the various GM LS series engines.
Ford motor:
PROS
Available for many years and readily available
Starts with good power
Pulleys from "Exploder" make it short
Intake Manifolds from certain Mustangs make it shallow/ fit the MGB supposedly
Headers and install kit readily available
Slightly (Correction Requested!!) smaller than the LSx engine
Aftermarket parts available to bore and stroke out to about 5.7L
CONS
Heavy- needs alloy heads to get the weight down
Cylinder head mods costly
Need to get parts from multiple engines in order to fit decently
Probably need more parts car types to get a system to fit than the LSx engine
Requires firewall mods
Requires subframe mods
Ford manual/auto choices:
AUTO
-AOD
-Other
MANUAL
-T5
-T45
-T56 6 speed- I believe?
___________
GM LSx motor:
PROS
Light- no need for weight reduction items
Available for many (newer) years (than Ford) and readily available (but not as much as the Ford 302)
Starts with better power than Ford engines
Pulleys from multiple OEM car sources- (uncertain which is short and gives a good front timing chain cover configuration)
Intake Manifolds from certain vehicles make it shallow/ fit the MGB
Headers and install kit readily available
Slightly (Correction Requested!!) larger than the LSx engine
Aftermarket parts available to bore and stroke out larger
Two engines to consider 5.7L LS1 and the FWD 5.3L LS4
CONS
A little more up front on the 'barrelhead'
Truck engines are iron block- not worth getting into if the weight was the reason to avoid the Ford 302
Need to get parts from multiple engines in order to fit decently? (Correct?)
Requires firewall mod, more than the 302 (Correct?)
Requires subframe mods, more than the 302 (Correct?)
I haven't said keep the original heater in place (and steering rack) and still have a 50/50 weight distribution but that is another item that needs to be discussed.
GM manual/auto choices:
AUTO
-4L60
-4L60-E
-700R4
-Other
MANUAL
-T5
-T56 6 speed (large- but can fit)
Please let me know why you chose the engine you did and what you found the pluses and minuses were on either.
Hi Brian
my name is Bill my MGB is a early 74 (chrome bumper) I wanted a small block chevy just because I am a chevy man, I was telling my brother and he said he had a 2001 Silverado he wanted to scrap but he gave me the 4.8 because he just wanted to see if I could get it in and make it work well 2yrs later bingo and I love this car more everyday. as far as the cutting of the firewall from what I have read no more cutting than a ford I got rid of the efi in favor of the carburetor glad I did, but had to go with a hood scoop the weight difference is definitely small she handles great I wanted a mini hot rod look so I raised up the front and rear by 2 inches I put a spacer between the cross member and the body in the rear I added 2 leafs to a set of new springs and made new shackles 2 inches longer so I got the stance I wanted and didn't have to cut the cross member for the oil pan as far as the handling I put 195 65 r 15 in front and 215 60 r 15 in rear also traction bars in the rear so she really sticks to the road I put a piece of square tubing from the front leaf spring mount to the center cross member for reinforcement but found out later that I didn't need it but I left them. the tranny is a turbo 350 I am getting 17-20 miles to the gallon some day I will get a 700r but now this really works I did have to raise the tunnel by one inch and hammer a little bit on each side I put a hurst promatic shifter with a cable works great well I love this car 0-60 4.9 sec around 300 horses plan on recamming her and bumping up the hp by about 75 with what I want to do good luck with your build keep us informed
100_1593.JPG
100_1604.JPG
100_1602.JPG
Brian, I think it's more a matter of timing than anything else. Ford 302's were/are readily available and very reasonably priced long before LSx motors fit those criteria. So, while similarly sized, a few folks started making parts to make installing the 302 easier. Steve Carrick came up with and started doing headers, then Ted Lathrop started adding the motor mount option on his IFS. Later Pete Mantel and Bill Guzman started doing more complete kits.
To date, no one has done a similar kit for LSx motors. So, at least as far as I know, folks are on their own with motor mounts, headers, and any cross member modifications. I wouldn't hesitate doing those now, but i know when i started my project that stuff intimidated me. I'm sure it does others. So, as soon as someone does a kit, you'll probably see the LSx motors become as or more prevalent than Rovers or 302's.
It's been an interesting progression. Back in the 70's there were a few (very few) rumors of a factory V8 MGB using the Buick 215 but nobody knew anything about them. There actually were a couple of very early conversions in the country that had used the 215 and the SBF but they really didn't come to light until the last few years. In reality, the SBF conversion has about as old of a history as the 215, and the SBC wasn't that far behind, though it was (mistakenly) believed to be too heavy for the car. So these swaps go back to the early 70's and in the case of the 215 and SBF clear back to the early 60's. That's 50 years of MGB conversions now and this year marks a significant milestone.
A little less than 20 years back the V6 conversion began to make it's way in and met many differing views, but it filled a blank between the BOPR and the original engine and enough owners felt they wanted to be in that area between a spirited sports car and a muscle car than it succeeded well. And it has gotten much better. The SBC eventually gave way to the LS which rapidly became all the rage in custom cars of every type. If you managed to make any of the venues of the recent Hot Rod Power Tours you quickly get the impression that the LS has taken over the entire planet, and admittedly the reputation of the new kid on the block seems to be justified, as from all appearances it is an exceptional powerplant.
Which brings us to the bleeding edge of production engine development, the successor to the LS, the New LT1 with direct injection. And during all this time the SBF has been updated and modernized and can still be purchased outright from the OEM. The BOPR/SBB meanwhile has become an orphan, as have all the commonly used V6 engines, the ubiquitous V6-60, the Buick V6, as well as the lesser known Ford variety. How long the SBF will continue is an open question, as there seem to be no plans at Ford to continue with a pushrod engine of a newer design. But the dividing line between an older and a newer series of engine should properly be placed not at a usually arbitrary production start/end date, but rather at the date where advanced technology demands a redesign of such magnitude that the old cannot be easily reconfigured into the new. In truth, although a great number and variety of incremental advances have occurred in pushrod engine design over the past 60 years and more, the improvement of direct injection is the one single advance that is not capable of being retrofitted to the earlier engines without major design changes, and in this regard relegates all of the earlier designs to a common category. Regardless of the variations in things like roller cams, improved main seals, electronic ignitions, port injection and such, any or all of these improvements can be applied to virtually any pushrod engine built during that period, and as such they are all very similar. What is the major difference between the SBF and the LS? First, displacement, secondly an alloy block. But in terms of weight, about the same, with the advancements giving the LS greater block strength. The advantage of using the older technology when a new design comes on stage is always cost, and nothing more. So if you are cost conscious, and who of us isn't, then your choice between the 302 and the LS has to be based on your overall horsepower goals, or on your manufacturer's preference. A preference for the BOPR/SBB has to be based on perceptions of originality and/or weight considerations. A preference for V6s has to be based on economy concerns or a preference for the exhaust note of a six. Little else makes sense when dealing with an older technology.
As for the emerging technology, it is mostly a question of cost versus benefits. The new engine is going to be expensive, both to acquire and to install. But it will be cheaper to operate as well as more powerful.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/10/lt1-20121024.html
http://gasoline-electriccars.com/10/new-450hp-small-block-v8-for-2014-corvette-features-direct-injection-cylinder-deactivation-continuously-variable-valve-timing/
But as a production engine the cost should be within reach, though perhaps not during the first year's production. It can be expected that GM will make this engine and a suitable control system available to the performance industry in the hopes that it will catch on like the LS did, so at this stage of the game one would have to consider it as a viable option when planning a future MGB conversion. The question then becomes, is the benefit enough to justify the cost? Obviously that would be a very individual question and we have seen where this question would definitely have a positive answer in some of our more top end conversions. I think there is no question at all that in a car such as Terry's or Dan's GTs this engine choice would be easily justified. Or in a car such as the MG-Roadmaster. And there are quite a few more builds in this range of quality where this choice would be a simple one. But where would the dividing line fall? In all probability it comes down to actual cash outlay and installation complexity in terms of the control system. But we are certainly going to see this swap, the only question is who is going to be the first to do it.
Jim
I haven't owned or built either a 302 or an LSx, and I don't feel qualified to discuss their differences in detail, but my first impression is that the LSx engines have huge advantages over 302 engines in terms of their factory EFI and electronic ignition systems. Am I wrong? Enlighten me.
I like the way Chevy intake runners wrap across the vee, nice and low, and very cool looking... now if only Chevy hadn't screwed up and pointed their throttle bodies the wrong direction! (But they're reversible, aren't they? Surely someone must be doing cowl injection. No?) On the other hand, 302 EFI hardware sits so very high. Having the throttle body aimed to the side means you'll need an elbow right in front of it. No one can tell me that's one of Ford's better ideas. Based on Calvin's tech session on programming his LS1 EFI system... it appears to be a very similar process to what I'm familiar with from setting up MegaSquirt. Are the 302 systems that straightforward to tune? Jim may be right that direct injection is the future, but I think it's far clearer that carburetors are already obsolete for new builds. Therefore, the comparative merits of EFI systems are an important topic. Anyone care to discuss them?
" BOPR/SBB is an orphan", really ? 3 manufactures of aftermarket heads, new/improved blocks from Cosworth/coscast. I don't belive the rest of the world, has quite given up, on the RV8-just yet. The SBB crowd, could have been using TA heads, from day one, but either denied or ignored. Long live the Rover ! Onward, roverman.
An orphan in the sense that it is no longer in production by a major manufacturer Art. Everything you say is true, and the Rover will be around for quite some time yet, and performance parts are plentiful, but it's production run is over. In every sense it is the SBC of the European (and some would say World) market, but that doesn't change the fact that it has been replaced.
Jim
I keep wishin/hopin, some savy group of aftermarket types, will perfect direct injection, inclusive of the spark plug,(same hole). This could be big, for retrofits of pre D.I. engines. Cheers, roverman.
I think its fairly easy to modify and tune a fuel injected ford 5.0, but Curtis is definitely right that the manifold height is a major disadvantage. The 94-95 mustang intake fits under a chrome bumper hood (at least it did with the mounts I made), but it's the worst performing ford 5.0 efi intake that is available. If I started over (and who knows? Maybe I will) I'd do a budget LS with the iron block 4.8 or 5.3 and mate it to a t5 or MA5.
I wish I had the skill and equipment to make a custom efi intake for my 5.0 that was low and had a front throttle body (like the LS).
I don't know why people don't just throw away the top manifold and make a top box like Curtis did on his 215. Sort of like the GM performance RamJet system in this link. You could do the throttle body the other way for cowl induction also.
http://www.carcraft.com/howto/56398/photo_01.html
QuoteOn the other hand, 302 EFI hardware sits so very high
There's no law that says you have to use the factory EFI. I didn't, I used an Edlebrock unit and got by without a bulge in the hood (with a custom air cleaner). There's also no law that says you have to use EFI at all. The rumors of the death of carburetors are greatly exaggerated. I just received the current issue of the JEGS catalog and they devote a full six pages to carburetors. I didn't count the pages devoted to carburetor intake manifolds.
(http://www.britishv8.org/MG/DanMasters/DanMasters-BE.jpg)
This is my attempt to lower the overall height of my Ford. The baseplate is 1/2" alum that has been radiuses onto the lower manifold ports with a 1/2" radius. The plenum is essentially open with aluminum tubes used for crush strength. The lower manifold is an original '97 Explorer round passage type.
Dennis
plenumfront.jpg
According to an article in Hot Rod magazine http://www.hotrod.com/howto/113_0504_chevy_ls1_engine_basics/ the aluminum LS1 block weighs 116 pounds. By my own measurement, the Ford 302 iron block weighs 127 - only 11 pounds more. Not nearly as much difference as I would have expected. Since they both use aluminum front dress, heads, and intake, I would assume that 11 pounds would account for most of the weight difference between the two, meaning that the LS1 is not much lighter than the Ford at all. Not really enough to worry about.
Dan, You are right. The LS motors use a lot more aluminum thickness for strength where necessary. Plus they have more width and height than the Ford. Your fuel injection setup is the lowest profile. The LS4 that Scott is doing is the shortest overall length.
Thinking along the lines of an "it's already built" concept and trying to keep from having to do a bunch of work, I am tryig to determine which is MORE plug-and-play with the addition of what will end up costing more (with the false thought that both have the headers/mounts available= wrong but skip that point)
Going off my understanding, please correct me, but the LS series is somehow dimensionally larger?
If so- which direction?
The weakest LS engine still produces more than a strong 302 that was a factory built engine- not including crate engines with need to purchase intake, pulleys and everything else.
Also, the 302 would be an engine that, I would think, alloy heads are a good idea for handling and more power to get the engine up to LSx power levels.
I just want to get a handle on the best points of both engines for the MGB.
-BMC.
QuoteI like the way Chevy intake runners wrap across the vee, nice and low, and very cool looking... now if only Chevy hadn't screwed up and pointed their throttle bodies the wrong direction! (But they're reversible, aren't they? Surely someone must be doing cowl injection. No?)
Sorry for the delay on this Curtis. I knew I had bookmarked this somewhere.
(http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=18777&g2_serialNumber=2) (http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=18776&g2_serialNumber=2)
The rest of pictures can be found below:
http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=18766
That's very cool!
I built one a while back with a 4A-GZE and an Alfa transaxle that was crazy fast.
That LS version must be insane!
I want one bad.
Cheers
Fred
QuoteThinking along the lines of an "it's already built" concept and trying to keep from having to do a bunch of work, I am tryig to determine which is MORE plug-and-play with the addition of what will end up costing more (with the false thought that both have the headers/mounts available= wrong but skip that point)
Brian,
At the last meet, Pete Mantell mentioned that he has an LS kit under development....not sure of a timeline. FYI
Good to hear. Variety is the spice of life.
Is the width of the LSx wider than that of the 302? Less room between frame rails?
-BMC.
Brian, Here are deck heights for 5.0 Ford 8.206, LS Chevy 9.235. Ford overall height 27", width 26". LS overall height 28, width 25". Higher deck height makes the LS wider at the exhaust.
Thought I read it was a bit wider somewhere. On Scotts thread, it certainly looks like it too but then again, he is really getting that engine far back in the bay. When your going through the work to begin with- I suppose why not a little more!
So the LSx is lighter than the Ford 302 but when the 302 gets the alloy heads- teh weight is within ___ pounds. Probably not worth the weight difference if the money is spent on a set of alloy heads.
The 302 is about 1" narrower- or there about?
I haven't read anything about the angle of the ports on either nor any difference between cylinder heads of the various LSx series or the aftermarket or stock 302 heads. I would imagine this has some importance when considering header location and design.
-BMC.
Just for fun. This engine was going in to a 1965 Mustang one of the employees had. It was such a nice looking motor, I asked him to put it half way into this BGT and take a photo so we could send it off the the owner. Nice guys we are- teasing people like that.
-BMC.
BMCAutos_com-MGBGT302V8.jpg
Oh what the heck. The evening the Mustang was pushed in and the motor dropped in place.
Baker-Mustang.jpg
Here are the measurements of the Corvette version of the LS1. It is the second most compact LS next to the LS4.
(http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/292555d1303924902-ls1-vs-smallblock-dimensions-corvette-ls1-dimensions-2.jpg)
(http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/292556d1303924902-ls1-vs-smallblock-dimensions-corvette-ls1-dimensions.jpg)
If you count the LS4, which most people don't, there are basically 4 different engine lengths based upon the accessory drive setup at the front of the motor. Here is a comparison of the harmonic balancers for the other 3.
(http://www.nookandtranny.com/_derived/Info_LSx.html_txt_LSxBalancers.gif)
I measured the distance across the heads at the widest part just below the outer part of the valve covers and got about 20 1/8" give or take. This doesn't include the exhaust manifolds/plug wires. The length of the LS4 from the front edge of the harmonic balancer to the bellhousing mounting surface is 23 1/4". From the bottom of the harmonic balancer to the top of the throttle body flange on the intake was approximately 19 1/2".
Another thing to consider is the placement of the steering rack. With the LS4 the pulley has to go behind the rack. Would the truck pulley let the rack sit between the pulley and the timing cover? I suspect it might. If everything else lined up that would let the engine sit about 2" forward of where Scott has his. Someone should look into that, as it might simplify some things like firewall trimming and steering mods a bit.
Jim
hello it's me Mr. Ahlstrom I can't help but to chime in on this topic if a motor ways 25 pounds more or 30 pounds more I can't see the problem if it makes another 150 hp I'm pretty sure it can carry the extra weight I think the most important thing is how well does it fit the space under the hood Ford Motor's are narrow long skinny like British cars the LS motor the advantage that it has is a very strong bottomend if I was running an LS motor I would spray it no less than 500 hp nitrous the bottomend could take it I run a Ford Motor just because it was the best fit for the car and they're very cheap I just purchased a new block to build a new motor for my car this winter nothing wrong with the old motor but that doesn't mean I can't make one better I purchased a 69 boss 302 4 bolt main block for $100 I have already ordered the rotating assembly to make it 347 my plans are in 900 hp at 9200 rpm's and it will still be much cheaper than an LS motor and narrow to fit the car the day I no longer care about how the motor fits I will build for 426 hemi Mopar those are the motors I know best the other thing that I know well our old school motor setups I will not change over to modern-day fuel injection and all that crap until I go to the drag strip or out on the street and get beat by a car running fuel injection all the best drag cars without exception are running old-school holly carburetors or good old-fashioned blowers with holly carburetors don't get me wrong I think all the new high tech stuff is great but I still think all the old-fashioned low-tech stuff is fast.the block I just bought is old but it's small I will checked the weight of it when I get done grinding machining and cutting on it I will bet money it weighs less than an LS short block when I get done modifying it will still not be as strong as an LS block but it will take 1000 hp at 9000 RPMs all day long that's good enough for me
My goal in the spring is to go 1/8 mile in just two gears big solid roller cam and a very wide powerband the people at cam research Ford specialists assure me what I'm building should run 600 hp at 9400 RPM all day long plus nitrous my total cost for the upgrade using my flywheel balancer cylinder heads rocker stud girdles and other parts will only be about $1800 plus machine work which should be about 300 my good friend who bracket raises every weekend just got done changing his car over to an LS motor he says it runs great he says it should run two seasons instead of just one like his old stroked small block Chevy he said he does not think he would do it again because it cost $17,000 to make it run like his small block Chevy I guess I'm just old-fashioned maybe I'm just cheap but I believe the trick is how fast can you make it go without spending money everyone I know with an LS motor says yep runs great but it's not cheap if you want to really spend money try to build a new Ford modular motor that makes the LS motor look cheap
QuoteAnother thing to consider is the placement of the steering rack. With the LS4 the pulley has to go behind the rack. Would the truck pulley let the rack sit between the pulley and the timing cover? I suspect it might. If everything else lined up that would let the engine sit about 2" forward of where Scott has his. Someone should look into that, as it might simplify some things like firewall trimming and steering mods a bit.
Jim, I hope Bill Gaulin can respond to this. I believe he is using a truck motor and it looks like he has the truck accessory setup.
I don't believe you will gain 2" though. I would guess less than an inch and most likely you won't be able to get the engine low enough to fit under the bonnet. You will also have to deal with the huge bellhousing on the firewall side as well.
Could be Scott.
Tom, I'm not sure I buy the numbers you're using. Seems to me that the Ford guys who have been putting the 302 in Mustangs for ages are sort of hesitant to go over 5-600 horsepower because of the risk of splitting the block down the middle. At least that's what I've heard, and not that most of us would even want that kind of power. So maybe you'd like to tell us what your're doing different to make it live at 1000 hp?
Jim
hello 500 and 600 hp are not difficult with a stroked small block Ford there are only three blocks I know of that can take it the dart sportsman block is indestructible it's also $2800 the new Rouch boss block not sure what that costs but I know it's not cheap the other block is the 1969 boss 302 4 bolt main ford block that is what I just purchased the block in my car now is running over 500 hp and I have sprayed it 300 not for long periods of time for I know it will split the block that is why i am upgrading if for no other reason than to have peace of mind my new motor with a few slight changes mostly in the camshaft department will make huge hp on gas no limitation on RPM and it will take all the nitrous I can spray down its throat
Weak link in my new motor will be the head gaskets once you get into the seven or 800 hp range with the Windsor block regardless of size you need to start thinking about o ringing the cylinder heads all my friends tell me that as long as you watch the timing don't let it detonate you'll be just fine they say the guys blowing head gaskets are either adding too much boost leaning the nitrous off too far or adding too much timing or all of the above speed is an addiction the more you get the more you want
Anyway you look at it I could not pass up buying that boss block the guy that I bought it from builds 30 or 40 Ford race engines each year he knows what it's worth he sold it to me because he likes my car he thinks it's very cool he calls the British go cart personally I think he has the British car bug he's looking at this winner either buying a Heatley 3000 or an AC cobra kit car he told me he has the perfect motor for it it's a 351 base block from dart that he is stroking to 427 he's hoping for 775 hp on pump gas he says it would look good in a Heatley 3000 he thinks it would look small if he does the AC cobra Yep I think he's got the bug
hello Jim the question you ask is a very good one no one really knows what any block will take until you break it and then it's hard to tell which part broke first another question is what is spinning inside the block are they good lightweight forged rods are the I BEAM H BEAM are they the correct Bobwait for the crank are the Pistons lightweight was the balancing done correctly and then the best question of all or was it just put together by idiot
This might sound crazy but the bottom end in the block I'm running now is perfect the block itself is a late-model roller block thought to be the weakest of all the blocks if I can't find all the parts at the right price to build my boss block I'm going to put my new cam and lifters in the old block with the correct valve Springs and find out for myself what the Ford late-model roller block can handle it will explode it would be an interesting experiment to find out just how much it takes to make it blow it's possible I'll find out in the spring it's no big deal I have another block ready to go if you talk to old-timers they will tell you that castings by nature some are good ones and some are not the topic here is still LS motor versus 302 I would much rather have an LS motor they are probably three times stronger that is the most important thing in my book except for I don't think I could afford to build a monster LS motor I can afford to build a monster 302 + the fact I just don't like Chevys I grew up a Mopar guy this Ford Motor is quite a stretch for me
Joe Paisano a great engine builder told me once that tuning a motor is like making love to a woman you have to learn to massage them just right until they respond to your touch I must say this little 347 is the most responsive motor I've ever seen that little girl runs
Tom, You are right about the Boss 302 being the strongest factory block. All the earlier 289-302 blocks are stronger than the later 5.0 that they lightened up significantly. The Mexican 302 found in late 70's,early 80's trucks and vans is sought after because of thicker deck, heavier main caps, high nickel content and thicker lifter valley. A lot like the Boss block but 2 bolt mains. The splitting of the block only happened in the later 5.0's at over 700HP. Here is a picture of the Mexican block:
mexican302.jpg
Twenty five years ago, the Cleveland 302 was almost impossible to find parts for, and outrageously expensive. Maybe they are better now.
hey Larry that's interesting information I have two early 302 blocks the boss block and another 69 Mustang 2 bolt block the 2 bolt block was cast in November 1968 it was cast in the Cleveland factory when they were changing over to the 302 versus the 289 they had the Cleveland plant cast the blocks from mid-1967 to early 1968 a little heavier with longer piston skirts I've been told some of the 1967 289s will say 302 in the lifter Valley that friend of mine that builds Ford motors told me the Cleveland plant uses a much higher nickel content in the blocks he told me he didn't know about maximum horsepower but he said the Cleveland cast 302 2 bolt main block will spin eight and 9000 RPMs without a problem if the guy wasn't such a good friend doing me a favor I would sell my factory boss block build the two bolt main block with a good forged gurgle and have money left over I also really do want to find out exactly how much the late roller block can handle horsepower on gas nitrous and rpm's even if I blow it all apart I still won't know for sure which of the three killed it my last trip to the drag strip this year was a total bust it was only 38° I couldn't get enough fuel into it my Holly blue pump was at its maximum it leaned the car off real bad on a NOS 150 shot detonated it burnt tips off the plugs and did not hurt the motor one bit I am needless to say very curious as to what that 1994 block can take it is four years old it does not oh me anything
hey Jim I think you're right on the money with the 700 horse on the early block to bolt main with the gurdle that seems to be the opinion of most of the ford guys I have never seen that truck block I might have to take a walk through the junkyard on that one do you know if it was all the Ford truck blocks through those years or just some of them
Here's an interesting trick I learned at the drag strip this year some of the guys worried about protecting their investment in the bottom end of the motor they simply run cheap head gaskets so if the motor overrevs or detonates Or leans off on nitrous it blows the head gasket instead of breaking the bottom end I talked to quite a few people that seem to think that's the way to go I must admit it's a pretty good idea for low-budget weekend racing I'm just not done thinking about that one yet
> Twenty five years ago, the Cleveland 302 was almost impossible to find parts
> for, and outrageously expensive. Maybe they are better now.
Do you mean the Boss 302 or perhaps the 351C? The 302 Cleveland was an Australian
market only engine. It was a 351C block with shorter 3" stroke crank, longer rods
and closed chamber 2 barrel heads (Boss 302/351 style combustion chambers but the
smaller 351C-2V ports and valves).
Dan Jones
QuoteHere's an interesting trick I learned at the drag strip this year some of the guys worried about protecting their investment in the bottom end of the motor they simply run cheap head gaskets...
And if you're not sure that your head gaskets are cheap enough, you can use "all thread" from Lowe's instead of ARP head studs.
the two bolt block that I have looks like any other 302 Windsor block except it was not cast in the Windsor plant Ford cast them in the Cleveland plant for short period of time ford guys say that block is much stronger just because of the high nickel content my neighbor who was a Corvette guy claim some of the small block Chevy motors were also higher nickel content for a couple of years I am no scientist I have no idea what nickel content has to do with the strength of the blocks casting
And yes Curtis lowes threaded rod studs that was about my feeling when the first Mustang guy told me he runs cheap head gaskets like a fuse my feeling is if you're going to break it break it good then you get to build a whole new one one thing I know for sure nitrous drag racers if you give them 15 minutes most of them have enough jets in their toolbox to rip the cylinder heads off almost anything and then you enter in wagering . Peer pressure and male ego and you get something that drag racers today call grudge match racing it certainly is entertaining more than 50% of the Fox body Mustang racers at the track by my house are running Ford small blocks with either eight or 16 direct injection nozzles running what they mildly call to stage set up eight nozzles alone in the intake runner is more than capable of spraying 800 hp I feel like a little kid out there with my little nitrous express perimeter plate that only sprays 500 total the one young man I got to know at the drag strip calls himself the jack town Hustler he runs 392 small block does not tell anyone how hard he sprays it but I know from pitting next to him he's dropping over 3 1/2 pounds of nitrous in a eighth mile my car with 150 shot drops three quarters of a pound in a eight back to the topic 302 versus LS those LS motor guys spray more than anybody and they don't worry about breaking anything at least not the bottom end