B303 And Bbk Ssi Omfg
- Thread starter 88LX5.Oh
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Once you get that new rear end swapped in, come back and tell us how much it changed your opinion of the car. I bet you are pleased.
Well the thing is, I haven't been able to drive it really good yet :/
only times I drove it other than pulling it out of my shop was when I was taking it to the exhaust shop. It was still speed density then and I had my HCI swap completed. Ran so terrible I wanted to give up on the car. So anything is an improvement over that lol
Well shi t, if you havent even done a mass air conversion and driven it when its running correctly, then I know you will be pleased!
ratio411
Founding Member
I dunno... 
I know that there are better parts out there, but it's all about cubic dollars, isn't it?
The combo looks nice enough to me.
The only way I see it as 'mismatched' is if lower gears (higher numerically) are not used.
I know that there are better parts out there, but it's all about cubic dollars, isn't it?
The combo looks nice enough to me.
The only way I see it as 'mismatched' is if lower gears (higher numerically) are not used.
ratio411
Founding Member
I'd like to point out to everyone something I have been preaching for years...
The 289/302 was a revolutionary engine for it's time due to it's oversquare bore/stroke.
It is a very short stroke, matched to a relatively large bore. It is NOT designed to make low end torque.
To try and build it like it is a conventional engine to operate at lower rpms is just a waste of time.
The strength of this specific engine is in it's want/ability/need to rev!
Just because you move the powerband up in the rpm range does not mean you are losing torque.
You can gain torque while moving the power up in the rpm scale!
Don't sell the SBF short by building it like it was a brand-x engine!
The 289/302 was a revolutionary engine for it's time due to it's oversquare bore/stroke.
It is a very short stroke, matched to a relatively large bore. It is NOT designed to make low end torque.
To try and build it like it is a conventional engine to operate at lower rpms is just a waste of time.
The strength of this specific engine is in it's want/ability/need to rev!
Just because you move the powerband up in the rpm range does not mean you are losing torque.
You can gain torque while moving the power up in the rpm scale!
Don't sell the SBF short by building it like it was a brand-x engine!
Aren't pretty much all mainstream pushrod V8s oversquare?
Food for thought- the 7000 RPM Coyote is actually slightly undersquare.
I agree though, people shouldn't be afraid to build 302s to rev a little!
So today I took the cover off the Explorer rear end and found that the carrier had a luctor wheel built onto it for the wheel speed sensor that's on the rear end. Dad said the gear set MIGHT not work for me since I have a different carrier style.
Has anybody ran into this before and do you know if I can still use these gears?
If I can't use them, I'll just use some 3.55's I have laying around.
Oh and another question, the Explorer had the VSS on the transfer case and I thought "Oh I'll just take the gear off of it and use for my transmission since it's matched for the 3.73's" well it was a different color than the one I bought through LMR for my 3.27's, but they BOTH had 19 teeth. Any thoughts on this?
Explorer one was orange and the LMR one was Pink,IIRC.
Has anybody ran into this before and do you know if I can still use these gears?
If I can't use them, I'll just use some 3.55's I have laying around.
Oh and another question, the Explorer had the VSS on the transfer case and I thought "Oh I'll just take the gear off of it and use for my transmission since it's matched for the 3.73's" well it was a different color than the one I bought through LMR for my 3.27's, but they BOTH had 19 teeth. Any thoughts on this?
Explorer one was orange and the LMR one was Pink,IIRC.
ratio411
Founding Member
Point was that the 289/302 was the poineer of this type of engine, but now (much later) it has become a sort of norm.
That said, the building techniques of the hot rod world that you still hear parrotted today are based on engines that are not as oversquare, if at all. That is what I was getting at. The car magazines and later shows on cable all still tell you the way to build ANY engine for the street is to focus squarely on the low end torque. They don't tell you that the 289/302 is the obvious exception to this rule of theirs.
However, I will say that they give the LSx engines (based heavily on the best of Ford designs) an outright pass on their rule. (You can actually put LSx heads on a Windsor/Cleveland block!)
Btw: I'd have an LSx derivative over the Coyote anyday.
(The Coyote is not a pushrod engine, is it?)
ratio411
Founding Member
Well, for the speedo gears, there are different designs, and that might account for the different colors.
Example, T5 speedo gears are not interchangeable with AODs, and C4 gears are not interchangeable with Toploaders.
The transfer case may use a gear that is not interchangeable, or it might be one that is not interchangeable with the transmission you have.
Some are tricky too, like the C4 and Toploader speedo gears. You can't tell them apart at a glance. However, one has the teeth cut in one direction, and the teeth are cut in the opposite direction on the other. You won't see that unless you are looking for it. So don't assume it should be the same gear that you need.
The reluctor should be on your existing Fox rear end too. I don't see a problem.
I would say that you can just swap carriers too, but I believe the Exploder will be 31 spline.
If the Exploder has a limited slip, you might check the spline count. If it's 28, it'll swap too if that is what you want.
ratio411
Founding Member
Duh, I wasn't thinking....
The reluctor gear shouldn't matter if you are not changing carriers.
The gear is not changed for the reluctor, but the thickness of the flange on the diff is thinner by the thickness of the reluctor.
The net result is that the ring gear is the same and mounted to a flange of the same thickness. Make sense?
The reluctor gear shouldn't matter if you are not changing carriers.
The gear is not changed for the reluctor, but the thickness of the flange on the diff is thinner by the thickness of the reluctor.
The net result is that the ring gear is the same and mounted to a flange of the same thickness. Make sense?
Point was that the 289/302 was the poineer of this type of engine, but now (much later) it has become a sort of norm.
That said, the building techniques of the hot rod world that you still hear parrotted today are based on engines that are not as oversquare, if at all. That is what I was getting at. The car magazines and later shows on cable all still tell you the way to build ANY engine for the street is to focus squarely on the low end torque. They don't tell you that the 289/302 is the obvious exception to this rule of theirs.
However, I will say that they give the LSx engines (based heavily on the best of Ford designs) an outright pass on their rule. (You can actually put LSx heads on a Windsor/Cleveland block!)
Btw: I'd have an LSx derivative over the Coyote anyday.
(The Coyote is not a pushrod engine, is it?)
Alright, I'm playing devil's advocate here.
But the small block Chevy, which was released almost 10 years prior to the small block Ford, was always oversquare. In fact, Chevy released the SBC 302 (4x3) one year before Ford released theirs.
ratio411
Founding Member
I guess I am generalizing too much.
The ratio of oversquare was on the extreme.
And yes, the 302 Chevy was known for it's lack of torque, but great RPM abilities.
It's not so much the 302 either, but the 289, that is the 'poineer'. I generalized there again too.
The rod ratio is also great on the 289, for what it's worth, if you like long rods and rev happy engines.
The ratio of oversquare was on the extreme.
And yes, the 302 Chevy was known for it's lack of torque, but great RPM abilities.
It's not so much the 302 either, but the 289, that is the 'poineer'. I generalized there again too.
The rod ratio is also great on the 289, for what it's worth, if you like long rods and rev happy engines.
I robbed a 31 spline carrier from an Explorer for my car earlier this year. If you are referring to the ring that has all the little teeth on it (kinda like a flywheel), it is attached to the carrier. Remove the gears from the carrier, then apply a little heat to the ring. Then use a hammer, rubber or steel, and start tapping the ring from all sides. It will pop right off. It will be a little stuck on there after all these years, but once the ring gear is off, there is nothing holding it on but a little friction. Throw it in the scrap pile and enjoy your gears and 31 spline carrier if you so desire. FYI, I rebuilt mine with the carbon fiber rebuild kit for $107...got the carrier for free.
Joe
Joe
THIS.
Lol thank you. Got it all apart today and probably gonna take my new rear end apart sometime tomorrow and have my dad set up the gears. I'm also going to try to make the Explorer brake lines work with my rear end. It'll take some bending but oh well
I might actually do this! Or I may leave the ring on it just in case I need a carrier someday for something that uses the reluctor wheel
ratio411
Founding Member
Fox Length 31 Spline. They are after market. I can't remember the brand name of them, but they are made by Motive Gear. I think they were TenFactory Axles. They are supposed to have a 10 year replacement warranty...we will see how good that is if I ever break one.
Joe
Joe
