Just talked with a mechanic buddy of mine and told him that if a 302 every crossed his path that I'd like to pick it up for a rebuild. He laughed and said that the older 302's are almost impossible to find and that the newer ones are different (fuel injected) and the heads/manifolds are different from the old ones. Is this true? Does anyone have a list of 302's that'll work in our girls?
Well he's partially right. BUT................................ The newer late 80's 302's (86-2001) are vastly better engines than what you'll find in a 68-85 motor. Better heads, roller cams, better crankshafts, same rods to about 1991and in my opinion better blocks (with few exceptions). But they will bolt into any car that came with a 289/302/351W/351C with only minor mods. The one's to avoid like the plague are the 1980-1985 motors, weak cranks, thin blocks, crap heads with huge combustion chambers. Most of the 70's blocks are fine, but most of the heads leave a lot to be desired. As for the intake manifolds, any intake will interchange onto the newr heads, there was no change in bolt pattern or dimensions to prevent one from putting a carbed intake onto an EFI motor. If you go with a roller cammed motor, the distributor you choose will need a steel cam gear on it to match the roller cam.
I agree with BadDad457... They are all virtually the same. The older 70's blocks are stronger, but that's debateable. The roller cams started in '85 for the Mustang and it was a good 4bbl carb engine, '86 sucked being a changeover year to some CFI, etc and true flat top pistons that didn't allow bigger valves or much larger lift. The '87 to '93 Mustang 5.0 engine uses roller cams, E7TE truck heads and 225hp/300lb tq. The '87 to '92 uses forged pistons ('93 went to hyper pistons). There are TONS of 302's out there, and I think any of them are good candidates for a rebuild. I think in '80 or '81 they went to the 1 piece rear main seal, which is desireable.
My current Comet has an 86' Mustang GT motor that we reverted back to carburetor. I've had no problems at all. It seems to have a little less torque than the GT I had with a 74' 302. But then again that one had a 9 inch posi.
