got me a free 302

[pedal2themetal45]

HI all
I scored 74 F-100 heavy duty with front disc brakes (I going to be putting them on my international I've already swaped in the twin I beams when I built the truck) and it also has a nice running 302 from a friend for FREE ... Has 109,000 miles on it.. with in the last year or two we replaced the timming chain.
I'm going to be putting it in a 84 or 89 (don't remember) Ranger.. I think I want to keep the 2bl carb but add headers. If I was to put in a new cam would the 265 DEH be to much with a 2bl. carb. (Intake lift is .472 exhaust is .486 with 110 center line.) or would the 268H be better ( intake lift is .456 exhaust is .456 center line of 110 ). I want to keep it kind of gas milage friendly.
Thanks
Tim

 

[RedRanger1991]

carb

I dont remember the equation but I will try to find it . I think you need more carb than that.I would say at least something around 600cfm if you are going to run a cam. I know you dont need more than that for sure and it will still be alright on the petro.

 

[superdave1984]

I agree. I am guessing the 2bbl is around 300-400 CFM. Go with the smaller cam unless you plan on putting on a 4bbl later on.

 

[baddad457]

I dont remember the equation but I will try to find it . I think you need more carb than that.I would say at least something around 600cfm if you are going to run a cam. I know you dont need more than that for sure and it will still be alright on the petro.

There's no such thing as a carb that's too little. It all depends on what he wants out of it. If I read into his post, he's not interested in topend power, but rather bottom end, everyday driving. An easier solution would be a new Holley 350 cfm carb over an Autolite (but that's my personal preference in carbs)

 

[Mac]

Looking back, I see that the Mustang '68-75' 302 had a cam (2V or 4V) that had valve lift of .368 intake and .380 exhaust. Can't find a cfm listing of what carb was used. I did use a 450cfm Holley spread bore on my old Courrier with stock motor and it ran great. The one problem with the Mustang (not sure the trucks were the same) is that between '73-76', they only had 8:1 compression ratio and build in retarded timing about 2-4 degs. Hope someone can verify that.
Dave

 

[RedRanger1991]

Carb

Volumetric efficiency of 80%
Engine=302
Max rpm= 5000
Carb size=436.92 CFM

Thats what the calculator says.I would get a little more to comfinsate for the cam.

 

[pedal2themetal45]

Thanks guys
There's a well to know guy on another site "Ckelly" says I should go with a cam with a 112 center line and the duration @50 lifts of .204 to .214.. and run a 500 cfm .
This is what I cam up with
There's a guy on craglist here selling a Edel performer plus with 112 center and the duration at .050 lifts are .204 intake and .214 exhaust and the lifts at valves are .448 intake and .472 exhaust for $100.oo with lifters.
I might go for that one with the 500 cfm.
Thanks
tim

 

[baddad457]

If you really want good mileage and bottom end, pick an EFI grind with a wider LSA, like 114* or 116* Your carb will like it better too.

 

[FordMan016]

if you could score some 289 heads that would give you some nice compesstion. same with using its crank. just an idea

 

[baddad457]

compesstion ?

 

[sloue]

if you could score some 289 heads that would give you some nice compesstion. same with using its crank. just an idea

imo the pre 72 351 windsor heads would be the best to bring that compesstion up.

 

[Mac]

The '73-76' 302 heads have 58.2 cc heads, the '63-67' 289 heads are at 54.5. Swapping them would only gain 0.3 compression. The 351 heads I see are listed as 60.4 cc. It's that taller deck height that really makes for the low 8:1 compression. Machine shop I used milled the heads .023-.025 to make up some of that difference.
Dave

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

if you could score some 289 heads that would give you some nice compesstion. same with using its crank. just an idea

And use the 302's rods and pistons? How much more compression? The stock pistons have valve relief's in them already, dunno how much closer you can get.

The reason I ask is I am building a 289 for my Ranger and I still pistons anyway...

 

[Mac]

And use the 302's rods and pistons? How much more compression? The stock pistons have valve relief's in them already, dunno how much closer you can get.

The reason I ask is I am building a 289 for my Ranger and I still pistons anyway...

Really not sure what you're build has to do with the '74' 302 engine I thought we were talking about, way too different. If you got a 289, just build it up. Any good machine shop can help you with the proper piston selection and build.
Dave

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Really not sure what you're build has to do with the '74' 302 engine I thought we were talking about, way too different. If you got a 289, just build it up. Any good machine shop can help you with the proper piston selection and build.
Dave

I was asking for some clairification from a previous post (the same one I quoted) that suggested using 289 parts on a 302... and threw in why I was interested.