Just bought a new 302 block, need great cam/heads ect advice

[UR2NOZ]

I just picked up a new machined 1985 302 block that has been bored .030 over and the pistons are speed pro flat top with valve reliefs & full floating rods. Running on nothing higher then 94 octain pump gas. What heads and cam combinations will really make to most power of this block? I have an eldelbrock pro performer intake and 1406 600cfm carb i was going to install onto it, but if I need more carb please inform. Are the pistons I got with the block going to make me happy. Any questions please ask and I will do my best to answer them.

Thanks guys

Adam

[frankiesaysrelax]

Is it a roller cam block or flat-tappet?

[MurPHy]

Is it a roller cam block or flat-tappet?

What's the difference?

[SilentNoise]

The '85 Mustangs came with the first hydraulic roller 5.0L, so assuming that it came from a Stang, I can confidently say that it will be be a roller........ however the 1985 (and I believe 1986) blocks were the weakest of the 5.0L/302 castings, so you've got a mix of the good and the bad in there (not that it's MAJOR because they can still lay down some great numbers, but thought I'd make you aware of it)

If you're picking out a different cam, you will have to know whether or not you have a roller block or a flat-tapet block because the cams are machined differently.

Roller blocks will have the ability to make more power, but I'll argue that the flat-tapet parts have the ability to take a little more abuse because the lifters are one solid piece as compared to the roller lifters in a roller block.


Here's an example of what I'm talking about in the differences between the lifters:

Roller lifters:
http://static.summitracing.com/global/images/prod/large/fms-m-6500-r302.jpg

Flat-tapet lifter:
http://static.summitracing.com/global/images/prod/large/cca-812-16.jpg

[mandra]

It may not be a roller if it is an 85. My 85 CFI (auto) car does not have the provisions for a roller. The 85 Holley (stick) car however does.


That said some of those packages out there can complete the motor and put you well over the 300 hp mark for less than 2G's. Edelbrock and Holley come to mind.

Good luck

[Realmongo]

I agree on those blocks being a POS. The 1980-1985 blocks are the worse 302 blocks Ford ever poured. The company was looking to cheapen and lighten those engines back in the early '80s but it was a weak failure. So they fixed it with the 1987 E7TE block. When I saw how thin my cylinder walls were at teardown I did not waste anytime at all getting a 1988 block to rebuild instead. In fact when I called Ford Racing to ask them about it, they said you should be able to bore them .030", but because of the thinwall design and core shifts, they might not even stand up to a .020" overbore. They are not a good foundation to put money into!

[frankiesaysrelax]

I agree on those blocks being a POS. The 1980-1985 blocks are the worst 302 blocks Ford ever poured. The company was looking to cheapen and lighten those engines back in the early '80s but it was a weak failure. So they fixed it with the 1987 E7TE block.

Actually, the blocks were revised again and strengthened in 1986. The block casting is actually E6SE, not E7TE. '87-'95 'stangs all use the same block that first debuted in the '86 5.0L Mustangs and Capris.

E6SE-6010-DC
increased bore wall and deck material thickness. Siamesed bores in water jackets (126 lbs.)

There are plenty of people making good power with early '80s vintage blocks.

As far as the difference between roller and flat-tappet, blocks revised for roller cams have raised lifter bores as well as bosses for the attachment points for the "spider". Early '85 CFI blocks are flat-tappet.

[black86capri50]

get a matched set of components for that setup, the trickflow one comes to mind, they have a track heat, and a street heat setup, or the holley systemmax, be sure to ask what carb manifold, as both of these come with fi intake, and the carb should be plenty, people overcarb most of the time, read the carcraft article on the junkyard carb 5.0, and see how they made 450hp with a bg 525................

[UR2NOZ]

After careful reconsideration....I decided not to go through with the sale based on some great opinions of that year block from this board and others....thanks for your time guys.

Adam

[Realmongo]

I agree on those blocks being a POS. The 1980-1985 blocks are the worst 302 blocks Ford ever poured. The company was looking to cheapen and lighten those engines back in the early '80s but it was a weak failure. So they fixed it with the 1987 E7TE block.

Actually, the blocks were revised again and strengthened in 1986. The block casting is actually E6SE, not E7TE. '87-'95 'stangs all use the same block that first debuted in the '86 5.0L Mustangs and Capris.

E6SE-6010-DC
increased bore wall and deck material thickness. Siamesed bores in water jackets (126 lbs.)

There are plenty of people making good power with early '80s vintage blocks.

As far as the difference between roller and flat-tappet, blocks revised for roller cams have raised lifter bores as well as bosses for the attachment points for the "spider". Early '85 CFI blocks are flat-tappet.

My 1988 Block is an E7TE whcih was cast late in 1987.

[frankiesaysrelax]

I agree on those blocks being a POS. The 1980-1985 blocks are the worst 302 blocks Ford ever poured. The company was looking to cheapen and lighten those engines back in the early '80s but it was a weak failure. So they fixed it with the 1987 E7TE block.

Actually, the blocks were revised again and strengthened in 1986. The block casting is actually E6SE, not E7TE. '87-'95 'stangs all use the same block that first debuted in the '86 5.0L Mustangs and Capris.

E6SE-6010-DC
increased bore wall and deck material thickness. Siamesed bores in water jackets (126 lbs.)

There are plenty of people making good power with early '80s vintage blocks.

As far as the difference between roller and flat-tappet, blocks revised for roller cams have raised lifter bores as well as bosses for the attachment points for the "spider". Early '85 CFI blocks are flat-tappet.

My 1988 Block is an E7TE whcih was cast late in 1987.

That info came right from here.

http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/specifications/specs2.htm

I know the HEADS are E7TE, but I thought all the blocks were E6SE.

I have a late '87 GT block out on the stand in my garage. Maybe if I get really bored I'll check the casting number on it.

[Realmongo]

I did a double take when I saw it as I thought they were E6SE blocks, but there must have been some change to it.

[paul78zephyr]

Al Kirschenbaums 5.0L Mustang book also lists the E6SE-6010-DC block for all 86-93 5.0L Mustangs.

Here is another source that I just found by doing a Google search on 'E7TE block':

http://www.cehighperformance.com/ford_block_car_codes.htm

I have no idea about its accuracy but if it is correct the HO blocks from 87-91 are E7TE-6010-??.

Paul

[Realmongo]

Al Kirschenbaums 5.0L Mustang book also lists the E6SE-6010-DC block for all 86-93 5.0L Mustangs.

Here is another source that I just found by doing a Google search on 'E7TE block':

http://www.cehighperformance.com/ford_block_car_codes.htm

I have no idea about its accuracy but if it is correct the HO blocks from 87-91 are E7TE-6010-??.

Paul

I used to think that book was gospel, but I am finding out a lot of it is out to lunch.

[paul78zephyr]

I used to think that book was gospel, but I am finding out a lot of it is out to lunch.

I would not be that harsh. Yes, like any large document it has a few areas that have typos, and places where the infoirmation is innacurate or just incomplete. But by far the vast amount of information in this book and its level of detail on every Mustang, major systems and subsytems is without parallel when it comes to the 79-93 Fox Mustang. And I would bet 99% of it is accurate.

Paul

[Realmongo]

I used to think that book was gospel, but I am finding out a lot of it is out to lunch.

I would not be that harsh. Yes, like any large document it has a few areas that have typos, and places where the infoirmation is innacurate or just incomplete. But by far the vast amount of information in this book and its level of detail on every Mustang, major systems and subsytems is without parallel when it comes to the 79-93 Fox Mustang. And I would bet 99% of it is accurate.

Paul

The book is wrong on my car's rear sway bar size, intake manifold, cylinder heads, engine block, and muffler and tailpipe diameters just to name a few.

[MurPHy]

As far as the difference between roller and flat-tappet, blocks revised for roller cams have raised lifter bores as well as bosses for the attachment points for the "spider". Early '85 CFI blocks are flat-tappet.

I knew about the bosses for the spider, but not the different lifter bore sizing. Is the difference really all that much? I have seen and heard of retrofit roller kits for non-roller blocks...

The bosses are easy. Just drill and tap a hole, and use some washers to put the spider at the proper height.

[frankiesaysrelax]

As far as the difference between roller and flat-tappet, blocks revised for roller cams have raised lifter bores as well as bosses for the attachment points for the "spider". Early '85 CFI blocks are flat-tappet.

I knew about the bosses for the spider, but not the different lifter bore sizing. Is the difference really all that much? I have seen and heard of retrofit roller kits for non-roller blocks...

The bosses are easy. Just drill and tap a hole, and use some washers to put the spider at the proper height.

AFAIK the lifter bores are the same diameter, just taller. Factory roller lifters will come too far out of the bores unless you use a reduced base circle cam. I believe this allows oil to bleed out of the lifter or something, in any case its not good. So to retrofit a roller cam to a non roller block you need to either use aftermarket conversion lifters or stock lifters with a reduced base circle cam.

[Realmongo]

Or you can have the bores bored larger and have the tall sleeves pressed into them.

[n20capri]

Get a set of AFR 165 heads and an Anderson Cam and the car will rip!!

[frankiesaysrelax]

Or you can have the bores bored larger and have the tall sleeves pressed into them.

That's a new one on me, but it makes sense.

Generally it is easier just to start out with a roller block.

[Realmongo]

Did you get a chance to check the casting number of the block on your stand?

[frankiesaysrelax]

Did you get a chance to check the casting number of the block on your stand?

LOL you just guilt tripped me so I went and looked. E7TE, sure enough. Moral of the story, don't believe everything you read. 8O

[Realmongo]

I shot a digital photo of the numbers just before I dropped the block off at the machine shop today, but I don't know how to post a photo on this site.

[MurPHy]

I shot a digital photo of the numbers just before I dropped the block off at the machine shop today, but I don't know how to post a photo on this site.

It's EASY!!!

www.imageshack.us

[Mike Croke]

I shot a digital photo of the numbers just before I dropped the block off at the machine shop today, but I don't know how to post a photo on this site.

You can upload it to your album. Click that little button at the bottom of each of your posts, or near the top of the page. To add it to this thread, use {img}http://www.whereyourpictureis.com/pic.jpg{/img} but replace the "{" and "}" with "[" and "]".

[Realmongo]

I will have to try it out.