MG-Cars.com
MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical 302: motor planning help BBS discussion at MG-Cars.net
MG-Cars.net
Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
Recommendations
Parts
MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.
|
|
MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical - 302: motor planning help
| Ok, I'm about 2 weeks from being ready to start on my swap project & have managed to get lost in the info I've compiled. Not sure if I'm in "overkill" mode or not, so would like some advice from some folks who've done 302 conversions... I'm basically planning: - used roller cam 302 from a 86 or later mustang (pretty sure that's when they switched to roller cams & forged pistons) - rebuild it using the Edelbrock performer RPM package, (but substituting the AFR 165 or 185 heads & probably Holley carb vs. the Edelbrock carb). I've priced the motor out as follows: Used 302............................$550.00 Machine shop fees...................$300.00 Rebuild Kit.........................$250.00 AFR Heads (165 or 185)............$1,300.00 Valve Covers........................$100.00 Edelbrock 2221 Hydrolic Roller Cam..$220.00 Hydrolic Roller Lifters.............$125.00 ARP Engine Bolt Kit.................$150.00 Trick Flow Roller Rockers...........$240.00 Timing Chain Set.....................$75.00 Performance Flywheel................$100.00 Edelbrock Perf. RPM intake (7121)...$175.00 Melling High Velocity Oil Pump.......$35.00 Carburator (TBD)....................$275.00 Spark Plug Wires.....................$50.00 Starter - gear reduction............$160.00 Thermostat & gasket..................$10.00 Ignition Module (TBD)...............$200.00 Coil (TBD)...........................$50.00 Distributor (TBD)...................$250.00 =========================================== Approximate Total.................$4,515.00 I think this would be a pretty stout motor and seems to be consistent with what a nice crate motor would cost as well. But, is this overkill (e.g. vs getting a rebuilt motor, sticking with the HO cam, & adding the heads, intake, carb + accessories which would save about $1000)? Appreciate any opinions. |
| rficalora |
| Too much time on your hands? This would be easier & cheaper: http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=3791 |
| Carl Floyd |
| Thanks Carl... I've looked at the Ford racing parts motors & some other crate motors... I might be wrong, but I don't think it'd be any cheaper to go that way... the M-6007-XB3 motor sells for about $3100 + shipping so lets say $3,300. Add to that about $1500 for the following to finish it out... Edelbrock Perf. RPM intake (7121)...$175.00 Carburator (TBD)....................$275.00 Spark Plug Wires.....................$50.00 Starter - gear reduction............$160.00 Thermostat & gasket..................$10.00 Ignition Module (TBD)...............$200.00 Coil (TBD)...........................$50.00 Distributor (TBD)...................$250.00 Looks to be the same cost +/- a hundred or two. I'm really trying to figure out if this sort of motor is overkill as whether I build it or buy it I think the cost is about the same. The savings would seem to come from reducing the specs to a less modified motor. At the same time, I only want to do the motor once. I don't want to put one in & end up dissatisfied & have to redo it. |
| rficalora |
| your list sounds close. ck with the Mustang guys on their boards, a regulae Melling OEM type is recommended oil pump. no need for hi-pressure or high volume, uses excess HP. should you score a "good" 5.0 roller motor, you can freshen it with new brgs,rings, T/C and otther parts and have a great cost saving. no expensive machine work, if not needed. ck the mustang boards and E-Bay for good used heads and Roller Rockers also. should a aluminum Flywheel appear, try to get it. it makes the car rev sooo quick! i have done the 5.0 EFI,5 sp. into a 78 "B". estimated HP at flywheel>325-350. mine is a 93 5.0 HO with a Comp Cam XE 264HR-14 on OEM Roller lifters. this is only a little hotter than the stock HO cam. the stock HO cam is good low end and mid range for your use. i scored the Ford Racing X-303 heads with 1.6 roller rockers on e-bay for $870 incl S&H. Ram alum flywheel, barely used, $275 incl S&H. shop well and save big bucks. i have much excess HP and break rear tires loose in 3rd gear. you will like the torque of the 5.0 and sound is good also. cost estimate> unk, but i still have a little $ left. Ha! will share some info if needed for you build, SAFETY FASTER |
| kelly stevenson |
| That's excellent info Kelly, thanks! Given that sort of power, did you do any reinforcing of the unibody? If so, what'd you do? Since your motor is similar to what I've been thinking would you mind sharing your trans & rear end info... stuff like what tranny, rear end, & gear ratios & rear end ratio you're using (& how you like it)... |
| rficalora |
| robert, ck your personal e-mail, i sent reply. Carl is just envious, he can control his HP and road races. met him at Terre Haute along with other great guys. |
| kelly stevenson |
| If your used engine is in good shape, you could go this way: http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0307_ford/ Wayne |
| Wayne Pearson |
| I would up that budget a bit unless you ar eithre cutting your firewall or that price is for a For Explorer or 94/95 Mustang complete motor. You will need to possibly move things around, get a new sway bar etc if you don't get one of those motors and wish to keep it under the hood without bulges or scoops. Check my site for details on my build up. Too bad your not closer, I have a forged roller shortblock sitting in my garage looking for a home. I have an explorer timting cover and water pump as well. Probably even a crank balancer&pully (They are one piece) |
| Larry Embrey |
| FYI - I love that article "The only thing we change is heads, cam, headers and rockers.. So basically they only thing they keep is the shortblock... I will admit it is nice to see that power out of a stock cam, but the only thing stock is the bottom end.. all the rest are high flow aftermarket items.. |
| Larry Embrey |
| Robert, your personal e-mail was returned, please send a personal e-mail to the listed address and i will fwd you the info i composed. it was returned from you listed address. the message was lengthly, best not to overload this forum. ck out larry's site, my car is shown on the member's section. look fwd to hearing from you. the 5.0 is remarkable power plant! |
| kelly stevenson |
| Kelly, not sure why the mail bounced, my email is robert.ficalora@hp.com -- should work fine. please try again if you don't mind. Larry, I'm pretty seriously considering the FastCars IFS & Billet Specialties pulleys/accessories, but am waiting for some measurements from Ted to be sure it'll fit. If that works, i think I'll have all the accessories (water pump & pulley, crank balancer/pulley, timing cover, etc.) but if there's something I'd be missing that I'm not thinking of, definitely let me know... If any of you have used or ridden in a car with the FastCars IFS, I'd like to get your thoughts. For Tranny I'm planning to use a T5. I've budgeted some $$ for rear end, but, but haven't really started figuring out what to go with. My plan of attack is to research the gear ratios of the T5 & then figure out what rear end ratio would work well & pick based on what's available with the right ratio -- but some of you must have done that, what are your recommendations? |
| rficalora |
| Man those $$ do ad up in a hurry. Still, with the crate engine you it factory pre-assembled and maybe some piece of mind. Overkill? Yeah, in an MGB either one is overkill. :) BTW, I'm not a road racer. I just pretend to be one at the British V8 meets. ;) |
| Carl Floyd |
| Robert, Your list reads like my dream list from the Summit catalog! I'm using a '94 efi 5.0 in my conversion, but your motor budget is more like my whole project budget. I'm hoping my stock 78,000 mile motor will hang together for a few years. I had a brief drive in Kelly's car and you will not be unhappy with the power if you build something similar! One thought - if you're building a motor have you considered a stroker like Pete Mantell built? I'm using a narrowed 8.8 that I had done at Moser. There are other good rear end options, but it's cheap and easy to find, many come with disc brakes and limited slip, and just about any gear ratio is available. Ryan |
| Ryan Reis |
| Robert, Your list seems about right although it might end up slightly cheaper dependant on your finding a low mileage complete or written off Mustang from which you could use perhaps the T-5 and the rear-end and also the fuel injection - especially if it was still running and complete. The later 94-95 motors for the SN95 Mustang have the shorter water pump and the clutch operating arm mounted slightly lower on the bellhousing than the earlier engines. You could re-sell some of the unneeded parts. You could perhaps buy a "complete" engine and T-5 as a unit which might also be less costly. |
| Bob Elwin |
| i re-sent my previous message to your above listed address. hopefully you will get it. the R/E,ratios, & Trans are dealt with. the short block situation is mentioned also. like larry says, the short block can be freshened and keep cost low. yea, i would like a stroker motor, but do i need it,NO! |
| kelly stevenson |
| I THINK the factory crate motor actually come with the sn95/explorer timing cover?? maybe even water pump. The TC and water pump are unique to those vehicles.. Not heard about the billet specialties parts. I thought Ted's engine set-up required firewall mods?? OR is that something you had planned anyway??? |
| Larry Embrey |
| I was going to go 347 on my car this year, but like mentioned it is just a waste of $$ for our cars. MY car dynoed poorly as it was not tunes AT ALL and running stock 94 cobra EFI. I was at 195RWHP. That is with the worst flowing intakes ford ever produced and a stock cam. This thing will tear tires loose pretty much any time I want. More is not really needed. I have a new intake set-up in process and will recam the car, this will increase power considerably, but my goal is it just get the motor combination matched up which will make it run a ton better than it has. COMBO IS EVERYTHING!! It's not just having the biggest of everything, the balance is what makes the power happen.. FYI - a 78K motor you got another 78k to go it the motor is maintained and oil changed properly. I see these 5.0's over 150k all the time before they need to be freshened. |
| Larry Embrey |
| Lary has it pegged above, the "Matched Combo" is the key to performance. fortunately Ford Racing, Holley, Edelbrock and others have complete systems for the 5.0 Ford. 150K miles are rather common and several mustang board guys indicate 250k to 350k on original motor. Remember these cars are 10-20 yrs old. Crate Motor short block Vs Rebuild depends on short block condition and do you want a warranty? 2-3 years of surfing the mustang boards have enhanced my experience and knowledge. i know just enough now to be dangerous! Ha! SAFETY FASTER |
| kelly stevenson |
| "maintained and oil changed properly" is the big question. My engine came out of a '94 mustang bought on a police impound auction. The car clearly was abused and was rolled severely and abandoned with four bald tires. Not exactly a sunday driver! I sure hope it lasts another 78,000! Larry, I sure am curious about what your new intake set-up is. Are you moving towards hood mods, or what? |
| Ryan Reis |
| 86 was the first year they switched to the forged piston/roller setup. 87-92 FI engines were rated at 225hp/300ft-lb. The 86 was rated at 200hp/285ft-lb, and the 93 was 205hp/275ft-lb. These were factory quoted numbers, so take it for what you will...This weekend is going to be used to locate a 302 form the 87-92 range I think and then spent ordering pieces to convert to non-FI. Shoot, might be cheaper to just buy a "crate" 302... |
| D. T. Barnes |
| D.T., Good luck with your search. I'm not disagreeing with the factory figures, but I don't think you should eliminate the 93-95 motors from your search. Whatever difference in horsepower there actually was (as opposed to what the factory quoted) was due to intake and computer changes. If you're going with a carb the 93-95 motors are the same. In fact, the 94-95 motors have a timing cover and water pump that are only about .3" taller than the exlporer pieces that work so well. Ryan |
| Ryan Reis |
| Dang my luck.... i just noticed an '88 short block on ebay in Houston (my home town) that had no reserve & no bidders. Could have had it for less than $100. I was out of town on a business trip & didn't get a chance to look in the last few days & missed it. By the way, I've been researching prices & have tightened up my estimates quite a bit... I'm pretty sure I can build the motor I spec'd above for about $3,800... that's allowing $500 for a used motor or short block. If I'd have caught this auction, my motor would be down to $3,400. I've also pretty much decided to pass on the Billet Specialties pulleys, brackets, etc. They look nice, but I just can't justify the cost. I'll probably use March Performance pulleys for the upper pulleys/brackets & leave the lower ones stock -- from the pics I've been looking at the lower ones don't really show on converted B's anyway. |
| rficalora |
| HELL NO!! Hood mods are da Debil!!! I had a buddy make a custom upper intake to mate to a GT40lower which will much better match my GT40 alum heads. Then I just need to get a cam ground to match up and I should se a HUGE boost in power. Plus I am migrating to Megasquirt EFI so I can tune it 100% myself which would also have netted a increase in power as the old system was not tuned at all... Yeah the 94/95 GT/Cobra timing setups are quite short. I have a page on my website outlining the differences.. http://www.mgbconversions.com/techroom/MYMGB302Conversion/Sept2004.htm If this thread had started sooner I had an entire 94cobra front assembly for a 5.0, but it has already been sold :-( |
| Larry Embrey |
| RE: HELL NO!! Hood mods are da Debil!!! What was said that suggested hood mods (unless maybe you know the March Performance pulleys/brackets are too tall... I haven't checked yet). Is that what you're telling me or did I miss something else? |
| rficalora |
| rficalora - That was a reply to Ryan Reis asking about my intake change... |
| Larry Embrey |
| Ryan - Thanks for that info. I had just done some performance research and those were the power numbers I was quoted. I had noticed in my research that the Explorer motors and the newer (93-95) 302's had a thinner pulley assembly (I think that was the difference). So I am thinking maybe an early 90's Mustang 5.0 engine or Explorer V8, but what years for the Explorer 302 should I be looking for? |
| D. T. Barnes |
| Explorers are 96-01 that had the 5.0 in them. 98+ went to a returnless fuel system wherer the ECU controls the fuel pressure. Just an FYI I often see places claiming to have "cobra crate motors" From everything I have seen and heard form Ford guru's that is a line of bs. The last 5.0's ever produced were for the explorer and 99.99% of all crate motors are those left over castings. the mustangs and other cars stopped using the 302/5.0 in 1995. In fact the crate motors I have seen have been arriving with the explorer cast oil pan and timing cover assembly on them. |
| Larry Embrey |
| Larry or others... does the Explorer rear sump oil pan work? If so, how does it compare to the dual sump pan in terms of the amount of cross member that has to be cut down &/or ground clearance on the deep part? |
| rficalora |
| Larry- Thank you for the info, it is appreciated. Which iteration of the 302 requires more modification to the MGB and to existing pieces: the stock Mustang (say a 93) and an Explorer (say 96) or does too much vary between every year and make that its too hard to say? rficalora - I would be interested to know as well, that question sparked the one I just posted. Thanks. |
| D. T. Barnes |
| the oil pan from a Fox body mustang is dbl. hump. the 80-90+ 5.0 bronco pan is rear sump. the X-Member of R/B B needs to be sectioned and boxed by 1 3/4" to 2". there was article in the British V8 magazine with photos. The distance from the block oil pan rail to the bottom of oil pan can be 5 1/4- 5 1/2" deep at front and allow 3/8" clearence for oil pick-up in pan. the Fox Body pan was simple to modify. we cut the front hump off horiozonally and welded plates to fab a sloped flat front of pan. the pick-up was re formed to the new contour of the pan. the explorer front end of engine was only to gain clearence for the fan and radiator. the explorer induction is only for vertical clearence to keep from bubbling the hood. the point is mute on problems since the X-member will need to be modified anyway, either pan requires it. the induction or T/C-WP depends on your choice of induction and probably cooling will require the extra 1 1/4". that small space is very important if you dont't have it! i don't have a lot of excess room at front and i used the Explorer T/C-WP. Ck Larry's site under photos of member rides. you can get an idea. |
| kelly stevenson |
| DT.. Larry & others are the experts; i'm still learning, but as i understand it, the blocks are the same for '96+ explorer & '86+ Mustangs. From what i've read, the 86+ mustang 5.0's have forged pistons & roller cams. Not sure what pistons & cams are in the 96+ explorers Assuming we stick with one of those two options, sounds like you can further narrow the choices to '96+ Explorer or '94/95 Mustang. With either of those choices it sounds like the belt accessories (alternator & water pump + brackets, cutting off power steering portion of bracket in particular) all fit w/o other mods -- except the generally accepted modification of the cross member. If you use a '86-93 mustang motor you'll need to swap out the timing cover, water pump, brackets & pulleys for either the '94/95 mustang versions or the explorer versions -- may be ok if you're using March Performance although i haven't checked yet... And, we haven't discussed A/C --- not sure any of these choices work with an A/C compressor. Last is the oil pan per the post above -- not sure whether the dual sump or explorer rear sump is a better choice for cross member & ground clearance. Did I get all this right guys? If so, only open questions (at least in my mind) are: - the oil pan - AC fit - whether the explorer pistons & cam are equivalent to the '86+ mustangs... we're listening listening Larry, Bob, Kelly, & others... |
| rficalora |
| i just talked with March Performance & they don't have pulleys/brackets for the explorer. They do have just the pulleys for the 94/95 mustangs but no brackets. |
| rficalora |
| The stock explorer alternator/tensioner bracket will work on any year car and will clear the hood. I can attest that the 94/95 mustang alternator/tensioner bracket will interfere with the hood on a chrome bumper car. Should work with no problem on a rubber bumper. To mount an a/c compressor will require custom work on either setup. example: http://www.britishv8.org/swaps/carlsmg8.htm This is a 94/95 mustang motor with the stock brackets. The a/c compressor is mounted in the spot where the power steering was originally. If you look close you can see where extra material was welded to the bracket where the compressor mounts. The mustang dual sump oil pan works fine in my car, but it will be almost impossible to drain the front sump due to the steering rack. I'd get an explorer pan or modify like Kelly says. Ryan |
| Ryan Reis |
| regarding the forged pistons, only needed if you race and juice or S/C the engine. the Hyperutectic are good to 6500-7000 RPM. and are lighter (read> quik rev) . still recommend a Alum. flywheel. note: early 289 & 5.0 used 28.8 oz damper & flywheel. the mustang and later 5.0 use the 50 oz damper & flywheel. this is a material fact in assembling the needed parts. either is ok, just don't mix! BTY, if you choose a EFI mustang, the ECM shuts off fuel at 6200 RPM. ground clearence is not a problem. the pan does not extend below the X-member enough to cause a problem. your bellhousing will hit first . REAL MEN USE EFI! anyone can stick on a carb, may as well get a point dist. also. let the Barbs begin! |
| kelly stevenson |
| I guess i better go by some pink shirts or something Kelly... i don't think i'm up to trying to get EFI to work (and besides, I like the look of the carb & air cleaner). maybe on my 2nd conversion i'll give it a whirl, but i'd like to get this one up & running for the V8 meet in Townsend. I know I won't have paint or interior done by then, but have set an agressive target of having the motor, tranny, & rear end in by that time frame... we'll see. Might have to go w/o the car this year... then again, i saw someone suggested doing a Rover swap at the event... if I'm not done, let's make it a 302 swap & let's use my car ;)! |
| rficalora |
| The explorer pan fits fine. I had a dual hump for a while and then bought the fancy cast alum unit from a crate motor. The mustangs are forged, but the explorers are all hyper's. like was said this is fine unless tou add boost or more than a 100shot of the juice. You will want to pull the explorer cam if you get an explorer motor and put either a stock 5.0 or while open a cam that will better match your heads/intake. yeah the 50oz balance thing was mid 80's change on most 5.0 cars. also the older 302's are going to be flat tappet cam and the 5.0's are roller cam, as well as a different firing order for the 5.0's which are EFI. The EFI does pull timing etc to retard the motor above 6k, hence another reason I am jumping to MS. I KNOW my motor revs out past 6k, just has no power up there due to ECU and, cam, intake restrictions which are all being corrected!! Brackets. I never got to try the sn95 brackets, but only had to cut the AT mounts off the driver's explorer bracket to get it to fit. That amd I made a new idler pully to keep the belt on.. |
| Larry Embrey |
| I just had a guy offer me what I think he said was a 95 cobra motor with brand new pistons, rods, & crank; cobra cam which he says is good... for $450. his story is he buys excess inventory -- sells on ebay & has several motors listed as remanufactured with Ford warranties -- he shows copies of the warranty info... but i can't help but wonder why a 95 motor would need new pistons, crank, & rods... Does this sound fishy to anyone else or am I too suspicious? |
| rficalora |
| well it is a 10yr old motor. Not all mustang owners have a clue about maintenence.. 15k miles a year your at 150k. Did HE rebuild it or was it rebuild before he got it?? I would wonder why new crank and rods, unless someone was boosting etc and blew it.?? is it full motor or just longblock?? |
| Larry Embrey |
| FYI there is an explorer timing cover and water pump just listed on ebay as well as a matching damper. I also have those 3 items ( not listed on ebay) Also a motor was JUST put on ebay, "complete", no accy's or efi/wiring.. $350 buy it now!! #8020243941 |
| Larry Embrey |
| Alright, to everyone that addressed my question (larry, rficalora, et al) I appreciate the info! Great stuff!! I think I will take a look for either the 94/5 Mustang or 96+ Explorer (either way I don't want the EFI, I will keep it in case I get frisky and decide to use it later) and make them both carbs. Basically I think it will come down to which one I can get cheaper. Now I think it is a matter of finding an engine from either of those vehicles and finding a good Mustang T5/bell housing/rear end. |
| D. T. Barnes |
| Cool DT glad I could help. Real Life has had be away from these baords and even my MG for a while now. Not sure when I get back to the MG, but I am trying to skim the boards more. I just got a fox body mustang for a daily driver, 4cyl, rebuilding the motor now though :-/ not what I had planned... DT- Head ups, the 94/95 Mustang T5 is 3/4" longer than the pre 94, I think it is all in the bell area?? Theroetically this could help put the shifter that 1" back to stock location, but I would worry about the bell being different and cause the motor to have to be moved forward... Has anyone else looked into this?? |
| Larry Embrey |
| Larry - Oh, okay, thanks for the heads up. So ideally a pre 94 T5 and bell with a 94/5 Mustang or 96+ Explorer 302. Now time to look into rear end conversions... |
| D. T. Barnes |
| Hi DT and Larry, I used a late (94-95) Mustang 5.0 and T-5 with the longer input shaft and bellhousing and it put the gearlever back further so that I could use the existing cutout (with the oval cover reversed). Also the later bellhousing has a lower cutout so that the fork protrudes into a more spacious area than the earlier setup. You can then use the Wilwood pull type slave cylinder with the standard release fork. So it actually seemed more suitable. There was no different clearance to the bodywork as it is the front flange of the bellhousing which is the limiting factor regarding setback. Bob. |
| Bob Elwin |
| BOB - THANKS!! That is what I was hoping.. SO everyone should use the 94/95 mustang trans.. heh wishI knew that back when I started |
| Larry Embrey |
| That's great info Bob. Can you clarify something about the 95/95 tranny bell housing... are you saying you were able to use the fork from that tranny with a Wildwood slave cylinder & the standard MG clutch cylinder? If so, is there a particular Wildwood slave that fits or did you fabricate an area on the housing to mount the slave? thanks again. Rob |
| x Ficalora |
| Hi Rob, Purely by chance, that is exactly what happened. I'm using the production 94-95 release arm (different to the earlier models). I think Wilwood only make one retracting slave cylinder model. I swapped one end rod for the other so the cylinder end was to the front of the car. With some washers, I was able to set the fork in the right position to release with about 1" of stroke. The front end of the cylinder is retained by a bolt through the hole in the bellhousing flange. I used a new Girling/Lucas 1" bore master cylinder which gives the right fluid displacement for the pedal stroke to release the clutch. The master cylinder bolts right into my-late sixties MG pedal box so it all looks stock. Even the alloy cover from the Mustang fits over the slave cylinder! Action is somewhat heavier than an MG but not an effort that seems tiring at all.It is nicely progressive and, best of all, completely adjustable in place. I was quite pleased it all went together so easily as I lost a bit of sleep over it initially. Good luck, Bob. |
| Bob Elwin |
| FYI - An explorer right side bracket just hit ebay. Alt bracket and idler pulley. #8020741463 |
| Larry Embrey |
| Bob - I must get over to see your car one of these days! I used a GM T5, which mounts the shifter right at the back as opposed to the Ford which has it several inches forward. I guess you make up some of that with the extended bellhousing? Do you happen to have a measurement from rear of engine to centre of shifter? |
| Bill Spohn |
| Larry, do you know if the Explorer brackets will work with the 94/95 mustang timing cover/water pump & crank pulley -- e.g., will they make the alt line up right or will they sit a little closer to the block since the pics on your web site show the explorer crank pulley to be a bit shorter than the 94/95 mustangs? |
| x Ficalora |
| Rob, Bill, Larry, Bob - Incredible information, thank you so much. I just happened to find a huge Mustang 5.0 dealer/shop when I was out picking up a treadmill for my friends mom. Now that I have some hard and fast years decided I will have to go to them and see what they have. Thanks again for all of the great information. Bob - Have you had your wilwood slave cylinder setup published in British V8 or somewhere on the net because I think I have seen this setup before (may not be, because I'm sure others have rigged the same thing with the T5). Now, if I understand this correctly, this negates needing the HTOB correct? Or am I confusing things? |
| D. T. Barnes |
| The explorer and sn95 (94/95 mustang model) timing covers are the same. the difference is in the accy's brackets water pump and damper. So you need the water pump, crank pulley and acy's brackets to match. Now the explorer uses a ONE PIECE damper and pulley Theortically you could make a collar to put on the crank to space it out the .300" to match a mustang front set-up. The water pumps are the same frame but different shaft, like the crank something could probably be fabricated to make a mustang pump work on an explorer. As for th mustang brackets? I suppose the same thing. make a plate etc to put between the head and bracket to space it out?? I would say call around local JY, one of them is bound to have a complete explorer motor, I got mine for $900 after tax and core charge... Sold off the heads and intakes and only spent like $250 for the block and all accy's brackets pullies etc.. ON THE HTOB REPLACEMENT - Check the link below for an alternative. If I had seen this before my project I would have used it... http://www.autoworks.cc/65-70%20ford_hydraulic_clutch_kits.htm |
| Larry Embrey |
| Larry - Awesome! Thanks for the link, I could buy a kit like that and just make it work with a 94/95 T5. Thanks! |
| D. T. Barnes |
| I bought a Ford Motor Sports "GT-40" engine for my '64 Fairlane a couple of years ago. I that engine is based off the Explorer engine also. I seem to remember that the water pump rotation was backwards (due to sepertine belt) from the older V belt water pumps. I resolved the issue by buying an aftermarket belt and pulley system. Will some confirm or reject my memory. Thanks Boyce |
| Boyce |
| Boyce, sounds like you remember correctly! I had to replace the upper left idle pulley on my bracket with a custom unit to keep the belt on since I had no AC or Power steering pump. In fact that bracket is only there to hold that idler.. |
| Larry Embrey |
| I have a question about the explorer damper/pulley I am doing a Ford conversion for a friend. I have done this conversion on CB and I set the engine as far back possible by cutting the firewall etc. By doing this the damper sets behind the rack. The B that I am doing is a RB and doing it as the engine best fits in the engine bay without cutting sheetmetal, only cutting the necessary areas like the crossmember. Some of you (Larry) have mention the Explorer damper/pulley. The question is: How thick is it. The reason is that I have 1/4" clearance between the pulley and the rack, and if a change to a Explorer damper/pulley will it clear the rack. Is the Explorer damper thinner, thicker or the same. Which set-up does the Ford crate 302 with alum heads has for damper and pulley? Any information in this area is greatly appreciated. |
| Bill Guzman |
| I have not bought a crate motor but I THINK it has the explorer pulley, timing cover and maybe water pump. Again, I am not 100%, but that is wha tI have heard from others, however the picture in summit racing is of a "std" front set-up. Depending on where you place the motor the CRANK TRIGGER RING may hit the rack. It did on mine. In my car the rack nestles up partially between the damper and oil pan. I have had both stock dampers and the explorer damper with ring removed. I have less than 1.4" at this point, but with the super rigid mounting it is not a problem and the engine is solid to the cross member. |
| Larry Embrey |
| Bill S, You asked about the length from the front face of the bellhousing to the centre of the gearlever on the 94-95 Ford T-5. It seems to be about 27.75" - as close as I can estimate (with some parallax!)Believe the GM T-5's have the lever set further back(?) But there is certainly room for the Wilwood retracting slave cylinder. DT, No I haven't sent any pictures in but you definitely can fit the Willwood between the fork and front flange on the bellhousing with the "long" bellhousing. You are then using the standard release fork in a "pull" type application as with the production cable system. It actually feels rather better than a cable clutch IMHO. Bob. |
| Bob Elwin |
| Bob - Thanks for the info, I had thought I saw a setup exactly like what described, but when I went back and found it, it was a different manufacturer. I like Wilwood and have acutally used a number of their parts on a scratch-built racecar I worked on. We actually used the assembly that you talk about (to actuate the clutch on a motorcycle engine) to operate the cars transmission. Thanks again, and I will make sure I look for the "long" (94+?) T5. I think I made my final decison to hunt down a 94+ 302/T5 (either Mustang or Explorer engine). |
| D. T. Barnes |
This thread was discussed between 29/11/2005 and 12/12/2005
MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical index
This thread is from the archive. The Live MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical BBS is active now.