Mustang GT question

[Cleveland Metal]

I'm just talking motor. Not chassis. Actually, if you build a roller motor on a desktop dyno, you'll still see the coolness regardless of induction. But yes, the EFI goes a LONG ways to making it all streetable and more efficient. And, often more painfull once you hit a certain power range, haha...

And yeah, Murillo is a monster...

[roodyrocker]

There are two types of roller cams. One is a solid roller which requires periodic valve lash adjustments and capable of much more aggressive profiles than the second type, hydraulic roller. When Ford switched to a hydraulic roller cam they revised the block itself. A hydraulic roller block has taller lifter bores than the older standard 302 blocks. The late model block is however a bit weaker from a strength standpoint. If you want to put a hydraulic roller can in an older, non-roller block you have two options. One is to use a retrofit kit to use the factory style spider hold down but you must use custom, small base circle cams with this. The other is to use a set of Crane's hydraulic roller retrofit lifters. These Crane lifters do not use a spider hold down at all. Instead they have a vertical tie bar between each adjacent pair of lifters, same as the type used for solid roller lifters. In addition, these lifters allow you to use off the shelf readily available hydraulic roller cams. This second option is the route I took with my car. I use an older Mexican 302 block which has thicker main caps like those found on the 289 Hipo, I converted it to screw in freeze plugs as used on the Boss 302, used the Crane retrofit hydraulic lifters with an off the shelf Crane cam then reinforced it all with a DSS main support and ARP head and main studs Trying the get the best of all worlds without going to expensive aftermarket blocks. I also use the earlier 28 oz balance crank, flywheel, and harmonic balancer which is better than the late model's 50 oz balance (small block Fords are externally balanced from the factory so less weight wobbling around on the ends of the crank at high rpm is better). I have a GT40 intake which overlaps the passenger side valve cover which requires removal of the upper intake to allow removal of that valve cover so lashing the valves with a solid roller would be a bit of a PITA. Thats why I have a hydraulic roller in it. As far as driveability, I think EFI is more responsible for that than whether its a roller cam or not.
BTW, On an unrelated note, when you switch that transmission crossmember to a dual hump one you need to pay attention to whether it came out of a manual or automatic transmission car. This is because the two crossmembers have their ends tack welded in different positions. Don't remember which is which but I know one has the ends welded on with them all the way to one end while the other is with them halfway. This shifts the position of the transmission mount. Ford Motorsport's adjustable trans crossmember is nothing more than a stock unit with its ends lef unwelded so the position can be determined by the end user. You can use a stock crossmember the same way if you simply cut the tack welds and reposition the ends where you need them then re-weld. Just a heads up for when you do your exhaust install and mess with that crossmember. Also, since you're considering installing short tube headers, I recently removed mine and went to long tubes. As a result I have a MAC high flow 2 1/2" Cat H-pipe and Flowmaster 2 1/2" cat back exhaust that have less than 1,000 miles on them. I was going to E-Bay them but if you're intersted in them contact me These would bolt up to your shorties provided they have the factory ball and socket type flanges and woould run your exhaust all the way out the back, over the rear axle. With the cat h-pipe you should be emissions legal and you can still make lots of power

[10secondLX]

What did you go with exhaust wise Roody? I have had Flowmaster, Dynomax ultraflow welded and currently have a Bassani BX cat back. Excellent quality for the $$, but to me sounds like ass when hammering down with the tailpipes on, however with the tailpipes off sounds bad ass...go figure?

[Cleveland Metal]

Great post there man... Good reading... Think paragraphs tho! hahaha...

I'm a Flowmaster guy. Had Dynomax and never liked them for the reason you mentioned.

Reason I say driveability with the roller, is that you can have a pretty aggressive ramp and get the valves open fast without too much duration, hence no loping etc. Sorta what I was getting at. But yeah, fuel injection is a major blessing to that stuff too.

But, I'm speaking streetable stuff that is not too ornery to drive with the female Straighline cars are a different language,

[roodyrocker]

What did you go with exhaust wise Roody? I have had Flowmaster, Dynomax ultraflow welded and currently have a Bassani BX cat back. Excellent quality for the $$, but to me sounds like ass when hammering down with the tailpipes on, however with the tailpipes off sounds bad ass...go figure?

I just switched to Kook's Custom Headers, 1 7/8" stainless long tubes with X pipe and Kook's Quad Core mufflers with turn downs. The headers are for TFS Street Heat heads which have a raised exhaust port over stock. My previous shorties were for those heads too. The Flowmasters sound nice but the car is now much louder with the Kook's stuff. Just recently got off the dyno comparing my exhaust systems. Car is in March issue of NMCA's Fastest Street Car Magazine as the test subject. Next month's issue will be a fuel system upgrade Both systems made good power by the way.

[roodyrocker]

Great post there man... Good reading... Think paragraphs tho! hahaha...

I'm a Flowmaster guy. Had Dynomax and never liked them for the reason you mentioned.

Reason I say driveability with the roller, is that you can have a pretty aggressive ramp and get the valves open fast without too much duration, hence no loping etc. Sorta what I was getting at. But yeah, fuel injection is a major blessing to that stuff too.

But, I'm speaking streetable stuff that is not too ornery to drive with the female Straighline cars are a different language,

Mine is mainly a street car but not my daily driver. It idles fine in traffic and starts right up. I did however ditch a few luxury items for either weight savings or to eliminate power robbing accessories My cam is fairly mild and has a wider lobe separation and not much duration, its in a blower application. I did use 1.65 ratio rockers to up the lift slightly though. I have tried typing in paragraphs on JCF several times, it always moves the sentences up against the previous one though and I never knew why :think: Whats the trick to that? Sorry about that but I've tried to fix it and it doesn't seem to work

[metalchurch79]

Good call about that cross member, I forgot about the manual vs auto design. My dad might still have an old Motorsport crossmember in the garage, but if not I'll cut the welds like you said.
I found a 1986 Ford Motorpsort catalog in my pile of magazine the other day It's amazing how far the aftermarket has come since then!

Which heads do you guys think I should go with for now?
#DOOE '70 302 heads - 1.78 x 1.46 valve size - 58.2cc
#E7TE '87 truck heads 1.78 x 1.46 valve size - 65cc

The 302 H.O. has only an 8.3:1 cr, and I'm assuming that alot of this was because of dished pistons.
Trying to bump the compression ratio up a tad bit to help out with running this Comp 270 cam and headers.

I have both sets of these heads so I wont have any money out of pocket aside from some gaskets and possibly some pushrods if I go with the old rail style rockers on the #DOOE heads.

Tryin to utilize what I have for now to make it perform a little better without having to swap the rear just yet and spend a whole lot of money.

Or so you think I should go with GT-40P heads from an Explorer? I've heard of header fitment issues with these and also changing the spark plugs can be a pain in the ass because of the spark plug angle.

I believe that the '82 H.O. motor has a 50oz balance, correct?
Cause I have a set of flat tops from a '70 302 w/ low mileage as well.

Maybe my best bet in the future is to run this motor as is and throw the whole 1970 motor in this? Need to round up a 28oz flywheel though.
Are there any other issues to swapping an old motor into this?

Yesterday I was all about keeping this somewhat stock, and now I'm talking about a possible motor swap.....it's a sickness indeed.

[roodyrocker]

Yeah, I have some of those old Motorsport catalogs as well. They sure did add a lot of stuff over the years, the early catalogs were pretty thin. Then again they were just ramping up again having been out of the performance stuff the previous decade. I still have copies somewhere around of the old Ford catalogs from the late 60's/early 70's Total Performance era
As far as swapping in an earlier motor, there are a few little things to watch for. One is the dipstick tube location. I think around 82 they switched the location to the side of the block whereas 79-81 or thereabouts had it in the side of the oil pan. Of course, prior to Fox body Stangs it was in the timing cover as those had front sump oil pans. So make sure you either have a block or an oil pan with a dipstick tube provision in it, either will work. I solved that problem on my car by using an aftermarket deep pan from Canton which has it in the side of the block. Another thing to watch for is the proper timing cover so that it is compatible with your water pump. This will depend on whether you have a V belt pulley system or serpentine, the later requiring a reverse rotation water pump.
The heads you mentioned open up a whole new can of worms. The choices you listed are very poor performance choices. The earlier heads have the crappy rail type rockers while the late model heads have the equally crappy pedestal mount rockers. Both have small valves and also I don't know the specs on your proposed cam but if these heads are choking it off and that cam requires more compression, you're going to end up with a dog on your hands. Keep in mind when swapping heads that the head gasket thickness also can raise or lower compression a bit. You;d need to calculate it out when you swap. Those used heads will likely require a valve job, possibly bronze guides and good valve stems plus the older heads can be machined to accept guide plates and convert to non-rail type rockers along with using hardened pushrods. Problem is that by the time you get done properly reconditiong the used heads you'll have a lot of money in them and still have the tiny valves and restrictive ports, might as well buy aftermarket heads with good stuff in them. We can discuss the dished piston vs. flat tops next if you're still in so far You guys are absolutely right, it never ends, its a sickness indeed

[metalchurch79]

Ok I was thinking something about the timing cover/fuel pump eccentric and oil pan as well. thanks.
Should have everything I need for this, so i'll have to pick what I need and pay attention as I build it.

My dad gave me a brochure from 1970 with the "new" Torino Cobras, Mach 1's, etc.. of that year. It's pretty cool.
I also have Bill Carroll's Ford Bible as well. It was from 1970 or 71.
My dad has a truck load of old magazines from the 70's and 80's as well. I grew up studying all that stuff.
That's what sucks is that I'm schooled on the 60-70's Fords, and I forgot alot about the early to mid 80's tech and interchange.
Believe me it's nice to have you guys here to ask alot of this stuff.
My Dad and I dont get along much anymore so I dont have many people to ask and get an answer right away, so thank you guys so much for the help!!

I literally cant wait to start diggin into this project. It's supposed to be really nice this weekend, so I'll be able to drive it and check it out.

Got another question.
I know the SROD isn't a very good trans.
Would a 4cyl Turbo T-5 be similar in strength?
Providing I dont dump the clutch and beat on it too much, it would be nice to have a steeper 1st gear ratio with these 3.55's

I can get one for free, that's why I'm asking.
Keepin it on the cheap man!

[metalchurch79]

Ok I see what you mean about those heads.
Just trying to bump up the Compression a tad, so I was going by the combustion chamber.
Not sure what the cc size of the H.O. heads are, and whether or not the low 8.3:1 cr is a direct result of the heads, or dished pistons as well.

The specs for the Comp Cam 270 Magnum are:
Ford 221-302 Hydraulic Camshaft
APPLICATIONCAMSHAFTS

VALVE SETTING
RPM
OPERATING
RANGE
CAMSHAFT PART NUMBER
CAM GRIND NUMBER

DURATION
VALVE LIFT @ 1.6:1
LOBE SEP. ANGLE
ADV.
@ .050”
IN.EX.IN.EX.IN.EX.IN.EX.HYDRAULIC FLAT TAPPET: Performance use. Best with mild converter, headers, 9:1 compression, and lower gears. Rough idle.

Hyd
Hyd
1800-5800
31-414-3
270H
270
270
224
224
.500
.500
110°

270H Magnum™ is a great cam for high performance driving in street machines. The 270H has a rough idle in small blocks and a noticeable idle in big blocks. This is the largest cam you can use with a stock torque converter. The 270H will not affect power accessories, but should be used with headers and a 4 BBL. carburetor. This is the perfect cam for cruising.

Tthe cam is brand new (missing box though) so that's why I am considering it.
I had a Comp 270 in a Cleveland a while ago and it had a nice/rough idle and made power in a useable Rpm range for the street.
I'd like to have a cam with a little more duration and lift on the exhaust side though, cause of the small ex. ports.
Ford small blocks like more exhaust lift because of the port angle.


Edit:
It says to use atleast a 9.0:1, so would the 8.3:1 cr of the H.O. motor be close enough for this??

[Aso]

Got another question.
I know the SROD isn't a very good trans.
Would a 4cyl Turbo T-5 be similar in strength?

The 4 cylinder T-5 you will have to change the input shaft and the gear ratios are a little different then the 8 cylinder ones. You will also need the bell housing from V-8 T-5 because the SROD one won't work. The SROD bellhouse will work with a Tremec TKO though.

[roodyrocker]

Aso is correct on the trans/bellhousing issue.
Metalchurch79, I can't really see some of the specs on that cam. Some are black and some areas show nothing at all. I did read the part about rough idle and also it recommends at least 9.0:1 compression as well as some gears. I think 8.3:1 is pretty anemic and if its a daily driver might want to reconsider that rough idle also. A hydraulic cam is not that expensive so if this is not the right cam for your car you could sell it since its new and just buy one that is correct for your application.
On another note, you said you were no longer close with your dad. Perhaps this car project could be something you guys could work on together and perhaps patch things up, just a thought

[10secondLX]

Screw the modifications and just hit the bitch with a 150 shot of giggle gas....LOL.

[Cleveland Metal]

Pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

[metalchurch79]

Very true man, 8.3:1 sucks balls, and I'm gonna have to do something about that, even if it is a daily driver.
I got the deal set in motion, got insurance on it and I'm going to get it tomorrow morning and drive it home. So then I'll know more about what the car is all about and what I'm working with there.

It's due for inspection in April, so I might just wait until then to do alot of this stuff to it, so that I'm certain it will pass emissions.
The PA law states that if a car is driven less than 5,000 miles a year then it is exempt from emissions laws.
(They go by your odometer reading each year)
So I'm going to disconnect it @4,500 miles and hook it back up right before inspection next year.
Either that or find another guage cluster and use that. There's ways around this, but I have to be careful. shhhhhh.