Making power on a budget is the goal of HorsePower this time, as they take a Ford 302 Small Block and build it up to a 306 cubic inch, 400+ horsepower street-fighter.
Iron and aluminum must be tricky, different heat build ups and cool downs .I had a triton in my van .good motor but the heads were aluminum and would throw spark plugs if you didn't check them once in awhile . It happened to me on a big job ( military place ) I turned the key and bang .a plug shot out .turned it off quick.i knew what it was .ended up cross threading it ,then fixed it a couple days later.
I've been running a melling high volume pump for 3 years with a stock pan. Regular trips to 6200 plus and zero problems. Make sure you use a hardened oil pump driveshaft.
Just a question, do you hold high rpm for a decent length of time or just run it up through a gear then back down? The oil pan evacuation/starvation issues usually only occur when the rpm is high for a decent length of time or during high g forces.
Hammer Head Garage yeah cool good to know. I have a cheap old falcon I use as a rally car, has an 4 litre inline 6, I’ve never had oil issues while rallying it full noise but I did get oil starvation doing doughnuts on the spot once, heard it start ticking and seen no oil pressure on dash, only a couple seconds before I realised and stopped, engine survived luckily. Was a weird one but I put it down to the g force of quick circles and constant 5000 rpm. It’s strange cause there has been plenty of fast laps on the rally track I’d expect to have issue with but never do. One of those things if u have a good engine it might be better off preparing for something that might never be an issue rather than waiting for it to cause damage and lose a good engine to something that could have been prevented. Hard to know if your situation really needs it until it’s too late
Slight correction needed here. While he was somewhat correct when he stated the "302" had "shorter connecting rods" than the 289, the BOSS 302 utilized connecting rods that were the same length as the 289. In fact, the 1969 BOSS 302's connecting rods used the same forgings as the 289 HiPo, but instead of being "broached" for the HiPo's "square head" 3/8" rod bolts, the BOSS rods were "spotfaced" for the "football"-headed 3/8" bolts exclusive to the BOSS engines.
Back then there was no torque management to save the transmission, so when your 302 Ford or 350 GM made 400hp at the flywheel you soon sent your stock transmission over the rainbow bridge. You’re right though, it’s impressive that engine platforms designed as much as 70 years ago are still thriving due to the enthusiast market.
@@gregoryclark6339 And the they make a 7.3 Godzilla. I think that says something about gasv V8. There is a V8 hybrid coming next yea..im thinking a Super Duty surprise. They say it's for Mustang, but that doesn't make sense. Either way Ford is kicking butt and so is Chevy with their new 6.6 gas. I've never been 100% on the current HEMI, but I'm sure they are fine overall.
Alot of these new factory cars making 600hp+ are heavy AF the old foxbody mustangs we so dang light thats a big reason these 350-400hp 302's can still hang.
@@edwardzamorski3711 My riding lawn mower is has the dull headlight package and 12.5 hp. 0-10 in 3.7 seconds. EcoBrats don't stand a chance. Hellcat?? Nope. Anything GM? Piss off. Tesla?? Were you drunk when you designed the Cyber-Drunk? Sure looks like it...fkn punding Budweisers while watching Sci Fi channel about Musk Aliens. Give me modesty because overall, I can stomach the maintainence costs (even if a bit much). I can't imagine the batteryu packs in those and the procedure in replacing them, or the drive motors when they go bad...and they will go bad. No thanks I'll beat them to 60 by leaving yesterday; no problem!!
The trick the British use for the valve cover is to silicone it to the valve cover and then coat the bottom of the gasket with LubriPlate or just plain axle grease, which will in turn act as a primitive sealant in it's own right, all the while allowing for the assembly to be readily removed.
when you store any engine ,for more then a season that has push rods, back the rockers off all the valves are closed, some springs mess up if you dont,plus it keeps junk out.
Ford engineers had a goal to make 400 hp and they exceeded it. You really should thank the engineers for pushing for a better product as they are real car people. For years Ford didn't put a rear independent suspension on the Mustang because it cost an extra $800 per car but the engineers kept insisting to have the mustang with IRS (Corbras did come with IRS for the 99 2000). Then the Coyote Engine came out and it exceeded 400 hp which was pretty amazing on 87 octane and 91 gave you 425 to 435 hp depending on the model year. The only sad part is that the LS motor offers a better bang for buck performance wise. The LS motor is more simple than the Coyote, costs less to modify (I.e. one can verses 4) and responds better to mods. Plus the larger displacement combined with the 2 valve design gives more low end torque for the LS.
@@brarautorepairs the mustang was always a MUSCLE car in the past without the independent suspension. Muscle cars strength is power and acceleration. Since independent suspension is now in the mustang picture(to enhance handling) it's no longer a muscle car, and instead a sports car along with the Corvette. As far as the coyote engine goes I'm not a fan of myself. Ford can KEEP IT! I like the old push rod engines. If I can have a Windsor, then I'll do an LS swap before I do a coyote swap into my foxbody. I'm glad to see ford come to there sences and offer the new Godzilla 7.3 and the smaller 6.8 version pushrod engines.
@@erikturner5073 Ford will likely have to move to a V6 engine in the GT in the future. Pushrod motors, despite their packaging and weight advantages, aren't going to be the future of ICE. The DOHC 5.0L 32 valve engine is undoubtedly better than the old school V8 offerings from Ford. GM is an outliers with their continued use and development of push rod engines. But even GM had to add cam phasing for emission reasons to their motors. Chrysler's HEMI engines haven't put out amazing numbers without forced induction. We look at a 5.0l V8 with a high rev in high specific output which is best for a track setting.
@@brarautorepairs although the LS and Hemi rule the streets. Both are pushrod engines. Coyotes are impressive, but are over complicated and also very expensive. They are not as popular as the other two. Plus people are going back to the old Windsors. Plus they lack cubes. Still if I couldn't have a Windsor, then I'd do an LS swap into my foxbody and not a Coyote. LS swaps are much more popular than coyote swaps for plenty of reasons.
Antiseize on plugs will significantly reduce heat transfer from the plug to the head, causing shorter plug life. GM has a TSB about this. Better to chase the threads and use a little engine oil and just back the plugs out and reseat at oil change time
Would love to see this build again, but this time retain the efi and maybe a run with a edelbrock intake and a run with the trickflow and see if it can still knock out the 400hp.
@@vtecbanger3180 Would've assumed EFI would make more sense but probably simpler for a dyno setup especially if they had a carb lying around. I prefer the wonders of EFI in a street car
The low deck Windsor began at 221 cid like the flathead but its first performance model was the 260, seen in Tigers and early Cobras both by Carroll Shelby. The K code 289 made its 271 horsepower with a small carb, Shelby got rid of that and made 306 hp not 350. The 302 did in fact use a shorter connecting rod, but not in the Boss 302 version--it kept the longer 289 connecting rod with special pistons to match its canted valve heads. Because the 289 had the shorter stroke of the 260, it is not a good candidate for stroker engines--its cylinder walls don't extend far enough into the crankcase, so a longer stroke pulls the piston down out of the bottom of the bore and it rocks around at BDC--unless your 289 was built in 1967, which is when Ford did design them with the longer 302 cylinder wall. If you have to align hone the main caps, consider the 289 Challenger K code models got thicker main caps and use a set along with the threaded core plugs used by the Boss 302s. But there's still enough roller cam equipped, post 1986 5.0 blocks around to start an engine build with, so if you're starting from scratch, it's worth hitting the junkyard for an engine they'll warantee. Grab some GT40P heads off an Explorer on the way out the door (too bad Mustang OEM tubular headers won't clear the spark plugs without work) and you've got a compact torque package for budget power. Choose a camshaft profile with the 351W firing order--the non HO 302 firing order sets both front cylinders off at once, which can cause block issues when you go past 500hp.
@@zexce63 I respectfully disagree. Their entire show is based off the fact that they’re supposed to be very well versed in what they’re giving advice on. This is beyond grammatical errors.
I used to always use high volume oil pumps in BBF and BBC because the old man always did in the 80s. Never bothered doing it with SBF and it has never failed in 100s of passes and high revs. I have also seen the filter blow on BBC from it.
Rebuilding a 302 for my 91 F-150 and it's a very similar build to this one so this is very helpful for me! bore is at 4.060 with a 3 inch stroke bringing it to 312. Topping it with some new DSS -3 cc flat top pistons and an Edelbrock performer RPM camshaft, intake, and cylinder heads. I figured let them do all the work for me as far as mating a cam intake and heads. The compression when I'm done with it all should be around 9.94 to 1. Little saddened cause I thought I'd make around 400 based on the edelbrock numbers but your video shows that it might not be that much. Still I have been watching you guys for years and yall have just grown my love for working on engines and now I have the knowledge to build my own for a vehicle that I love dearly. Thank you so much and I look forward to building this back up!
@@strydyrhellzrydyr1345 actually you're correct! A lot has changed with the build since I wrote that comment and I'm looking now at about 420 according to my numbers and some older racing guys that I know of say 450 horse with this motor
@@ethanbunch3274 Kool man... Good for you... Yeah, seems very likely to me. I'd have to hear it... But I bet probably closer to 450. Than to 400. Hell, depending on setup, and other little details, it could be even a bit higher than that... It depends
My guess is you’re using a Comp Cams 35-450-8 in it. It’s the same cam I’m using in my 306 for my F100. I’m using the Ready-to-Run Distributor with 1.6 scorpion roller rockers on AFR 185cc Aluminum Heads that are ported to 200+cc, Air-Gap intake, and a 650 Holley Carb. Very nice setup!
Your setup is making more peak, and average, Hp, and Tq.! You have much better cyl. heads, the best dual plane intake, and matched perfectly to the rpm range of that camshaft! Great choice of parts.
What's your combustion chamber specs? I'm thinking about going 58cc with stock stroke and rods but I'm not sure what piston size to go for. They never mentioned in the video what piston specs they have for 10.2:1
That is a perfect N/A setup. Very close to the standard I have used with great results. Funny, I had a 100 with a 429 long ago and I would have loved to use a SBF build with the stuff out today. The 650 is absolutely perfect for that setup too.
Hey guys...great video Two questions. What carb did you use and what was your final base timing ? Was all in under 34 degrees or higher ? Thanks )oh I guess that was 3 questions..lol)
The stock Windsor (as opposed to the Cleveland) oiling system is great from the factory. I've never seen anyone else run extra oil lines in the valley.
Boys after put rod on the crank and torque you need to turn crank to make sure nothing is pinching on ever rod you can with rear seal out first you will get a better fill of rotation if one rod is to tight you can fine out what's wrong thanks for a good show l.d.k.
I honestly didn't expect it to gain this much power with the stock stroke. A 331 with this same top end (..and a little more cam) would be a bad little motor.
That's exactly what I'm currently building for a '69 stang, same cam that they used but with aluminum heads and a 331 stroker kit, after seeing this I'm super excited to get this old car back on the road!
@@tomwiens3500 is a summit stroker good? These guys raised it up to 400 hp but it was just 1 time. I was wondering if it can last and aren't fragile parts.
@@oscarvillarreal8951 Not 100% sure on summit's assembled short blocks. I'm running a stock factory roller block with a scat series 9000 331 stroker rotating assembly that they claim can handle 600hp. Being that with my cam/head setup it's only going to be around 400hp I'm not at all worried.
You should have shot the oiling system upgrades, looks like a bypass to the rear of the block to help with oiling in the rear of the block since the pump is at the front of the engine?
Something similar is done with 351C builds, but easier to do. There is an oil port just behind the intake and another next to the fuel pump, just run a line between the oil ports.
Those crankshaft appear to be heated a little bit to much to press fit the pins, personally I would worry about metallurgical changes in the steel. But I really enjoyed watching this episode. Take care guys!
Is it just me, but there sure seemed to be a heck of a lot of blow by coming out of the valve cover on this brand new engine! I' haven't seen this on any video I've watched here on RU-vid!
Damn great gains, I've built a motor very similar to this but cost me far more than 3k. More like 12k in Australia and that's not even forged bottom end.
I'm hearing you mate, but it can be done. I'm slapping together an ex-AU Falcon 5.0L block with the GT40P heads and some new springs and exhaust valves to replace the odd rotator system. Couple with some mild home porting, a used intake and a cam similar to the ISKY MegaCam 280 and she'll be a 400hp street beast.
@@doughavenga316 Not really. They're approaching 2v Cleveland flow and after a port are very close. Those heads are renound to flow 400hp+ easily. Nothing wrong with a GT40P casting if you do your research on the combo.
Gt40 heads are fine. Problem comes in if you pay to have them ported. Then the price of that puts you close to a decent set of heads out of the box. If you can port them yourself or don’t mind spending money on a factory head, they are great. Easy to make 400hp with the right supporting parts.
@@mikec9112 the 351 and 302 are both Windsor blocks the only difference being 351 is 9.5 deck and 302 is 8.2... but you can take heads off one and they will work on the other!
@@mikec9112 the 302W and 351W were the most popular engines they powered everything the Cleveland motors were rare and much more used in Ford Australia vehicles
They're definitely tough engines. I have a 99 explorer AWD with a 5.0 and I've got 361K on the clock. Biggest headache so far was replacing the water pump just because of the infamous problem of the bolts seizing to the timing cover. Hit them with a little bit of heat and they backed right out. I love my 302
How can I get an accurate parts list for this build. I looked at the Summit site but couldn't find exact matches. I'd love to have part # for every piece if possible.
i have a question for you i just rebuild my engine i have a 1990 k5 blazer 5.7 the block was 30over i did a few up grades trying to get alittle more hp out of it i got about 3000 miles on the engine now..i want to no will xe 262 h cam go good with the swirl port head i have on there i do have the tbi and i had to get some one to burn my chip but i still cant get no power he is still playing with the chip everything is pretty mush stock i have 3704 edelbrock intake i have headers 3 inch exhaust all the way back 40 series muffles i change the stock torque converter and put in 2000 to 2400 stall i have 410 gears in there ...35x12.5r15 tires on it..
I used the cork gasket to give me more clearance for my stock valve covers since I’m running 1.6 roller rockers in my 87 ranger 5.0 swapped, works like a charm if you know how to use it 😂
Little mistake showing the longer 38 special cartridge as a 9mm, and the short 9mm as a 38. In reality, both of those would make almost exactly the same size 3/8" hole. Something like a 30-30 Winchester or other 30 caliber would be closer to 5/16". Not a bad idea, never really thought of it, but I got a set of hole punches from Harbor Freight many years ago for around $3 that have been great! Made me cringe when you punched the gasket directly on the red painted surface of the tool box!
Was gonna point that out about the casings but I knew if I scrolled the comments, it had already been done. Not many gun guys/reloaders are also car guys. You would think so but it's not as common as most might think.
It seems like silver plated spark plug nipples may be a waste of money, idk?. I think it might make more of a difference if they weren't resistor type plugs.
Just curious, do you need a solvent to get rid of any oil that might be on the surface between the heads and the block? Curious of the oil could cause premature head gasket failure. Car noob here.
Yes you did he said he used Summit racing value pack but considering how old this video is doubt it’s still available and they used a crane camshaft, crane cams are no longer available.
If you are specifically building a 8.2 deck and down to the block just spend the extra money to get the newer Boss 5.0 with the 4-bolt main. It literally fits EVERYWHERE a oem 5.0 does, uses the 1/2" head bolts and with the FRPP water pump never gets hot. Then you can boost the crap out it later to over 1000hp and it won't split.