Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My 92 came stock with a 302. It was tired So I picked up a motor from a thunderbird. It shares the same cam as the cobra. I threw on some gt40 p heads. Had them trued, mild port work, and a 3 angle valve job. Also threw in some 1.6 rockers. I am predicting it be a pretty peppy motor even with the cobra cam in the heavy bko. I also wanted to get a stall converter. One that compliments the cam. I was thinking probably around a 2200 stall. Im also getting a mass air kit from dunrite. With the route I am taking will the 302 be worth building. Will I be pleased with it? Or should I give up and get a 351?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
well seeing how you have already have done all this to the 302 kinda pointless to be asking this question now. I personally wouldnt build a 302, id choose the 351w to start with. Its got more cubes already and would be easier to squeeze more power out of. How much power do you need to be happy? If you liked it with the stock 302 then im sure a livened up one will do the trick.
 

·
I did all for the Nookie
Joined
·
7,252 Posts
What he said and it's a whole lot heavier in the bottom end a big improvement over the stock 302 and it uses the same trans, exhuast manifolds,motor mounts, and some of the accessories brackets. You'll want to go to the big radiator after swaping one in if you haven't already.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
I'm thinking the engine you described ought to be a distinct improvement over what you took out.

As far as the 302 VS 351W question....you may get more answers to that than you care to hear.
All I got to say about it is that using the same add-ons as you describe, the 351W will produce more power all through it's operating range. But it's peak power will be somewhat lower on the RPM scale than will the 302.
In other words, all else being equal, the 302 will produce more power per cubic inch but the 351 will have more at any given RPM UNTILL it begins to run out of air flow...which will be sooner than the 302.

Then there's the wear factor to consider. Due to it's increased crank bearing-speeds, it's increased piston speed, and the increased distance that the pistons must travel at any given RPM, a 351W will not usualy last as long between overhauls as will a 302.

Just some stuff to think about.

DGW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
well Im not looking for a horsepower number really. I just dont want it to be a pig. And really this thing wont see much offroad. Its lifted 4 inches. its kind of a lighting inspired bko.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
so you think the 302 will be a decent motor? Honestly and truely Ill probably swap in a 460 or 429 with the funds allow it
 

·
I did all for the Nookie
Joined
·
7,252 Posts
It's the longer stroke that kicks the 302 in the pants and that big ole bottom end is a good thing in a truck. The 302 ain't no slouch either in the bottom end but I still go 5.8 over 5.0 any day in a truck or pulling vehicle. IMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
a good quote holds true: "There is no replacement for displacement".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts

·
penis
Joined
·
3,320 Posts
I would go 7.3 turbo diesel, but I guess that would be another thread. This being my third Bronco I owned an '78 with a 351M (before they made after market parts) a '90 with a 302, and now my '95 with a 351 Windsor. I would would say the windsor series engines are stout and have a lot of potential (mods and performance). In this case it comes down to personal taste. This is one of the questions that has been around as long long as the 289 vs. 302 debate in the '60s.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
i think the work you have put into the 302 you have will be good for a daily driver or whatever you use it for. Since you have already put all the effort into the 302 finish building it and see how you like it. I would say the 302 has a larger aftermarket base than the 351.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
well I want a diesel but I have to wait until 2012 for emmissions purposes. So that will be the next build if the world dont end before then lol. But I think I will do the 302 swap. but lets talk about a stall converter. ITs of course going into a e40d. So whats a safe rpm?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Thats the gear ratio I was thinking of but would a 2200 get burnt up if Its a bit before the regear?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
you know I dont even know the true specs. I have tried googling this and couldnt come up with anything. Its a stock cam out of a thunderbird. From searching I read it was the same cam used in the like years of a mustang cobra. The engine is out of a 92 thunderbird. hopefully someone on here will know
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
134 Posts
As the owner of both a 94 Cobra and a 93 T-bird (I sold that one, but now I have a 89 Supercoupe), I figured I'd chime in here.

The 93 T-bird was the ONLY year that used the Cobra cam (think about it, the Cobra came out in 93). It also came with hypereutectic pistons. 91-92 T-birds used the stock 5.0l HO cam and forged pistons.


FYI: The Cobra cam was designed to gain back some of the low end torque that was lost due to the higher flow intake.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,396 Posts
what are the specs on the cam?
x2.. we all want to know this.. i'm willing to bet a stock cobra has a relatively mild cam in it, which wouldn't require an after-market torque converter... i have yet to ride in any stock v8 (or even v6) which is cammed for high end at the expense of low rpm torque.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
134 Posts
This is what I have on the 93-95 Cobra cam.

BUT, as you said the engine is out of a 92 T-bird. Only the 93 T-bird had the Cobra cam. SO, you do not have the Cobra cam.


Part number for the cam is F3ZE-6250-CA. Specs are as follows:

Intake/Exhaust duration in degrees of crankshaft rotation: 270/270 and at 0.050 lift 209/209

Intake/Exhaust lift at valve with 1.7 rocker ratio: 0.479/0.479"

Lobe separation is 118.3 degrees with 115 intake lobe center and a 121.5 exhaust lobe center.

Timing events at 0.050 lift are:

Intake: (BTDC):-10.5 / (ABDC): 39.5

Exhaust: (BBDC): 46.0 / (ATDC): -17.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
^^^^Beat me to it!

The stock 1993 Cobra cam specs are roughly 210 degrees duration and .479" lift with the factory 1.7:1 Cobra roller rockers. This is from an article in Fordmuscle webmagazine. So, if you really do have a '93 cobra cam that should be it. Otherwise I've read that the cam specs for 91 and 92 thunderbirds is the 5.0HO cam.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top