Worst engine 302-why?
Hotshot
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 12,170
Likes: 5
From: The hills of No. Calif.
My understanding is that Ca. Mustangs got Mass Air in '88, all other states in '89...however, I just picked up an '88 ex-CHP Mustang, it has CARB (California Air Resources Board) stickers on it, but has speed density EFI, not Mass air...go figure. It has changed hands so many times and is so trashed, maybe the EFI system was changed at some point. -TD
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,228
Likes: 5
From: Running Springs CA
Mass air was introduced in 1994 automatics in CA only for the truck 5.0. I have this engine and it may be durable and have all the right engineering features, mass air, roller cam, etc, but it is absolutely gutless in the mountains. I have to drive hwy 330 in second gear, even with no load in the bed.
Jim
Jim
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: Flatland, Saskatchewan
I bought a Lincoln Town Car for 50 bucks once. The previous owner said it had a 302. I never run the numbers to find out for sure, but it pushed that boat around no problem. Wouldn't do a burnout though, but as far as acceleration it was pretty good. It sat for about 5 months before I got it, and we threw a new battery in it, fresh gas, and it whirled over and started right up. Run like charm. The car had 200,000 plus km's on it and never had the engine swapped. (this is what the guy told me anyways) Anyways, I donated the car to promote the College of Agriculture's big AG BAG DRAG party. (huge party with hundreds of people) We painted it up and did her up nice with spray paint 
After that, since I was a first year freshman, the upper year guys stole the car and bagged the ever living.... out of it. The car ended up getting the crap smashed out of it in the end (happens every year), and even with some things crushed on the engine, and bagged to crap, the engine still kept ticking. Made me a beleiver in the 302..
After that, since I was a first year freshman, the upper year guys stole the car and bagged the ever living.... out of it. The car ended up getting the crap smashed out of it in the end (happens every year), and even with some things crushed on the engine, and bagged to crap, the engine still kept ticking. Made me a beleiver in the 302..
More Turbo
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 590
Likes: 1
From: in the woods of Maine!
Personally, I've been around a number of 302's, I even have one sitting on my garage floor that I rebuilt,and only ONE impressed me any. so I'm not a fan at all. I'm not a fan of the 351M/400's either. I hate those motors too. But, I think one reason I hate 302's is cause EVERYONE and their mother has one in their truck/car. Personall I like the FE's, and if it has to be a small block I would go w/ either the old school 255, or the 289's
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Hotshot
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 12,170
Likes: 5
From: The hills of No. Calif.
.017 difference in stroke is about it. I like both motors, I guess the main attraction for me is the compact size and light weight. The 260 was the stock motor in my Tiger, so of course the 289/302 interchanges. I don't think I could get an FE in there, and if I could, the weight would make the thing stand on its nose! Been a long time since I had an FE in anything. -TD
Junior User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 69
Likes: 1
From: ny
nothing like the torque of an FE ,had them for last 30 years.just use your head when building a 302 truck.your not going to be happy w/33 inch tires,3.0 gears and an automatic.302's will wind to 6000 rpm all day long, built right....so think about torque vs weight,what your going to use it for and do some research!! still remember back in high school, all my brand X friends would run done to the speed shop on payday, and buy whatever was on sale that week,bolt it into there brand X junk and progressivley make it slower{mismatched parts!} so do some research,plenty of great books out there ,since the fox body mustangs started kicking butt on the race tracks [small block ford parts prices came down alot too]
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 1
From: Las Vegas
Originally Posted by P51D Mustang
The 86 HO was the first with sequential EFI, called SEFI. It came out in the fall of 85. The 86 HO looks exactly the same the 87-95 EFI HO's on the outside. It's Speed Density EFI. The 85 four barrel carb HO actually was the first 5.0 with the renowned roller tappet cam. These roller cam HO motors do not have nylon gears. I've been into a few of them to change cams..ect.., and they all had double roller steel gears stock. I don't know about the regular pass car and truck 302's? The 86 HO longblock has the same cam as the 85 HO, but otherwise had E6S swirl heads and a siamese bore block. The 87-up HO longblocks are virtually the same as the 85, but with SEFI EFI on top. 87 and up HO's use the E7TE head, that breath much better than the E6SE. The HO E6 head has smaller 61cc chambers than the regular E6 heads used on non-HO motors too. The 86 has a slightly smaller thottlebody, and upper intake runners than the 87-up EFI HO's. 85-92 HO came with forged pistons. 93-up HO's use hypereutectic pistons.
I have beat the living hell out of 302's for years and have never blown an engine. I can't say that about brand C and D small blocks. A stock 302 will take 6,000 rpms all day long. If you really study the engineering of the Ford small block you will find it better engineered than brand C and brand D too.
The limiting factor on power production of the Ford small block has always been the stock heads, particularly the puney exaust port. A set of TFS or AFR heads really wake up the 302. An otherwise fairly stock 5.0L HO with TFS heads an E303 roller cam will produce a reliable 350 ft-lbs and 350 HP on pump gas. On a dyno with a more radical Comp cam, a 130,000 mile HO short block made 396HP, with unported TFS heads, and 417Hp using ARF 185 heads. 85-92 Power adder HO's, with stock bottom ends, can support 400-500 HP.
Many people don't know this, but the 289's first race was at the 1963 Indy 500. From the mid 60's to the mid 70's, the most winning indy car motors were really gussied up 289's. engines like Kelsy Westlake, Foyt Coyote, Drake Offy ...ect were basically nothing more than Ford 5 liter small blocks, topped off with exotic cylinder heads, fuel injection, and turbochargers.
Of course Shelby used less exotic 289's and 302's to good effect. The GT40 and Shelby Cobra racers used four barrel carb 289's. The small block cars out handled the big block power cars in the twisties. However the big block cars could actually out brake the small block cars on the high speed tracks, not that the 427 wasn't a much more powerful motor to begin with. In those days engine braking was essential, and a larger displacement motor gave better compression braking.
It's hard to find a pushrod small block with a more storied racing history than the Ford 289/302.
I have beat the living hell out of 302's for years and have never blown an engine. I can't say that about brand C and D small blocks. A stock 302 will take 6,000 rpms all day long. If you really study the engineering of the Ford small block you will find it better engineered than brand C and brand D too.
The limiting factor on power production of the Ford small block has always been the stock heads, particularly the puney exaust port. A set of TFS or AFR heads really wake up the 302. An otherwise fairly stock 5.0L HO with TFS heads an E303 roller cam will produce a reliable 350 ft-lbs and 350 HP on pump gas. On a dyno with a more radical Comp cam, a 130,000 mile HO short block made 396HP, with unported TFS heads, and 417Hp using ARF 185 heads. 85-92 Power adder HO's, with stock bottom ends, can support 400-500 HP.
Many people don't know this, but the 289's first race was at the 1963 Indy 500. From the mid 60's to the mid 70's, the most winning indy car motors were really gussied up 289's. engines like Kelsy Westlake, Foyt Coyote, Drake Offy ...ect were basically nothing more than Ford 5 liter small blocks, topped off with exotic cylinder heads, fuel injection, and turbochargers.
Of course Shelby used less exotic 289's and 302's to good effect. The GT40 and Shelby Cobra racers used four barrel carb 289's. The small block cars out handled the big block power cars in the twisties. However the big block cars could actually out brake the small block cars on the high speed tracks, not that the 427 wasn't a much more powerful motor to begin with. In those days engine braking was essential, and a larger displacement motor gave better compression braking.
It's hard to find a pushrod small block with a more storied racing history than the Ford 289/302.
Good post. Confused on your "siamesed block" statement. Never have seen ANY Ford regular production block that didn't have full water jackets.(there is an SVO BLOCK that's siamesed)
Gotta chuckle at the "289 is better than 302 statements" from other posters. The most comical was the "old school 255" comment. Considering the 255 was conceived AFTER the 221/260/289/302.
I do love old timers reliving the glory years. The FE in 427 guise (especially SOHC) were forces to be reckoned with. But all other FE's became boat anchors when canted valve heads(ford/chevy) on big blocks became the norm.
4 bolt boss blocks(rare) and even thin wall castings with a cheap girdle will spin easily and reliably to 7k.
The small block chevy and 5.0(actually 4.9) Ford are easily the most aftermarket supported engines of all times.
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
The 302 is not a crappy engine! My parents used to own a '86 F150 extended cab long box 4x4 with the 302 and auto. That was a real good truck, and you couldn't kill it! My cousin had a '94 F150 with 260,000 plus miles on his 302 before he traded it in on a Escort! :x Also, my dad has a '70 Boss 302! That is one powerful car! You won't believe the rpms that engine has endured in its lifetime. I heard that the guy who owned the engine unhooked the rev limiter and wound that poor thing to 10,000 RPMS!!! But it didn't blow and is still running strong to this day. So the 302 is not a bad engine!
You can raise the BS flag on this one if you want to, but it's all true! Thanks!
You can raise the BS flag on this one if you want to, but it's all true! Thanks!
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
From: Southwestern Michigan
Originally Posted by 68 351 bronc
Jimandmandy
What rear gears? My brother has a 79 F150 4X4 and auto that honest to god has stock 3.08 gears. It will do 75 in second gear with 30 inch tires.
What rear gears? My brother has a 79 F150 4X4 and auto that honest to god has stock 3.08 gears. It will do 75 in second gear with 30 inch tires.
You sure it is 3.08? I have never seen that ratio in a 4x4......more likely it is 3.50