When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I have got a question and it is gonna be vague so bare with me. What would be a reason why I couldn't use a 93 up block to replace my carbed 87? I just have this stuck in my head and cannot get rid of it until I find the answer. It came to mind when I was doing another post but can't remember. Here is the situation, when I went looking to replace my engine I learned that 93 was the cutoff and for the life of me can't remember why or what I am trying to think of, it may have been 92 but I am sure it was 93. Right now I can think of no reason why. Don't you hate that...any help appreciated
You don't have to explain, it happens to all of us.
The post '82 block uses a one-piece rear main seal
The post '82 crank is externally balanced, and must use a balancer/flexplate/flywheel with a 50 oz. weight
Since you need the post-82 crank to fit the 1-piece RMS block, you'll have to go with the post-'82 external balance rotating assembly. You will not find any factory flexplate that will fit a C4 or C6 SB transmission with a 50 oz. balance weight, but both TCI and B & M make them (~ $105 from Summit)
The post-'88 block has longer lifter bores for hydraulic roller lifters, and is tapped for the two bolts that retain the spider plate that prevents them from rotating in the bores. It is still compatible with a flat tappet cam.
Other than those above, you can use any timing cover, any heads, any intake, any accessories, and any oil pan that will fit your truck. I did this swap using the FRPP short block in my '77 F100, and dressing up the short block with Summit's finest.
No that wasn't it, I actually recall that. Like I mentioned maybe it doesn't even apply to the engine all together but still I remember when I called around the tech at edelbrock told me something about this. Who knows, all I can say is this will probably eat at me.............. appreciate the response torqueking
JW, Is this a 302 or a 351w? 302 I do not think it has a roller cam and lifters, unless it is a H.O. 93 I believe has roller cam and lifters, 351w did not get roller until 95 , i think.
As far as the block is concerned, the roller block will not be compatible with standard Hydrolic lifter, the lifter bores are taller in the valley to accomedate the longer roller lifters. It must use the rollers. If you already have a peformance hydrolic non roller cam in it, you will not be able to use it in the 93 block.
If I am wrong, just point my toes to the daisys. and ignore my entire post.
You know that may very well be it because 93 1/2 they used started using or the block were at least set up for roller lifters so for some reason unknown to me now I may have wanted to stay away from that block. Fishin1976 you may have resparked my memory, appreciate it
According to the '93 factory shop manual, the 5.0 and 5.8 both had roller lifters. The exception was the Lightning 5.8 HO, which still used flat tappets.
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Slideshow: The VelociRaptor Expedition gains a lift, upgraded suspension, Brembo brakes, and trail-ready equipment while retaining the stock 440-horsepower EcoBoost V6.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.