302/5.0 Recommendations

The place to talk Slicks. All we ask is that discussion has something to do with slicks...

Moderators: Kid, Casey 65

Post Reply
User avatar
banjopicker66
Posts: 1488
Joined: July 17, 2006, 1:59 pm
Location: Middlesboro, KY

302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by banjopicker66 »

Everyone, most of you know that I have terminal cancer. However, I want to keep looking forward on my Slick. It gives me something pleasant to think about. (It is in pieces right now back home in Ridgeland, SC, and the painter is glad to wait.) I am hoping to sell my house soon, so that we can move back home.
My Slick is built with a 460/C6 and 3.25 rear end ratio to tow and haul, and it does a great job of that. With medical disability I can't so that anymore, so I want to return it to a more usable daily driver, especially around town.
With that in mind, I am looking at going to a 302-automatic setup, and sell the 460/C6.

I am most familiar with the FE and 385 series engine families, not so much with the 302/5.0 Windsor series.
The actual swap is not unfamiliar to me - but what I do not know is what year 302/5.0 would be suitable, or unsuitable.

I am looking for a donor car or truck, with a decent running engine so that I don't need to do head work and the like - unless it is very important for engine mileage and performance. A good example might be, from your experience, that an "RV" cam or a different timing set might be worth the investment. I am not looking for performance so much and a decent daily driver truck. It should stay a relatively simple swap.

However, I am sure there are things to look out for. For example, in the 385 engines, changing the timing gear in '72 or later engine will really wake it up - and I am looking for simple fixes such as that to do to the donor engine before it goes in.

As to transmissions, I would prefer to get away from the C6, mostly because I do not need the strength of a C6, and it loses a lot of power. I also don't want to mess with electronics or the issues of an AOD. A plain self shifting slushbox will do, but I don't know what the differences are. MX? FMX?

Right now, there are a lot of 302/automatic setups on the Savannah, GA Craigslist, along with complete 302 donor cars.
What donor car or truck would you recommend?
What engine\transmission would you recommend for a daily driver truck?
What modifications, if any, from factory configuration for that year would you recommend?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
69supercj
Posts: 404
Joined: July 24, 2010, 8:17 pm
Location: Fair Grove, MO.

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by 69supercj »

I would suggest a later model 5.0 from a Mustang,say 89-92ish, swap out the EFI and go with carburation and then back that up with a nice C-4 auto. The C-4 is PLENTY strong, lighter weight and very plentiful. The later model 5.0 will give you the better heads, roller lifters and TONS of aftermarket stuff to add if you choose to. Hope this helps and keep up the fight Banjo.
tomrooster
Posts: 612
Joined: July 28, 2006, 8:31 pm
Location: Monroe NJ
United States of America

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by tomrooster »

Banjo, I bought a 78 f100 with a 302 and used those perches and the 302 and it bolted right in my 65 project . Tom
1966 F250 Camper Special parts truck
1966 F 100 w/391 ft
1965 F 100 project
1958 Edsel Pacer Convertible
1953 ford Customline 2 door
1952 8N
1967 triumph Bonneville

I'm still not a good welder but I've become a good grinder
mercuryv8
Posts: 328
Joined: November 8, 2013, 1:20 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by mercuryv8 »

69supercj wrote:I would suggest a later model 5.0 from a Mustang,say 89-92ish, swap out the EFI and go with carburation and then back that up with a nice C-4 auto. The C-4 is PLENTY strong, lighter weight and very plentiful. The later model 5.0 will give you the better heads, roller lifters and TONS of aftermarket stuff to add if you choose to. Hope this helps and keep up the fight Banjo.


I want to second the efi 5.0L. A cheap reliable powerplant with any part you could want easily attainable. Switch it over to a E303 or other cam and aluminum intake and aftermarket carb and it will make good power.

Don't plan on running a mechanical fuel pump though.

Nic
jamesdfo
Posts: 1637
Joined: February 15, 2011, 10:32 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by jamesdfo »

Nic: The mechanical pump is not that big of a deal, you just need a pre-efi timing cover, a mechanical pump, and of course the eccentric that goes on the cam. ( did all this on an '88 Mustang 5.0 which we swapped into my '81 shortbox back in ~1990)

** And anyone reverting from EFI to CARB needs to remember that they need a carb'd distribitor, but it needs to have the proper drive gear for a hydraulic roller cam, using the wrong gear will lead to it being ground to a pulp in short order. You can find a distributor, and change the drive gear, or get a replacement for a 1985 mustang 5.0, as that was the first year of the roller (and only year they were carb'd)

**Also, remember if you decide to revert to a v belt setup, you will need to change the water pump to a "normal" style pump, as the serpentine drive pumps are reverse rotation.

5.0 Rollers were used in Mustangs (up to 1995), Foxbody Lincoln LSC's, and Foxbody Thunderbirds/Cougars and probably some others I'm not thinking of at the moment. But ironically the highest output 5.0 was the one they used in the Explorers. The problem with any of the 5.0's is, it's been so many years since these vehicles were new, you will be hard pressed to find anything that's not mile'd out. But with frequent searches of craigslist, you just never know what will turn up:)

HTH
James

[quote=I want to second the efi 5.0L. A cheap reliable powerplant with any part you could want easily attainable. Switch it over to a E303 or other cam and aluminum intake and aftermarket carb and it will make good power.

Don't plan on running a mechanical fuel pump though.

Nic[/quote]
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by Toyz »

The Exploder is definitely the way to go, but happening onto the right deal can be a factor. The Mustangs are plentiful, just not sure of the condition on that old and popular vehicle. I would certainly go with a C4 if you don't need an overdrive. They are the most common trans behind the windsors, so are easily found.
To each his own, but I personally would not spend the time and effort to change to a Windsor on any of mine. Fuel economy just is not that much better in my usage, and it would take a LOT of lower fuel costs to recover the cost of conversion. I LIKE the 385 torque and performance; and there are still "economizer" cams designed for the 429/460's which will help slightly on the mileage, especially when combined with a good dual plane intake.
Again, JMO, I am sure you have your own reasons for considering the conversion.
Best of luck!
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
mercuryv8
Posts: 328
Joined: November 8, 2013, 1:20 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by mercuryv8 »

jamesdfo wrote:Nic: The mechanical pump is not that big of a deal, you just need a pre-efi timing cover, a mechanical pump, and of course the eccentric that goes on the cam. ( did all this on an '88 Mustang 5.0 which we swapped into my '81 shortbox back in ~1990)

** And anyone reverting from EFI to CARB needs to remember that they need a carb'd distribitor, but it needs to have the proper drive gear for a hydraulic roller cam, using the wrong gear will lead to it being ground to a pulp in short order. You can find a distributor, and change the drive gear, or get a replacement for a 1985 mustang 5.0, as that was the first year of the roller (and only year they were carb'd)


HTH
James

[quote=I want to second the efi 5.0L. A cheap reliable powerplant with any part you could want easily attainable. Switch it over to a E303 or other cam and aluminum intake and aftermarket carb and it will make good power.

Don't plan on running a mechanical fuel pump though.

Nic
[/quote]

I suppose that would be easy enough to do... Good tip James.

Nic
ohmthis
Posts: 42
Joined: September 26, 2014, 5:15 am
Location: Just outside of Louisville KY
United States of America

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by ohmthis »

Banjo, I'll second the later 5.0 out of a mustang. Don't cut yourself short on years though. Look for 86-93 cars, they all had roller cams with the only real differences is in the electronics. Since you will be swapping to a carb this won't matter. A good four barrel intake and carb along with 1 5/8 headers will be great for this engine. I don't think I would put a different cam or anything else for a DD. These engines made 225 hp with 300 ftlb torque, plenty to motivate our trucks. Remember that these engines used the HO/351w firing order. They will run on the non HO firing order, just not too well. As for the trans, I wouldn't throw out the AOD. You will get better milage and also keep the engine a little happier. Keep us up to date. Keep fighting!!!
User avatar
Greg D
Posts: 10113
Joined: September 13, 2006, 4:39 pm
Location: Podunk Iowa
United States of America

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by Greg D »

Toyz is right, you'll have a much easier time finding a roller cam 5.0 in GOOD condition in an Explorer or Mountaineer. The roller cam engine makes quite a bit more torque so better suited to these trucks. Most carbed 302s are very weak engines. They showed up pretty much at the beginning of the smog era, the one that came in my 79 probably makes 140 HP on a good day, the "advertized" HP of the 5.0 roller engines is around 225, the actual peak HP is closer to 300 and that's with the HO Mustang heads - the Explorer heads are even better. Be careful what year you get though, some years had "P" heads - harder to get headers for. The stock Mustang shorties should fit just fine in the 65 and newer frames too. If you want to use a Duraspark, the 1985 Mustang GT 5 speed distributor is the only one that uses a vacuum advance, $73 new at NAPA. The roller cam engine is also more efficient, it's not just the EFI that makes them get passable mileage.
AOD isn't really that tough, they are not electronic - that's an AODE. They only require a TV valve cable (early ones used a rod similar to a kickdown lever). So they really don't require any more to hookup than a C-4, just different. Lokar has the cable and bits you need to hook one up to any carb. Best source is an 89 ish truck with a 300-6, like the Mustang AOD it has more clutches.
I have a 5.0 - AOD I'm putting in my 79, so pretty similar to putting one in a 66.
1964 F 100 - I am going to do "something" with it.......

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15942

1987 Mustang LX Convertible, 2.3 Auto - cruiser.
1994 F 150 XLT 2WD


~ Yes - I adopted another cat..............

Cam L Milan,
You'll be missed my friend.
Indy63
Posts: 49
Joined: February 10, 2013, 9:08 pm

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by Indy63 »

It seems like better mileage would have to be the biggest reason for the swap. How is the 460 set up, what kind of mpgs are/ were you seeing under daily-driving conditions, and what was done to optimize the current combination?

It will take a lot of driving to offset the expense of a new/ rebuilt engine, transmission, and everything needed to support those kinds of changes for the sake of mileage, especially if you're staying with a carb and three speed auto. I'm going the exact opposite direction - swapping a 302 for a 460 - so this might have come across a bit biased :D
User avatar
The Big M
Posts: 1360
Joined: August 9, 2006, 3:03 pm
Location: Rocky View County, AB
Canada

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by The Big M »

If you're looking at any Panther platform cars (Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Town Car) from around 1987 to 1990, those will be the 150 hp version. They were tuned for low-end torque to move the 4000+ lb land yachts around town and help them cruise on the highway. These were equipped with flat-top pistons and small-port heads optimized for good swirl at low rpm rather than good flow at higher revs (the spark plugs are shrouded as a result of the chamber design). The torque peak was somewhere around 2000 rpm as I recall. The long runners of the EFI intake manifold helped in that respect, I believe. The firing order was different from the H.O. engines.

The Fox body T-birds and Cougars (1987-1988) were similarly equipped, albeit with different water pump configurations. The later generation got the H.O. version.

Going to a 5.0/AOD would definitely help for highway cruising I would think. But due to the previously mentioned concerns regarding these engines being miled out, I would consider the cost of a rebuild vs. tuning the 460 for a little better economy. Or perhaps adding an overdrive if such an option exists.
F164
Posts: 129
Joined: July 16, 2014, 7:33 pm

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by F164 »

The HO 5.0 has the 351 firing order, while the non-HO has the 302 firing order.
User avatar
pikupmn
Posts: 187
Joined: February 9, 2012, 10:38 pm
Location: Elon, North Carolina
United States of America

Re: 302/5.0 Recommendations

Post by pikupmn »

when i built my 70.....15 yrs ago , i put in a 302 and i only got 10 or 11 mpg. when you put a smaller engine in , that's what you've got to work with
THERE'S NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT!!! kinda wished i would've listened back then. Keep up the good fight.
Jeff
it's never too late to have a happy childhood

1966 Long Box 5/8 ton wha.gif
2012 F150 XLT Super Crew 3.5 TWIN TURBO ......yee haw
2000 Road King
Post Reply