Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: 85 302 to HO??? (Read 7130 times) previous topic - next topic

85 302 to HO???

Reply #15 –
Quote from: 88fiveo;405951
Bringing up an old one here. Hope Dragon got it together.

How about a 1988 T-Bird SO short block with a 1989 Mustang HO top end? I'm thinking '89 HO heads/cam and a carbed induction.....Same pushrods? Use '89 HO factory headers?

No. HO cam and heads on a SO will cause the valves and pistons to collide. You may be able to do one or the other. Only a putty test could tell. Pushrods would most likely be the same, however, Haystack is correct about testing straitness and length. As for the carb, you won't gain much if anything. Fuel injection is much more efficient. If you lived in a colder climate, keeping fuel injection would be a no brainer. If you keep the cat converters, a carb will be a big mistake.

85 302 to HO???

Reply #16 –
No cold - no cats......guess I will hold out for an engine rebuild to go with the better heads (alluminum) and bigger cam.  Just try the HO cam for now. Thanks guys. Fuel pump is . I have a running 289 with all the parts to convert it. No costs other than gaskets - which I would need anyway.

85 302 to HO???

Reply #17 –
You can use an HO cam and E7 heads with an SO block, probably even GT40/P heads, but I'd for sure check PtV with those.

Several guys here have SO blocks and HO cams and E7 or better heads.

Be doubly sure to check ptv with higher lift rockers, cams, etc.

Just get an explorer/mountaineer engine...you'll already have on it the good heads and intakes , plus pistons with valve reliefs.

Also, the '86 Stang had an HO cam, and pistons without valve reliefs...factory. valves were same size as the E7, and no ptv clearance issues... ;)
'98 Explorer 5.0
'20 Malibu (I know, Chevy, but, 35MPG. Let's go brandon, eh)

85 302 to HO???

Reply #18 –
Oh boy - what to do - what to do??? I guess it will add time (I'm not working on it at my place) but I will try the HO cam and heads....I will measure for clearance though.

85 302 to HO???

Reply #19 –
Yea picking up a exsploder motor is the ez way to go

85 302 to HO???

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Chrome;405958
No. HO cam and heads on a SO will cause the valves and pistons to collide. 

wrong, I have ran a SO short block, with E7's and an E303 cam in my old '88 XR-7 and no problems.

85 302 to HO???

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Chrome;405958
No. HO cam and heads on a SO will cause the valves and pistons to collide. 

 
wrong, I have ran a SO short block, with E7's and an E303 cam in my old '88 XR-7 and no problems.

85 302 to HO???

Reply #22 –
Quote from: 1WLD BRD;406429
wrong, I have ran a SO short block, with E7's and an E303 cam in my old '88 XR-7 and no problems.
I have already been corrected on that. Thanks

85 302 to HO???

Reply #23 –
Not to worry chrome Piston to valve clearance is easily checked. You are 100% correct in thinking a setup wont work . Better to be safe than sorry. Even if dun many times before a fool would just assume something is set in stone. Never assume a setup works just because others have dun it. The dynamic stacking can play havoc on that. Even though the above setup will clear. But never not check it. Cheap insurance.

Here is an engine that was not checked. When modifying an engine exact measurements are necessary. The clearance may be there but knowing the exact numbers is a must.

This guy just ASSUMED ALSO AND TOOK SOMEONES WORD FOR IT. BINGO WRONG!!!
.
I spend money I don't have, To build  cars I don't need, To impress people I don't know

HAVE YOU DRIVEN A FORD LATELY!!

85 302 to HO???

Reply #24 –
I'm all for grabbing a 96-97 Explorer engine and a HO PCM.  Especially if your budget is an issue.  The dizzy drops right in place of the Cam sensor and synchro.  All the parts work well together and since you need it to keep the PCM happy, pull the intake and timing cover and stuff a HO cam at the same time.  The Explorer engine will be used, so you'll have the perfect excuse and best opportunity to swap in a new double roller, and fresh seals, and gaskets.  This is how I did mine, and I think I got a lot for my money.  I think the whole project cost $1000 to $1100.  Would have been less if I had had a decent oil pan on the car already.

85 302 to HO???

Reply #25 –
I just went with a 1986 Mustang 5.0 H/O engine in my car. The main reason I did was because it has 9.2:1 compression. I can always up grade the heads later. This engine also comes with stock roller rockers. There is a lot of information on http://www.fiveohinfo.com/fox/engine.html#componentweight if you need it. Also Cool Cats has a lot more information on swapping this with a stock 5.0 as was mentioned before. Jasper sells this engine with a small upgrade in cam with a three year warranty. They made sure I got the right oil pan for the transition as well. One issue with the E7 heads is the H/Hump in the exhaust port is huge! I took the heads off my stock engine and cleaned them out. Now that I have a new engine, I will just replace the heads. I'm also moving out in the country, so I will get to take off all the emissions garbage and put on dual exhaust without Cats choking it.