302 head casting numbers, tell me what i got

[eric88gt]

wrong, all roller engines are HO's. i owned a 91 tbird and low and behold, the intake plaque said 5.0 HO. any 302 without a roller cam is just a 302. yes i know the blocks after, what 85 or 86 were roller ready but not not all of them were equipped with the roller hardware.

Ok, let me be more clear then, you could get a 5.0 HO in a later thunderbird, and it did have a roller cam. The 1987-1988 thunderbird had non-HO 5.0's and also had a hydraulic roller cam, if you honestly believe that ford never made a non-HO roller cammed 5.0 you are mistaken. (i've got 2 of them sitting in my garage BTW, one out of an 87 t-bird, one out of an 88 town car both have roller cams and are non-HO's)

And back to the topic of the heads, if you can't afford the afr's (worth the money) then try to find a set of gt40's or p's at junk yard. You should be able to find a set for under $300.

 

[dastang2]

Ok, let me be more clear then, you could get a 5.0 HO in a later thunderbird, and it did have a roller cam. The 1987-1988 thunderbird had non-HO 5.0's and also had a hydraulic roller cam, if you honestly believe that ford never made a non-HO roller cammed 5.0 you are mistaken. (i've got 2 of them sitting in my garage BTW, one out of an 87 t-bird, one out of an 88 town car both have roller cams and are non-HO's)

And back to the topic of the heads, if you can't afford the afr's (worth the money) then try to find a set of gt40's or p's at junk yard. You should be able to find a set for under $300.

ok i am not going to argue with you, the fact is, if it has a roller cam then it is an HO. i don't know who told you that it isn't but they are wrong to. and if it didn't say it was an HO on the intake, that doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[dastang2]

did those 2 motors you have come with the roller lifters or not, if not, then it is only a roller ready block and does not have a roller cam, then it would be a regular 302.

 

[eric88gt]

ok i am not going to argue with you, the fact is, if it has a roller cam then it is an HO. i don't know who told you that it isn't but they are wrong to. and if it didn't say it was an HO on the intake, that doesn't mean it isn't.

The fact is, you're wrong if you think all roller cammed 5.0's are HO's. Yes both of them came with roller lifters, and both are 150hp non-HO 302's. If you think i'm lying, go to nhra.com and look at engine blueprint specifications, it shows right on there that all 5.0's, HO or not, that were put into cars came with hydraulic roller cams after 1986.

 

[dastang2]

ok i think i see where you are coming from. i just checked on an 87 and it showed 3 302 with different HP rating and the heads were the same it shows. but it didn't say anything about the lower intakes, ford could have used different setups on different cars and that may be the reason for have 3 different ratings, or since the truck blocks were roller ready but not equipped until the mid 90's, they may have just went ahead and said H/R for the lifter type. otherwise, still all engines with the stock roller cam setup are HO's. not including roller ready truck blocks and such. who cares what the intake says.

 

[dastang2]

disregard the truck statement, as i checked the truck section and the lifter said H. but i still think that they had 3 HO's in different cars and used different lower intakes or different injectors or whatever made the hp ratings vary from 150-225. maybe the exhaust manifolds,cats and routing cut the hp down that low. who knows.

 

[eric88gt]

disregard the truck statement, as i checked the truck section and the lifter said H. but i still think that they had 3 HO's in different cars and used different lower intakes or different injectors or whatever made the hp ratings vary from 150-225. maybe the exhaust manifolds,cats and routing cut the hp down that low. who knows.

Alright, this is my last post on this. Non-HO motors have a different firing order, that's how you can tell, not by the plate on the intake. Ford DID make non-HO roller cam motors. Now quit trying to argue that they didn't and they're all HO's, because they're not!