Crate engine build or rebuild a worn 302? - Ford Mustang Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-11-2011 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Mr.Pajamas's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Buckeye
Posts: 14
 
Crate engine build or rebuild a worn 302?

I have purchased a used complete 302 (except intake/carburetor and transmission) out of 1973 Ranchero that I want to put in my 1965 Mustang. I'm going for a mild street build mostly stock with aluminum heads, electronic ignition, etc. for a daily driver car. I don't need all the most expensive parts out there, but I don't want to be cheap either as I want this engine to last and be reliable. My transmission plan is a T-5 to match with it. My question is, would it be more cost effective to rebuild the used 302, or to buy the Ford Racing crate 5.0 and buy the additional parts needed. Also, any other opinions/suggestions for the build that have worked for any of you would be greatly appreciated as I am going from the inline six and C4. Thanks in advance.
Mr.Pajamas is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-11-2011
GT Member
Classic Member
V6 Member
 
Sick467's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Sedalia
Posts: 2,052
 
When I did the research for my engine decisions that had to be made, I liked Ford Racing's reputation the best. There are quite a few engine builders out there that boast high HP for little money, but Ford Racing did not seem too good to be true and Summit sells their stuff.

BUT, I ended up building my own. I took the money that I saved and put it into a stoker kit. Granted, I spent more in the long run, but more power is "more power".

It all depends on your budget, what you can do yourself, what HP/Torque you want. The cheapest way to go is build your 302 using stock parts to get about 200 HP, then build it up to 300 HP. After that it gets questsionable if Ford Racing is a better value. Especially if you lack Know-How, tools, or more importantly - TIME.

Ride On,
Noel

"I'll fix it or break it, Guaranteed!"
Sick467 is offline  
post #3 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-11-2011
Banned
4.6L Member
 
2Manystangs's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa
Posts: 12,913
 
well 1973 is probably the worst year for any engine...you'll be much better off getting a later model roller motor or yes a crate engine, rebuilds take alot of time and cash, a crate motor can be installed in a day
2Manystangs is offline  
post #4 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-11-2011
BOSS Member
 
Yadkin's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Yadkin Valley
Posts: 4,699
 
Didn't you already make the decision by buying the used engine in the first place?
Yadkin is offline  
post #5 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-11-2011
PONY Member
Classic Member
 
jspagna1's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 541
 
I was in the same situation 13 years ago. My car had a 68 302 in it and was debating on rebuilding. Decided not to and went for the 5.0 GT40 Crate motor and car has nver had a problem and motor is still bullet proof with 17,000 miles on it now.

1966 Mustang Coupe
Ford Racing 5.0 HO Motor(Crate)/B303 cam/1.7 RR
TFS TW Heads/Edelbrock Perfor RPM/Holley 650 DP
Mallory Dist/MSD Blaster/Holley Electric Fuel Pump
2.5" Exh H pipe/Flowmasters 40's/Dr.Gas Tailpipes
Lakewood T/A Bars/Aluminum Drive Shaft + loop
Auburn 3.55's/SSBC disc's/C-4 wTCI 2800 stall
Fiberglass hood/trunk/bumpers!(100% Sicilian)
jspagna1 is offline  
post #6 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-11-2011
Made Member
Classic Member
 
t.mcginley.jr's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 454
 
It kinda depends on what you want. If you just want it done quick and right, buy the crate motor and drop it in.

If you wanna have fun actually assembling your own engine (while cursing like a sailor) then rebuild the 302. This is the route I took. Stripped the engine down to just the block and had it machined. In the process of rebuilding it atm
t.mcginley.jr is offline  
post #7 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-11-2011
Rookie
 
68stang11's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Dix Hills
Posts: 36
 
I had the same decision to make, except I had my 68 302 which I rebuilt 20 years ago was due. By the time I updated the old engine, it wasn't much more to start with a new 351W and build a stroker. It all depends on your resources and goals. I crate would be the easiest, but quality would be a concern for me. I bought the pieces amd went to a local builder who had a great reputation. If you have the block, just buy the pieces and have it done. Just check out the person you choose.

68 Mustang Fastback, 302, 4bbl, 4 Spd, Global West Suspension, Lincoln Versaile Brakes

2011 Mustang GT, 6 Spd, Brembo Brakes
68stang11 is offline  
post #8 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-12-2011 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Mr.Pajamas's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Buckeye
Posts: 14
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadkin View Post
Didn't you already make the decision by buying the used engine in the first place?
I picked up the used engine for $100, so if I decided to part with it, I'm not at a huge loss. Also, why is 1973 the worst year for engines? Even if I only use the block and bore it out .030 for example, is it still better to just get a newer 5.0 roller block? Time isn't really an issue for the build as my 200 I6 is still running me around daily. I'm just curious about what has worked for other people's street small blocks in their Mustangs and this is contributing to my research on what I should do. I have built one engine prior to this with a group of friends at school (Chevy 350) so I have a generally good idea of what I'm doing. Like I said before, I just want a reliable/reasonable street engine that has some good power to lay down on the pavement.
Mr.Pajamas is offline  
post #9 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-12-2011
SHELBY GT 350 Member
Classic Member
 
Lizer's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Kalamazoo
Posts: 6,076
 
I'd personally get a remanufactured long block built to your specs. It's warrantied and cheaper than having an engine machined AND a crate engine. And you can still build it up however you'd like.
Lizer is offline  
BOSS Member
 
Yadkin's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Yadkin Valley
Posts: 4,699
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Pajamas View Post
I picked up the used engine for $100, so if I decided to part with it, I'm not at a huge loss. Also, why is 1973 the worst year for engines? Even if I only use the block and bore it out .030 for example, is it still better to just get a newer 5.0 roller block? Time isn't really an issue for the build as my 200 I6 is still running me around daily. I'm just curious about what has worked for other people's street small blocks in their Mustangs and this is contributing to my research on what I should do. I have built one engine prior to this with a group of friends at school (Chevy 350) so I have a generally good idea of what I'm doing. Like I said before, I just want a reliable/reasonable street engine that has some good power to lay down on the pavement.
1973 has a bad reputation because that's when a certain EPA mandate came out that the car manufacturer's frankly weren't ready for. Carbs had a certain amount of non-adjustability, "smog pumps" robbed us of power, and as I recall there was a change in the way horsepower was measured. Heads were de-tuned for lower octane no-lead gas. Bottom line is that the engines ran like crap compared to what we were used to. The insurance industry as well forced the manufacturer's to stop the muscle car war. It was the end of an era and we all lost a little bit more freedom.

My dad had a 1972 Ford with a 351W and my grandfather had a '72 Olds Cutlass with a 350 "Rocket" V8. Both those were fine engines that ran great and lasted a long time. I used to take the Olds and find 1973 or newer Trans Ams to play with- they couldn't keep up. I ran the Ford up to 185,000 miles before I sold it.

It shouldn't matter to you though since a 1973 block is no different than a 1972. And since you have a classic you can delete the smog gear and get a decent set of heads.
Yadkin is offline  
GT Member
Classic Member
 
Cracker289's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 1,167
 
Send a message via AIM to Cracker289 Send a message via Yahoo to Cracker289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadkin View Post
1973 has a bad reputation because that's when a certain EPA mandate came out that the car manufacturer's frankly weren't ready for. Carbs had a certain amount of non-adjustability, "smog pumps" robbed us of power, and as I recall there was a change in the way horsepower was measured. Heads were de-tuned for lower octane no-lead gas. Bottom line is that the engines ran like crap compared to what we were used to. The insurance industry as well forced the manufacturer's to stop the muscle car war. It was the end of an era and we all lost a little bit more freedom.

My dad had a 1972 Ford with a 351W and my grandfather had a '72 Olds Cutlass with a 350 "Rocket" V8. Both those were fine engines that ran great and lasted a long time. I used to take the Olds and find 1973 or newer <acronym title="transmission">Trans</acronym> Ams to play with- they couldn't keep up. I ran the Ford up to 185,000 miles before I sold it.

It shouldn't matter to you though since a 1973 block is no different than a 1972. And since you have a classic you can delete the smog gear and get a decent set of heads.

I'm sure this would all matter if he was trying to "restore" a 1973 302 to original factory specifications, but since his plan is to rebuild it, he's going to determine what pistons, what cam, which intake, which carb, etc. 1973, 1983, 1963, it's just a big block of cast iron to mold into whatever you want to make!

*66 Coupe / "Bad Candy" / CandyApple Red / All original including 289, C4, bench seat, and drum brakes.
*66 Coupe / "Agent Orange" /Tangier Orange / Converted to V8 specs with 85 5.0, AOD / 57 Fairlane 9 inch , and 17 inch Bullitt rims.
*69 F100 / "Mean Green" / 1973 H code 351c / FMX / Ratty "Beater" truck
*55 Chevy Bel Air / 4 door / 265 v8 / Powerglide / Anniversary Gold
Cracker289 is offline  
Rookie
 
Notalent's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: DFW/LBC
Posts: 28
 
You cant go wrong with a mild performance engine built of the newer 302HO block with full hyd roller cam/lifters. I would personally stay away from the older flat tappet stuff....the newer blocks are cheaper to build off using OE roller components as well rather than spending more for Retro Lifters.

Let me know if I can help.

ATK HIGH PERFORMANCE ENGINES


Custom built Street-Strip-Racing Engines!
Notalent is offline  
Made Member
Classic Member
 
t.mcginley.jr's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 454
 
Are roller motors better simply because the rolling ability of the lifters frees up more horsepower??
t.mcginley.jr is offline  
Banned
 
cindys_sn95's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Gulfport
Posts: 7,991
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by t.mcginley.jr View Post
Are roller motors better simply because the rolling ability of the lifters frees up more horsepower??
yes, that and one less thing to wear out.
cindys_sn95 is offline  
GT Member
Classic Member
 
Cracker289's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 1,167
 
Send a message via AIM to Cracker289 Send a message via Yahoo to Cracker289
Quote:
Originally Posted by t.mcginley.jr View Post
Are roller motors better simply because the rolling ability of the lifters frees up more horsepower??
Also the roller allows for a more aggressive (steeper) profile than a regular cam/lifter setup does.

*66 Coupe / "Bad Candy" / CandyApple Red / All original including 289, C4, bench seat, and drum brakes.
*66 Coupe / "Agent Orange" /Tangier Orange / Converted to V8 specs with 85 5.0, AOD / 57 Fairlane 9 inch , and 17 inch Bullitt rims.
*69 F100 / "Mean Green" / 1973 H code 351c / FMX / Ratty "Beater" truck
*55 Chevy Bel Air / 4 door / 265 v8 / Powerglide / Anniversary Gold
Cracker289 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Tags
302 build , v8 swap

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183