1974 Econoline Supervan
#16
06-03-2012, 01:45 PM
Brandonf1975 posted his goal: "wanna make a"hotrod toy".
IMHO a "hotrod toy" isn't strictly about "performance addition". It's very heavily about appearance & shoveling cash into a hole. Especially the hole under the hood. 1974 iron "stock manifolds" have the visual appeal of farm tractor exhaust. By tradition a "hotrod toy" almost certainly requires steel tube headers.
I'd expect a '74 vintage 302 has hardened valve seat inserts. The issue of unleaded gas eroding valve seats was essentially limited to old fashioned heads that lacked hardened inserts, where valve seats were cut into & valves sealed directly against the cast iron head.
Brandonf1975 may want to follow the "hotrod" tradition of schlepping his heads to a machine shop to have them tweeked. That is ported, polished, planed & cut to fit bigger valves-to better handle the Edelbrock cfm.
IMHO a "hotrod toy" isn't strictly about "performance addition". It's very heavily about appearance & shoveling cash into a hole. Especially the hole under the hood. 1974 iron "stock manifolds" have the visual appeal of farm tractor exhaust. By tradition a "hotrod toy" almost certainly requires steel tube headers.
I'd expect a '74 vintage 302 has hardened valve seat inserts. The issue of unleaded gas eroding valve seats was essentially limited to old fashioned heads that lacked hardened inserts, where valve seats were cut into & valves sealed directly against the cast iron head.
Brandonf1975 may want to follow the "hotrod" tradition of schlepping his heads to a machine shop to have them tweeked. That is ported, polished, planed & cut to fit bigger valves-to better handle the Edelbrock cfm.
Depending on what the OP wants to spend and depending on the condition of the '74 heads, later model GT40 heads might be a better choice:
http://webpages.charter.net/darrell1/mustang_gt40p.html
#17
06-03-2012, 01:50 PM
Even a 351 Windsor is a headache and not for the meek, there just isn't the room, building a 302 or purchasing a 347 stroker is the only option, I have a 73 and have looked into it already.
A 351/400M in stock emission form is junk, remove it all, mate the right performance internals, cam being the most important, and you can compete with the big blocks, minus the weight, the 400 is the best out there. Those who see it as a turd have never owned one that had been stripped of the emission add ons demanded by the EPA, the early stock form before restrictions were in heavy muscle cars, rocketing them around like nothin.
A 351/400M in stock emission form is junk, remove it all, mate the right performance internals, cam being the most important, and you can compete with the big blocks, minus the weight, the 400 is the best out there. Those who see it as a turd have never owned one that had been stripped of the emission add ons demanded by the EPA, the early stock form before restrictions were in heavy muscle cars, rocketing them around like nothin.
With a 351m, what piston can you get that gets you decent compression? None afaik.
The 400 was intro'd in 1971 as a replacement for the 390 2v. There were exactly NONE ever installed in "muscle cars".
The 351m was intro'd in 1975 when there were exactly NONE in the way of muscle anything.
#18
06-03-2012, 01:50 PM
#19
06-03-2012, 01:56 PM
I consider the Mercury Montego to be a borderline muscle car, man I liked those.
There is a guy on this site in the 335 section who has built a muscle engine from a 400, I liked the low end I got from my mild 351M, the truck wasn't geared right for the oversize tires, yet it had no problems making a jump from a stop.
There is a guy on this site in the 335 section who has built a muscle engine from a 400, I liked the low end I got from my mild 351M, the truck wasn't geared right for the oversize tires, yet it had no problems making a jump from a stop.
#20
06-03-2012, 02:23 PM
Well I have news for you, my 73, which happens to be the same, Ford didn't change till 75, the paperwork to it says it requires "leaded" gas.
Yeah, over there you'll find more knowledgeable people on the mid Fords, that's why I don't bother explaining or discussing them here.
Yeah, over there you'll find more knowledgeable people on the mid Fords, that's why I don't bother explaining or discussing them here.
Just because Ford still spec'd leaded doesn't mean it was still a high compression engine. They did that because they weren't there yet on the valve seats and it didn't have a cat yet. Compression was about 8.5. How else can you make 168 hp out of 400 cubes?
#21
06-03-2012, 03:38 PM
That was a reference to someone else about the mid Ford "van" 302 V-8, so they knew the valve seats were the weak link. I have one that I've been working on, have done quite a bit of talking with guys who have them, I'm on the mission of looking for torque to tow. The 68-74 was the best lookin Econoline IMHO, took me some time to get my hands on one, wish it had the I-6 now, finding the engine cradle is best for the 351 Windsor swap, but gonna stick with the 302 size.
Yes the Montego had a 400, I looked at the decal on the valve cover of the engine, was over 20 years ago, I wanted that car, don't see them anymore, I've not seen them since that one.
Yes the Montego had a 400, I looked at the decal on the valve cover of the engine, was over 20 years ago, I wanted that car, don't see them anymore, I've not seen them since that one.
#22
06-03-2012, 05:21 PM
Had a hunch you might.
Toss out the predictable guess rather than look up & know.
Horologists make & study time pieces. Paris, TX claims the only clock/watch maker's school in US.
Horologists make & study time pieces. Paris, TX claims the only clock/watch maker's school in US.
#23
06-03-2012, 06:43 PM
That was a reference to someone else about the mid Ford "van" 302 V-8, so they knew the valve seats were the weak link. I have one that I've been working on, have done quite a bit of talking with guys who have them, I'm on the mission of looking for torque to tow. The 68-74 was the best lookin Econoline IMHO, took me some time to get my hands on one, wish it had the I-6 now, finding the engine cradle is best for the 351 Windsor swap, but gonna stick with the 302 size.
Yes the Montego had a 400, I looked at the decal on the valve cover of the engine, was over 20 years ago, I wanted that car, don't see them anymore, I've not seen them since that one.
Yes the Montego had a 400, I looked at the decal on the valve cover of the engine, was over 20 years ago, I wanted that car, don't see them anymore, I've not seen them since that one.
I think those have a better look than the next series, which is what I had, but the the later series has a nice flat floor for your hooves and you can hop out of the seat into the back without an issue, even with that shifter sticking out of the floor.
#24
06-03-2012, 07:04 PM
You have to go with an early 80's not electronic controlled AOD, and I read the AODE drum fits in to allow more clutches in one of the packs, I lost my buildup site for it tho. The early AOD was setup for carbed engines, flip the transmission mount into the 6 cylinder mount and it goes in as if it was made for it, aside from needing the drive shaft cut and balanced to size. I'd go with 3.73 if you are looking for hwy travel, 4.10 is really low, gonna require overdrive or 65 will be top safe speed, more will risk engine damage. If the 347 wasn't $4000 it would be easier, you can't even build your own for that.
#25
06-03-2012, 08:50 PM
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh ok yes I've heard that toat Paris Junior College I went back home a few years ago and talked to a guy who moved their to go to school to be a jeweler he informed me that PJC had the best department for that.Sorry he didn't tell me their was a name for it though
#26
06-03-2012, 10:53 PM
You have to go with an early 80's not electronic controlled AOD, and I read the AODE drum fits in to allow more clutches in one of the packs, I lost my buildup site for it tho. The early AOD was setup for carbed engines, flip the transmission mount into the 6 cylinder mount and it goes in as if it was made for it, aside from needing the drive shaft cut and balanced to size. I'd go with 3.73 if you are looking for hwy travel, 4.10 is really low, gonna require overdrive or 65 will be top safe speed, more will risk engine damage. If the 347 wasn't $4000 it would be easier, you can't even build your own for that.
StreetFighter® Transmission Package; '80 & Later AOD (289, 302, 351C, 351W) Converter #433100 - TCI® Auto
AOD Transmission from PATC, AOD Transmissions
My guess is it can be done for less money than the $2500-3000 listed in in those links, but you need to know the right transmission feller for that.
#27
06-03-2012, 11:17 PM
#28
06-03-2012, 11:41 PM
That's good, but beware the early AOD, the most troublesome trans ever. Like I said, '88-93 from a truck or from behind a V8 is the starting point if you want a stronger trans.
#29
06-03-2012, 11:54 PM
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#30
06-04-2012, 01:20 AM
You can install a limited slip or locker in your differential.
Advantages are more traction under most circumstances.
Disadvantages are both tires slipping in extreme conditions like snow or ice, sending you into the ditch in some cases. Ditto hitting the gas in corners, that back will come around might fast if you break both tires loose in a corner.
Lockers can be noisy and clink and chirp in corners as well.
And you are looking at several hundred to over $1000.....
Advantages are more traction under most circumstances.
Disadvantages are both tires slipping in extreme conditions like snow or ice, sending you into the ditch in some cases. Ditto hitting the gas in corners, that back will come around might fast if you break both tires loose in a corner.
Lockers can be noisy and clink and chirp in corners as well.
And you are looking at several hundred to over $1000.....