90s roller engine going in my 64 mustang

What's up stangnet. So today is the day I put my roller in the stang. 1990 mustang lx 302 motor bored 40 over, trickflow stage 2 cam 542/563, ported/polished e7 heads w 2.02/160 vavles.

Oh ok heres my question. I'm still running a stock suspension. Manual steering. Would i have to use a diffrent oil pan? or could i use the old chrome one i have or clean up the oem one and use that?
I currently have a 70s 302 with the sump in the front in he car now.

Just finished removing some things of the old block... Im off to build the hoist.. Be right back
Here's a few beginning pics
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
 
  • Sponsors (?)


May want to Re consider that tfs 2 cam...it's way too much for the heads and week probably set u back more than forward

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
 
I 2nd the cam concerns, that cam on a 302 will have no low range, and heads won't flow enough to get the top end out of the cam...I also didn't realize you could do 2.02/1.6 valves in an e7 head, thought 1.9 was about the limit.

There's a thread on corral.net . A guy is running a set of 2.000/1.54. Normally 1.90/1.60 vavles are used on these 5.0 forums. I used 1piece stainless steel, undercut swirl polished
 
Coming along nicely, but don't you think you will be a bit under geared? I'm running the Performer RPM cam in my 68/289 with a T5.
At 70 mph, I'm not even into the power band, and need to down shift to pass somebody..
 
May want to Re consider that tfs 2 cam...it's way too much for the heads and week probably set u back more than forward

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

if it has the correct valvetrain it will be fine.


I 2nd the cam concerns, that cam on a 302 will have no low range

when you increase lobe area or cross section you lower airspeed in the port if everything else remains constant.

and heads won't flow enough to get the top end out of the cam...I also didn't realize you could do 2.02/1.6 valves in an e7 head, thought 1.9 was about the limit.

the smaller/lower flowing port needs lobe area more than a large port does on a given cylinder to support a given rpm. its all about target airspeed. and its a combination of port cross section and lobe area that determines the airspeed at the predetermined rpm and cylinder displacement. you can do a 2.02, it will physically fit, but it is shrouded by the cylinder wall a lot due to production valve placement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So I ran into this problem.. The 70s block had a 13 1/4 flex plate and the 90s 5.0 one is 14 1/4... What the heck lol..
image.jpg

the 90s flexplate is a 50oz balance 164t. the early stuff was 28 oz 157t in the small bell c4s. so what you need is a 50oz balance with the same tooth count as the '70, which happens to be 157t. they are everywhere. try summit. 50 oz 157 tooth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
the 90s flexplate is a 50oz balance 164t. the early stuff was 28 oz 157t in the small bell c4s. so what you need is a 50oz balance with the same tooth count as the '70, which happens to be 157t. they are everywhere. try summit. 50 oz 157 tooth.

Thanks for the info! I just got out to lunch and I'm going to call summit or look it up online..
 
image.jpg

Quick update pic..
Another question tho.. Mechanic or electric pump.? I previously had a edelbrock mechanical pump but I noticed the 90s timing cover didn't have a access to use mechanical obviously because of the EFI.

The cover on the 70s looks identical, could I use it after a good cleaning and inspection ?
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    729.5 KB · Views: 164