I have read on here by many that if you are going to do a 302 swap try to find a 5.0 so you can put in a roller cam. Can someone shed some light on this as well as ALL pro's vs cons using an old 302 vs. a more modern 5.0. Thanks
Give me a 289 over any 302 on a street engine. The shorter stroke will twist faster. I heard the metal is better in the old iron than the 5.0 but I have no way to prove it. Ever hear the saying “They don’t make them like they use to.”
Major reason now to use a roller block is the oil has had the additive ZDDP removed and now the present oil is a source of losing cams and lifters in a flat tappet motor. Only good way around it is to buy the additive and spike the oil with it. SCOOPER has already found out the hard way.
I usually look for the 1985 and up Mustang engine just for the fact that they are decent performers box stock.The 70's to late 80's heads are pretty lousy,but for a stock engine they do the job.As far as Roller cam vs Flat tappet i really dont care,flat tappet cams have been performing great for years and if you are building something for performance there are tonnes of options.Heres a neat little chart of oem HP ratings for 5.0 mustang engine from flat tappet engines to the roller engines. http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/specifications/specs1.htm
They don't? How many 200K+ mile unrebuilt 289's you see running around? I've seen lots of 100K mileage 5.0's taken apart that needed nothing to put em back together and run another 100K. Very, very few 60's motors lasted over 100K miles before rebuild time.The roller 302's rev just as fast, if not faster than the 289's ever did. And the power output is way above the 289's. The HP ratings of the 94-97 E & F series 5.0's is above the 4 bbl 289's The metal in the blocks is just as good as the old stuff, if not better. The casting quality of the late 80's to 2001's is far more superior to the 60's stuff. Block weights are compareable between the two. Starting with a roller block, lets you go roller for far less money than a retrofit cam. You just reuse the lifters with a cam upgrade for a basic lift in power. B303 cams can be had used for $50. That's the best part, the cams last forever (as do the lifters) and aren't susceptable to mixing lifters like flat tappet cams are. Only down side is the pushrods need replacing after 100K+ miles do to wear patterns from their not rotating. But these are $30 items.
pros on the old 289/302 dirt cheap to buy & build due to aftermarket heads,some of the once sought after old stuff is now pretty cheap the older blocks are supposedly a little stronger around the main area cons of the old 289/302 noisy lifters with age broken piston skirts pros of the roller 302 getting relatively easy to find now '86-'92 Mustang motors have forged TRWs,takes care of the broken skirt problem E7 heads are better than most guys think.They do well w/no more than some exhaust porting. roller lifters free up a little bit more power,takes care of the old lifter problem most of the old style hot rod parts still work on the roller engines cons of the roller 302 more expensive to O/H than the older engines(uses a higher dollar moly type ring package) cams cost about twice as much(but you generally reuse your stock roller lifters) If you put it in an older car you have to change out the oilpan/pickup/timing cover(unless it has the front sump pan)and round up some early type pullies/brackets if you want it to look somewhat stock.Lots of people go ahead & change over to serpentine belt system. Blocks usually fail a bit north of 600 hp.Never seen any older blocks fail,so either they're stronger or no one bothered trying to get over 600 hp back in the day. Having said all of that,I have a B303 cammed roller 302 in my Comet.The old 2bbl 302 was almost as fast in the 1/8,but this engine comes on about where the other engine started wheezing.The stock converter,manifolds,3.00 gear & 2" duals worked good w/the old motor,but this one really needs at least an 1800-2000 stall,headers and a 3.55 to get it out of the hole.Match up your stuff better & you won't be slow like me.
I really appreciate this guys. Keep the posts coming as I am sure this will be a thread that is visited in the archives.
And the broken skirt problem wasn't just a cast piston thing either. The Boss 302's suffered the same failures with their first forgings. Don't recall seeing any newer roller 302's around with cast and hyper pistons and broken skirts either. I think the split block deal isn't a HP related thing, it seems to me that it's the 347's that do this, that's due to the rpms they're subjected to, combined with the increased rotating mass in the stock blocks. More are likely built on newer blocks than old too.
There's one casting in that group that doesn't share those features. That's the D8VE block. It's thick and heavy like the Mex castings, but has the std thinner main caps.
I have one of each.The 69.5 has a long rod 302 with a solid flat tappet and the 72 has a late roller.I have alot less money in the roller than the early motor simply because the cams/heads are more common and can be picked up fairly cheep used.I like both engines for different reasons.The early has the clatter and choppy Idle of a muscle car and the late makes smooth horsepower due to the roller lifters. Gary
Forged pistons are a lot stronger than the cast pistons used in the older blocks. Also in between them are the hypertectic pistons that most piston manufacturers also make.
Lincoln's didn't only come with big motors. Take the Versailles........... two motor options in these: 302 or 351W. The D8VE isn't a service block. It was cast mainly for the Lincoln's electronic feedback carb, there's a sensor boss in the rear, above the main bearing. Weird place to put that, but that's where it's located. Someone also decided the block needed 10 lbs more iron all over, including the cylinder walls.
You've just not stuck in the right hydraulic roller in that motor then. Try a B303 or a Z303. Either one with a carb and open headers will swear you've got an old radial aircraft motor under the hood.
