I have read through over 11 pages of 302 posts and realize the 89-93 MAF 5.0 HO out of a mustang are the best option, but being in Western NY I can't find one reasonably priced or find one period, so...

What are my other options? I have read that Lincoln LSC is the same motor, but what is that? Is that the Lincoln Mark VII? How about the Thunderbirds, which ones if any? Any others I am over looking?

I can't seem to find any Explorer motors either, but if I can what year should I look for?

I realize the Crown Vics are a poor man's choice and I don't want to make a poor decision so all of your help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Jason

i disagree.

mustang motors and ECU are designed for high rpm horsepower.

the 5.0 truck motor and ECU is designed for torgue at low rpm.

so it really depends what you want to use the rig for. if rockcrawling, go with a bronco or truck motor. the other reasons are the oil sump is in the rear on trucks and in the front on a car. so you will have to get all the stuff from the truck anyway. otherwise the front diff will interfere with the oil pan. the ideal setup is truck lower end oil pan and pickup, with car manifolds, using the truck ecu. i used a bronco motor and got a upper and lower manifolds with the throttle body and fuel rail for 16 dollars on e bay. fuel rails need to be from the manifold being used as they are not interchangeable. the reason for the car manifold is hood clearance, the truck upper manifold is very tall and does not fit under most hoods. the other thing to think about is which side of the engine compartment do you want the air intake on. you can switch the upper manifolds around but will run into fuel rail issues from one side to the other.
$0.02

hope this helps

OK, so you are saying the truck 302. What about the truck 351, how does it compare to the 302? I am not looking for the ol saying ther is no replacement for displacement, but rather figures, facts and solid statements.

I am not looking for a hp motor, but a solid and RELIABLE engine that has good hp and torque. My trails vary from small mud holes and steep climbs to rockcrawling.

The climbs and rockcrawling have pushed me towards a better engine that is fuel injected because I am tired of the shitty Carter dying on the steeps:mad:. Leaves me in uncomfortable situations and not completing the climb.

I have an NP435 already in the Jeep mated to the 258 and have the bellhousing and clutch master & slave cylinders for the small block Ford in my garage, so now I am just researching the best engine option.

Thanks for your time,
Jason

the 351 will also work but again the truck stuff is more low end orientated especially computer wise. i had issues with getting the exhaust to fit and the 351 is a few inches wider so that might be a problem, not sure. i also have a cj and it came with the 258. so we are similar. i hated to back down obstacles that my rig would easily climb except the old tired 258 would die and i had to be almost level to get it to start back up. i wanted efi also. the mass air version is better cause you can modify the engine somewhat (cams) and the injection can adapt to the mods.

you might want to think about having the air intake on the drivers side as it balances the engine compartment. i also built a dual battery box and the mustang air inlet tube was being kinked by the battery. so i swapped it around from the mustang stuff i bought and used stuff from a lincoln towncar at the u pullit. it was cheap cheap... here are some pictures if interested in how mine turned out.

http://www.superford.org/registry/index.php?vID=961&fs=&dni=1&vs0=_1335_&vs1=&vs2=&s1=&s2=&s3=&s4=&s5=&s6=&s7=&s8=&s9=&s10=&s11=&s12=&s13=0&s14=&s15=&s16=&s17=&s18=&s19=&s20=

might have to cut and paste it to the address bar? look under inaction at the mods section.

Hasn't anybody installed a 351 that wants to chime in?
Preferably in a Jeep, but any insight will do.

I know there a lot of Ford guru's out there, maybe I should ask in the Ford forum.

What is the diff between car or truck 302 and truck 351? (besides displacement)

the difference is the 351 is wider by 2". the mounts are the same and will bolt anywhere a 302 will. but the heads are wider therefore the exhaust is gonna be the interference problem. if you stick with stock exhaust manifolds it should fit in a cj. i looked at mine last night and i think i could have fit a 351 in there. you will need to go hyd on the clutch as there will be no room for the clutch actuation fork to the brake porportioning valve and frame. the same differences are present as the 302 between 351 in a car vice a truck. car oil sump in front on both, truck oil sump in rear on both. the 351 will also be very tall if you keep the truck manifolds. taller by about 1 1/2" overall, again clearance with hood issues. you could do a body lift (i hate them) to get hood clearance?

Actually, a '79 and later Mustang (and other Fox platform cars) engine has a rear sump.

yes but a 79 and later is not efi.... thats what prompted this in the first place i thought. but you could always get the oil stuff from a later model mustang to put on an EFI setup. i think they are all the same. 302 to 302 351 to 351, but there is a difference from a 302 oil system to a 351. the driveshaft between the distributer and oil pump is larger on the 351

so jason did you get your shop all put back together last night?

Originally posted by hip
yes but a 79 and later is not efi.... thats what prompted this in the first place i thought. but you could always get the oil stuff from a later model mustang to put on an EFI setup. i think they are all the same. 302 to 302 351 to 351, but there is a difference from a 302 oil system to a 351. the driveshaft between the distributer and oil pump is larger on the 351

'79-'85 may not be EFI, '86 - '94 Mustangs are and they all have a dual sump pan. It's basically a rear sump pan, but there's a small front sump with its own drain plug to clear the oil pump. Mustang engines have lots of low end torque. They also have other goodies like roller cams and forged pistons ('86 - '92 anyway) that the trucks and other 302s do not have. Not sure what the numbers on the truck engine are, but the Mustang 5.0 is rated at something like 300 lbs/ft at 3200 RPM. Plenty of torque for a Jeep. Truck intakes are also a lot taller so you may have hood clearance problems if you use one of those. 351 trucks are even taller and wider.

yes but the front sump will hit the front diff so it must go. putting a car engine with the car oil pan will cause problems. at least on my 82 cj there is no way it would work. yes it will fit untill the first time the suspension articulates then wham hole in the oil pan. the truck engines have the same if not more torque and the ECU is designed differently. especially when it comes to idle and low rpm torque. some truck engines have all the same goodies as the car engines.... except the oil pan will fit.

"the Mustang 5.0 is rated at something like 300 lbs/ft at 3200 RPM."

boy thats pretty fast rpm for the trail dont ya think?

Originally posted by hip
i disagree.

mustang motors and ECU are designed for high rpm horsepower.

the 5.0 truck motor and ECU is designed for torgue at low rpm.





Wrong, wrong, wrong

The mustang 5.0 uses long oval runners that equate to excelent torque.
Its a widely talked about subject, amongst gear heads including the Ford racing Experts, that Ford screwed up with their design and placement of the 5.0 engine.
The 5.0 HO builds torque much better than the truck versions, and should have been the choice of engine for the trucks.
The Ford Mustangs on the other hand really need a lot of coaxing to build them to gemerate high RPM horse power.
The reason the Stang is such a strong running street car is because of its strong torque curve.
When used for drag strip racing, the long runner style of plennum is always replaced for the lunch box style, straight drop plennum which are designed to build high HP.


Now to answer the original question.
A Lincoln Mark VII 5.0 HO is identical to the Mustang 5.0 with the exception of the computer programming of the EEC.

In order to build the 5.0 engine, for an excelent rock crawling torque curve, I went from a Ford racing E303 cam to a B303 cam which gives up some HP in the higher range but builds very strong torque from as low as 500rpms.
Many people have seen my engine in competitions and will atest to its ability to crawl along at 500 rpm under load , and immediately be able to launch it to 2500rpm in a 1/2 second without even sidestepping the clutch.

The 5.0 is an awsome rock crawling engine.
It is light weight, runs cool, runs on any angle, and is dirt cheap to build, now that everyone and their brother is building them for the strip.

I run about 275hp/ and 330lb torque as tested on the dyno at the track in Vegas. I only use a junk yard Mark VII engine and bolt on components, along with a little bench work.

Originally posted by hip
yes but the front sump will hit the front diff so it must go.


Wrong again, the front sump sits so high, that if you are hitting the oil pan with your steering, then you better remove the harmonic ballancer also because it only sits about 2 inches in front of it and about an 1" higher.
I have absolutely no problems with clearance, using the stock dual sump pan.
The car engines will maintain good oil pressure over long periods of time even on inclines up to 45 degrees.

I forget which manufacturer started a lot of this BS about the Ford engines, I think it is Novak, but its all a bunch of misinformation.

Get the mustang motor. Mustangs have tons of power across the band. That's why they are so popular.

As for broadening your search, you can get the older 302's (older than 89 or 88 in CA) and convert them to mass air from speed density.

There are Mustang places in Arizona that will ship you a take out complete for like $1300 or so. I can't remember the name, you'll have to hit Yahoo.

-Jack

Since there seem to be some FOMOCO folks here. tell me your thoughts and facts about an 88 T-bird 5.0. I was told this was a one year ECU engine?. Can I run a mustang ECU instead of the t-bird one ? since I don't have the ECU, I am open to ideas. I have the complete motor efi etc, minus the main harness and the ECU. I plan to run this in my Jeep after the 6 dies.

Alright, I am going to stick with the 5.0 HO (Unless I come across a killer 351 deal). I am going to look for either a stang or a Mark VII (most likely). Anything has to be better than my six carbed.


Hip, what do you mean did I put my shop back together? I wish I had a shop. I've been trying to get one put together, but renting with no garage and having no job kinda puts everything to a halt fast. I need to get a job first.

Thanks for everybody's help.
Jason

i was asking jason lockwood as he is my friend and i had helped him clean out a space in his shop the night before for the new/old lathe he is getting from his grandfather. when i left he still had a lot of stuff to get back inside......

sounds like you got some good info here and good luck in your swap. just be aware of the oil pan sump issue as i have looked at a ton of 302s from all kinds of vehicles and if the front sump is deep it WILL interfere. i agree on some mustangs with the dual sump the front sump is not deep and would fit. most cars have a deep front sump. just keep it in your mind while selecting the donor.

good luck let us know how it turns out.

I got the shop kinda put back together.

On the engine oil pans: Like G'pa jeep said, the Mustang pan has a little front sump to hold the pump (can't do away with it) and most of the reservoir is in the back. Other cars based on the Mustang platform also have this pan. LTD-II, T-bird, etc. The old Ford car engines (fairlane, Mustangs of the '60's, etc) have a full sump in the front. These won't work.

351 pans are different from 302/5.0 pans in the rear main area. The 351 has a bigger rear main seal (maybe bearing, too) and will not fit. I modded a mustang pan for a 351 conversion to an '91 Mustang and ended up using the 351 rear main area of the 351 pan on the 302 Mustang pan. When we tried to fit it to the engine, we found that the oil pump was deeper than the 302 pan and had to mod that area, too. But it can be done.

Originally posted by H8monday
I run about 275hp/ and 330lb torque as tested on the dyno at the track in Vegas. I only use a junk yard Mark VII engine and bolt on components, along with a little bench work.

Dredging up an old one, because that's some awesome tech. I had been thinking about a stang motor for the 4runner when I get tired of dealing with the tired 22re. You just clinched the deal for me, hopefully next year I will have lots of questions for you :)

...just be aware of the oil pan sump issue as i have looked at a ton of 302s from all kinds of vehicles and if the front sump is deep it WILL interfere.
I haven't seen this motor installed in many jeeps -- I can just speak to the two motors I have seen installed in Toyotas and the one that I am currently putting into my Isuzu. The double-sump pan works excellent in these applications -- the crossover steering fires right through the 'lift' in the sumps, and you'd have to smash the axle or drag link up through the frame to tag the oil pan. In my truck, it looks like the double-sump oil pan was MADE for my application.

I've built my motor up on the not-so-cheap, but that's a factor of changing my mind along the way too many times -- if you plan your buildup and have time to look for good deals, I think you can build this motor for about the same dollars as a Chebby TPI motor.

Randii