Guest plainswolf Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 What is the standard bore size of the SBF 302 and what is the standard stroke? I know it's either 4.00 inches or very close? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 4" wide by 3" long (stroke). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest buschj Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 That's it: 4.000 Standard Bore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 AH! Just what I figured! I knew chevy's Z28 302 was a 4.00 bore X a 3.00 inch stroke, but I wanted to be sure it was the same for Ford.. The Ford 302 is alot lighter weight than I thought it would be; 460lbs. and lighter for the newer 5.0L engines.. thats over 100lbs. lighter than a chevy smallblock! If one went with aluminum intake, heads, and waterpump...good lord he'd have an engine that at worst was about 400lbs even. Thats lighter than my L26! Thanks for the response guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Isn't there also a SBF 327 stroker as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo240ez Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Here's my aluminum head/intake 302 looks like... http://www.hybridz.org/phpBB2/album_personal.php?user_id=3604 Build a 331 or 347 stroker out of a 302. I see a 347 in my future. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 If one went with aluminum intake, heads, and waterpump...good lord he'd have an engine that at worst was about 400lbs even. Thats lighter than my L26! You were very close. My 302 weighed 389lbs when I installed it into my Z. This was with an aluminum flywheel, aluminum heads, a very lightweight aluminum intake (the OLD Torker intake, which is a very good intake), headers, and a cheap but very light water pump (which promptly grenaded shortly after). I've changed to a heavier intake, and a heavier water pump. I've also added a power steering pump and belts, so the engine weight has gone over the 400lb mark, but not by much. With the same equipment, my L6 came in at 427lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 How reliable AND streetable would a SBF 327-347 be? I'm looking for at least 300-320 HP and would be quite content with that from it. I have access to both a sbc 327 and a 302.. But the lighter weight of the SBF appeals to me more and more. But I want as streetable a 320 HP as I can get without too 'rumpity' of an idle quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 Dam you guys have nice looking rides! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest twdavis4400 Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Well as far as hiting the 300 hp range out of a 5.0l. Doesn't have much to it and you can keep the stock bottom end in the car. I'm working on a 351w with the efi. All I'm doing is putting a new intake on and a cam that eqauls a e303 in a 302. Then putting a sit of alum. heads with 2.0 intake valve. That set up well put you close to 300 hp. And for that matter a 87-95? 5.0 and a 100hp go go button hits the same mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dp351zcar Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 There is a lot of info on build ups for a 302. They can get 400hp pretty easy but you will need to get the right heads and intake matched with the right cam. Check out Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords starting in the August issue the are testing 13 cylinder heads in grouped into three sets. The first month of a set they tell about all the heads and test them on a flow bench. The second month of a set the slap them on a 302 (bored .030 for the first set) a 331 for the next higher performing second set and a 347ci for the all out (almost race) heads. First set was lower performace (smaller port) heads with a edelbrock RPM intake and a compcams XE264R cam. The AFR 165 heads had 396 hp @ 5800 RPM. Hope this helps. Back issues can be ordered I think through their web site. Don My 351 will be getting canfield 192 heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 It's out of an early 80's mustang GT is all I know right now.... It's never been rebuilt and he is the origional owner. It's been sitting for about 5 years now and it ran perfectly when he pulled it. It boils down to this, I have my choice of a chevy 66 chevy 327 small journal, or a Ford 302( that can be rebuilt into a 327/331)-Both engines need rebuilt as they have been sitting for about 5 years now. Both were also stock. But the lighter weight of the Ford seems ever more important. Either engine I go with is going to get edelbrock aluminum heads and intake. I will have the money for them at tax return time easily-(and alot more to spare as well). BTW I have a 74.5 260 And thank you guys for the valuable info! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy 77zt Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 chevy weight is more due to taller deck height on engine.common chevy rod length is 5.7".common ford 302 is 5.1".alot of people are using aftermarkit 5.4 " rods on a ford with semi-custom pistons.on a 347 stroker oil rings run unsuported over piston pins on some pistons.i have seen this pistons break.more is not always better.if you use a longer rod you get less side thrust on piston skirt.many 351 ford small blocks are built with a 6.2" rod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
74_5.0L_Z Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 I have been running an '89 5.0L motor in early 1974 260Z for three years now. The bottom end is completely stock(I haven't even inspected the main bearings). I have put Edelbrock aluminum heads, Crower 15511 Cam, 1.72 roller rockers, Cobra intake, 24# injectors, etc.. I have about 310 HP to the back tires. Now I'm about ready to build a bottom end. I've been considering my choices. 306 long rod 5.40 inch rod 3 inch stroke 1.8 rod ratio 331 stroker 5.40 inch rod 3.25" stroke 1.66 rod ratio 289 (+.030) 5.5 inch rod 2.87" stroke 1.916 rod ratio Which ever way I go, I plan to go with a solid roller set-up so that I can twist it a bit tighter (7500+ rpm). For this reason the 289 looks really good. My best friend has a 289 in his NHRA Super Stock that we routinely twist 8300 rpms (11.15 sec quarter mile times in a 3250 pound car). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy 77zt Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 after i sell my boat i am planning a long rod 306 with solid roller lifters.engine will be used on a road race course.july 2003 car craft got 400hp out of a stock bottem end 302 with afr heads and a carb.headers and 1.7 rockers.so if i get 400 at the wheels on something that can handle weekend abuse i will be happy.like running the silver state classic and then driving car to work on monday with out touching a single tool to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 Ok.. deck height.. that answered the very perplexing question for me of what made the SBF 302 so much lighter than a SBC? I have noticed in the specs of the rebuild kits that the 302 had what I thoughtr was an awefully short rod.. 74_5.0_z you answered right on the money for me! I'm looking to get, at least from the start, about 300-320HP at the flywheel, let alone the rear wheels,(but 3-310 RWHP would be MOST welcome!! ) and after looking up the lift and duration of the crower cam-15511-you mentioned, I like those numbers...alot! especially with a stock bottom end.. I may go a notch lower in cam...maybe not, not way too dam agressive, yet PLENTY enough to go like a bat outta hell. God guys I am really torn between engines now.. I know I can get the HP out of the SBC 327 easily.. but that LIGHTER weight of the SBF 302 is becoming dam important to me.. and not so much for sanctioned races per se' but for the slightly less stress of less inertial weight upon the car's structure, suspension, braking system..etc. I am looking for a basic GT car...on a cycle of steroids.. hehe a perfect balance of alot more power than it should have, but also comfort.. I'd like to get a 1/4 mile solidly in the mid 13's.. faster than that is a very welcome bonus! I know, sounds a bit tame by some standards but the comfort and handling are very important. After much, and ongoing research, it seems there is a prob with the SBF's front sump oil pan. Now I've seen and saved many of the pics of a modified front crossmember/motor mount platform I believe is made by aisil? Does this eliminate the clearance prob of the front sump oil pan? Dam you guys are incredibley helpful for all your info! Further suggestions are VERY welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 One last thing... how far can a 302 be bored...safely? .060? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
74_5.0L_Z Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 As far as running mid-13's, that will be no problem. With the bone stock 5.0L, and t5 in my car I ran 13.70s@ 100. (2850 lbs with driver) With only the addidion of 73mm MAF, 1,72 rollers, and 24# injectors, I ran 13.20s at 103 mph. (2850lbs with driver) With the addition of Edelbrock Performer Heads, Crower Cam, 70mm TB, and Cobra Intake, I have run a best of 12.69 @ 112 mph (with a slipping clutch). The bottom end of this motor is exactly as it came from the junk yard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Juday Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 After much' date=' and ongoing research, it seems there is a prob with the SBF's front sump oil pan. Now I've seen and saved many of the pics of a modified front crossmember/motor mount platform I believe is made by aisil? Does this eliminate the clearance prob of the front sump oil pan? Dam you guys are incredibley helpful for all your info! Further suggestions are VERY welcome![/quote'] Jumbo, pipe up here. I believe Jon uses a stock front sump with no mods to the crossmember or pan. It is very close but clears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 60 over is not a problem for street duty but it may be a bit unstable for critical racing though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.