It is currently March 24, 2017, 10:51 am.

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 21, 2016, 11:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: June 4, 2016, 11:24 pm
Posts: 58
Location: Arizona
National Flag: United States of America
My 65 F100 with 352 and 3 speed manual will need an engine overhaul. I'd really like to have a 5 speed manual for street and highway use, probably a T-5 since I won't need a granny first gear.

So, I'm debating about whether to rebuild the 352 FE or go with a 302 or 351W. Upsides I see to the 352 are nostalgia -- it's cool to see original engines in vintage cars/trucks -- and simplicity as it's a bolt-in and no modifications are necessary.

Upsides I see to the Windsor motors are sizeable weight reduction, lower cost and more speed parts, and bolt-up to a T-5.

Did others of you have this dilemma too and what drove your final decision? I'll be driving this truck just for cruising and having fun. I'd like for it to have some spirited performance but nothing radical. The budget won't support radical.

Thanks!

_________________
David

65 F100 swb (352 3 spd manual, not running)

Previous rides:
69 Bronco, completed frame-off restoration
07 Kawasaki KLR650
92 Acura Integra GSR
65 Mustang 2+2 A-code
67 Mustang coupe C-code


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 22, 2016, 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: September 14, 2006, 6:47 pm
Posts: 518
Location: ohio
I had a 352 with a three on the tree in my '66 F100, it ran really smooth but I couldn't get more than about 11 MPG and that was on a good day. I know there are guys on here that get 16 MPG and even higher but I couldn't. I'm trying a 351W with a AOD tranny in the hope of better MPG. I started with a short block that was .30 over and put on GT40P heads and a RV cam from Comp Cams and topped it off with a Summitt manifold and carb. I'm hopping this gives me the results I'm looking for, 16-18 MPG would be nice.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 22, 2016, 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 9, 2006, 11:14 pm
Posts: 8170
Images: 46
Location: Edmonton, Alberta.
National Flag: Canada
this is the story of 3 trucks.
-1st one is not relevant to your story but rounds out the trivecta.
it was a '79 F-150 4x4 short wide. it had a 351M motor in it. It ate brakes almost as fast as it ate gas. It was a huge , gutless wonder, barely had enough guts to get out of it's own way. I never got more than 8 MPG with it, and that's Imperial Gallons. I traded it on a GMC S-15 and laughed all the way to the bank. Sorry no pic of that one. here's the S-15 I traded it for.
Image[/URL]

-2nd is a '72 F-250 long bed 2WD. It had an FE 360 in it. It got even worse gas mileage than the 4x4 above. The best, again in Imperial Gallons, 4.54 Litres each, the Best I ever got running it in neutral downhill and shutting it off idling at traffic lights was also 8 MPG. I was constantly checking the gas tank for a leak, as I just couldn't believe that truck could drink as much gas as it did.
Image

By this time I was pretty disgusted with Ford trucks in general. I had had several GM trucks that did way better on gas and they all had 4 barrel carbs on them. All my fords had 2 bbls. Then the brewery where my dad worked closed down and I bought the shop truck off them for a song. It was a 78 F-100 long box Custom cab. The only options it had was the 302 and automatic, unless power steering and brakes were also options. I moved everyone I know with this truck. When I first got it I put new tires on it, and I put a new battery and front brake shoes on it. It never cost me one more cent except for oil changes and gasoline. I had it for 12 years. It consistently got 20 MPG highway loaded or not, with stock single exhaust. Guess which engine I saved for my Slick?
Image

_________________
It's a race.. Will hell freeze over or will JC finish his truck first. Stay tuned..


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 22, 2016, 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 31, 2013, 5:01 pm
Posts: 80
Images: 2
Location: Bargersville, Indiana
National Flag: United States of America
We used a MR52 5-speed in my sons 64 behind a healthy 5.0. Install was a snap & the hydraulic cluthch and extra gear made it a totally different driver over the 3 on the tree. Driven daily for couple years now trouble free. If you get one out of a 92' or older you don't have to do the speedo drive mods we had to do.

Here is our install thread. viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32284

_________________
Eric

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32284


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 23, 2016, 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 5, 2012, 5:29 am
Posts: 522
Images: 0
Location: Conway SC
National Flag: United States of America
As with everything, it's ultimately up to your preference/budget.
I personally like 352's, and the three on the tree is also another cool factor for the nostalgia department.
My first slick was a 65 flareside - 352 three speed. The PO had put a 4 barrel on it and dual exhaust. It was a blast to drive, and I would consistently get 14 MPG highway at 65-70.
My current truck is a 67 F250 camper special, 352 4 spd. It's all completely stock. It's not as quick as the 65 was, but it's fun to bum around in. So far I consistently pull 12 MPG with it.
If you have the money/skill the Windsor swap seems like a more "sensible" solution though.

_________________
'63 F100 223 3OT
'67 F250 CS 352 4spd
'03 Ranger I4 5spd


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 23, 2016, 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: July 18, 2006, 7:23 am
Posts: 2662
Images: 70
Location: Carmi, Illinois, 62821
I would consider all factors here one of cost to rebuild, pistons are expensive for a 352, not as much demand. Fuel mileage can vary a lot on these trucks, but frankly anything above 16 is almost impossible to do with the FE in a truck. Depending, on what you intend to do with the truck you must consider usage and whether you will be towing anything and of what weight. No matter what, I would run four barrel and duals with a mild modern style cam. I like both engines, but the 351w of those two is what I prefer. I really like a 390 better than the 352 but that will not help fuel economy, probably won't hurt it either. I drove one 65 when it was fairly new with stick and overdrive and the truck got 15 to 16 MPG on the road. For fuel economy, I would consider one of the overdrive transmissions. T85N original overdrive, but it is not cheap to find buy and install one. My second choice would be the mid 70's cast iron 4 speed toploader look alike. Much cheaper to install, as these can be had for as little as 125$ . If, you don't need the brute horsepower I would consider the 302W, but would not run the AOD if you ever want to have power to tow. My personal favorite is the 351w. This motor can also get you in 16 mpg range if set up right. Nothing will get you good mileage around town, and if you want that, the 302 or 300 six is your most likely best bet.

Rich

_________________
1961 F350
1964 Galaxie convertable
1964 flairside, style side, and longbed
1965 Ranger, and shortbed
1966 long bed, and shortbed
A few parts trucks also
1991 Capri
2011 F250
2004 Lexus


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 24, 2016, 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: June 22, 2016, 2:53 pm
Posts: 25
You should be able to put a Foxbody Mustang T5 behind that 352 pretty easy if I'm correct in my thinking that the 3 speed you have is the same pattern as a top loader. I've been neck deep in Mustangs since I got out of high school in '91. The T5 behind an originally top loader early Mustang is a very popular swap. The T5 has a longer input shaft so the aftermarket simply came up with a simple adapter plate that both takes up that input length and addresses the different mount patterns between a top loader and the T5. Any early Mustang parts house has them. After that you just need to juggle the clutch components to connect them and to rig up the throw out arm to pedal action. Lastly, you will need to adjust the driveshaft length.

This will put the shifter pretty far back (almost under the seat I think). You can run a big curved shift lever or you can try swaping a S10 T5 tail housing which will move the shifter forward about 6-7 inches (if memory serves). Another option I just came across is aftermarket, again, is producing forward mount for the Ford T5.

http://www.moderndriveline.com/Technica ... ousing.htm

Also, running a the T5 is like playing Russian roulette. Some seem tough as nails and never break. Others seem like they break just looking at them. The best commonly available Ford T5 was sold in 90-93 Mustangs and was rated to a whopping 300 ft-lbs of torque. ON the edge of the limit in the cars they were delivered in. You can get aftermarket units that take lots more, but then they start getting spendy. If you are just tooling around without horsing around, you would probably be ok.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 24, 2016, 6:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 31, 2011, 2:37 pm
Posts: 531
Images: 6
I prefer the 352. For a daily driven truck engine it has more guts and does well with C7 or newer heads, smallish camshaft and a medium riser or like intake.


The best truck I have owned was a 1996 F-250, bought it in 2000, sold it in 2011. 351W, ZF 5 speed with 3.55 gears. It got 15-16 mpg. 17 mpg once. When I sold it, it had 318,000 miles with static compression of 165-173 psi and did not burn oil. The only engine work it had was one exhaust valve spring replaced at 226,000.

_________________
Image
Chris


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 26, 2016, 8:24 am 
Offline

Joined: June 22, 2016, 2:53 pm
Posts: 25
I've been thinking about this question every time I see the thread title.

352 FE 2v carburetor
Horsepower Gross: 208 @ 4400
Horsepower Net: 172 @ 4000
Torque Gross: 315 @ 2000
Torque Net: 295 @ 2000
Compression: 8.9:1

Gross is supposedly without any accessories and net was with accessories. Ether way not terribly impressive.

A stock 87-93 Mustang made 225 hp and 300 ft-lbs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 27, 2016, 7:27 am 
Offline

Joined: June 4, 2016, 11:24 pm
Posts: 58
Location: Arizona
National Flag: United States of America
tjm73 wrote:
I've been thinking about this question every time I see the thread title.

352 FE 2v carburetor
Horsepower Gross: 208 @ 4400
Horsepower Net: 172 @ 4000
Torque Gross: 315 @ 2000
Torque Net: 295 @ 2000
Compression: 8.9:1

Gross is supposedly without any accessories and net was with accessories. Ether way not terribly impressive.

A stock 87-93 Mustang made 225 hp and 300 ft-lbs.


Good point tjm73. And there's a 200 lb weight savings between the engines, too. I like the nostalgia of a period-correct engine but will need to price out the rebuild before deciding.

_________________
David

65 F100 swb (352 3 spd manual, not running)

Previous rides:
69 Bronco, completed frame-off restoration
07 Kawasaki KLR650
92 Acura Integra GSR
65 Mustang 2+2 A-code
67 Mustang coupe C-code


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: June 27, 2016, 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: June 22, 2016, 2:53 pm
Posts: 25
If you stick with a carbureted engine you can pick up almost 70 hp over the "rated" 208 hp 352 and also gain about 10-15 ft-lbs at the same 2000 rpm but also have the torque continue to climb to around 350 ft-lbs from 3000-4000 rpm. This is with using 60's era parts.

Stepping up to "modern" GT40 iron heads and fuel injection and (with the right parts) you can match and likely exceed those numbers while maintaining some semblance of fuel economy.

Coming from the 5.0 Mustang world, I know what I would do if I were you. Find a '96+ Explorer 302 engine. The '96-mid '97 models came with GT40 iron heads and the mid-'97 to end of production came with the GT40P heads. Both heads flow nearly identical numbers. They are arguably the last and best versions of an iron head Ford sold for the 302. The P head needs mindful header selection, but other than that it's neither here nor there for which one you get. Freshen as needed and swap in either a OE 5.0 HO roller cam with 1.72:1 roller rockers from a Mustang (cheap, cheap cheap...did I mention these are cheap) or a Ford Racing F303 with 1.6:1 roller rockers. Or any other RV type roller cam with about .520" lift (give or take) or less because hte heads won't flow much beyond .500" lift. Then you can put a Wieand Stealth or Edelbrock Performer RPM intake on it with a 650ish carb. I'd do a 650 Street Demon or one of those new self tuning throttle body EFI setups. Transmission options are pretty much unlimited. I would do an overdrive because why not?

If you want lots more power, bolt on a set of TrickFlow 170cc Fast As Cast aluminum heads.

But that's just my opinion.

EDIT: I forgot to include this link which shows how crazy easy it is to make 280+hp and 350 ft-lbs from "just" a 302 http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,53.0.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: July 7, 2016, 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: July 5, 2015, 9:40 am
Posts: 9
Images: 10
Location: Austin Texas
National Flag: United States of America
tjm73 wrote:
If you stick with a carbureted engine you can pick up almost 70 hp over the "rated" 208 hp 352 and also gain about 10-15 ft-lbs at the same 2000 rpm but also have the torque continue to climb to around 350 ft-lbs from 3000-4000 rpm. This is with using 60's era parts.

Stepping up to "modern" GT40 iron heads and fuel injection and (with the right parts) you can match and likely exceed those numbers while maintaining some semblance of fuel economy.

Coming from the 5.0 Mustang world, I know what I would do if I were you. Find a '96+ Explorer 302 engine. The '96-mid '97 models came with GT40 iron heads and the mid-'97 to end of production came with the GT40P heads. Both heads flow nearly identical numbers. They are arguably the last and best versions of an iron head Ford sold for the 302. The P head needs mindful header selection, but other than that it's neither here nor there for which one you get. Freshen as needed and swap in either a OE 5.0 HO roller cam with 1.72:1 roller rockers from a Mustang (cheap, cheap cheap...did I mention these are cheap) or a Ford Racing F303 with 1.6:1 roller rockers. Or any other RV type roller cam with about .520" lift (give or take) or less because hte heads won't flow much beyond .500" lift. Then you can put a Wieand Stealth or Edelbrock Performer RPM intake on it with a 650ish carb. I'd do a 650 Street Demon or one of those new self tuning throttle body EFI setups. Transmission options are pretty much unlimited. I would do an overdrive because ....


I thought about rebuilding my 352 but a cheaper option became available. I'm swapping a 97+ Explorer 302 with the GT40P heads and it came with an Edelbrock manifold already installed. Found an early bell housing so that I can keep the original 3-speed overdrive that came with the truck.

_________________
FOUR29SCJ

1965 Ford F100 Long Bed, 352, 3-Speed w/ Overdrive
1966 Ford Mustang Coupe, 302, C4
2000 Ford F150 XLT, SC, 5.4
2013 Ford Flex SEL

"Some things that are true will drive the crowds away because they inform people of what they need to hear, and not what they want to hear." ~ Fred Hutchison


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: July 7, 2016, 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: June 22, 2016, 2:53 pm
Posts: 25
Cool. I'd run some shorty headers that clear the altered spark plug angles and fab up the rest of the exhaust. You might be able to use a Foxbody mid-pipe under the truck between the frame rails.

Several guys in the Mustang world have made close to 300 hp with what you have and a stock 5.0 camshaft. A few have made more. I think you will be pleased.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: July 7, 2016, 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: June 4, 2016, 11:24 pm
Posts: 58
Location: Arizona
National Flag: United States of America
Lower cost, reduced weight, horsepower potential... All convincing arguments to go to a 302.

I called a local salvage yard who said he would charge $350 for an Explorer 302 core and the same for an AOD trans. Does that sound pretty fair? Not sure if that price was with the engine pulled or still in the donor vehicle.

I'd like a 5 speed for the overdrive and fun factor. What has to happen to retrofit a T-5 into a slick, in terms of clutch linkage and accommodating a floor shifter?

Are shorty headers a good option for a 302 and slick? No clearance problems for steering box, clutch lever, etc.?

What do you think of a 331 stroker kit?

Thanks

_________________
David

65 F100 swb (352 3 spd manual, not running)

Previous rides:
69 Bronco, completed frame-off restoration
07 Kawasaki KLR650
92 Acura Integra GSR
65 Mustang 2+2 A-code
67 Mustang coupe C-code


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: July 7, 2016, 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 15, 2011, 10:32 am
Posts: 1428
Images: 6
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
National Flag: Canada
David: Here is a thread, look @the third post by Steve (LM14), it discusses the 327/331 vs the 347 combo......

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35647

James


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: July 8, 2016, 1:16 am 
Offline

Joined: June 4, 2016, 11:24 pm
Posts: 58
Location: Arizona
National Flag: United States of America
jamesdfo wrote:
David: Here is a thread, look @the third post by Steve (LM14), it discusses the 327/331 vs the 347 combo......

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35647

James


That's a good read James, thanks for that. Everything I've read so far suggests the 331 is better for street use, my intended purpose. I wonder if any ol' 302 block will work. I have a '78 core in storage. Seems I've read that the blocks need to be notched for 347 -- is that true for 331 as well?

David

_________________
David

65 F100 swb (352 3 spd manual, not running)

Previous rides:
69 Bronco, completed frame-off restoration
07 Kawasaki KLR650
92 Acura Integra GSR
65 Mustang 2+2 A-code
67 Mustang coupe C-code


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: July 8, 2016, 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: June 22, 2016, 2:53 pm
Posts: 25
The arguments for a 331 being better than a 347 are left over from the early days when 347's were not as reliable. They are just as reliable today as long as you follow the guidelines for assembly. Oil control is an assembly issue not a design issue. Millions of SBC's have a similar pin in the ring land situation and don't consume excessive amounts of oil.

The only real argument now is which is easier to fit (the 331) and will the block hold together. Factory roller cam blocks a kinda fragile. But are usually good to 450 at the wheels.

I am looking at the same question for my future drivetrain donor that I am driving around now. It's a '91 5.0 Mustang. Do I build a stroker or just build a strong 302? I'm just going to build a strong 302. It will make more than enough for my needs. I'm not racing competitively so no needs to go nuts.

Back to your question about the AOD. If it's the transmission that was in the Explorer, which would be a 4R70W not an AOD, it won't do you any good without the ECU to control it. The engine and trans are both controlled by the ECU in the Explorer. Also it would likely be a 4WD configuration.

I would forgo the auto transmission and look to convert to a M5OD from a F-150. Hydraulic clutch. Truck friendly gears and overdrive. Shifter is in a good location too. They have a questionable reputation but it' not deserved IMO. Most of their problem comes from one thing. Well 3 small plastic plugs actually. replace them with metal plugs and move on.

I''l add more later after work. Lunch is about over.

Put I'll add a place holder to remind myself to mention what I know and think about headers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: July 8, 2016, 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: June 22, 2016, 2:53 pm
Posts: 25
$350 and he pulls it so you only pick it up. Seems reasonable to me. Does that include the entire front dress? Because the Explorer front dress is unique to the Explorer/Mountaineer. It is the shortest overall length 302 Ford ever made. If it doesn’t have the front dress, don’t worry just run the Foxbody front dress. It’s very common and very easy to find the needed parts for cheap. Are you going to be running an electric fuel pump?

The 302 is a really tiny little engine. Like less than 20 inches wide. The FE is about 27 inches wide. So you will gain side clearance everywhere. I believe you could run shorty headers (possibly long tubes even) from the Foxbody cars and they would be 100% between the factory truck frame rails. Because of how narrow the 302 is I also think you could run any of the available Foxbody mid-pipes that connect to the headers of your choice. You may have to re-engineer a crossmember or two. Again because of the “narrowness” of the 302, if you had an interference issue with the steering box you could simply move the 302 over toward the passenger side of the frame. Offsetting the engine from centerline is pretty common.

I would mount the engine as low as possible, as far right (toward passenger side) as the frame would allow and as far back as the frame/oil pan/transmission would allow. This would aid handling and clearance around the steering box. Speaking of oil pan, one area that kinda sucks on the 302 is the oil pump location. It’s in the front of the block hanging down. If your Explorer engine has the original oil pan, which it likely will, it will be a big aluminum pan. It’s a good pan. I would run it unless it interferes with something. Mustang pans are stamped steel and may afford the engine an extra inch or so of drop down over the TTB crossmember. Just make sure you use to appropriate oil pickup for the pan you run.

The difference in power you would see with long tube versus shorty headers with the GT40P iron heads is minimal at best. The shorty headers will make a touch more midrange torque and the long tubes a touch more top end horsepower. But the difference will be so small that the real question should be which is easier to install/service/gives the most clearance. On this kind of engine I would run 1 5/8” primary shorty headers to a true 2 ½” exhaust. Specifically I would run the 409 stainless FRPP shorty headers. They are designed to clear the altered angle of the spark plugs on the GT40P heads and they are OEM material. If you want them to look nice for a long time and not get that normal protective surface corrosion they develop (yes they are supposed to do that), get the ceramic coated version. The quality is high. The price is fair. I’d run a MAC Pro-Chamber mid-pipe in stainless steel (buy it once). You would have to tweak or replace a crossmember or two and probably fabricate some hangers to support the system, but that’s small potatoes. Once you have the mid-pipe in you can run a custom exhaust from that point back with your choice of mufflers.

Also jumping back to the M5OD 5 speed truck transmission. There are basically three version of them depending on what truck it comes out of. This transmission was only used behind 300 straight sixes and 302 V8’s. They share the same bell housing in case you are not sure. The bell housing is integrated into the transmission case. It’s all one piece. Depending on the year and the original axle ratio you may find either A.) a mechanical speedo version with a 7T speedo drive gear, B.) a mechanical speedo version with a 8T speedo drive gear, or C.) an electric speedo version with no speedo drive gear, but a speed sensor instead. Option C was across the board starting in the early ‘90’s. Option C is also the one most avoided because of the “trouble” making it work with a mechanical speedo. If it all you can find, there is a solution. It costs money, but it’s also infinitely adjustable for any tire diameter and gear ratio combination. Basically it’s a drive box that converts the electronic signal to a mechanical cable drive.

In my last post I mentioned the 3 plastic plugs and the reliability reputation. Mazda made this box for Ford. For who knows what reason they used 3 plastic plugs to cap the shift rail bores. Over time they get dry and brittle from the heat of the transmission. Ultimately they tend to start leaking transmission fluid (which is ATF by the way). Eventually they pump enough fluid out to cause a full on failure. Enter bad reputation. The solution is the remove the 3 plastic plugs and drive in 3 steel or brass plugs like a freeze plug on the engine block.

Otherwise all M5OD-R2 (their full designation for a F-150) are the same. Gear ratios are 3.91/2.24/1.49/1.00/0.80. Which makes 3.25 or 3.50 gears really usable with a 28” tire. They use the same output yoke as an AOD/T5. The only other complaint is a personal one. The couple I dove had mushy shifters. One was brand new back in ‘94 or ’95. The other had a ton of miles. Both were mushy. Hurst made (may still make) a shifter for them. Only aftermarket shifter I know of for this transmission. It needs an 11” flywheel with 50 ounce balance for the 302 and a clutch to match. Swap in everything for the F-150 spec parts. Don’t try to reengineer the wheel here.

If you can swing it, run an electric fan. It’ll free up 15-20 horsepower. Will you be running AC? Power steering?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: July 8, 2016, 10:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: June 4, 2016, 11:24 pm
Posts: 58
Location: Arizona
National Flag: United States of America
tjm73, I have a donor late 70s 302 in storage that appears to be a good core. I'll probably just rebuild it. I don't mind spending a few more bucks and getting some new aluminum cylinder heads. I like that aluminum heads and intake can shed 100 lbs off the front.

I also like the idea of picking up some cubes via 331 kit. Is there any special machining required? Local machinist encourages balancing on a rebuild, but aren't engines balanced from the factory?

Would a T5 not hold up well in a slick? I'd like a trans that would drive and shift well, not sloppy and truck-like as you described. Should I look for a W/C T5 or TKO? I did a search with "T5" on this site and didn't find any posts. May be user error.

Truck will be street only, not raced or see over 5,500 rpm and not thrashed. Just want a stout running ride with a lopey cam for street cred. Has 3.70 gears according to data plate but with 29" 255/70-15 BFG T/A it's kinda like having 3.00s in a passenger car, not very exciting. So, a change to 4.11 or so (and posi) may be in order too.

_________________
David

65 F100 swb (352 3 spd manual, not running)

Previous rides:
69 Bronco, completed frame-off restoration
07 Kawasaki KLR650
92 Acura Integra GSR
65 Mustang 2+2 A-code
67 Mustang coupe C-code


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Windsor vs. FE
PostPosted: July 9, 2016, 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: July 18, 2006, 7:23 am
Posts: 2662
Images: 70
Location: Carmi, Illinois, 62821
I have to ask, why go to the expense of building a 331, when you can buy a 351w for less money and time involved? As to balancing the engine, yes it helps with longevity and smoother performance overall. Is it worth the extra expense, most likely not for your needs, but doing the stroker thing, I would do it. I've seen rebuilt short block 351's go for as little as 900$. If, going with the 302, a mild cam and 4 barrel intake , dual exhaust and that is all you really need. We all love the idea of oversizing everything. The main thing is decide where your going before the build and plan your engine around set goals. Also consider in the build the transmission and rearend ratio and tire size. For good mileage, it all needs to match. Some things to consider. compression ratio, valve size, . Smaller valves will get you better torque as a general rule and better fuel mileage especially around town. You are pushing a lot of iron and there is no substitute for cubic inches when it comes to moving weight. A few years ago, my cousin bought a new Ford 3/4 ton with a 302. He went from a 460 to the 302 and pulled his small camper with it. Major mistake. Just remember, your truck is not a Mustang and weighs in at about 1.5 times the weight of a Mustang. What is a good choice for the Mustang may not be a good choice for your truck.

Rich


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], tomrooster and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group