In light of my bearings being bad, I was wondering what choices I have for motor swaps in case I decide that I don't have the time or the funds to rebuild my current motor? I'm willing to swap all the top end stuff so all I really need to be compatible is the bottom end of the motor. Could I use a similar year mustang motor or Crown Vic motor or would I run into problems with the oil pan and other parts not being compatible?

 

Theres two different type of 302's out there. Roller and non-roller blocks. The 85 and newer mustangs have the rollers, not sure what year the trucks got em. Anyway, all it means is they have either roller lifters, or flat ones. Also, youll hear them called HO and non-HO(High Output).

 

The previous owner of my 87 F150xlt swapped in an 89 Lincoln HO motor, it was fairly easy from what I heard.
Made for some problems when it was time for an emissions test, though, the shop didn't know it had been switched, were trying to get the HO to run like a non-HO (different firing order), so they wasted some time trying to figure things out.

 

what is this for? truck or car? 2wd or 4wd? also what year.

.

 

The most powerful option would be a mustang 5.0, and of those the 87-91 were the best. To put one of these into a truck about all you need from the truck is the oil pan and pickup. If you put the truck intake on a mustang motor, you'll actually loose torque, so it's to your advantage to get all the mustang intake plumbing. You will need the mustang computer and engine harness to do this right because the engine firing order is different, and you'll need the Mass Air meter if the mustang was so equipped. Pre 89 stangs were speed density. I have driven a 5.0HO equipped truck and it's a massive improvement over the stock 5.0, well worth the extra trouble. 275hp is easily attainable with simple bolt on hot rod parts, roller rockers, and a good exhaust is the bulk of it.

A crown vic 5.0 will also drop right in with an oil pan and pickup change, and I believe these used the truck firing order so you could use the truck computer and electrical harnes. This would be the simplest change but is no upgrade.
Some later Explorers also had the 5.0 which used the GT-40P heads, which would be another good find as these make more power than the garden variety 5.0 found in the truck, but are still not half the motor the 5.0 mustang plant is. Not sure about the firing order on these.. but if you pay attention to the plug wiring you should be able to figure it out easily.

 

I'm in the process of putting a '94 Mustang engine into my 1992 F-150 4X4. I'm using spare parts that I have accumulated over the years so I am going the carburetor route. However, I have a computer-controlled E4OD trans so I will have to get some sort of transmission controller (Baumanator, etc.) if I can't figure out how to get it to shift properly. That may be another swap issue you have to deal with if you use a roller cammed Mustang motor and don't have a manual trans or an AOD. Even if using the Mustang computer, it won't control the trans because E4ODs did not come in the 'Stang.

 

Sure. That's why 302 truck intakes sell like hotcakes to mustang guys on ebay.

 

Yes they do.... but the stangers are not after torque, they want horsepower, and the truck intake will flow 2-3 times the air a stang intake will.

 

the truck intake is a torque intake for sure. i would agree with Frederic on this one.

also dropping that mustang motor into his rig would not require going to mass air especially since we dont even know what he is wanting to install this motor in it could be a carbed setup for all we know.

gustang, why are you going carbed with your setup you didnt have to unless your going with a radical build of some sort

 

Right. So more airflow + more fuel = more horsepower.

Since we're talking EFI, the runner length and shape matters a lot less than it would with a carb intake, because the fuel is not suspended in the length of the airstream, but rather injected at the very end of the airstream against the back of the hot valve.

So, the truck intake is a good choice for a 302 mustang engine. BTW, having tested this combination, it's good to about 6500 RPM no problem, which is more than enough for a well-built street/strip car. While the truck intake does generally promote higher torque figures lower in the RPM band than the mustang intake, that's easily adjusted by using an appropriate cam that has some overlap, so you can enjoy higher RPMs on the engine and take advantage of the flow, and put the powerband where you want it in a car - not right off idle as you'd want in a truck that has hauling/towing duty and weighs a heck of a lot more.

 

Yep.. agreed on most all points, thought the runner length and size will affect the cylinder filling efficiency. For optimum low RPM torque, you ideally want long small diameter runners. This increases air speed and packs more air into the cylinder, which produces more torque. But small runners become a restriction as RPM increases, so you have to have a balance between low RPM air speed and higher RPM air volume. You'll notice the SHO motors had dual intake runners, with only 1 open at low RPM and both open at higher RPM. It's a neat way to get a broad power band.

The guys I see looking for the truck intake are generally more interested in the lower intake, which they mate to the Holley upper...which has the same runner size and shape but shorter runners than the truck upper, so it's better for higher RPM HP.
http://www.prostreetonline.com/buy/holley%5F5.0%5Fefi%5Fintake%5Fmanifold/

The local boys around here have speculated that Ford goofed when the truck intakes were originally cast, and they got the 5.0 and 5.8 intakes reversed somehow, or there was some other dimensional mistake. For some reason the 5.0 truck got an intake with larger runners and thus more HP potential than any other vehicle in the fleet, but it makes the least torque and horsepower.

 

Correct, however with EFI this matters less than with a carb engine, where it's essentially *cricital*. Carb engines dump the fuel into the airstream at the top of the intake, and the fuel vapor has to stay suspended down the tubes and around the bends all the way to the valves, without falling out of suspension. If they do, then you have pooling at the bottom of the intake and essentially a potential surging problem. This is why carb intakes often get carb spacers installed, to smooth out the sharp bend from the bottom of the carb towards and into the intake runners, to help keep the fuel suspended.

With EFI intakes this matters a lot less, because the fuel isn't suspended in the intake - only sprayed in right at the very end of the intake. What does matter is air velocity. There is math that approximately equates airflow velocity with engine RPM to carry in the maximum amount of fuel vapor. As rpms go up and down, this value changes. Change the velocity of the airflow in the EFI intake, then the peak power moves somewhere else across the RPM band accordingly.

As you stated, you can change airflow velocity by changing the diameter of the intake runner. I totally agree, but what I am saying is I am of the opinion this matters less on a street engine with some mild track use, as compared to an all out racing engine.

If you were to remove the multi-runner SHO intake, and cast something more traditional, I'd be willing to bet the performance of that exact engine wouldn't be much greater or much less than the fancy multi-runner SHO intake.

If you add forced induction, intake runner measurements matter even less - other than having the capacity to flow what you're pumping in with the supercharger/turbo charger. years ago I and some friends built an intake manifold out of aluminum, for a twin-turbo Buick V6. The intake was nothing more than a box, welded to a valley pan, with no runners whatsoever. Essentially it's a huge plenum, no runners.

And it produced about 800HP before the crank spit out through the bottom.

 

OK.. I guess we'll have to disagree on that point then 'cause I think it does matter more that you're giving it credit for. That's fine though..

Ha!! another GM product oiling down the track.. I love it!!

 

We can disagree, that's AOK, no worries.

The buick engine never made it to the track. But it oiled the shop very nicely on the engine dyno. Covered the dyno, a customer's car next to the dyno, and our pant legs as we were running as it split apart like a banana.

Though, we should have known a junkyard Buick V6 wasn't going to like 8000 RPM and 20lbs of boost for very long ;-)

Experimenting is fun.

 

Runner length is still pretty important for EFI engines, but I don't know as much about the diameter of the runners. There are harmonics present that when the intake runner length is optimized will help improve volumetric efficiency and help make more power. Basically design the runner length so that a high pressure wave/pulse reaches the intake valve when it is opening to increase the pressure differential between the manifold and the cylinder thus increasing the amount of air entering the cylinder.