Mounting a 302

This area is for posting questions/information concerning 1961-63 year Thunderbirds NO FOR SALE POSTINGS

Moderator: Wklink

User avatar
Alan H. Tast
Posts: 4214
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:52 pm
Location: Omaha, NE

Post by Alan H. Tast »

And how much torque did that inline 6 make versus the 302? Inline 6's were often the engine of choice for trucks because of the torque they made thanks in part to longer stroke, along with better fuel economy. Getting a 4500-lb vehicle moving depends more on torque than horsepower - this has been discussed in other threads that can be found in the archives of the Forum.
Alan H. Tast, AIA
Technical Director/Past President,
Vintage Thunderbird Club Int'l.
Author, "Thunderbird 1955-1966" & "Thunderbird 50 Years"
1963 Hardtop & 1963 Sports Roadster
wisconsinjimmy

Post by wisconsinjimmy »

When I bought my 4x4 I had a choice of several engines but I went with the L6 it would out stump any V8 get better milage. It is a sorry day when we said goodbye to the L6. I bet a L6 would fit and it would be unique
edpol
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by edpol »

265 ft.lbs. for the inline, 270 for the 302.
302 was optional, as was the 351W. 302 was standard in the Bauer model.
If I understand correctly, the newer FI 302's were substantially better than the old carbed engines.
According to Steve Christ, the FE engines weigh over 700 lbs., other sources say 650, while the '83 and newer 302 weighs 440. So it seems logical that lowering the front end would be a good idea. Considering that the newer trannies are much lighter than the COM's, there's a substantial overall weight difference, possibly 300 lbs. or more between the combined weights of the engines and trannies.
However, not knowing how well a newer 302 would perfom in the old Birds, I'm just guessing that it may be adequate, since it was used in trucks that provided more wind resistance, were able to carry 7800 lbs., and designed for off road use. I'd teally like to hear from someone who made the switch.
I'm guessing with the smaller engine, it might be easier to install headers as well.
User avatar
VicRattlehead
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:40 pm
Location: Channahon, Illinois
Contact:

Post by VicRattlehead »

Why? Cause carbs are junk. Power to weight ratio out of a 400ci SMALL block is way better. We have a 400 hp little 306 sitting in the shop that we really want to put in something cool. There is so much stuff out there for the sbf it's not even funny. 400hp out of a tiny little engine and there isn't anything special in it. It's all out of the box parts. Aluminum heads is about the only thing special. And they aren't CNC ported they arnt even ported at all.

Computers, efi, make more power.

I cant wait to see the reaction I'll get with the '63 idea I wanna do. Ha it ain't even going to have pushrods or a dizzy OMG!!!
http://www.per-race-engines.com
1996 Thunderbird LX
Mods
Image
Stock is boring and useless!
edpol
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by edpol »

Sounds like you're going to install a sbf engine in a '63 TBird.
It just seems to me that installing a stock '91 FI 302 in a Bulletbird wouldn't result in too drastic a change. I think there would still be enough power to get up hills and merge into traffic safely. And judging by mileage estimates for the '91 Bronco, which is similar in weight to the Bulletbirds, it seems mileage would remain about the same. If you do the conversion, don't forget to reprogram the computer.
And for more torque, how about a 3.8L v6 rated at 210 HP and 315 ft. lbs. torque from a '93 SC, compared to the 5.0 liter v8 rated at 205 HP and 275 ft. lbs. torque that was standard in '95 4600 lb. Broncos? Stroke of the v6 is midway between that of 302's and 390's.
Computers and EFI provide much greater efficiency, therefore more power. So it would also seem that converting to the newer technology is a viable option.
jidi
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:24 pm

Post by jidi »

Kind of a back in the day thing.. My uncle would always buy a big Galaxie with a 289. My father was an FE guy. The FE on the highway would always get better fuel mileage, and run circles around the 289. Seemed the poor little thing had to really work to get up to speed and maintain speed. Around town, the 289 was better on fuel, but a pooch at the stoplight. These were stock, 4500lb. tanks that needed some torque to get 'em rollin.
Seemed the lighter Mustangs did ok with the small block, I thought the 428 worked for me (I miss that car)
The FI program seemed to bring out the beast in the small block. No comparison between the last carbed Mustang GT and the first FI GT. And the current Mustangs are unreal, but I'll still take the fat block in an old 'bird any day.

Jim
User avatar
TsNStangs
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:24 pm
Location: SoCal

Post by TsNStangs »

edpol: It just seems to me that installing a stock '91 FI 302 in a Bulletbird wouldn't result in too drastic a change. I think there would still be enough power to get up hills and merge into traffic safely. And judging by mileage estimates for the '91 Bronco, which is similar in weight to the Bulletbirds, it seems mileage would remain about the same.
I'm not following your logic here, Ed.
The '91 302 had a HP rating of 185 and 270 lbs. ft. torque.
Even with its pre-SAE rating of 300 HP and 427 torque, the 390 FE is in a completely different class of power, particularly when considering pulling around a car this heavy.
And don't forget what under-powered slugs most '70s through '90s vehicles were! Just because a Bronco - or whatever model - was equipped with that engine, doesn't mean that it was any kind of performer with it! ;-)
~ Daniel
"I'm your huckleberry..."
VTCI #11333
edpol
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by edpol »

My nephew's '95 Bronco has a 5.0 liter, and it runs jut fine. Easily climbs the hills in his neighborhood, in NW NJ, and there's plenty of power to merge in traffic, even with the lower rear end ratio in the Bronco. If I remember correctly, his mileage is 13 local, 17 or 18 highway.
I'm not saying it would be more powerful than the 390. Just saying that hill climbing and merging into traffic probably aren't real concerns. Without actually having driven a Bulletbird with an EFI 302, it's just speculation whether or not it's adequate for the vehicle, but judging by the size, shape, weight, and performance of the Bronco, it seems to be okay. Add to that, the Bird will weigh about 300 lbs. less, with a powertrain that's way more efficient than a carbed engine.
Also, I don't agree about '70's-'90's cars being underpowered slugs. Some were. some weren't. My '93 Bird with a 3.8 certainly wasn't, nor was my father's '86 Buick, or my uncle's Cutlass.
As far as I'm concerned, EFI engines are not only more efficient, but more trouble free. I never had to tinker with any EFI engine. Except for the occasional malfunction with sensors, they started right up, didn't run rough, never flooded, never had to readjust choke and mixture settings, reset timing, or change plugs every 10,000 miles, etc. etc.
That being said, if I ever decide to go with an EFI system, my first choice would be to rebuild the FE and install it on that, rather than go through the mods. I'd also want to either mod the tranny if possible, to feed info to the computer, or change it completely.
My second choice would be a sbf.
Bobrown3
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:34 pm

Re: Mounting a 302

Post by Bobrown3 »

I know the 302 doesn’t have as much tourqe but we have had several 5800 & 6200 pound E150-E250 conversion vans that came from factory with a 302 EFI and would run extremely well and even burn the tires off of a few of them. The 390 weighs 658 pounds compared to the 302 being 485. Now the transmission can be the weight difference with the 390 C6 being comparable in weight with the AOD but if using the baby face C6 is quite a bit lighter than the 390 C6.
Post Reply