What would I expect for a 302 swap?

[rdawg999]

Hey everyone. I'm gonna swap a 302 into a 67 mustang because I thought it would give the best opportunity for performance, while salvaging what I could out of the gas mileage (I wanna try to get 15mpg city if possible.) I was wondering what actual gas mileage I would get and what kinda power/ quarter mile times I could get with mods like swapping the heads and exhaust, exhaust headers and so forth (Maybe even getting really serious and porting/polishing and balancing) Thanks for your help.

[flex339]

Do you have a 289 in the car now or is it a 6 banger

[rdawg999]

Originally Posted by flex339

Do you have a 289 in the car now or is it a 6 banger

Its a 289, and I was told the engine mounts are the same and it would match up.

[flex339]

yeah they do. I had a 67 also that I bought from my cousin. It had a 600 cfm holley Double pumper, edelbrock single plane intake, 280H Comp Cam, TRW pistons, and full exhaust. I never got a chance to run it myself, but my cousin said he ran 14.2's. It had a C4 w/shift kit. I'm not sure what tires he was running. He also ran nitrous for awhile a got a best of 12.63. This was a crappy set up though. It only got 10 mpg. You could spend more money and get a better setup with more power and mpg. The big cam sounded sweet at idle though.

[flex339]

If your up for the challenge you could swap in a 5.0 HO EFI engine. More money, but it's smoother and gets better gas milage.

[rdawg999]

Originally Posted by flex339

If your up for the challenge you could swap in a 5.0 HO EFI engine. More money, but it's smoother and gets better gas milage.

Yeah I was thinking in the future of maybe going the fuel injected route, but I like the smell of fuel the carbuertated car gives off. And it would be a much easier swap with a much older engine. A lot less parts to worry about. Im thinking about easiest power and everything for the money now. In the future when I get more money saved it might be different.

[thepolishmafia1337]

ive seen guys go with the late 80's early 90's motors because they are dirt cheap, convert them to carbuerated and proceed to spray the living shit out of them. they usually slid a cam in and degree it to four degrees advanced. depending on the cam. most are four degrees for optimal performance. then put a holley 600 w/ vacume secondaries. then your good to go. fill up the bottle. sure the motor would only last about 6- 8 months depending how many bottles that you put through it but if you get to know the guys at the local junkyard they can usually hook you up.

[rdawg999]

Originally Posted by thepolishmafia1337

ive seen guys go with the late 80's early 90's motors because they are dirt cheap, convert them to carbuerated and proceed to spray the living shit out of them. they usually slid a cam in and degree it to four degrees advanced. depending on the cam. most are four degrees for optimal performance. then put a holley 600 w/ vacume secondaries. then your good to go. fill up the bottle. sure the motor would only last about 6- 8 months depending how many bottles that you put through it but if you get to know the guys at the local junkyard they can usually hook you up.

Well does anyone know what it would take to put a fuel injected 302 into an old 67? Or to convert it to carbeurated?

[Mercracer]

Originally Posted by rdawg999

Well does anyone know what it would take to put a fuel injected 302 into an old 67? Or to convert it to carbeurated?

I have done it.
You can bolt a carb intake right onto the engine, which is what I have done. I run mid 12's on an Explorer engine with only a cam change TFS Stage-1 straight up), and a valvetrain upgrade. I have run 11.36@120with a little N2O.
You should be able to get at least upper teens for mileage with a mild cam and a carb in your 67.

The issues are :

1. 50oz imbalance vs 24oz in your 289 (different dampener and flywheel)
2. No place to screw in a clutch pivot point on the block (buy the bracket)
3. Timing pointer is in different spot on the 302. (new dampener or late model accessory brackets)
4. Different headers needed if using GT-40P heads.

[351wStang]

If you really want to sav some money keep the 289 and bore it. A 302 is nothing more then a bored 289. then you wouldnt have to worry about getting a flywheel with the same # of teeth and what not. I would be alot easer I think. If I where you I'd go with a Edelbrock Performer or Torker Cam & Intake combo. They are making hydro roller cams for them now too. That would give you a little more power and a little better mpg due to less engine drag. Stroke it if you like. With the Torker you will have a higher torque rating at a lower RPM because the Torker is a low rise intake. With a carb that means more torque, (the lower the intake the more torque with a carb, the higher the intake the more top end hp with a carb). Your engine will run most efficient at peak torque. Dont go fuel injected, old cars with new electronic crap is one thing I do not understand. Why butcher a classic with humiliating new crap when there are plenty of other cars with the shit?

[flex339]

Originally Posted by 351wStang

Dont go fuel injected, old cars with new electronic crap is one thing I do not understand. Why butcher a classic with humiliating new crap when there are plenty of other cars with the shit?

Ummmm humiliating new crap? What the hell are you talking about dude. Oh you must mean those newer engines that make more power, get better gas milage, and are more reliable then those great and wonderful engines of 30 to 40 years ago that where feed by a fuel leak that sat on top of the engine. I don't personnally see a whole lot of older mustangs on the road today. Why is that? Maybe because the "new crap" saves money in the long run in milage and you knowing that it's going to start right up on that cold day with ease. Have you even owned a fuel injected sports car? I've owned an old mustang with a old 302 in it and I've owned a 95 Cobra with a new 302 in it. I would take the new engine any day. The modern engine in a older car makes the car a good daily driver canidate too. If you take the time on putting the engine into the old mustang the only way you should know the new engine is there is when you lift the hood.

[Tony H]

Originally Posted by flex339

I don't personnally see a whole lot of older mustangs on the road today. Why is that? Maybe because the "new crap" saves money in the long run in milage and you knowing that it's going to start right up on that cold day with ease.

You'll have me convicned when the modern cars get over 30 years old and have lasted like the version that has already proved itself for that long. Don't get me wrong though, newer engines are good too. The milage isn't that much different like a stated in a thread a few days ago. The older engines are easier to work on when its needed (not as often as some people seem to think).

[okie-chevy-man]

you got almost 2 grand to dump, get a gear vendors under/overdrive. my father in law has one on his 74 nova. 502 wild cam dart pro heads. 1050 speed demon carb. he runs 10.90s on all motor driving it 30 miles to the track on drag radials. he can run 10.5 trailered with slicks. he has 4.56's and with his gear vendors he gets 12-14 mpg highway.
check out
www.gearvendors.com

[Mercracer]

[quote=351wStang]If you really want to sav some money keep the 289 and bore it. A 302 is nothing more then a bored 289. then you wouldnt have to worry about getting a flywheel with the same # of teeth and what not. They are making hydro roller cams for them now too. That would give you a little more power and a little better mpg due to less engine drag. . QUOTE]

You can not rebuild a 289 and add a roller cam for what it costs to put a low mileage late model engine in the car, especially an engine with decent heads like the Explorer. It costs a pile of money to get the power out of a factory 289 or even 351W head that the Explorer heads have as delivered on the engines.

Regarding the other posts, there is a big difference in factory late model 302 fuel efficiency vs a factory 289 or early 302 fuel efficiency. Roller cam and low tension rings made a definite difference.
There is no difference in ease of working on the late engines vs the early engines if they both have a carb, except that the late model engines are easier to change the rear main seal as it is one piece and you do not have to drop the pan and putt the rear main cap.

[Tony H]

I was refering to all the computer stuff that can and does go wrong. Newer engines don't run carbs normally. What do you consider a big difference? Both types average a little under 20, from what I've experenced.