Cheap 400 hp ford 302

[big bill]

i would like to know some tips and tricks to build a ford 302 for dirt cheap power, hopefully around 400-500hp. i would like to know what i should and shouldn't do

[4eyedblind]

Turbo or nitrous is your only hope to do this on the cheap but, it will get expensive fast, soon after.

[ThunderStruck]

What's cheap?
My cheap 350hp has passed $2500.00, an it still wants more!
Ed

[mudgepondexpress]

Power is in the heads. You can spend big $ there or you can cheap out and try the aftermarket aluminum heads for around $700. I haven't heard much good about them.

Set a budget and build the best balanced engine you can within the confines. Back when I did mine it was $1800 and it is healthy (but this is years ago). $2500 should get you between 300 and 350 hp.

Start with a roller cam block and work up. You can source parts on ebay and online fairly cheap but be careful. Find a good machinist, there is some $ here. Scouer CL and the like for quality used parts to keep the cost down. Carb or FI, the cost is different. I think a carb engine is cheaper but not much.

You really need a budget. 400 HP is a pretty steep slope for a 5.0/302. Possible but steep. Consider a 351 W as a starting point.

[mmb617]

For the sake of this discussion I'm assuming you mean 400 hp to the wheels. If it's 400 flywheel hp you want that's a little easier but still not what I'd call cheap.

Everyone's definition of dirt cheap is different, but you aren't going to get 400 hp all motor from a 302 without spending a lot of money. So you will need some sort of power adder. A boosted setup isn't going to be cheap either unless you can somehow find used parts at a good price and then you take a chance on just how used up they are. And you'll still need a good tune and probably race gas so that kind of takes away the cheap to drive part.

I'd say the only hope of meeting your goals would be to spray it. If you don't know exactly what you are doing in regards to tuning it will not last long at all.

Like most things, you gotta pay to play. If you want that kind of hp in a reliable package it just isn't going to be cheap.

[wraithracing]

GOOD, FAST, and CHEAP is the old saying for this you can use

GOOD, HORSEPOWER, AND CHEAP . . . . But you can only pick TWO!

Horsepower/Speed costs MONEY . . . . How Fast do you really want to go? Or can AFFORD to go? Good Luck!

[Supersonic G.T.350]

And on top of all that's been said already to get to that Mark with 302-306ci you're gonna have to twist it. There are some recipes for 400+ up 5.0's out there but personally I'm gonna throw Ed Curtis out there again... I'd talk with Ed, I know he can lead you on the right direction for your build but imo I don't think you can do the build to "last" for under 6 Grand.
By the time you invest in a rotating assembly, heads, valve train and induction you're really starting to throw some money at the engine. On the cheap, toss a goo Ed Curtis cam in it, put a good set of heads on it, pay close attention to timing and spray it.

[Hissing Cobra]

Horsepower isn't cheap and when you do increase it, the stock internals and sometimes the stock block won't handle the power. You're dealing with a motor that started out as 221 cubic inches and was designed in 1960 for use in the 1961 cars and trucks. Yes, it's evolved over the years to 302 cubic inches but you're still dealing with 1960's technology in the modern era. With that being said, there's only so much horsepower that you can throw at the stock internals before they break from stresses that they weren't designed for.

Four hundred horsepower at the flywheel is difficult to do with a stock rotating assembly in naturally aspirated form and for it to happen, you'd have to have a huge cam, excellent heads, and a great induction setup. Can it be done? Absolutely! However, you'll have to spin it to the moon and expect lots of 6,500+ rpm shifts. This will reduce longevity immensely. Most of the head/cam/intake setups will dyno at around 300 hp - 340 hp at the wheels and that equates to somewhere around 375 hp - 400 hp at the flywheel. Total investment in one of these motors will be around $5,000 - $7,000 if you're going with all brand new parts.

I'm with everyone else in that it will be far cheaper for you to invest in a great fuel system, better induction, better ignition, better exhaust, and and install N20.

[Supersonic G.T.350]

Horsepower isn't cheap and when you do increase it, the stock internals and sometimes the stock block won't handle the power. You're dealing with a motor that started out as 221 cubic inches and was designed in 1960 for use in the 1961 cars and trucks. Yes, it's evolved over the years to 302 cubic inches but you're still dealing with 1960's technology in the modern era. With that being said, there's only so much horsepower that you can throw at the stock internals before they break from stresses that they weren't designed for.

Four hundred horsepower at the flywheel is difficult to do with a stock rotating assembly in naturally aspirated form and for it to happen, you'd have to have a huge cam, excellent heads, and a great induction setup. Can it be done? Absolutely! However, you'll have to spin it to the moon and expect lots of 6,500+ rpm shifts. This will reduce longevity immensely. Most of the head/cam/intake setups will dyno at around 300 hp - 340 hp at the wheels and that equates to somewhere around 375 hp - 400 hp at the flywheel. Total investment in one of these motors will be around $5,000 - $7,000 if you're going with all brand new parts.

I'm with everyone else in that it will be far cheaper for you to invest in a great fuel system, better induction, better ignition, better exhaust, and and install N20.

And to add to what you just said brotha, I'd like to also say that the main webbing in the modern block actually isn't as good as in some of the earlier blocks. Yes some companies have gone to extra lengths to come up with gimmicks that are supposed to help the block with structural integrity... Notice I said gimmicks. Ultimately in the quest for big power the stock block is the limiting factor more than the displacement itself. It's not the hp that kills the block so much as it is the rpm's that are necessary to achieve said power level. With the higher rpm's the main caps want to dance a cute little jig and that's where catastrophic failure begins. We all want to make that power and puff out our chests don't we?? Sometimes we're best to settle for something that runs well in moderate form and be content with that until we have the foundation to do something outstanding. Enter the aftermarket block.
My current but not yet running setup for my Fox is fairy simple really. Ported TFS TW heads, .040 overbore and an Anderson N51hr, Vic Jr, etc. Will it make 400? Idk, it might be close, do I expect it to live very long? Honestly no I don't but it's just something fun to get me by until I go 363. That will be a different animal altogether.

[Supersonic G.T.350]

My setup in my Cobra is very simple and honestly I don't know how it is up with me but it does... So far anyway. Stock bottom end, ported stock GT40's with stainless undercut valves, ported stock Cobra upper and lower, stock injectors, 70mmtb, AFM power pipe with 80mm maf, 1-5/8 Mac LT headers off-road X, Pypes m80 cat back etc but the key to why it runs as good as it does is Ed Curtis did the cam for it and yes, I spin it 7000.

[Walking-Tall]

Poppycock, horse feathers to the nay-sayers... 400 at the flywheel with a 302, with ported mid '60's 289 heads, is pretty damn dead simple to do... the key is to put the money where it counts to make power, and don't spend one dime on razzle-dazzle...

[BaconB8]

Here’s what I know on the subject. Some years ago, CarCraft had an editorial where they claimed to make 400 flywheel with a stock HO cam. It was a 306, so no stroker crank with 11:1 compression. I built nearly the exact motor, with the only difference being a slightly lesser Edelbrock performer 302 egr manifold to keep all the smog gear intact on my 85. On a Mustang chassis dyno, that is known to have repeatable lower power numbers than a DynoJet, it laid down 280/320 to the tire. Initially, I was kinda bummed. However, the dyno operator was super impressed. His crankshaft correction numbers were 320/380. The air-fuel ratios were dead on, as was the timing curve. To put this into perspective, a factory SS396 of the muscle era had similar advertised numbers.

The car is fast, and idles like a stocker. It passes smog easily with cats.

[BaconB8]

Also, Joe Sherman can make a Briggs & Stratton make 400 horsepower.

[Two86fiveoh's]

IMO, the only 'Cheap' power to be had is an Expo motor swap (or use heads and intake off an Xpo). Use the stock Mustang cam, good valve springs and 1.7RR's. They run very well for the cost and simplicity.

Outside of that, as stated before, if you want good reliable power with quality products, things get expensive. Fast.

[Broncojunkie]

Here’s what I know on the subject. Some years ago, CarCraft had an editorial where they claimed to make 400 flywheel with a stock HO cam. It was a 306, so no stroker crank with 11:1 compression. I built nearly the exact motor, with the only difference being a slightly lesser Edelbrock performer 302 egr manifold to keep all the smog gear intact on my 85. On a Mustang chassis dyno, that is known to have repeatable lower power numbers than a DynoJet, it laid down 280/320 to the tire. Initially, I was kinda bummed. However, the dyno operator was super impressed. His crankshaft correction numbers were 320/380. The air-fuel ratios were dead on, as was the timing curve. To put this into perspective, a factory SS396 of the muscle era had similar advertised numbers.

The car is fast, and idles like a stocker. It passes smog easily with cats.

What heads were you running?

[bkm]

The problem with the 302 is they're relatively low compression engines. But like Walking Tall said, a set of small chambered 289 heads lightly worked will make some serious steam.

I used to be a "roller cam or no cam" type of guy, but having read and talked to a guy like Buddy Rawls, a solid flat tappet is miles cheaper, and will absolutely fly. The downside is the break in procedure that scares most away, myself included.

I had Buddy do a roller cam for my junk, it's a box stock explorer engine with a Victor Jr., 650dp, 1 3/4 headers. Buddy guesstimates it should be in the 375 hp range and run 7.80's or so in the 1/8.

I've got $700 in just the cam and spring package, but could have less than half of that in a flat tappet setup.

[BaconB8]

AFR 165’s. Pedestal mount 1.7’s. Block was zero deck. Has TRW 4 relief .030 pistons. The intake is small, but I doubt there’s 20 hp to be had there.

To the OP, there’s not a way outside a supercharger or nitrous to make that power cheaply. I sold a dude a b&m 174 awhile back for a junkyard build. He put AFR 185’s on a 80k plus shortblock with a tfs1 cam and it made around 320 to the tire. The average power was high though from the roots setup. The car ran low 11’s on slicks in a 2500lb car with slicks. Moral of the story is, who cares what the dyno says. If the car runs well, and the tuning device comes in ‘low’, use the number to sucker unsuspecting ‘supercar’ owners Into an embarrassing loss.

[xctasy]

.......I'd like to also say that the main webbing in the modern block actually isn't as good as in some of the earlier blocks. Yes some companies have gone to extra lengths to come up with gimmicks that are supposed to help the block with structural integrity... Notice I said gimmicks. Ultimately in the quest for big power the stock block is the limiting factor more than the displacement itself. It's not the hp that kills the block so much as it is the rpm's that are necessary to achieve said power level. With the higher rpm's the main caps want to dance a cute little jig and that's where catastrophic failure begins. We all want to make that power and puff out our chests don't we?? Sometimes we're best to settle for something that runs well in moderate form and be content with that until we have the foundation to do something outstanding. Enter the aftermarket block.
My current but not yet running setup for my Fox is fairy simple really. Ported TFS TW heads, .040 overbore and an Anderson N51hr, Vic Jr, etc. Will it make 400? Idk, it might be close, do I expect it to live very long? Honestly no I don't but it's just something fun to get me by until I go 363. That will be a different animal altogether.

Love the points raised SuperSonic.

IMHO, The best thing you can do to any 5.0 with performance aspirations is to put an upper and lower girdle on a stock block SBF, and run a fully internally balanced crank, and laser proflie the plateau honed bores to suit the pistons and ring pack.

Or stay with iron heads to hold the block together due to the iron being stiffer than alumnium heads, just like Ford Australia did before the 5.6 stoker came out; they moved away from the alloy heads used in the 25 Anniversary EBGT,the ED Falcon Sprint, the EL GT and the early AU's . Yella Terra did a deal on CNC porting the stock factory GT40P heads, so once the 500 or so factory pairs aluminum heads were used up in 1999, Ford Australia decided to forgo the the 65 pound weight saving, and clearly it wasn't worth it since the GT40P alloy GT40X heads Y303 heads were neck and neck for flow rates, and then the block cracking is endemic when aluminum headed engines with stock blocks are "leaned" on.
The factory T3 250 kilowatt 335 hp 5.6 reved to 6000 rpm with a Tremec 3550, and it was the engine of choice for the last overhead valve 250 Pursuits and Ford Tickford V8's. Just a humble Explorer Mountainer 215hp engine with another 120 hp woth of 335 hp capable factory modifications.


Factory Ford Examples:-

Im not certain on this, as Delk and Morano Performance make a crank girdle kit. As far as Im aware, the 3.8 became the 1997 on 4.2 F150 engine, and Ford just put a crank girdle into it to cope with the extra pounding rather than add iron to the block. The 1997 girdle is actually two separate girdles underneath some sort of 3 bolt windage tray. For the 01-04 Mustang 3.9 Liter engines based on it, they got the girdle too, but it was revised to suit the Fox K member. IMHO, a gimmick would be Ford wasting money on a girdle on an engine 200 hp or less. Its clearly NOT a gimmick, its a "Durabilty Mod" for an Essex 90 engine known for distortion and crank walk SuperCharger and with a center hole punch Mazda ToyoKogyo manual gearbox. How much more a 5.0!



So did Ford Australia when adding the 335 hp 5.6 stroker 342 to the Explorer 5.0 engine block.






I trust that on a piddly 193 to 210 hp bent six in the 3.9 Mustangs and 4.2 F150, a girdle was a present need. I've seen a lot of cracked 5.0's, so I too would go for these two additional things every time. The stock dog bone valley chest drilling is a known stress propogation as well, so link bar roller rockers as per NASCAR would be a choice i'd make too.

To ensure your investment isn't a lottery ticket of loss, there are block stays, girdles and "belts and braces" you can use to look after a stock 5.0 block. Below 10 grand, you've got to look at options. I'd seriously look at the fully counterweighed SVO stroker cranks. Ford SVO in 1989 used to make a blank steel forging that just needed, oh, 8 hours of grinding to index the crank and journals to perhaps 3.4" inches max. No unbalance.

If you want to lean on it, get an upper block girdle. Doug P at Horsepower Sales Valley Girdle Pro

http://www.horsepowersales.net/

and for over 10K engines, especially so.

Having a neutral balance steel crank shaft might help a Mexican block survive, but there are too many issues with a Detriot unbalance 28 or 50 Oz crank in a stock thin wall Small block 302 Ford block. Too much swinging recipricating mass is held in by too little cast iron.

http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/forums...2/m/2251010656



http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h5...psr0ns6egu.jpg

Here's why.




Ford took 150 pounds of iron out of every 221-302, and 351W/C/M-400 small block. Most of it via downgrading the crank to an external 28 and then, even worse, the 50 ounce counterweight crank made of nodular iron, when previously, forged steel internally balanced was used.

Starting when the Aluminum BOP 215 and AMC 232 Chrysler 170 came out, Ford realised someone was gonna go bankrupt. In responese to aluminum craze of 1960-1962, Fords SBF Stirret designed blocks all went to shallow non Y block base, and all the bulkheads were downgraded in three swa cuts, first 1962, then 1969, then again in 1974. By the time the 255 4.2 liter of 1980 to 1982 came out, it stole almost 60 pounds of grey iron from a 450 to 470 pound 302 5.0 engine.


As a long distance engine, the stock 302 has a chequred history, especially the 50 ounce unbalance 5.0 at just the 350 to 390 hp zone. In the USA J code 4-bbl 230 hp form, it failed at Bathursts 500 mile in 1968 in the 302 XT Falcon GT , yet it made it in the London to Sydney Marathon 7000 mile race with ease, and won the team prize, so its certainly got some latent strength. It bet the Works Escorts home. Again, it failed in 1985, 1986, and 1987 in long distance production Group A races. Even when a 5.0 with 350 hp does finish a high speed 500 to 620 mile race, its most likely to suffer block cracking due to the crank unbalance. That cracking is hairline, and might not kill it.

This has been proven many times with the Dick Johnson Racing, JPS, Pine Pak and Capri Autoparts 5.0 GT's. Its mostly due to the factory block missing 90 pounds of iron, and the crank making the front timing gear a critical vibration zone. Its not under-engineered for its purpose, its just a stock 137 to 225 capable engine. Past the 300 hp and 6900 rpm from 5 liters zone, its totally suspect.

About the Cleveland, Windsor and Mexcian engine foundary iron casting down grades with the 5.0 302 engines, a few issues prompted this, all of them a bit of a "butt spanking" for all of us Ford lovers.

1. General Motors cost issues with making aluminum work. Heated iron liners and the aluminum blocks and head castings cost the company a motza. Although the 215 and 300 engines were very well designed, the processes needed aditional money, and it was only after the Rover engine rework of the 3.5 liter, and the even more expensive Reynolds Alloy Vega engine, that GM figured out how to make them cost effectively. AMC and Chysler couldn't pump the money into the aluminum process, and in any case, the peak loads under more than 2 hp per cubic inch favoured iron engines. The success was the aluminum Big Block 454 used in McLarens and early 70's Group 4 and 5 racing engines, but that cost GM a huge amount of cash. Ford decided, after the 4.2 aluminum 255 Indy engine, that production iron blocks were the way to go, and although Ford made a spacial batch of 351C all aluminum engines, they were all XE coded Total Performance Works engines, and the governing mind behind that was Bill Gay, who became Chief Engineer of the Engine and Foundry Division. He had a mandate to make the Cleveland 1 and 2 engine plants hit paydirt.

2. After the winning of Lemans with the Big block FE and then the SBF 289/302, Ford then had to move into cost control, and Foundary Engineer Gays thinwall shell moulded 130 thick bores came about in the 351 C and then every production Ford engine from that time until today's Modular Teskid (Italian Ferrari!) or Miami block has needed a race block or special casting when making more than one hp per cube. That descision was was all about taking Car or and Protecting Business. In comparison, the early FE's and Limas as well as GMs small block were 240 thou in heads and bulkeads with 180 thou targeted the the bore thrust faces. The casting edict as of 1969 was to reduce all other castings to 187 ,thou in heads and bulkheads, with 130 thou at thrust faces.

* Info from that was from Ak Miller in 1970, and again from the Australian Brad Girdwood, who in 1990 Hot 302's and 351s shared what was learned from the factory racing details on Ford Australias Cleveland 351 engines. It was further backed up by Colin Bond in a 2015 Australian Street Machine article who said that it benefited Ford USA only to have its production engines raced, and if that ment a special run of XE blocks to fix a lack of iron in the engine, then it was easier to go through a bunch of stock castings, and find ones that cut muster rather than biulding specials. Same with forged conrods, 4MA crankshafts, and TRW pistons and ARP rod bolts and oil routings. Ford said no to it all until 1983. Ford Dearborn found it easier to send off the Cleveland engine machines to Australia (twice!) rather than deal with indusrial disputes caused by tiying up the production line.

3. The last metric ring pack 5.0s were even less loved in the foundary, and Fords sucess came via very carefull bore honing, and it was specail work with Zoller from the Modular 4.6 and 5.4 piston slapping disasters that taught Ford how to production engineer the right texture in the cylinder walls to suit emissions and longeivity. The down grade to non forged pistons in the 1993 to 2002 5.0 engines saved Ford millions and got better engine life and emissions.


Just like Robert L McNamara and the killing of the two place Thunderbird, Bill Gay should not be seen as the bad guy, its all about making sure the Ford Motor Company was gonna survive the lean and mean 70's after an age of gluttony.

The 302 5.0 overhead valve block is a least cost option engine, always was. Ford did eveything to make up for it from 1968 to 2002, except make it like a 240 thou thick casting like the 1968 to 1985 350 Chev iron block used to be. Oh wait, some Boss 302 Blocks were cast that thick.

Anyway, in so doing, Ford from 1968 to 2002 created a need for either lashing the 5.0 block together, or buying a proper heavy duty aftermarket Ford, Dart or World Block. That was always the plan, because adding 90 to 150 pounds of iron to each engine means every engine suffers the weight gain on millions of low compression ploddders that don't need it.