'69 302 into an 89 5.0 (fox body newbie)

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by 65stang311, May 3, 2005.

  1. 65stang311

    65stang311 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Sherman, TX
    Hey guys, I just bought an 89 with a cracked piston. I was building a '69 302 (bored .030 over, KB 281 Pistons, Comp 305S cam, and gear drive) for my 65 coupe but got this 89 cheap so i wanna transplant it, using the newer fuel injection setup and have a ton of questions -

    Will the '69 block bolt in directly to the new heads and into the 89?

    Will the solid cam setup work with the computer, or will I have to convert
    the old block to a roller setup and use the newer cam?

    And if I can use the old Solid cam, will the comp cams 305S (.594 lift) be too
    much for the stock fuel injections system?

    I'm sure I will have tons of more questions as this is just the start.

    Thanks Guys!
     
    #1
  2. crunchie12268

    crunchie12268 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Manhattan, KS
    Yes, the heads should bolt up to the block, the solid cam should work with the computer, and your stock fuel system should be fine, but may be too much lift for the heads with stock springs. I am assuming the pistons are notched for that much lift also... so it sounds good, just get better springs.
     
    #2
  3. 84blkstang

    84blkstang New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Springfield MO
    That cam is way too big for mostly stock parts. I would call comp and tell them what you want to do, so they can recommend the proper cam for your combo, that is what i did and couldnt be happier
     
    #3
  4. 65stang311

    65stang311 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Sherman, TX
    I do have a set of Windsor Sr heads with the 2.02 valves, and the springs to match the solid cam, but wasnt sure with them flowing as much as they do if the computer will run everything right. I guess the only way to find out is put it all together and see if it runs.

    The pistons are notched to clear 2.05 valves and .700 lift, so hopefully everything will work together, but yeah that cam is just way to damn big im afraid
     
    #4
  5. gregpro50

    gregpro50 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Binghamton NY
    How could everything work with the stock computer? You are putting a non-HO setup to an HO computer. The firing orders are different.
     
    #5
  6. hllon4whls

    hllon4whls BANNED
    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Location:
    Covington
    The injector firing order can be modified, but there are limits to what cam specs the factory computer can handle. I doubt the computer will run optimally with the cam.
     
    #6
  7. 65stang311

    65stang311 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Sherman, TX
    I think im gonna have to use the newer stock cam and heads, for now, and convert the old block to roller. So will a older 302 with a newer cam and heads work with the stock computer? or will the firing order still be the old one? (is the firing defined by the crank or the cam?)
     
    #7
  8. pisgahhiker

    pisgahhiker New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Western North Carolina

    Firing order is defined by the cam.
    Atleast I assume it is. I used a 302 cam in a 351 once by changing the firing order of 351 to the 302 firing order. It worked gr8t so this makes me think it is defined by the cam.


    Here is another issue the balancers are different weights. I think they changed in 82. so you will have to do alittle playing and part swaping @ the parts store.
    U need a 4 hole balancer I think it's 24oz on the early model 302's then they changed to 50oz around 82 or so.
    The 24oz baancer I had on a 76 model 302 had a 3 hole balancer.
    In order to use mustang brackets and underdrives I had to change this.
    I found the balancer I needed came on 1980 Ford Broncos with a 302.
    I'm not sure but I figure a 79 mustang may run a 4hole balancer.
     
    #8
  9. z2o_what

    z2o_what Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    princeton, WV
    i heard that you cant use gear drive on a motor that is controled by a computer because of knock sensors (or something) but im not positive.
     
    #9
  10. 65stang311

    65stang311 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Sherman, TX
    Man, that would suck, i love the sound of the gear drive...

    ...as for the balancer, I think everything except the short block will be reused from the 89 engine. Hopefully once I start tearing things apart I will figure out what parts can be transfered. What cam can you run with the stock heads and springs? Will the F303 work, or will I need a spring upgrade for that one as well?
     
    #10
  11. Clownfish

    Clownfish New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ypsitucky, MI and Toledo, OH
    An 89 doesn't have a knock sensor to worry about. IIRC one of the reasons Ford went to the hyper cast pistons in 93 was because the forged pistons made too much noise for knock sensors in the vehicles that had them. I don't think Mustangs have knock sensors prior to 94 and perhaps not even then.

    The flywheel and balancer will be an issue as stated. I don't think you can use either set. The flywheel from the early block won't have the correct number of teeth and the balancer won't let the late model pulley bolt up. The 89 items won't work on the early block because balance is 28oz on the old 50oz on the new.

    Water pump and timing cover may be an issue as well. Using the older style cover may or may not work with the newer water pump and will at least need a fuel pump block off. The dipstick is also moved from the cover on the old one to the block on the late model.

    May not be issues but at least it will have to be looked at.
     
    #11
  12. MrKwik

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas City, Kansas
    Is the 89 shortblock toast or does it just have a damaged poston? Might be cheaper and easier just to fix that than to try and make the older block and cam work. And a gear drive wont bother anything. My 95 didnt have a knoch sensor so if ford did use them in Mustangs it would have been 96 and up but I dont even anything about those cars so Im just talking out my ass.

    That cam is damn big for stock heads, intake and whatnot.
     
    #12
  13. 65stang311

    65stang311 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Sherman, TX
    Yeah the 89 motor suffered just a cracked piston and a bent pushrod, but nothing else, still runs. But I already had the '69 motor built and just sitting there, so I thought I would use it. So heres the plan -

    Only use the '69 block, crank, rods, gear drive, and pistons.
    Use everything else from the '89 (cam, heads, lifters, oil pan, timing cover,
    water pump, accessories, Flexplate, balancer and entire FI setup.

    Hopefully the new combined with the old should give me some decent performance, (10.8: compression) and the time to plan the new cam, intake heads and computer setup.

    Thanks for all the help!
     
    #13
  14. MrKwik

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas City, Kansas
    Somebody correct me if Im wrong but I dont think you can use the 89 flexplate and ballancer with the 69 crank. You will also have to modify that block to accept the roller cam. Never done it myself but Im not positive if you can use the stock lifters when you roller cam one of those older blocks. And if you had to buy aftermarket lifters fot that, it would be pretty expensive. Might want to research the details of that.
     
    #14
  15. Clownfish

    Clownfish New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ypsitucky, MI and Toledo, OH
    You are correct. Flexplate and balancer from the 89 will not work and the 69 crank. They are the wrong balance. To use the cam special lifters have to be used - IIRC they run about $500 from Crane. Or the block can be modified to use the spider hold down (and be careful not to destroy the cam bearings) and 89 lifters but a small base circle cam has to be used. In both cases pushrod length will have to be checked.
     
    #15
  16. MrKwik

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,010
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas City, Kansas
    Wow, I didn't realize you had to use a small base curcle cam. I was thinking for some reason that the lifter bores in the block were taller so that the little H-bars wouldnt fit. Thats why I was thinking that you might have to use the aftermarket lifters that are tied together. So if you use the small base circle cam you CAN use stock lifters? That just seems odd to me because I would think the lifters would sit even further down in the bores. What is the reasoning behind the small cam?
     
    #16
  17. 65stang311

    65stang311 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Sherman, TX
    Damn, this is getting to be expensive. What would happen if I ran the old balancer and the new flexplate? would the engine tear itself apart? Or will the old c4 flexplate work with the AOD? I know lots of guys have put AOD in the older cars, but never knew what flexplate/crank/balancer was used. As for the cam problem, I dunno what to do with that one. I really dont want to have to rebuild the 89 5.0 but its lookin that way.
     
    #17
  18. pisgahhiker

    pisgahhiker New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Western North Carolina
    You could however take the route I took with my build.
    Sence all the issues seemed to fall on the balance weight I desided to go with a C4 tranny.
    all the other stuff will work timing cover ect.
    I just used a 87 model cover with no hole 4 fuel pump and got another holley red pump to feed a 4barrel.
     
    #18
  19. bobcatv8

    bobcatv8 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ocala,FL
    Even if you solve all the other fitment issues you left out one more detail. The '69 block has no hole for the dipstick tube that the '89 block does. You either have to find/buy a dipstick in pan set up or drill your '69 block like your '89 is.
    The devil is always in the details isn't it? :shrug:
     
    #19
  20. 65stang311

    65stang311 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Sherman, TX
    Man, you got that right. I think now its lookin like I just replace the piston ,and hope to hell the block doesnt need to be rebored, but that sucks, I really wanted to use the stuff I had, with the 10.8:1 compression and solid cam
     
    #20

Share This Page