Conference napalm::musclecars

     I have a few questions maybe some of you real FORD fans can answer. I
    just purchased a '91 Ford 4x4 truck ext cab, last Oct. This is the first
    Ford I've ever owned (besides the wifes '91 Areostar).
     I've ALWAYS been a Chevy man (22 years driving) and know absolutely
    ziltsch about Fords (except that I always beat them racing)!
    
    Questions;
    1. I ordered the 351 engine. It came with a 351W. Is this a good engine
       as compared to the 351M?
    
    2. What's the difference between a 351C and 351W?
    
    3. What are good factory heads to put on the 351W? How do you spot
       these heads at swap meets or junk yards? Cast numbers? Will they
       be interchangable with the fuel injection manifold?
    
    4. What type of rocker arm assy do these engines have? Are they
       individually adjustable? If not what do I need to do so they are?
       What is the ratio and can it be changed easily?
    
    5. Are there any tune-up tricks to the fuel injection system, ignition,
       etc.? 
    
    6. Anybody know how to get crisper shifts from the E04 tranny?
    
    
     Am I happy with Ford products....? I'm glad you asked? Ford as
    compared to Chevy......Ford has way too much wiring and vacuum tubes
    running around! The connectors are not weather sealed like chevy. Gas
    mileage is terrible to say the least (10-13) city/highway. (my '85
    chevy 4x4 got 18.75 on highway with the 350). Ford has a lot of
    rattles. The paint is very thin and flakey once scratched (white).
    Front end never stays aligned (4 alignments so far in 6200 miles) Seats
    seem to shake alot. Tranny is none responsive when taking off and
    spends too much time between gears (heat and wear).
     In my wifes van when you move the throttle...you move
    instantaineously, in the truck it takes a bit before you start actually
    moving.
    
    What I like and why I bought Ford this time?
    1. Comfort was number one! Ford has the most comfortable bucket seats
       of almost any car or truck. Chevy buckets are about 4 inches thick
       and non-adjusting backs.
    2. Ford has more interior room and better rear seating arangement (king
       cab).
    
    Thats's was all it took to make me change! I spend too much time in
    trucks to be uncomfortable anymore, so I gave up and went Ford.
    
    So now I want to make the truck run the way I like my cars to run (like
    chevy's do)!
    
    
    BB

    So have the best of both worlds....go get a 4 bolt 350, a TH350 tranny,
    a conversion kit and ride off into the sunset blowing the doors of the
    Fords again! :-)
    
    /tb/ (Guess which one I like best?)
    

    
    The 351W belongs to Ford's small block family, while the 351C/M
    belongs to the "335" series of Ford engines. The 351w is parallel
    valved, where the 351c/m has canted valves (large), more aggressive
    cylinder head porting, revised oiling system, and a host of other 
    changes.  Both are good designs, though the 351M is kind of a
    bastardized design and not really suited for high performance
    applications. I believe the 351c will have 7 valve cover bolts, and a
    vertical bolt pattern on the fuel pump mount, a 351w will have 6
    valve cover bolts and a horizontal bolt pattern on the fuel pump.
    I may be wrong on these distinguishing points, so beware.
    
    Tom

     What can be done as far as the heads are concerned on the 351W? Are
    there any stock FORD heads that will bolt up on the 351W block that
    will breathe better or give overall better performance? I know there
    are DART heads that will do the trick nicely at a nice fat price to
    boot! Are there any adjustable valve heads that will work?
    
     I've always owned chevy's and know a few tricks when it comes to
    swapping parts around and building good strong engines, but I'm totally
    lost when it comes to FORDS. All I know is that FORDS run hot and if
    you ever boil one over it's shot, and they wear out quick!
    
    
    BB :-(

      You're right, 351W's are limited when it comes to swapping parts. The
    1969-70 heads (casting #'s C90E and D00E) were the best of the old
    castings as they had larger valves, a smaller combustion chamber and a
    wider intake port. I can't recommend them in your application though,
    because they didn't have hardened seats. All of the origional equipment
    late model heads have the smaller 302 valves. Factory 351W's always
    came with a non adjustable valvetrain.
      Whenever I built a performance oriented 351W, I had to convert the
    heads to have screw-in studs, guide plates and hardened pushrods. If
   you're going to run a cam in excess of .500 lift, this is mandatory. If
    not, you can probably leave it stock and play with various pushrod
    lengths if required. With the small ports and valves you can make some
    pretty decent torque numbers, but it will never be rpm happy.
      If you could save up the funds, the Dart 2 heads will cure the
    weakest part of this engine.
    
                                                      -ERIC-
    
                                 

      There is another thing I should mention. Because of the poor flow
    of the exhaust ports, these engines really wake up when you do anything
    to help the exhaust flow out. The worst cuplrit is the cast in
    thermactor bump on the roof of the exhaust port. I always grind those
    out. These engines also love a dual exhaust with good mufflers. If you
    don't mind installing headers, they will help out a bunch.
    
                                                                -ERIC-

    B & A performance sells single and dual plane intake 
    manifolds that allow you to run the Cleveland heads too!
    
    Let me know if you need more info!
    Randy "I also know someone who has a set of the "Aussie heads" which
    may be up for sale."
    

    
    Actually, 351C heads breathe a little *TOO* well for many applications.
    Even the "wimpy" 2v heads have 2.19" intake valves and decent sized
    ports, I think the 4v heads have 2.25" intake valves.  All that's been
    said about the 351w so far is correct, the `69-`70 Windsor heads are
    the best OEM parts, (later 351w heads have the 76CC combustion chambers
    which can't be considered "high performance") but don't have the hardened 
    seats your truck application will require.  Sounds like an aftermarket 
    head may be your best bet.  If you ever need a set of `69 Windsor heads
    though, I've got `em!
    
    Tom   
                 

    re. Tom,
    I added another 302 to the collection today. I picked up an 87 302HO
    with 19,242 miles on it. It'll look mice in my 62 Falcon with out the
    darn FI though..
    
    The Mad Weldor....Jim

    	This will sound a little odd, but I need some information about the
    ford small 6, the 140/170/200/250 engine.
    	I'm playing with a 250" six, and I've heard rumors that there is an
    aussie "cross-flow" type head to fit these engines.  Does anyone know
    if this is true?  
    

    Yes the Aussie's have a good head that fits that 250 and 300 cube six.
    The others a have intigral intake manifold/ heads. We used to have 
    a Aussie that read the carbuffs file, that informed us all about the 
    head and it's good points. (unfortunately he has long since left that
    company.)
    
    The Mad Weldor....Jim

Well, here's one for the experts.  Just dropped a new 302, Waylen aluminum dual plane 
manifold, and Holley 650 4 brl into my Ford truck. Problem is cylinders 2,3,5, 
& 8 are running real rich.  I think I have a blocked air jet, but don't have
the print on the carb to locate the jet.  Does anyone have a blowup of a Holley
650 laying around??

GONZO 

What is a "Waylen aluminum dual manifold"?  I thought that I was familar with 
most speed equipment but, this is a new one on me.  ;-)

Mark

Sorry, finger problems.  I meant dual plane manifold.

GONZO

Yah, I figured that you meant "Weiand aluminum dual plane".

Is the 650 holley a square bore (mechanical secondary) or a spread bore?  Is it
a new style (polished aluminum) or the old style (gold) carb?

If you can't find one locally, I may have what you're looking for at home and
could mail it to you.

Mark (in Colorado)

Mark, it's the new style, vacuum secondary.  I "Wish" it was a dual pumper, but
for the deal I got it for I'm not complaining.

As an aside, I called the Holley tech line, and they said just pull the metering
block off, blow it out with comp. air, and put it back together.  should
clear it up.

Thanks,,
Ed

    You can follow the intake runners to see which side of the carb they go
    to. Those 4 cylinders all feed of the same side of the carb on a dual
    plane. Are you sure theres not a vacuum leak under the carb etc?
    
                                               JL

    re -.1
    
    Vacuum Leak??  I think he said those 4 are running rich.  A vacuum leak
    will cause it to run lean.

Well, thanks for the help, but I got it.  Pulled that sucker off, took it 
down and gave it a good scrubbing in carb cleaner.  Blew it out with compressed
ait ( and momma wants to know why I want santa to bring me an air compressor, 
sheesh, you'd think she'd understand these things! ) , put it all back together
and on the truck.  Runs like a scared turkey the day befoer thanksgiving.

Only problem now is getting off the idle "step" onto the mains.  The car this
engine came outta had dual exhaust on it, and I'm running (unfortunatly) into
a 2 into 1 setup.  May have to go down on the main jets one or two sizes
to get it tuned in.

Later, (and yes MOds, I'll sign in)

GONZO

    re .18
    
    Sometime it's difficult to tell the difference between too rich or
    too lean when it come to individual cylinders. Also a vaccuum leak 
    = low manifold vaccuum which fools the power circuitry into thinking
    open trottle = richer mixture.
    
                                    JL

Well, I finally just gave up and put the stock induction system back on,  2 bbl
carb, with all the pollution stuff.  Damn engine runs like a top.  Plenty
of power, no skips, drips, yips, or nothin.  

Anybody wanna by a Weian manifold, and holley carb???

Thanks for the replies.

GONZO (who WILL be putting the maniflold and carb in the for sale note.)

             <<< DLOACT::APP$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARBUFFS.NOTE;2 >>>
                                 -< Carbuffs >-
================================================================================
Note 224.55                 Ford Small Block V8 Note                    55 of 55
EVMS::YAHWHO::PETROVIC "Looking for a simpler place & time..."  10 lines  18-FEB-1992 11:37
                       -< Cam specs for stock 2bbl 302s >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to the specs of stock cams for '71 and '85
2bbl 302s?  If not, could someone point me to where I could find such information?

My '71 shop manuals give intake/exhaust timings but at odd and asymetrical lift
values, like .004 BTC and .008 ABC for intake and similarly odd values for the
exhaust timing.  I'd appreciate duration and lift data.


Thanks...
	Chris

    If a "UA" mark is between the first lobe and first journal,
    then it's the same one used in 68,9,70 302's and 65-8 289's.
    My book only goes to '70.
    
    dur I  266
    dur E  244
    lift I .230/.360
    lift E .237/.380
    overlap 36 deg
    
    Randy
    

Thanks, Randy.

I posted this in Carbuffs also and asked some questions there which Bruce A. answered.
What I'm planning is a warmer cam, but I need to understand more about the Rhoads
lifters and how they work.

I theorize that they leak down at different rates governed by RPM.  From this, I
figure that at low RPMs the durations are lower *and* the cam timing is retarded
somewhat.  As RPMs increase, things return to 'normal'.

From this analysis, I believe I can run a more radical grind and still be quite
streetable.  The cam I am considering, until my theories on how Rhoads lifters work
is dashed on the rocks, is the motorsport M6250-a311 (280/290, .448"/.472"). Otherwise
I'll be taking a serious look at the Competition Cams 268H or anything else that
runs about 10 degrees less duration.

I am also looking at installing a higher stall speed converter and gears in the
neighborhood of 3.23 to 3.50s.

Chris

    
    	Your theory on Rhoads lifters is correct.  Bleed down is constant
    over time, which makes it RPM-variable in terms of duration.  I've
    occasionally wondered whether there is some way to know just how much 
    these lifters will tame any given cam.  Empirical testing is just too
    expensive.
    
    	One of our TFSOed former co-workers ran Rhoads lifters in an autocross
    car (SB Chevy) and was generally pleased.  There was a suggestion by
    the engine builder that a hydraulic roller might provide more
    flexibility, but relative prices ended the discussion pretty quickly.
    The car was regionally competitive in its class and driven daily.
    
    					John   

    I've used a couple different CC Cams, and they are good all
    around cams. I think I'd still use regular hydraulics though.
    I put a 268H in a 390GT a few years back and it had an auto
    tranny it in, ran fine. You could sorta hear a lope but not 
    really, right on the edge. Your idle will be rougher in a 
    small block with a cam of the same duration though. But
    any CC High Energy cam is streetable W/O rhodes lifters, 
    although They would probably be worth looking at it you're
    interested in there Magnum line.
    
    JMHO
    
    Randy
    

re: .25, .26

Thanks John, Randy for comfirming my theory.

I got started on this after reading an article in a Mustangs and Fords mag of
a month or so ago.  Seems there's a company in CA that claims to squeeze
some 300HP out of a 302 with bolt-on parts.  Of the components are
a Competition Cams 268H cam, Competition Cams roller-tipped rockers, Weiand
Action dual plane intake, headers, Holley double-pumper 750CFM carb and
the top item, a pair of Dart II heads machined for 2.02/1.?? manley valves.

The Hi-Po book I have seems to imply that SB Fords prefer a longer
exhaust duration because of the smallish ports, so that's why I was leaning
towards the Motorsport M6250-A311 cam with a 280/290 @ .448"/.472" lift.
I'm counting on the Rhoads lifters to tame the long duration and make the engine
a little less peaky.  I'm game to try.  After all, these cams aren't exactly
the most expensive part, and at about $80/experiment...

Mind you, all this, including Michigan 77 bearings, etc was tagged @ $2K

So, I say to m'seff, this seems too good to be true, but I have a start.

I've already got the manifold/carb/headers.  I'll go for the cam/lifters
this year, the headwork next one or two.  Therefore, to prevent my
Financial Manager from putting the kybosh on the whole project, I'll do
what the government does;  plan the project with cost plus overrun.

If I do this right, she'll never know what hit her in the wallet!

The car's off the road for Winter, so I want to line things up for
Spring.

Again, you guys... thanks for the info.  I'll be back with results later.


Chris

    Chris,
    
    Crane, I believe also markets a bleeder lifter too. They 
    claim it's a lot quieter than the Rhoads lifters, and
    there was a test in one of the rags comparing the two.
    I would have to have been in Super Ford or Car Craft in
    the last year or two. Anyone remember this?
    
    And your right, heads make the motor. I have a set of
    the AR "J302" heads on my 5.0. They weren't cheap, but 
    they breathe deeper that Raquel Welch running down hill!
    
    A larger roller cam was in order too, I went more for lift
    than duration but split none the less. 512/523 266deg and
    it idles smooth and has the torque I'd expect from a respectable
    big block. Probably cause compression jumped up ~40lbs per
    cylinder. I am using a port matched Performer intake with
    the orig 4BBL Holley and roller rockers too. I sometimes
    want a little more duration, but I've not tried a Torker/
    DP carb yet either. Could do the same thing for me!
    
    Have you seen the Crawford/M E & D  dyno tests?
    It's a 302 stroked to 347 ci/TFS heads/Victor Jr intake?
    5XX hp on the dyno, 580 I think. Not very streetable I'm
    sure, 300 from a 302 sb easy with the parts you've targeted.
    
    Randy

    Hi,
    RE: Rhodes lifters.
    I have run Rhodes lifters in a 400sb chevy for 1 summer. I would NOT
    use them again. I hate the noise. They are quite noisy, sort of like
    a clattery old sewing machine. They seem to function well, just noisy.
    
    FYI...
    
    					Brian...

re: .28, .29

Randy, thanks for the vote of confidence. My game here is simply make a fairly
good running vehicle that will suprise some of those foreign sporty-car drivers.
It runs well now, but I want *more*!!!

My biggest problem is that I don't have a garage.  I must do all this in
nice (read warm) weather.  This means that I won't have my favorite summer
ride for the short months it's on the road.  Staging the improvements to
match my income as well as my desire to drive it is most important.

Brian, On the noise problem you experienced with the Rhoads lifters, are you
still running them?  If not, what other brand (Crane?) have you switched to?
If so, how do the other brand's set compare to Rhoads from a performance
perspective?  You stated rather emphatically that your wouldn't use the
Rhoads set again. Is that entirely based on the increased noise level?

Personally, when automotive noise becomes bothersome, I crank up the
volume on Steppenwolf's 'Born To Be Wild'   ;-) 

		Lifter noise?  What lifter noise?


Chris

    Hi,,,
    Yes I still have the Rhodes lifters installed. Due to lack of funds
    they will remain there this summer. Like I said previously, I have
    never run this motor without them, so I can't vouch for their
    performance gains... To me they don't sound like solid lifters.
    They have a noise of their own, similar to solids, but not the same...
    Dropping the exhaust and running open headers does cure the lifter noise
    problem though... (-:
    
    				Brian...

    A friend has run both the Crand Hi-Intensity lifters and the Rhodes. 
    There really didn't seem to be much difference between them other 
    than the noise.  As Brian said, Rhodes liters are rather noisy.
    
    Personally, I wouldn't bother with either.  I would just run regular
    hyd. lifters.  Neither of the cams that you have suggested are really
    very agressive.  The Motorsports unit isn't too much different than
    what I currently run in my SBC and it idles fine and pulls like a
    mother.
    
    As others have pointed out, dual pattern cams work very well in SB 
    Fords (and Chevys).  From what I've read, in a small block, as a
    general rule, you want to keep duration < 290 degrees (224 @.050),
    keep overlap < 60 degrees, and you want a lobe center around 112
    degrees.  This is for something that you plan on driving alot on the 
    street.  If it is a toy only, please disregard this paragraph.
    
    Mark
    on dri

    Chris,
    
    After re-reading the Crawford/ME&D dyno tests, the correct
    numbers are 506 for the Victor Jr./725 cfm carb version.
    The FI version with the GT40 upper came in at 428. They 
    both used the TFS heads.
    
    BTW Edelbrock has a "dyno'ed" kit that pulls 1.1hp out of
    the non-roller 302. Nothing radical either.
    
    And, Mark is right about your cam choices. Nothing radical there,
    but if it drops your compression in the gutter, it'll be a pig.
    I think the 268 HE cam"stock hyds" is the way to go on the street 
    with your auto. Get a Performer or Performer + "new model" and a 600 
    Holley VC and headers/duals. Torque rules on the street! This is
    all addon type stuff you could do outside on the weekend, Go with
    the better heads later as money/thirst become available. Stay away
    from high RPM goodies 'lest your geared for it.
    
    Randy
    
    
    Whats type car and rear gears do you have anyway.

re: .33

Randy,
	The car's a mid-sized (hah!  @ 217" long, mid-size is a real stretch
of the imagination, no pun intended) Torino 500.  It's got the plain-jane
rear @ 3.00:1 and a C4 trans.  I've already installed a Performer and Holley
600 VC, all running thru headers and turbo mufflers.

As I said in an earlier reply ( I think ), I'm working towards 300HP, so new parts
here and there are in order. The Financial Mamager scrutinizes every dollar I
spend on my toy, so I don't want to spook her by going for the gold all at once.

I figure to run the car for this year with only the cam and lifters. Next
year, I'll go for the rockers and maybe the TC, saving funds for the purchase
of the Dart II heads and gears for the last year.

There's a certain sense of satisfaction that you get each time you add performance
for a reasonable sum.

Thanks for the input.

			Chris

    With only 3:1 gears, a stock converter, and a heavy car you want to be
    real conservative or you will end up with a real stone at low speeds.
    
    Mark

re: .35

I fully understand that, which is why I want to find lower gears. That 
will be the cheapest route, then follow with a higher stall TC.

If I only had more money, a garage, more time, etc, etc.

I hate it when this happens.

Chris

   <  "If I only had more money, a garage, more time, etc, etc." >
    
    Chris, we all know what your saying here. I have a few projects that
    I'd like to tackle myself. They are FORD powered too. I'm starting with
    much small and lighter than your 500. Being a very patient person..I
    just say to my friends that all good things come in time.
    
    Now for some extra hp. for your 302. How about bolting on a pair of
    351w heads. I have an article from an old Rod and Custom mag. that
    gives you all the details (send mail stop and I'll send a copy to
    you.) As far as noise, I myself love it!. I had a 289 in my T that
    was one of the noisiest small blocks around. Now I have a 371 GMC
    blower @ 13% overdrive with a 2" Gilmer belt that ought to really
    get the neighborhood's attention. I have a Crane Fireball cam and
    lifters for the 302, but I can't say anything about the performance 
    with the Huffer, as it has'nt been run in this combination. Yet!
    
    
    The Mad Weldor....Jim

Jim,

I'll certainly want to explore
alternatives to big $$ outlay.  My MS is ZKO3-4/Y17.  I'd appreciate
a copy of that article.

I spent a little more time pouring over the summit catalog last night
and looked more at the Edelbrock 2122 cam/lifter kit.  According to the
book, Edelbrock's matched up the manifold with cam/lifters and gotten
pretty good results.  They say almost nothing about the RPM range the 
cam's good for, but with a 270/280 duration at lifts the same as the
M6250-A311 cam, I suspect the low end is around 2000.  What are the
specs of that Crane Fireball cam you've got?

Another question comes to mind, and that is *must* a cam be degreed upon
installation, or is this something one does 'just to be sure?' The write-ups
I have detailing how to degree a cam, imply that a cam just might be ground
out of tolerance and the degreeing process will ferret that out.  I am
planning to do so anyway, I just want to know.

Moving on to the subject of noise...

What is noise to one man's ears is music to another's.  My friends rag on me
all the time about the sounds it makes. All that ragging makes me
smile even wider.

Chris

    I'm unsure of the spec. on the fireball cam. (I have the specs at home) 
    I bought it back when in the dark ages, for the hi-po 289 I originally 
    had in my T. It only has about 500 miles on it... Todays cams are much 
    more suited to todays engines. (oh well)
    
    I'll send out the info today.
    
    The Mad Weldor....Jim 

re: .39

Thanks, Jim.

I'll be looking for the article.

Chris

    Yeah...Dark Ages....around 1975. You see the T was only on the road
    for a few months and it was ravaged by a guard rail. It is now a 
    completely assembled coffee table in my shop/living room.
    
    The Mad Weldor....Jim

    Re .34 ...in a '71 Torino body
    
    Nice car...If you have any extra trim parts lying around drop me
    a line. If you need any parts ie seats, bumpers, taillights, sway
    bars etc send me email with what you need. see the Ford midsize note
    for a description of my Torino... oh yeah its a 71 too not a 70.  A
    previous owner really cured the SB blues with mine :-).
    
               Dean

re: .42

Dean,
	What's in yours now?  351C?  When my father took delivery in '71, I
fell in love with it.  I even tried to get it from him in '78 when I
ordered my Fairmont. He always says that patience is a virtue, and he
is right.  He fell into a deal he couldn't pass up and I acquired the Torino
5 years ago.  I only wish that he sprung for the 351C, but he is the
type that dosen't look at cars the way I do.  He'd have bought the
cheapest thing on the lot it it weren't for Mom.  She likes some niceties.
	It's a meduim pewter color with black vinyl roof and interior,
trimmed in red.  Standard drum brakes, which are a problem.  Several years
ago, I acquired a set of spindles, calipers, rotors off a '72 Torino from
Skip Readio, just need to ferret out a few more parts and have at it.  Assuming
all that stuff fits.  I understand there was a *BIG* change in the Torino
line between '71 and '72.  I just don't know if the suspension parts changed
all that much.
	It was hit once, in the right front, and the rechromed bumper's 
beginning to rust, so I will be looking for another soon.  It's not to bad yet.
Also, not a lot of major rust, a New Jersey car that lived in a garage most
of its life at my father's place.  I've used auto krafters to supply some
soft parts and they fit well.  The interior has one small split on the
driver's side front, the rest is pretty cherry.


Chris

    discusion continued in note 73.5 FOMOCO midsize note

I called the Rhodes Lifter Co today and asked a few questions. The guy
was very friendly and offered a lot of advise.  Of course, he would,
as he wants me to buy his company's product.


Anyway, this is the distillation of the data. The lifters will:

- decrease a cam's advertized duration by 10-15 degrees @ idle
- decrease a cam's .050" lift duration by 8-10 degrees @ idle
- decrease the cam's advertized lift by .025" @ idle
- advance the cam timing slightly (didn't say how much) @ low RPMs
	ostensibly to boost low-end torque
- drop the cam's advertized powerband low limit by 200-300 RPM
- boost engine vacuum by 3" Hg. over 'stock' lifters
- smooth the idle
- all of the above advances/decreases are cancelled by about 3500 RPM
	where the controlled bleed-off 'stops.'
- anti-pumpup design, tested/verified thru use in NASCAR racing engines
	at up to 9500 RPM.

FYI

Chris

re: several back

I've decided on a Crane Maximum Velocity cam kit.  In fact, I chose
the HMV-260-2-NC grind which sports 260/272 advertized duration with
.456/.484 lift (204/216 duration @ .050" lift).  I spent about an hour 
with the guy in the speed shop going over all sorts of things.  He lent
me the Crane book and I sullied forth to make a choice.

The kit has all the necessary goodies (assembly lube, super lube, lifters
and, of course, the cam.  I could have ordered it from Summit and saved
about $30, but I have this real problem of going in, asking questions, then
buying somewhere else.  This fellow is real helpful and friendly, so
I don't mind doind business with people I get to know, even if it does cost
me a little more.

Now, for a little more warmth and light this coming Spring!

Chris

    Hi,
    
    I've just become the new owner of a '69 4BBL 351W and a 
    small block C6. 
    
    I want to prepare the block for "race only duty", and I
    am interested in advice on this project. It will sport
    the alloy heads off my 302, TorkerII or Victor Jr. and
    later on... the "entry level" .600 lift mech roller from
    comp. cams. Probably just a hyd stick for now "read cheap"
    as the car "'79 4-cyl Stang" needs work too!
    
    The car has an 8.8 installed already but it's only a 2.73.
    I thought about swapping it with the 3.55 that's in the Capri
    or just getting 3.73's or 4.10's and install them in the 2.73 axle.
    I'd much rather trade for a whole one if I could find one.
    
    How about the SB C6, would a C4 be better? I expect to be 
    pumping over 400 horsies to it. 
    
    I've never built a drag car before, so I would appreciate tips
    and comments on this.
    
    Thanks!
    Randy
       

    Hi,,,
    I'll point the "REAL" F#%D expert in this notes direction, but just
    a few comments off the top of my head first... I would think you
    would want 69 or so windsor heads... The 302 heads have smaller ports.
    Windsors don't flow enough as is. With a Windsor, go for torque, not
    high horsepower. Cam it around 215-220 duration at 50, with 114 lobe
    center cam, or smaller, with a cam that favors the exhaust. Windsor
    don't breath... With a torque motor the 355 gears work nice...Build
    a 9" though, and you will never break it...As far as the C4 vrs C6,
    build a C4... C4's require a lot less hp to spin, an they might
    have a lower 1st gear, I don't remember...
    	Anyway...enough babbling.... After seeing "Sommer's brothers
    racing" in action, I wouldn't build a Windsor at all. Eric's Windsor
    was an absolute boat anchor, compared to his 11 second Cleveland.
    The top end charge of a Cleveland is an absolute rush...That motor
    can flow some fuel !!!!! 
    
    				Brian...

    Hi Brian, 
    
    Thanks for replying!
    
    I think your reply is "dead-on" on all points! Cleveland/C4 and a 9"
    would be great! Unfortunately, I listed what I have to work with to
    get started. If anyone has some of these the'll let go of, I am
    definitely interested! I'd really rather leave my '85 alone.
    
    BTW. The alloy heads I have are the  Motorsports marketed J302 heads
    made by Arias Root. I believe only the TFS heads outflow these, and
    only at ~7k and above.
    
    Maybe I should find a 351C up front? Before dumping $1500 in the
    Windsor block. 
    
    Thanks! All replies are appreciated, keep'em comin'.
    
    Randy
    

      Hi Randy,
    I wanted to ask a few questions before I made any attempts at
    recommendations. Are you building this as a dual-purpose street/strip
    car or an all out bracket car? This is the first decision that you
    will have to make. It will really decide what kind of limitations you
    have to impose on your compression, camming, gearing, etc.
      I used to run a dual/purpose 351W in my street driven Maverick. It
    was a 9 to 1 compression, hydraulic-cammed, mildy ported iron head
    1969 351W. It ran consistant 14.2's (aprox 13.3's corrected.) I was 
    somewhat dissapointed with the results due to the fact that this car
    had tons of low end torque but absolutely no top end. I finally came
    to the conclusion that with the engine/chassis combo that I was working
    with, I couldn't get a good enough exhaust system on it. The only set
    of headers available for this car had 1.5 primary tubes. I've always
    believed that putting a set of "good" heads on it would have been a
    waste of money due to the header tube limitations.
      Due to the fact that you have a pair of free-flowing AR heads, and
    the availability of 1 5/8 ths or 1 3/4 ths headers for your chassis,
    I think a 351W would be a great choice for your musclecar. Let me know
    what E.T. you're shooting for and I'll try to make some reccomendations.
    
                                                        Thanks, Eric.
      

    Eric, 
    
    Thanks for the response!
    
    An opportunity to purchase a lot next to my house may
    put this project on hold. Depends if a price is settled
    upon. 
    
    But, the plan is a "race only" engine with 11.5's or 13:1's
    if the money provides. Victor jr/850 DP, solid or roller cam
    with the AR heads. And the J351 race headers of course.
    
    All in all, I "plan" on low 12's or high 11's once everything
    gets ironed out.
    
    Thanks!
    Randy 
    

       The large diameter main journal on a 351W should not cause you
    any problems in your application. One nice thing about a drag race
    engine is that even though we run them at fairly high rpm's, we only
    hold them there for short periods at a time. 
    
                                                             -ERIC- 

Gentlemen,
	I've got a puzzling problem with foaming coolant after installing
a new cam.  I put in a Crane Maximum Velocity 260/272 degree .456/.484 lift
cam into a '71 302. It also has an Edelbrock Performer intake, 1850 Holley
(600CFM) and headers.
	I had to replace the radiator (original, but stressed due to an
accident when my Dad had the car) which leaked after reassembly.  I now have
a new three-row instead of the original two-row.  It has a 7lb cap, coolant
recovery system and a 160 'stat.
	I did not touch the heads, there are no visible coolant leaks externally
and it runs well, idles smooth and has good power.  It really dosen't overheat,
however, after a short run, the recovery tank is full and the temp is rising.
When running, I can see foamed up coolant in the line to the recovery tank.
I can see the coolant being sucked back into the system as the car cools.
	Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what to check next?

Chris
	

    is the ignition timing far off?  wouldn't too much advance make it run
    too hot?
    Matt

    
    
     Do a pressure test on the Coolant system, if you don't have the
    pressure test gauge find someone with one or go to a garage...it
    is a 3 minute job.  This will find any leaks in the system, water pump,
    heads, radiator...whatever.
    
    
     By the way...What is your Anti-Freeze Mixture like ???  Is it mixed
    50 / 50 with Water ???
    
    
    /Bob
    

re: .54

The timing's at 10 degrees BTDC. Although, I thought that excessivly
retarded tining would cause an overheating condition.  

re: .55

Pressure checking the system is my next move.  I put it off only
because it acted 'normally', that is, sucking the coolant back from the
recovery tank into the radiator.

The antifreeze is a 50/50 mix, which I reused. I flushed and drained the
system Spring '91, so I didn't think it necessary to replace the fluid.

Chris

    Chris,
    
         How about the Tstat ? You can easily pop it out and check
    it in boiling water or just replace it for the few $ it costs.
    Also I used to run a 13 lb cap on the radiator in my old Stang
    not sure what that will buy you though .
    
               Dean

re: .57

Dean,
	I was using a 16lb cap when the old radiator started looking
like 'Ol Faithful!, Maybe I should try it again, Damn, I *hate* redoing
a job.  And yes, I thought of the thermostat, which is why I replaced it
with a 160 degree unit I had on hand.  Before I installed it, I tested
them both. The original 180 was indeed ba-fon-goo; didn't open 'till the
water was boiling.  The 160 unit opened as advertized.

re: .58

The intake gaskets are symmetrical on a SB Ford.  It's the head gaskets
that have a front-to-back orientation.  Good thought, though.  I was redoing
the job in my mind, bolt-by-bolt, to see if there was anything I missed.
Needless to say, I haven't uncovered anything that I question.

re: pressure check

Last night I borrowed a pressure tester. I pumped it to the15lb mark. Over
three hours, the needle dropped about two widths off the mark.  I will
check the tester against a known good cooling system to see if the leakage
is the tester's fault.

Question.  The antifreeze is about 15 months old and has been drained twice
now. Is there any relationship to its original anti-foaming characteristics
and number of times it's drained and reused?  Has anyone experienced this
sort of behavior when, say, changing a pump or thermostat and not using
new antifreeze?

The friend I borrowed the tester from owns a used car dealership. His mechanic
heard me telling him about the problem and suggested I try bypassing the
heater core.  Somehow, I don't see how this fits into the picture.  Unless
I'm missing some major point regarding cooling systems, the heater's merely
a secondary loop, drawing it's coolant from a point on the 'hot' side of
the thermostat.  In fact, on the Torino, there's a shutoff valve that closes
off the flow when the controls are set to A/C.

Now, I seem to be rambling, but here's a few random thoughts;

I replaced the water pump two years ago along with the t-stat. The t-stat went
bad. Both were NAPA parts.  What are the chances that there's something
afoul with the pump?  The last one's bearing went bad, maybe this one's
impeller is shot.  Hard to accept that theory, what with the pump being
only two years old and the car's not driven in the winter.

Maybe I'll just rip the cooling system apart again and see what I can find.
I'm tiring of this gurssing game.

Thanks for listening, men.

Chris

    
    
    Stang V-8 Tstat recogmended by ford is AutoLite 192.  As a matter of
    fact my stang is apart, in the process of replacing both the original
    FoMoCo heater core, and Autolite Tstat.  The radiator was brought to
    a shop to clean and flush, and replace petcock.  Bought new heater
    core hoses.  So far I have spent about $125.00 for everything.
    
    /Bob
      
    
    
     

    re .59
    	Why did you change from a 16# cap to a 7# cap?  The higher pressure
    (16#) raises the boiling point of the coolant quite a bit.  With the
    higher boiling point, the coolant won't turn to steam and blow coolant
    into the overflow tank.  If there is some reason you went to a 7# cap
    (like maybe the system was leaking with the 16# cap), you have to fix
    that problem.
    Regards,John

re: .61

The 7# cap was my father's doing.  He had to replace the heater core and
the guy who did the work suggested that lowering the pressure would prolong
the life of the core.  Anyways, that 7# cap was working fine, so I figured
that was sufficient.

During my checking out the system, I used a 16# cap off my other car.  All
that succeeded in doing was prolonging the time between massive foaming
and startup.  When I shut it off after a very short drive, the car isn't
overheating... what's happened is the recovery tank is full and you can see
bubbles coming from the bottom of the recovery tank.

As I said in a previous reply, I'll just have to start taking things apart
again.  I've got the time now, and the motivation.  This isn't rocket
science, so it should be obvious as things come off the engine...

A friend keeps saying "It's gotta ba a blockage somewhere."  He's probably
right.

Thanks for the thoughts., though...

					Chris

    Could be a blown head gasket. Chamber to water jacket leak, of
    a cracked head.
    
    Lets hope not.
    
    Re

    
      The Cooling system somewhere is contaminated, thus causing the NEW
    antifreeze to Foam.  
    
      Was your radiator brought to a Shop and dipped, and cleaned ??
    
      

re: .63

I also hope not, Randy.  As I replied earlier, a pressure check showed
up nothing, at least when it's cold.  All those maladies you listed
certainly are a real possibility, however, what has caused any of the
possibilities to occur between disassembly and reassembly?  If there
were even slight symptoms prior to me taking it apart, then I'd
concur. Ahh, as I said, more wrenching is in order...


re: .64

The radiator's brand new and the fluid is only a year old.  In one of my
replies, I believed the foaming to be a result of some other problem, like
blockage and subsequent hotspot(s) causing local boiling.  The 16# cap
tended to reduce the foaming, but it happens nonetheless.  There's no choice
for me now.  I must disassemble and inspect.  That I will do soon, after some
required home maintenance.

I really *hate* it when house repairs get in the way of some real fruitful work.

Chris

    
    Despite the pressure test, your head gasket could still be bad.
    With the motor running, there are incredible stresses placed on the
    combustion chambers, head gaskets, and head bolts.  While this
    may not have been evident with your old cam, the increased cylinder
    pressure from a hi-po bumpstick could have stressed the headgasket
    beyond it's limits.  Is there any coolant in the oil or vice versa?
    Any steam out the tailpipe(s)?  Is the car pinging?
    
    Worth a closer look, especially given that the problem started with the
    cam swap.
    
    Tom

Tom,
	I've been very busy building a 2nd floor on my house.  Therefore
all my efforts have been there, not the car.  However, to answer
your questions, no, there isn't any steam coming out of the tailpipes
nor is there any water in the coolant.  It does not ping when timed
to reasonable dimentions, 8-10 degrees BTDC.  I do not drive it over the
winter, so as soon as the driveway's clear of roofing nails, I'm going to
package it up 'till Spring. I'll be pulling the engine then and doing
a full rebuild.  The final disposition will have to wait.

Thanks for showing an interest...
					Chris

    
    Here in the UK, our engine choice is more limited. A UK company is
    importing what are claimed to be 302W's. As the 302 is the preferred
    option for my car, can you USA buffs please confirm that Ford DID in
    fact produce a 302W  ? As these are reconditioned or Cut-out
    engines, what would they have most likely to have been removed from ?
    How can I spot a turkey? .7 says look for 6 bolts around the valve-
    cover, what else can I look for ? What would the expected power be of
    a stock engine ? How can I identify the low performers ? The power of
    the 302 short-block appears to change with the vintage & the model of
    car it shipped with. I would appreciate all the info you guys can
    throw at me before I go out & buy the wrong engine !
    
    Thank You,
    
    Tony Jasper, 302 novice & purchaser.

    Sorry to answer your question with a question, but what are these
    motors going for ,US, in the UK. The reason I ask is a guy I know is
    supposedly shipping 302RHO (read Remanufactured) overseas. To answer
    part of your question the 302 is based on the Windsor design hence
    302W. Usually the letter suffix is reserved to describe the 351 motor.
    351W (windsor) 351C (Cleveland) 351M (Modified). The horse power rating
    will indeed be governed by what application the motor was used for. Up
    to 245 hp, I believe, on the 302RHO.
    

    The $ price would be about $350 for a cut-out, delivered to UK, & for
    a remanufactured engine around $3000.
    
    It's not clear whether this includes all ancilliaries ( Carb, starter
    etc.). What is the norm in the US ? What would I expect to be included
    ? What do YOU guys pay ! Is it worth my while shipping it back myself !
    
    I'm in the process of building a GT40 replica from scratch, so I
    really want to get as near as possible to original, i.e. use an
    American engine. As you can now understand, I need as much as possible
    to be bolted on the engine as I'm starting with nothing 8-). The car is
    for street use, so I'm not interested CURRENTLY in high performance
    options.
    
    My chassis is bracketted for a Ford 302, so as you say the 302W is
    based on the 351W, will this mean that they are interchangeable ?
    If the engine mounts & block length are identical for all Windsors
    I have a wider choice as 351W's are also available here. In fact,
    are all the blocks the same, or are the 351's taller than the 302's ?
    I dont want to get into reworking the chassis as it is race-proven &
    I dont want to spoil a successful design. I have been warned that
    big-blocks (427 etc) do not fit, & other UK GT40 owners have had to
    modify gearbox supports & mount the engine nose-down so that the rear
    cover will close. Also due to the extra block length the half-shafts
    are offset to the rear of the car giving an indirect line to the
    wheels. This is what I want to avoid.
    
    The power output isnt a great consideration at the moment, making it
    fit is :-) There is no substitute for cubes, so if the 351 takes up
    the same physical space as the 302 I'll go for it.
    
    Thanks for your support,
    
    
    Tony Jasper.
    Please tell me if the 302's vary in mechanical size

    Tony,
    I have some measurements for you.
    
    Family          Displacement  width  length    height
     90 degree V    260,289 302W  24"     29"      27.5"
    
                    302-Boss      24.5"   29"      28.5"
     
                    351W          25.5"   29"      29"
    
      335           351C,351 Boss 25.5"   29"      29"
                    351M, 400     26"     29"      29"
    
      FE            332,352,360
                    390,406.410
                    427,248       27"     32"      29"
    
                    427 SOHC Hemi 32"     34"      30"
     
      385           429,460       27"     34"      29"
                    429-Boss      30"     34"      30"
    
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    TMW...Jim

    Tony,
     Prices vary widely on 302-351's. You can find them in the WantAd for
    $100 up $1500 for a late model salvage yard EFI 302 complete with 
    engine harness. Some recent prices from Mustang & Ford magazine show 
    the new 351W HO complete engine assembly going for around $4000 US 
    and the new 302 GT40 long block at around $2600. The 302 RHO motors 
    were going for around $2000 but I haven't seen them advertised lately. 
    Of course I have no idea what it would cost to ship to the UK.
    
    Lou

    
    Thanks for the measurements, Jim.
    
    From those I guess that any 302 or 351 will have the same block length.
    That makes buying easier. I've got to assume that the widths vary due
    to the stroke/head layout, & I also assume that the engine mountings on
    the side of the crankcase are the same width apart & share the same 
    measurement back from the pulley-end of the engine.
    
    Lou, we have some specialist mag's over here covering USA motors, I've
    seen an Ad which covers shipping USA to UK. I'll get back here when I
    can say how much it costs & exactly how much a lump costs in the UK.
    Comparing repair parts here with USA (pistons, bearings etc) there is
    dollar-to-pound unity.
    
    If I can see an engine lump running in a breakers yard I could combine 
    buying it with a US holiday in '93.
    
    In the meantime... What can I expect to be included with a
    remanufactured 302/351 ?
    Carb/distributor/pumps/sump/manifolds(Headers?)/generator ?
    
    Tony.
    

     The new 351 HO comes with everything except carb,alternator and headers.
    The 302 GT-40 is a long block which has no carb,intake,water pump,starter,
    headers,distributor or alternator. Both will need pulleys, plugs etc.
    The 302 RHO is also a long block, I believe, if it is still available
    
    
    Lou
    

    Note that the SVO 351 specs out like a drag motor, I can't
    recall the numbers though and there at home. BUT, AR/J302 heads
    and a Victor Jr. intake tells me that you'll need stiff gears 
    and a big fuel tank as well as all manual "no vacuum" accessories.
    
    IMHO
    Re

    The Mags. have it rated at 385 hp. One might suspect this to be a bit
    on the low side. Remember "For Off-Road Use Only"
    

    re-.1
    
    	I thought it was For Off Road Driving (FORD)
    
    
    	CB

    
    A 351W will be nominally wider than a 302 due to the higher deck 
    height of the block, which is about 1" taller than a 302 block.
    Also, there's the weight factor.  If my recollection is right a 351
    weighs a bunch more than a 302.
    
    Tom

..........with those aluminum heads. I'm sure it will still weigh more
than a 302, but I'd expect the difference to be something in the 50-75 lb
range. Maybe less.

BTW, the 385 hp is accurate - maybe a tad high, if anything. The motor
seems overcammed for the street, much like Chevy's original HO motor that
started this current "factory aftermarket" craze. Chevy has since gone to
a significantly shorter cam, and has bumped the torque, while keeping
power up through 5200 or so. By all accounts, the newer version runs
better than the old one at the track, and it's a lot happier on the street.

For street use, one of those aftermarket "street rollers" from Crane or
Competition cams would probably be the hot tip for the 351. High lift with
little overlap (and hydraulic roller lifters) is the hot tip for everyday
driving.

Bruce

    Thanks to TMW for his measurment list in .71. Would anyone have a
    similar list for weight on each of these motors?
    

             <<< GENRAL::DISK$OURDISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]4WD.NOTE;10 >>>
                               -< 4 Wheel Drive >-
================================================================================
Note 1079.8                     460 - 351M = C6?                          8 of 9
SALEM::DWATKINS "The Plus runs out of numbers..."    44 lines  28-MAR-1990 05:44
                          -< Maybe this will help... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
     	                           332/352
    	                           360/361
    			           390/406
                                   410/427
                                   428
         221/255
         260/289    351M/400                427SOHC   429/460  429 Boss
         302                         

 Width     24         26             27       32        27       30
 Length    29         29             32       34        34       34
 Height    27.5       29             29       30        29       30
 Weight    460        575            625      680       720      635
    



       This is how that table should look and as for bolt patterns for
trannies, this is how that goes...


                                  
    Small block bolt pattern...    221/255/260/289/300(6)/302/302Boss/ 
                                   302H.O./351W/351H.O.* /351C/351CJ/351Boss

    "FE" Bolt pattern...           332/352/360/362/390/406/410/427/427SOHC
                                   428/428CJ/428SCJ
                                      
    "385" bolt pattern...          351M/400M/429/429CJ/429SCJ/460/460P.I.


     There are probably more engines to put in this, this is just what I
     know for sure, of the top of my head.
     

*=  351 H.O. name was used in 1972 to designate the low compression version
    of the BOSS 351 and from 1984 to present to designate the 351W based
    high output truck motor.


Don
    

    Don,
    
    That list was a great help. Also I now know what H.O stands for.
    
    Now, does any noter have the power outputs for these engines IN
    UNMODIFIED FORM (i.e. Stock).
    
    Also, can I tell from block serial #'s or casting marks exactly which
    engine type I'm looking at ? I'm shopping for the biggest standard
    output from the shortest block. I'm trying to buy from within the U.K.
    if possible, expertise is low here, but there are plenty of engines
    available. 
    
    Tony

re -.2 or was it .3>>

Anyway, the 351W is 55lbs heavier than the 302W per the 69 muscle parts 
books. Just about what the alloy heads remove "26+26=52".

Oh, and Chris. Why did you install a 160 degree stat? I'd up that to
at least 180 for the street. You'd probably need a 4-ccore radiator
to keep water with a 160. A radiators efficiency is improved by in-
creasing the temperature "delta". I'd also install the 16lb. cap.

Randy

    
    I've bought what I believe to be a 302. It has a 4-barrel carb & a
    heavy weight on the front-end of the crankshaft between the block & the
    crankshaft pulley. The carb is incomplete (no choke/strangler).
    
    On UK engines, the ser.# is stamped on the block. This block only has
    cast-in markings. Is this the serial # or the casting # ?
    
    0 50160          } RHS of engine,
    O 0 G5AE-6015E   } beneath engine mount
    
    I need this info for registration purposes ( engine # must match the
    vehicle registration document in the UK.
    
    More questions : Have any USA noters any idea where this engine started
    out life or its year of manufacture ?
    
    I was told its output will be about 280 BHP. Is this reasonable ?
    
    If the weight on the front of the engine is a balance weight, can the 
    flywheel (when I get it) be balanced off-the-engine ? My intention is
    to use a Ford Essex V6 flywheel & clutch & starter motor.
    
    Does the engine turn clockwise when viewed from the front ?
    
    Which is cylinder 1 ?
    
    What is the firing order ?
    
    Can I prime the oil system by driving the pump through the distributor
    hole ? is it clockwise, i.e. same way as a drill ?
    
    Does the starter motor bolt to the engine or the transmission ?
    
    So many questions. This engine hasnt been used since a rebuild, its
    last owner has given up motor sport. There are too many small parts
    missing to run it to see what happens. It is going to be grafted to a
    French Renault 30 gearbox, but thats another story. I would appreciate
    your help here, maybe you can recommend a repair manual which will
    cover this.
    
    Bye for now, Tony Jasper.

    Randy E. - you probably know this.  What is the compression height on
    the 1987-up Ford 302 HO motor.  I'm talking about the distance from the
    top of the piston to the deck of the block.  I've seen it specified as
    0.011", but its not.  As best I can tell, its either 0 or negative; ie.
    the piston protrudes.  The compression ratio is 9.0:1 for this motor. 
    The piston is dished 0.030" with 4 valve releifs.
    
    Eric

Gentlemen,
	I have come across a '76 Cougar with a 2bbl 351M engine. I am planning
to use it for drivetrain parts for my Torino.  However, would like to know
what the major differences are between a 351C and 351M. The shop manuals I
have for '71 and '78 talk about the C and M engines respectivly and they
look very similar.  Are the differences in things like crank/rod journal
diameters ant the like?

Thanks...
	Chris

    re .85>
    	Hi Eric, I've been out sick "Annual NW Classic gag n'cough".
    	Actually I haven't a clue as to the deck height on the '87,
    	but '86's are the wierd heads, and I suspect deck height too.
    
    	Re

    Oh! Chris, ".86"
    
    Be aware that the m and the c have different bellhousing bolt 
    patterns. 351/400M use 429/460 pattern and the 351C is the 
    289/302/351W pattern.
    
    Re
    
    ps. pre '65 289's were 5-bolt not 6. Another gotcha.

    OK, I've found the firing order marked on the manifold of my other
    Small Block(289), but I'd still like to here from Small-Blockers 
    the answers to my other Q's please ?
    
    Tony.

    
    The 351M shares a similar head/combustion chamber design as the
    351C, though the bottom end is very different.  The crank journals
    are larger in diameter than the 351C/W, and I think the bore/stroke
    is different as well.  The "M" isn't a good performance motor, and 
    few if any aftermarket manufacturers make parts for it. 
    
    Tom

I've about given up on the Holley 2bbl (List 7508  - an OEM replacement) carb.
that is on my 289 '66 Mustang (3 speed automatic trans).  I rebuilt it, but
it has metering block vacuum leaks, poor cold running (always has) and the 
never-ending surge problem.  You can now turn the idle screws in without having
it stall, too.  

The best price/performance replacement setup I can find is a Weiand manifold, 
Holley 0-1850 (600 CFM, vac. sec., manual choke), gaskets and air cleaner for
$244 from Summit Racing.  Edlebrock manifolds and carbs. add significantly to 
the price, and I already have a Holley elec. choke kit.

I may add dual exhaust, but don't plan on ever going gonzo with cams and higher
compression or turning this into a race/strip car.  I just was some reliability
and performance to go with the lousy gas mileage.  I kinda like low-end torque
and drivability over absolute horsepower.

Does anyone see a problem with going to this 4BBL setup or have any suggestions
or comments?  Help me spend my money, willya? ;-)


Steve

    Hi Steve,
     If the intake is a dual plane design then this is a good way to go. I
    am looking to put a Weind dual plane and Holly 780 on my 429
    eventually. I have had great luck with Holly carbs, and several friends
    have tried Edelbrock carbs with little succes. Adding a true dual
    system is also going to help power, as would headers. If you drive
    fairly normal you may actually get better gas mileage with the
    4-barrel.
                                                     John M.
    

    Steve,
    
         You may also consider a 1" aluminum spacer between the carb
    and intake. This isolates the carb somewhat so you get a cooler
    mixture and increased velocity in the intake...net result is
    more low end. They usually cost about $20 from Mr Gasket etc,I'm sure
    Summit has them.  I second John's vote for a dual plane intake.
    
             Dean

    Just to add to -.1 when I added a 1" spacer to my old Stang 351c
    I also went with a 3" drop base air cleaner which alllowed me to
    run a 5" (I think it was 5) element for increased air flow.
    
              Dean

In line with this conversation, (and yes Mods. I'll post it in for sale too) I
have a Wiane dual plane manifold, and a Holly 650 vacumn secondary carb 
for sale.  Came off a 302 ford.  If'n anybody wants it, I'll take $100.00 for
the pair as the Carb will need to be rebuilt 'cause it's been sitting for a
while, and Holly's are notorious for drying out.

Ed

As an interesting data point, when I dynoed my 327 (I know that it's not a Ford) 
we used my 1" 4 hole Moroso phenolic spacer.  In the course of tuning the engine, 
we decided to try a 1" aluminum spacer.  Wrong thing to do on that engine.  It
killed horsepower (30 down) and torque all the way from 3000 to 5500.

My guess is that it had all of the plemum volume that it could use without the
spacer.

Mark

P.S.  Hey Steve H., do you believe me about the catb/intake setup yet?  :-)

    re-.1 interesting...I didn't have a dyno at my disposal but 
    my test was running a Chev BB in a 57 Bel Aire...At the time we had
    been going back and forth for a while.
        I used an 'open' spacer just one big hole and my intake was 
    of the single plane variety.  Test results indicated an improvement,
    and low end throttle response was definetly improved.
    
            Dean

It occurs to me that my current Ford spacer with the PCV inlet is a 2bbl spacer,
and I'll need to somehow reconnect the PCV to this new manifold getup -  hmm... 
I wonder if the Weiand manifold has a built-in PCV inlet?  

Thanks for all your suggestions.... and yes, Mark, as usual, you were right.


Steve

If I remember correctly, the O-1850 that you are considering using has a
provision on the baseplate for connection of the PCV valve.

Mark

    
    A buddy of mine used to run a 289 with a 600 Holley Vac secondary
    and an Edlebrock F4B dual plane.  With headers and the stock
    cam you'll love the results.  You may wish to consider some ignition
    upgrades though....
    
    Tom

re: .91 (I think)

Steve,
	I believe I'm running pretty much what you're looking into. My '71
Torino has a 302, Edelbrock Performer RPM, Holley 650CFM (O-1850) vacuum
secordary carb, Crane HMV-260 cam kit and headers.  The C-4 has a B&M shift
improver kit and still has the stock torque converter. The rear is 3.00. These
last two items need correcting. Bumping the stall speed up to around 2000-2200
and the rear gears to around 3.50s.

	The intake/cam combination still preserves the good idle and
improves the low-end. Headers don't help much putting around town, but seem to
help at the other end.  I like this combination, although I haven't done a
whole lot of experimentation.

	Stay with a dual-plane manifold to keep your machine drivable and
stay away from the mechanical secondaries too. It'll pump more power, but at
a fuel milage expense.  The Holly is a real good way to go, as you can tune
it to your exact application.

Chris

re: .67

Tom, et. al.,
	Well, the full rebuild didn't happen. The CFO of my household has
clamped off my funding, however I convinced her to allow me the privilege
of doing the minimal work to restore the car to drivable condition.

	'Twas a head gasket, even though the tests didn't show a leak.  I
guess it was the original gasket on the one bank.  Nevertheless, I'm
happy.

	Next is ignition upgrade. Anyone have direct experience with the
Crane adjustable vacuum advance kit?  From the looks of it at the speed shop
there dosen't seem to be a lot to it.

Chris

    re -.1>
    
    Save your money, every ford v8 vacuum advance mechanism I've
    had is adjustable.
    
    Just pull the hose off, to access the "allen" head screw inside.
    
    With a timing light, and tape you can alter it.
    
    I took 9 degrees vacuum advance out of my '85 HO, Then upped
    the timing at idle to 16-18. The tighter chambers in the AR
    heads couldn't tolerate 21 degrees advance at idle, and it
    the low end really suffered with only 6-8 degrees on the 
    distributor. I figure it was a wash on the top end.
    
    Re

re: .103

How about adjustments to the mechanical portion of the distributor?  How did
you (or did you at all) modify those curves?

Chris

    Chris,
    
    No, I didn't modify the mechanical advance. Although the tower
    can be removed and rotated 180 degrees to allow 18 total instead
    of 14 total. Then you can change springs and weights too!
    
    I really don't recommend you going this far without more
    guidance than I can give you. A pro with a distributor machine
    would be best.
    
    Randy
    

re: .105

Randy,
	I only thought of the crane vacuum advance kit because of the kit
contents. OF course, there's the diaphragm, but there was also a set of
springs and instructions. However, in light of your comments, I'll bag that idea
and just get a new replacement, but in single diaphragm, not dual.
	FMI, who in this area (So. NH, No. MA) does distributors?

Chris

Since we're talking advance, I have a question (non-Ford).

When we dynoed my engine, the dyno guy told me to run my vacuum advance connected
to manifold vacuum instead of ported vacuum.  This in effect gives me all of my 
(non-mechanical) advance right at idle.  To time the engine, I just set the total 
advance to 44 degrees at 3k rpm.

Are there any advangages/disadvantages to setting up timing like this?

Thanks,
Mark

    Mark,
    
    First off, congrats on your timeslips!
    
    It really "I think" depends on the amount of advance the vacuum
    diaphram delivers at idle. Mine was 21 degrees, soo when I stepped on
    it and the vacuum went away so did a lot of bottom end power. If I
    timed it to retrieve the power, it would hardly idle and was a bitch
    to start.
    
    It sounds like the way you told is correct AKA: all advance in by 3k,
    BUT depending on how many inches of vacuum you pull at 3k with it
    to the floor is really the only flaw I see. Their may be room for
    improvement here, but I'm no expert. Caveat Emptor applies here.
    Especially to those who like to slam me, when I reply.
    
    If power is the only consideration, they toss the vacuum advance and
    use the mechanical exclusively. But if street driving or mileage is
    AT ALL a concern then don't do it.
    
    I'm in the middle there somewhere, I took out X degrees vacuum and
    added x degrees back in on the mechanical side of things. It really
    was the ticket, for me.
    
    I hope I've cleared things up a little, rather than muddied it up
    further.
    
    Randy

    Congrats Eric!
    13.04 wow!
    
    BTW. Bruce A. would know more about SBC timing than I Mark, If
    he wants to join in the conversation. And Jim K. probably knows
    more about advance curves on SB Fords than I will ever know 
    Chris.
    
    Randy

    
    Well, I'm out of here! TFSO'ed.
    
    Best of racing to all of you!
    
    Randy

Thanks Randy for your help and expertise on SB Fords over the years.  Good
luck on future endeavors.

Eric

Randy,
	Thanks for the tips.  They were a lot of help.  Try to stay in touch somehow,
maybe the internet??

Chris

    Bummer Randy.  Thanks for all of the tips over the years and best of
    luck in your post-DEC life.
    
    Mark

Hi,
Over the weekend my son and I finished most of the details on his 55 ford pu.
We had swapped in a 302/c4 and for now it has a 2100d two barrel and stock
cast manifold. The problem is that the engine idles at about 1500 rpm with the
idle screw not even touching the stop. Any idea what to look for that would cause
such a high idle ??? 

				Brian...

    Possibly a bent throttle plate.
    
    Rich

RE .114

Butterfly hanging up?  

Is the throttle linkage/cable giving you enough travel or hanging up.  I had 
to do some tweeking to get sufficient travel once I put the V in the Vega.

Mark

    Vacuum leak!  Is there a new gasket under the carb? Is it bolted down
    snug, not tight?  I bet this is your problem.  Check the simple things
    first.
    
    mh

    If its a vaccuum leak, wouldnt the engine stall when the throttle stop
    screw was wound out (due to fuel starvation)? I dont know much about SB
    V8's, but how about a stuck choke(USA strangler ?) throttle cam ?
    
    Tony, V8 novice. & owner of a 289 & 302. 

    
     I have a 302 with Holley 4-barrel mechanical secondary. I dont know
    how old it is, my guess is that its mid-60's. Its on the floor at the
    moment. It has a weight on the crankshaft front end. There is no
    flywheel currently.
    
    I intend to use a smaller diameter flywheel (from a European Ford V6),
    but I dont know how the engine crank is balanced. Is it balanced with
    the flywheel on or off ? Can I add a balanced flywheel, or must I get
    the whole engine/front weight/flywheel balanced as a unit ?
    
    The balancing shop here says "Give us the whole lot & $300 & we'll
    balance it".  Thats nice for them, but whats the truth ?
    
    Its not for racing, I estimate the power output to be 230 HP, at about
    5900 rpm.
    
    The reason for the smaller flywheel is so that it'll fit inside a Renault 
    R30 gearbox bellhousing.
    
    All balancing advice gratefully received,
    
    
    Tony Jasper.

    Tony, if I remember correctly you are in England so this may not help
    but Hot Rod Magazine recently did an article on what to look for in
    Ford small blocks.  Over the years there have been changes made that
    will effect interchangeability of parts.  One section was on the change
    they made to the 302 (originally introduced in '68 I believe) on how
    Ford balanced the engine and what flywheel, etc., would work with what
    engine.  Unfortunatley, I left the issue in my truck which is outside 
    in a blizzard at the moment.  I'll try to remember to bring it into
    work tomorrow and give you some more info.
    Wayne

    Wayne, I'll wait with bated breath, the article sounds like what I
    need. I've since found 2 more 302 balancers, both of whom have given me
    different answers :
    
    1. The flywheel is deliberately out of balance by x ounces on
    automotive (e.g. non-marine) engines
    
    2. The flywheel is out of balance, the degree of imbalance varies
    according to ser # of 302.
    
    Tony.
    
    

    Sorry, Tony.  We continue to get snowed on here in N.H. and I haven't
    been driving my truck.  Here is some of what was in the article but I
    don't think it is going to answer your question now that I have re-read
    it:
    
    Ford changed the external balance from 28.2 to 50 ounces in 1980 with
    the introduction of the short lived 255ci V-8.  In other words, if you
    bolt a 1980 or later flywheel or flexplate to a pre-1980 small block,
    the engine will vibrate horribly and cause severe engine damage.  In
    your case, though, you plan on using a V-6 flywheel so this article
    doesn't really apply.  Maybe if you also use the V-6 harmonic dampener?
    (I'm starting to get way in over my head on this technical stuff so I
    better back out before I help you to destroy whatever you are doing
    over there.)
    Wayne

    Wayne, thats it. Did the article give ser #'s of 302's so I can
    establish whether mine is post or pre 1980 ? We can buy balanced
    (imbalanced :-) ) V6 flywheels here in the UK off-the-shelf as long as
    we can specify the imbalance. There is a European V6 ambulance engine
    which has a flywheel of the same weight as the 302. These are sold
    re-machined to suit the 302 crank & rebalanced to suit the engine
    vintage as long as we can specify the balance characteristics. This
    will then allow 302's to be used in a variety of European vehicles.
    
    Tony.

    Tony, they gave no serial number break-in.  Perhaps some of the other 
    Ford guys could help with this.  I suspect that Ford downsized the 302
    to 255 in 1980/81 to meet emissions laws and then went back to the 302
    once they realized the 255 was a dog.  (This is just a guess as I had
    never heard of this engine until I bought a "Mercury Buyer's Guide" a 
    couple of months ago.)  The 302 was also still available in larger
    vehicles.  I'm sure somebody out there must know how to decipher Ford
    engine serial numbers.  I have a chart for the old Y-block series.  If
    Ford kept it up then I might be able to help.
    
    The first letter is the decade.
    
    A= 1940'S
    B= 1950'S
    C= 1960'S
    ETC.
    
    The second character should be a number designating the year within the 
    decade.  So if the first two characters were "B7" that would be 1957.
    The third character (a letter) would define which branch of Ford the
    part came from.  
    
    A= Ford passenger
    S = Ford Thunderbird
    K = Edsel (forget I mentioned it!)
    L = Lincoln
    M = Mercury
    J = industrial engine (and probably marine, my comment. I'm also into
                           old boats)
    T = truck
    
    Again, this is from info I have on the old Y block V-8 offered up until
    1962 when the new small block V-8 (231/260/289/302) came out.  They may
    have changed the whole system at that time.
    
    Have fun,
    Wayne
    B= 

My '66 Mustang's 289 has a consistently noisy (hydraulic) lifter.  It always
clicks on accelleration and less so under a light load (coasting).  I really
don't have the inclination to rebuild the engine, but the ticking is really
annoying.  I've been told that if I run it like this for an extended period of
time, it will be hard on the cam and/or valves.

Can I just: 

	1) replace all the lifters, 
	2) leave the cam alone (assuming it looks o.k.)
	3) measure the pushrods (replace if necessary)

and put it all back together?  I realize this is not the "100%" approach, but
would it likely work?  Should you always replace the cam when you replace
lifters? 

Oil pressure is adequate, compression is within specs., and the engine doesn't
suffer any other known problems.



Steve

    
    Steve,
    
    New lifters on a old cam should be ok.  Before you go to all the
    trouble, make *SURE* it's a lifter and not just a bum pushrod, improper
    rocker adjustment, or amazingly a worn out fuel pump.
    
    Replacing the lifters isn't hard, but it's a fairly large job and you
    don't want to do it for nothing.
    
    Also, the low-po 289's have rail rockers, where the pushrod sits
    between 2 rails stamped into the rocker arm.  When things get a little
    loose, those rail rockers can really make a racket.  Try to identify
    the offending cylinder and determine if the lifter(s) really need
    replacing.
    
    Tom

    
>    New lifters on a old cam should be ok.  Before you go to all the
>    trouble, make *SURE* it's a lifter and not just a bum pushrod, improper
>    rocker adjustment, or amazingly a worn out fuel pump.
 
	I _do_ need to get a stethiscope (or long screwdriver) and find the 
exact noise.  Oh, that it were a fuel pump! ;-)

	What are the steps in replacing lifters?  A friend claimed it wasn't
all that much work beyond pulling the intake manifold off, removing the rocker
arm(s), pulling out the pushrod, and removing the lifter.  I'm sure I'm missing
some sordid step, right?  Is there a base adjustment to the valve clearance on
this engine?


Steve

    
      Steve,
    
    A small exhaust leak can sometimes sound like a noisy lifter.  I would
    check the heat riser butterfly that is located in one of the 
    exhaust manifolds, and the joint between the exhaust manifolds and the
    exhaust pipes.  
    
    In my experience, a noisy lifter usually makes the same amount of noise 
    no matter if the vehicle is accelerating or deceleration.  The noisy 
    lifters I've seen weren't noisier on acceleration, and quieter on 
    deceleration, unless there was oil pump starvation caused by too
    little oil or a problem with the oil pump pick-up screen.  Since you
    stated that the oil pressure is OK I doubt that oil pump starvation is
    the problem.  
    
    Tom
    
    
    

Since I've been burned on this before (manifold leaks), I'm going to spend some
quality time this weekend listening to it, and trying to find it.  The pickup
screen is clean, and the noise is still there when the engine is cold and oil
pressure is at its highest, too.  I can understand some light clicking when
the oil pressure is lower at operating temperature.
	
Come to think of it, a manifold leak does manifest itself under the exact 
conditions I have.  Hmmmmm......


Thanks....


Steve

With total humbleness, I found the three rear manifold bolts finger-loose on
the driver's side, and a couple on the passenger's side.  There are some 
manifold nut lock devices, but not all the tabs were intact. 

The noise is gone.  Thanks for provolking me to look for the cheap and easy
solution, instead of assuming the worst!



Steve

    Here is a sad tale of a performance modification which has sprung up on
    some UK Shortblocks :
    
    One nameless tuning company here machines-off the base of the valve
    guide where it protudes into the airflow areas of the heads. I guess
    this is to increase the airflow through the ports. The effect this has
    had is to rapidly advance the wear of the guides, due to the removal of
    a large area of bearing surface, & increase the temperature of the
    valve stem as its now more exposed. One 302 I looked at had lost the
    head of the valve. It travelled down one piston bore & re-emerged in
    the opposite head. Our valve-man here said that the valve stem had been
    softened by the exhaust gases. Net result of the valve loss was
    multiple splits in the block redering it useless, 2 pistons, full set of 
    valves & valve-guides & a repair bill of $2000.
    
    I'm sure this mod may be OK for the Drag-strip, but be warned,
    road-users 8-Q.
    
    Tony.
    

    I read somewhere (probably Hot Rod Mag) that machining off that bump
    has very little effect on the flow and in some applications (depending
    on other parts like exhaust system, etc.) it might even decrease low
    end torque.  Someday they will come up with heads for Ford small blocks
    that work as good (and are as cheap) as ones they have for CSB's.
    Wayne

    Many of the heads I've seen with this mod have only had it done on the
    intake side where the incoming charge keep the valve cool. Even then,
    the tendancy is not to eliminate the hump but rather to "knife-edge" it
    from where it starts all the way to the boss around the guide and to
    narrow the boss as opposed to eliminating it. 
    On the exhaust side the porters will contour the guide to maximize flow but
    don't eliminate it altogether except on all-out drag race heads where
    the valve doesn't see a lot of heat for an extended period.
    
    Stan
          

    Any quick way to determine what size a small block Ford is without
    deciphering serial numbers?  Also, how to tell if a manual tranny is a
    3 speed, 4 speed, or overdrive?  Somebody dropped a small block Ford
    with a manual tranny off at the dump last week.  It really doesn't look
    in bad shape.  The air cleaner is missing but otherwise it's complete
    down to the lifting chain. Obviously somebody was in a rush.  Probably
    some parent cleaning out their son's project out of the garage when
    they weren't looking. (Geez, I wonder what happened to those old
    Corvette valve covers I left at my father's garage years ago?)
    
    This motor is free for the taking bit I'ld like to know what it is
    first.
    Thanks, Wayne 

    Wayne,
    Pull off the valve cover and look for casting numbers by the valve
    springs....should say 289 or 302...unless someone has messed with
    it. A three speed has two shifter levers and a 4 sp has three levers.
    
    
    TMW

    I went back the next day the dump was open and everything was gone so
    I never had a chance to find out what it was but thanks for the info.
    
    Now another question.  I have a Weiand manifold and Holly carb waiting
    for the day I have something to put it on.  I was reading in Hot Rod
    or Summit catalog where they talk about port matching the intake
    manifold to the intake manifold gasket.  I guess it's a cheap and quick
    way to get a little more flow out of the intake manifold that you can 
    almost do at home.  It involves scribing marks around the intake runner
    holes where the gasket would seat and then opening up the runners to
    the scribe marks.  On an aluminum manifold, that should be reasonably
    simple and easy.  The problem is that the intake manifold gasket
    (Felpro) that I was going to buy has elongated holes where I assume the 
    mounting bolts should go thru to allow for some type of up or down
    adjustment.  Chevy gaskets just had plain holes so they would
    automatically be correctly placed.  Why do the Ford's differ?  Am I
    wasting my time anyways?  I will be looking to get a little extra
    performance out of a 289 but nothing serious.
    Thanks, Wayne

    A friend of mine has a 302 which is giving a heavy thumping noise from
    the top of the engine intermittently. It occurs at around 1000 rpm &
    disappears at tickover on the overrun. Normal running is reasonably
    quiet, the noise only occurs at 1000 rpm. Performance is very good,
    this fault does not seem to affect it.
    
                                      
    Our UK V8 company, Real-Steel, suggest that it could be a worn
    hydraulic tappet (lifter ?) which is bleeding down & suggested drilling
    holes in an old rocker box cover & inserting a feeler-guage under each
    rocker in turn to isolate the noisy valve. This is fine, I.ve got an
    old cover I dont mind destroying, but I'd have though that if the
    lifter was noisy, it would stay noisy right down to tickover.
    Its not the fuel pump, as the Ford mechanical pump hole has been
    blocked off & the pump replaced with an electric pump.
    
    Another 302 man has suggested that it is probably the timing chain &
    not to worry about it.
    So, what does the team think ?
    
    The 302 has a set of 4 twin-choke down draft Weber carburettors, I dont
    know what else has been done to the engine though. 
    
    Tony.

    Another "thumping" sound could be the mechanical fuel pump it has one.
    
    TMW

    No, I took the pump out of a cardboard box in the garage & it
    definitely wasn't thumping :-)
    
    The fuel is delivered by a pair of remote electric fuelpumps.
    
    So, could it be the timing chain ? How's yours, does it rattle thump or
    anything else ?
    
    Tony.
    

    Tony,
    I took my timing chain out of a box and it didn't rattle or thump
    either.......I have a Jackson gear drive, in my small block....
    
    
    TMW...

    
    :^)  :^) :^)
    
    Tony

    Small block 289 question :
    
    I noticed that the harmonic damper on my 289 is smaller than the one on
    the 302. My concern is "What else is different ?"
    
    Does the 289 flywheel have a different balance characteristic as well ?
    
    I want to avoid having the engine dynamically balanced if possible. If
    someone knows the imbalance factor & degree I can buy a flywheel
    correctly balanced to suit the 289. I cant use the stock Ford 289
    flywheel as it has to mate with a European Renault 30 gearbox which
    has a smaller bellhousing than USA equivalents.

    
    Oh well, I guess I'll have to have the engine balanced after all...
    [sigh]
    
    Tony.
    

    Does anybody know of a source to determine the correct engine decals,
    spark plug wires, battery, etc., for a 1968 289 2V (C coded) Mercury
    Comet?  I called Auto Krafters.  Although they probably carry
    everything I need, they didn't have a guide to tell me what (ie:
    decals) may be missing  so that I can order them.  Car is totally stock
    54K except for normal tune-up and maintenance items replaced by
    original owner over last 27 years.  There is a Comet/Falcon
    get-together coming up in August in Oxford, Ma. that I would like to
    take the car to.
    
    Thanks for any help.
    Wayne

    "The Paddock", which I've dealt with a while back for Camaro/Chevelle
    stuff deals with mustangs too I believe.  289 mustangs, which need
    engine, door jamb and trunk lid stickers.  And placement location.
    You may want to give them a ring.  I don't have a phone # handy, but
    it may be in here, or 800-555-1212 may list the paddock if they
    have an 800 number (which I'm almost positive).  
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

    Does anybody know where to locate the part number (casting code?) on
    a set of 1965 289 heads?  The only markings I can find are "65",
    289 (in two places), and a big "F" within a "C".  I have a book
    called "Ford High Performance" which gives part numbers to look for
    which I thought would have been stamped into the head somewhere.
    Also, I will be looking for a set of original style valves, springs,
    etc.  for low bucks just to play around with these heads for later
    use.
    Thanks, Wayne 

    	It's been a while but....
    
    	FORD's numbering convention goes 
    
    		C ==  196%
    		D ==  197%
    		E ==  198%
    
    	For a part made in 1965 the part number would begin  C5. 5 being
    the 5th year of the decade "C".
    
    	I have been out of the Mustang thing for quite some time. but this
    should help.
    
    

    Actually, I know exactly what the part number should be.  I just don't
    find it stamped anywhere on the heads.  It's not a big deal on these
    cause I bought them from Tom Fisher, he told me they were 65 regular
    (ie: not Hi-PO, too bad) heads, and I can find a stamping in two places
    saying 65 and 289, so I believe Tom.  My question is for further
    looking around at flea markets (Amherst opens up next weekend, 4/30),
    or junkyards.  I may find another set of junk heads that I can rob
    parts from but I will need to identify them to determine if they are
    compatible.  My book gives me the exact part number/casting codes to
    look for.  I just thought they would be stamped on the heads somewhere
    (like Chevy does).
    Thanks, Wayne

    Is Amherst on Sundays ?
    
        Dean

    Yes, April thru October.  Get there early.  Some people start packing
    up by noon.
    Wayne

    
This is really a boating question but nobody in the boats notesfile could
    help.  What does it take to make an engine run in "reverse rotation"?
    
    I have a 260 Cu In Ford (1964) in my 30 year old inboard boat.  It is
    a "reverse rotation" motor to counter-act the rotational forces of the
    inboard propeller.  What changes to the motor allow it to run backwards
    from a standard car engine?  For starters,  I had to buy a special (and
    very expensive, $275) reverse rotation starter.  I know that the
    Mallory distributor is specific for a reverse rotation motor although
    somehow it does spin in the same direction.  I assume that this is done
    by cutting the drive gear and cam gear differently. (??)  Is the cam
    the only other "different" part?  I am interested in repowering with a
    302.  I know I will need a new bellhousing (six bolt versus five).  I
    am wondering if other "reverse rotation" unique parts (ie: distr., cam,
    starter motor, etc.) will interchange.  The 260 has a solid cam if that
    makes a difference.
    
    
    Thanks, Wayne

    I dont know about the reverse rotation, but early 289's were 5-bolt.
    They went 6-bolt in their last year, 1967 I think, when the 302 came
    out. Getting a 289 may save you from buying a new bellhousing.
    I would expect to find some differences in the timing chain area, water
    pump, & crank/rods for a reverse rotation motor.
    Rathole :
    I used to have a motor cycle which switched to reverse at tickover. The
    first I'd know about it was when I tried to pull away from the lights :-)
    
    Tony.

    221, 260 (in my boat), and early '65 289's had 5 bolt bell housings.
    The 6 bolt 289 was introduced in midyear 1965.
    
    FYI: from Ford Performance book
    
    part number  engine   description
    ---------------------------------
    C4AZ-6010-B   289    5 BOLT BELLHOUSING STANDARD
    C40Z-6010-C   289    5 BOLT BELLHOUSING HP W/ H.D. MAIN CAPS
    D1TZ-6010-B   289    6 BOLT BELLHOUSING STANDARD
    C50Z-6010-C   289    6 BOLT BELLHOUSING HP W/ H.D. MAIN CAPS
    
    Note: the 302 block was slightly different from the 289 in that it was
    bored further into the block so some pistons meant for 302 blocks will
    hit when used in a 289 block with a 302 crank.  
    
    P.S. I am slowly collecting small block Ford parts for a future
    project.  I always wanted to rebuild an engine just to see how they
    work.  I so far have a Wiend (SP??) dual plane high rise manifold,
    650 Holly (with Ford auto kickdown) and a set of '65 289 heads with the
    small chambers in need of a rebuild.  If anybody has left over stuff
    (valves, springs, valve covers, oil pan, pistons, etc.) I would be
    interested.  This engine will probably be built around a '83 302 engine
    from my brother-in-laws van (once he runs out of the steel tape needed
    to cover the rust spots to pass inspection) but I would be interested
    in a complete 302 short block if gatthering dust.
    Thanks, Wayne

    I have a early '65 Mustang 289 five bolt bellhousing block at the local
    machine shop.  He said it will need to be bore .030 and the crankshaft
    turned down.  He quoted me $150 to bore the block and $90 to turn the
    crank.  Are these prices fair?  I don't have any real need for a '65
    five bolt bellhousing block and if I have to stick alot of money into
    it (pistons, etc.) I would probably be better off doing a later 302.
    I bought the engine originally to get the '65 small chamber heads.
    Does anybody know of someone who may have an early 289 Mustang with a
    later 289/302 engine that may be looking to go back to original?  I
    could arrange a swap.  I would be smart to do a six bolt bellhousing
    block if I have to spend all the money for boring, pistons, etc.,
    because it would be easier and cheaper to find other compatible parts
    later.
    Wayne

    Not much activity in here lately.  No motorheads left in DEC anymore?
    
    I have a question about how to tell the difference between a regular
    289 and a Hi-Po 289.  Even more specifically, early blocks with the
    five bolt bellhousing.  I have read a number of books and magazine
    articles stating that the only real difference is in the casting code
    and the main caps.  The Hi-Po cranks were picked from the regular 
    production run, tested for hardness (Brinell test), but otherwise the
    same except for a add-on extra counter-weight.  I understand how the
    heads differed. (Hi-Po's had screw in studs and a special valve spring
    pocket.  Otherwise they were the same.  
    
    The reason I am asking is because I had somebody who was interested in
    obtaining a 289 five bolt block I have for his '65 Cobra.  He was not
    interested once I told him the casting number.  His original crank from
    his Hi-Po motor did not have the extra crankshaft counterweight that I
    told him helps to differentiate it from standard cranks.
    
    Is there a real good source of info on early Ford small blocks?
    
    Also, anybody got a 289 Hi-Po  5 bolt bellhousing block/engine hanging 
    around just waiting to go in an original Shelby Cobra?  I tried to
    salvage his original engine by having it sleeved but the sleeve job
    let go and destroyed his crank.
    
    Thanks, Wayne

Hi,

For lack of a better place to post this note I'll ask here. I'm rebuilding
an '87 302 I picked up to go into my Mustang. I'll be re-using the pistons.
There is a huge amount of carbon build-up on the tops of the pistons. Anyone
know of an easy why to clean them off? Just scrapping them will take forever.


thanks
Mike

    
        Get a bucket of Hydro-Seal. Throw in as many pistons that will fit
    and in an hour you pull them out and they will look like they just came
    off the assembly line.
    
    -john

>        Get a bucket of Hydro-Seal. Throw in as many pistons that will fit
>    and in an hour you pull them out and they will look like they just came
>    off the assembly line.


Sounds great to me, but what's Hydro-Seal and where can I find it?

thanks

    
        NAPA will get it for you. Regular places like western auto, or pep
    boys will not sell it to you.
    
    -john

    
    	I've got some money burning a hole in my pocket, and know just what
    to do with it, but I'm not sure which way to go? For the same amount of
    money I can get either the TFS Twisted Wedge heads or the Edelbrock
    Aluminum heads. I've been told that out of the box the Edelbrock
    actually create more horsepower!? Now of course I want more horsepower
    but I REALLY want some extra torque for playing on the street where the
    car sees most of its life.
    
    	To give you an idea what is done to the car here are a few
    modifications since new in '87...
    - Bored .030
    - Forged pistons
    - Steel crank
    - Factory heads(ported & polished, 3 angle valve job, decked .020, minor
      bowl work)
    - 1:60 roller rockers
    - Edelbrock Performer upper and lower intake
    - Electric Fan kit
    - 70mm throtle body
    _ Cobra mass air conversion kit (73mm)
    - BBK 1 5/8 equal length headers
    - 2 1/2 H-pipe, Flowmaster 3 chamber, 2 1/2 tail pipes
    - 10.5 H.D. Motorsport clutch
    - 3.73 motorsport gears and Auburn Ltd Slip Diff.
    - Southside Machine Lift Bars
    
    	Now eventually what I want to do is probably run a Nitrous system  
   ( preferably the new plate system, but likely the fogger system). My
    goal is to get to the mid to low 11 second bracket with a true reliable
    street car that I could just hop in and travel 400 miles in a day and
    not worry about it. Right now the car has gone a best of 11.64 @
    110mph.
    
    	If anyone has any comments or ideas or anything they think could
    help me out I would be very gratefull. To this point I think I've been
    very smart in the way I've approached my goal, I just want that to
    continue in the right direction.
    
    					From the GREAT WHITE NORTH
    
    						Wade

    	
    	Just a correction on the last note. The time I left for the car
    should have been 12.64 @ 110 MPH. not 11.64. Sorry for the wishfull
    thinking.
    
    					From the GREAT WHITE NORTH
    
    						Wade 
                    

>    	I've got some money burning a hole in my pocket, and know just what
>    to do with it, but I'm not sure which way to go? For the same amount of
>    money I can get either the TFS Twisted Wedge heads or the Edelbrock
>    Aluminum heads. I've been told that out of the box the Edelbrock
>    actually create more horsepower!? Now of course I want more horsepower
>    but I REALLY want some extra torque for playing on the street where the
>    car sees most of its life.


I've been running the Edelbrock heads(1.9/1.6 valves) for awhile and I
have been real happy with them. The last time I read a magazine dyno
test on heads the Edelbrock's beat out the Twisted Wedge heads by a small
amount. 

I don't have any experience with the Twisted Wedge heads but have heard the
quality is not as good, especially on the assembled heads. You can also
have problems with long duration CAMs since the valves are not in the
stock locations. But, I think they cost a couple hundred less than the 
Edelbrock's. Lots of people do run these heads and seem to like them so
I think either would be an OK choice. 

On my car(Supercharged) switching from the stock heads(ported w/ 1.90/1.60
valves), stock cam, and 1.7 rockers to Edelbrock heads, E303 CAM, and 1.6
rockers I picked up 5MPH in the 1/4 mile. 

Sounds like you have a nice setup as is, good luck.

/Mike

    
    	Thanks for the quick reply Mike. You brought up a good point that I
    hadn't even thought of. One of the modifications I forgot to mention
    was that I have the B303 cam as well, thus the 1.6 roller rockers, and
    I wonder how that would affect things.
    
    						Wade
    
                		
           

    What are the specs on the B303 cam?
    
    You say you want torque, but it sounds like you're building for
    horsepower, higher RPM.  The heads may or may not be a waste of
    money.  If you've already done head work on your current setup, the
    only thing the aluminum heads are touted for is weight savings, and
    they'll beat stock head flow.  
    
    If you don't have a flow bench, it's next to impossible to tell if
    the $$$$ spent on the new heads will justify the expense over the
    current head.  The only way to tell is to spend $1200 on the new heads,
    put them on and slow down.  Then put your old heads back on and sell
    the used aluminum heads for $700.
    
    Match your config for what you want it to do, low end torque or high
    end horsepower.  It sounds like it's matched already.  Put the
    nitrous in it and make sure you redo your fuel system.  Pocket the
    rest of the cash, or send it down to me.
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

So, how do I make my little 281 go fast??

I don't see much at all on making a go-fast '96 GT...  Looks like cams will
be an easy install tho.  :-)

>So, how do I make my little 281 go fast??


Call Vortec or Kenne Bell, maybe others....

    Umm, too much at once. (Dough, that is).  I was hoping for bolt-on
    stuff (headers, intake goodies, etc...).  And for GAWD SAKE, I've GOT
    to replace the plastic valve covers...  ;-)
    
    Man, your motor took a major header, eh?  Nice pix tho!

    HI,  I have a 94 Mustang GT and I would like some info on underdrive
    pulleys.  I hear that they make a little increase in performance but
    I don't understand how?  Also I would like to get some more horsepower
    without breaking the bank if you know what I mean!!!!!!  I would like
    to get around 300 to 350 hp out of it and if anyone has some advice I
    would appreciate it.
    
    Roger

    Pulleys do their thing by changing the ratios that drive your
    accessories.  They work.
    
    Seems like NOS is popular for an 'easy on the pocket' horsepower
    increase of that magnatude.  I found that pulleys and a K&N did some
    nice things for my 5.0, but not to that level.  I think you need a
    blower.  :-)

    I agree with the blower but NOS I don't really know about that but hey
    who knows.  I think a set of 3:55 gears and pulleys,cam,etc.... would
    do some wonders for my 5.0.  I have a 5 speed so I'm not sure if there
    is anything I can do to the tranny to improve it but if there is I will
    consider it.  What is a good blower for my Mustang?????

    Do the easy stuff.
    
    Pulleys.
    
    The cam is expensive and will affect driveablity.
    The gears, from ?.?? to 3.55 will be disappointing.  If you
    are going to replace the ring & pinion, go with at least a 3.73.
    The 5 speed will help you save some gas milage.
    Gearing = good deal.
    
    The nitrous is a good deal, for $400 total (probably less) you
    can push a button and have a 150hp kick in the pants.  When you
    don't feel like going like hell, you can lay off the bottle.
    
    A blower is on, 100% period.  A cam is in there, 100% period.
    If you get the wrong one, or don't like what you did, it's
    expensive to undo.  With nitrous, just shut it off.
    
    If you just want to get you jollies every now and then, go with
    nitrous.  If you are serious about getting 100% out of your
    car and you want to race competiviely... do what eric & mike
    did...
    
    MadMike

    Let me back up a bit and clarify:
    
    } Also I would like to get some more horsepower
    } without breaking the bank
    
    This means nitrous.  Cheap and on demand.  Buying a blower will
    break your bank immediately.
    
    The gears won't do anything horsepowerwise - but will move the
    power around.  I.e. instant acceleration.
    
    I went from a 3.42 to 4.11 and it'll open your eyes.  Going from
    2.73 (or thereabouts) to 3.55 (slightly above where I started)
    you will notice some improvement, but not enough IMO to justify
    the expense.  UNLESS you had some issue with transmission
    gearing (which you're 5 speed negates).  In other words, I think
    you can live with a 3.73, 3.90 or + and shift it into 5th and
    still cruise at 65-70mph and not be getting 5 mpg (like I do).
    
    The cam, like I said, needs to be matched to the rest of your
    combination.  A cam can make a ton of horsepower, but you will
    run into all sorts of other problem$$$$$$ without fixing
    the rest of the situation.  Putting a cam in it, without the
    other mods will be a waste of money.
    
    The transmission:  must be strong enough to handle what you
    want to do.  I assume it is.  I'd worry about the clutch.  I'd
    probably also want to make sure I have a very good shifter in there.
    
    Since this thing is fuel injected (most likely) you can fart
    around with the fuel system preatty easily.  This will be a 
    MUST if you go with a cam.  The next thing with the cam is to
    get a set of heads that flow real well to compliment the cam, which
    means now you will be running up to 5-6000 rpm to get the power
    which means the rest of the engine needs to be beefy enough
    to handle that $tre$$ which will get expen$ive and mess up
    your budget.
    
    Slap the nitrous on there....  I'm gonna do that with my
    cavalier and forgo all the customized bullfeces I was going to
    do.  If I need a hard#n I'll stomp on the Z/28's throttle.  I don't
    know what the hell I was thinking with the cavalier.  :^)
    
    MadMike

    I've always been concerned about NOS blowing the heads right off my
    car.  
    
    I would like my new '96 to do some major whoop-ass on my neighbors Z28,
    and know it can be done with a blower, but this is a daily/sunday
    driver...and I'm not so serious about racing that I wan't to make a
    mess of my $20K stang to whoop-ass.
    
    The attractive part of the NOS system is that you can shut it off (and
    remove it completely) without too  much of a fuss.  The bad part is, I
    know ME, and I know I'll NEVER shut the thing off and will be leaving
    stop lights with tires ablaze, etc...
    
    So, I sit around and think:  
    
    "Ya know, the mustang's pretty fun to drive now"
    "Sure would be nice to kill the Z across the way..."
    "Don't wanna spend $3K on a blower"
    "Don't wanna blow my cylinder heads off the block"
    "Sure would be nice to kill the Z across the way..."
    
    Sigh.

      I would love to put NOS in my Stang!!  but I would have to do some
    research on what systems would run better in my car versus other cars
    and what system wouldn't blow the hell out of my stock engine.  My
    friends 89 Mustang is "sick" and what I mean by sick is in 1st gear he
    can't jump on it because he will just go in a circle.  I love the power
    it has but I would really hurt myself.  He had all of his work done at
    CE racing wich I never heard of until he told me about it but he also
    $pent big buck$$$$$.  Does anyone know anything about NOS for stock
    5.0 mustangs.  I have 3.08s in my car now and would like a little more
    take off from my car.   The only thing is with gears is I travel 80
    miles a day coming to DEC from North Brookfield, granted I only work 4
    days one week and 3 the next but it still adds up.  
       
    	I suppose I could go with NOS,pulleys,gears,K&N air filter. 
    What about a computer chip?????  are they even worth the $$$$$$?
    
    All these ideas my brain is starting to cramp up!!  and also I also
    would love to whip ass with my stang.

    Reply .160
    
    I am a bit late replying but better late than ever. TFS has a new 
    Twisted Wedge race head that seems to be a really nice piece. It has 
    room for 2.08, 1.60 valves and has some nice flow figures unported.
    Summit sells them both ported and unported and has flow numbers in 
    the catalog. I haven't got it available at the moment but if You want
    it I can post it later. If You are planning to go for some serious
    horsepower this seems to be the right stuff to go with. If I just had
    the money I would sell my old DART Iron heads and go with them myself.
     
    Reply .NOS :)
    
    I have been running NOS for three seasons in my 351 Windsor without any
    problems. I tore the engine down this winter and it shows no evidence
    of abuse. As long as You don't get to greedy (meaning over 150 hp) and 
    see to that You have a large enough fuel pump than You won't haveany
    problems.
    
    There are special NOS systems available for the 5.0 'stangs. Summit
    have them amongst others (I start to sound like a Summit sales rep :).
    
    NOS is a lot fun. If You want to have lots of fun without to much money 
    and hassle, there is only one option, use NOS !!!!!
    
    That is all from Sweden for now, have a nice day, regards Richard

      I will look into NOS because from what people are saying it sounds
    like a good choice for low $$$ power.  Eventually I will start
    tinkering with heads,throttle bodies,etc......  I will definatly
    go with gears and underdrive pulleys.  What about exhaust for my 94
    Stang?????  The stock 5.0 exhaust is ok but I like a little more bark!
    
    Roger

    
    	From the looks of this notes file, everyone must be pretty busy!
    Sooo.... to try and get something going, I'm going to pose a couple of
    questions. I recorded a note .160 a while back about aluminum heads and
    which would be a better way to go. Well, for the money I decided to
    finally go to the nitrous.
    
    	Since the work I've done to the factory heads seems to flow not too
    bad, I figured why not spend the money on the Injection Plate System
    from N.O.S.. For those who may not be familiar with this system yet,
    it's a plate that is sandwiched between the upper and lower intake with
    a distribution bar running down the centre which distributes the
    nitrous and fuel. It's adjustable from 150 HP to 300 HP. Now obviously
    with the block and components I have now, the 300 HP shot is out of the
    question but one of the questions I have is can I use up to 200 HP
    without too much of a hassle?
    
    	Other additions I have made are the addition of an SX 80 GPH in
    line fuel pump to go with the 155 lph in tank unit and also upgraded to
    the PS 92E coil from Crane. One other item that might also be added is
    the Crane HI6 ignition box, money permitting. Other than that nothing
    else has changed. I know I will have to decrease my ignition timing by
    1 to 1 1/2 degrees per 50 HP and also one or two heat ranges colder on
    the spark plugs. That leads me to another question, does anyone know if
    there are any plugs that work best for this type of setup? Also, I have
    an adjustable fuel pressure regualator but I'm not sure if I should run
    the same fuel pressure I always do and let the NOS system bring the
    pressure up on its own or do I have to bring it up myself and play with
    it to find the best results? 
        
    	I once saw something in one of the magazines I was reading that
    showed how you can increase the strength of your block by adding what
    looked like a brace that went below?? the lower intake and strengthened
    the top end of your motor. Now this was quite a while ago and at the
    time I didn't pay much attention thinking I would never get to the
    point where I thought I might need something like that. When the
    motor was built we used 7/16 head studs and ARP rod bolts to keep
    everything in place but now that I think about it maybe I should have
    gone to the SVO block. If anyone knows what I'm talking about with the
    brace could you please also comment on that piece as well.
    
    	I'm sure I'll have more questions later but I'll let you digest all
    this first.
    
    					FROM THE GREAT WHITE NORTH
    
    						Wade

    HI,  
    	I was asking about N.O.S and people say that for the money its the
    best for the buck.  I have decided to go with a SuperCharger for my
    94 Mustang GT, but I have not yet decided on wich one.  The guy thats
    installing the supercharger is looking into the best one for my car. 
    he builds drag engines for a living and knows some people who only work
    on Mustangs and is going to give them a call and see which supercharger
    they say is the best.  My question is can anyone give me some
    suggestion on superchargers, like horsepower gain and dependability?
    
    Thanks, Roger

    Well, one of those TV hot rod shows yesterday had a spot on a poor
    mustang driver who got tired of chevy boys beating up on him.
    He spent $3799 on a VORTECH supercharger kit for his stang.
    So I guess Vortech makes a kit for you.  It dropped his ET by one
    second.  It didn't do anything for him off the line, since the
    supercharger had to spool up (sounds like a half ass turbocharger).
    
    MadMike

    I guess I will have to do some intense research on wich one is the type
    for me, and thanks for in info I'm going to need all the help I can get
    on finding the right supercharger for the kind of performance that I
    want.
    
    Roger

    I would think that Fortes in Waltham would be able to help you out.
    Ask for Scott.
    
    Rich

    Rich,  
    	I am having Ron Gregiore do my work, he's on rt 169 in Southbridge
    and he called Fortes and I ended up getting a 9lb powerdyne
    supercharger with clutch,computerchip.  I hope I don't need Mass Air
    induction wich the article I read sais I need, but Fortes said nothing
    about it so hopefully I don't need one.  I should get at least 125 hp
    from the system wich will probably scare me the first time in the car.