Author Topic: 302 motor mounting (Read 39038 times)

71pintoracer · « **Reply #60 on:** September 19, 2011, 07:47:28 PM »

[so has anybody used the front engine plate?
[/quote]
I made my own engine mounts that are similar to a plate and very easy to do. Much easier than regular mII mounts I think. I outlined the entire swap into a '71, you can prob still find it if you do a search on V8 swaps, mine is in the projects section titled "71 V8 Swap, Let The Fun Begin" Should answer some of your questions. Haven't been around much lately, lot of issues going on but some members may remember me!

Reeves1 · « **Reply #61 on:** September 20, 2011, 06:23:34 AM »

Quote from: 71pintoracer on September 19, 2011, 07:47:28 PM

[so has anybody used the front engine plate?

I made my own engine mounts that are similar to a plate and very easy to do. Much easier than regular mII mounts I think. I outlined the entire swap into a '71, you can prob still find it if you do a search on V8 swaps, mine is in the projects section titled "71 V8 Swap, Let The Fun Begin" Should answer some of your questions. Haven't been around much lately, lot of issues going on but some members may remember me!

http://www.fordpinto.com/your-project/71-v8-swap-let-the-fun-begin!!/msg58137/#msg58137

WTR 70 · « **Reply #62 on:** September 20, 2011, 08:39:56 PM »

i keep seeing different ways of using the engine plate, getting some ideas now

WTR 70 · « **Reply #63 on:** September 21, 2011, 11:27:17 PM »

next question. hood clearence, does the 302 fit under the hood or what is required to make it fit under the hood?

dave1987 · « **Reply #64 on:** September 21, 2011, 11:42:03 PM »

From what I hear...An MII oil pan will allow a 289 to fit snug under the hood, not sure about a 302 though. I'm sure a lower profile air cleaner would be necessary as well.

RSM · « **Reply #65 on:** September 22, 2011, 07:50:08 AM »

The 289 and 302 are both Windsor engines so physically they are the same. It will depend on carb, air cleaner and intake as to how much hood clearance you will have. I have an aluminum intake with a Holley 650 which will fit under the hood...barely, but no room for an air cleaner so I will wind up with a hole in the hood.

WTR 70 · « **Reply #66 on:** September 22, 2011, 01:14:57 PM »

is your intake an air gap or anything thats higher? would the factory cast one work to where you wouldnt have to cut the hood?

Pinto5.0 · « **Reply #67 on:** September 22, 2011, 04:53:26 PM »

I finally snapped a few pics of the pan I got off Ebay a couple years ago. I haven't been able to compare it directly to the MII pan but it looks close. I was going to make my own frame mounts anyway & I had to cut the hood for the tunnel ram so if I had to raise the engine slightly to make it work it was no biggie. For $69 bucks with the pickup it was worth the shot.

RSM · « **Reply #68 on:** September 22, 2011, 05:59:06 PM »

The intake is called an Xelerator...no t sure who made it. It's not an air gap but sits higher than a factory cast iron 4bbl intake manifold.

WTR 70 · « **Reply #69 on:** September 22, 2011, 06:22:44 PM »

is the height different from a 4bl to a 2bl stock cast intake?

71pintoracer · « **Reply #70 on:** September 22, 2011, 06:49:50 PM »

Quote from: WTR 70 on September 22, 2011, 06:22:44 PM

is the height different from a 4bl to a 2bl stock cast intake?

no difference in height just the weight issue. It's a really tight fit to get it under the hood.
Pinto5.0, hard to tell w/o a mII pan to compare it to but the issue is where the pan angles down to the sump. The mII pan is flat not angled at all and kind of dished out right at the sump to give more clearance for the rack. I had to use one to make my headers fit right. I've seen those low profile pans on e-bay as well, sure would be nice to know if they would work because the mII pans are pretty rare although they do pop up from time to time.
(Thanks for posting the link to my swap Reeves1!

)

WTR 70 · « **Reply #71 on:** September 22, 2011, 06:54:51 PM »

so i should just do an after market intake and cut the hood

WTR 70 · « **Reply #72 on:** September 22, 2011, 06:57:03 PM »

Quote from: 71pintoracer on September 22, 2011, 06:49:50 PM

no difference in height just the weight issue. It's a really tight fit to get it under the hood.
Pinto5.0, hard to tell w/o a mII pan to compare it to but the issue is where the pan angles down to the sump. The mII pan is flat not angled at all and kind of dished out right at the sump to give more clearance for the rack. I had to use one to make my headers fit right. I've seen those low profile pans on e-bay as well, sure would be nice to know if they would work because the mII pans are pretty rare although they do pop up from time to time.
(Thanks for posting the link to my swap Reeves1! )

i believe your car is the one i saw with the seperated motor mounts that bolt to the heads wasnt it?

71pintoracer · « **Reply #73 on:** September 22, 2011, 07:53:38 PM »

Yes thats mine. Doing the mounts that way clears up a lot of room for the starter and the headers. As far as the hood, I think a few have tucked the engine under a stock hood with a low intake and low profile air cleaner just because they wanted it to look as stock as possible, but even a small hood scoop will help and unless you have some very quiet mufflers it's not going to be a secret very long. I can't seem to fool anyone.

Pinto5.0 · « **Reply #74 on:** September 22, 2011, 08:32:18 PM »

Quote from: 71pintoracer on September 22, 2011, 06:49:50 PM

Pinto5.0, hard to tell w/o a mII pan to compare it to but the issue is where the pan angles down to the sump. The mII pan is flat not angled at all and kind of dished out right at the sump to give more clearance for the rack. I had to use one to make my headers fit right. I've seen those low profile pans on e-bay as well, sure would be nice to know if they would work because the mII pans are pretty rare although they do pop up from time to time.

Like I said I was gonna make my own frame mounts so that slight angle was no biggie. I was gonna position the engine to clear everything THEN make frame mounts to keep it there. I was also gonna use standard 302 rubber mounts since I have a new pair already. Now that I have the '73 all that out the window since I have to swap the crossmember.

WTR 70 · « **Reply #75 on:** September 22, 2011, 08:39:46 PM »

Quote from: 71pintoracer on September 22, 2011, 07:53:38 PM

Yes thats mine. Doing the mounts that way clears up a lot of room for the starter and the headers. As far as the hood, I think a few have tucked the engine under a stock hood with a low intake and low profile air cleaner just because they wanted it to look as stock as possible, but even a small hood scoop will help and unless you have some very quiet mufflers it's not going to be a secret very long. I can't seem to fool anyone.

HAHAHA ya im just going for the fooling people while the car is off, after that nobody will be wondering

WTR 70 · « **Reply #76 on:** September 22, 2011, 08:52:39 PM »

Quote from: 71pintoracer on September 22, 2011, 07:53:38 PM

Yes thats mine. Doing the mounts that way clears up a lot of room for the starter and the headers. As far as the hood, I think a few have tucked the engine under a stock hood with a low intake and low profile air cleaner just because they wanted it to look as stock as possible, but even a small hood scoop will help and unless you have some very quiet mufflers it's not going to be a secret very long. I can't seem to fool anyone.

Also did you have any issues with the fuel pump?

71pintoracer · « **Reply #77 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:08:02 PM »

You mean as far as clearance? no, none at all, used a stock 302 fuel pump but I did relocate the fuel lines because on the '71-'73 body they run inside of the frame rail.

WTR 70 · « **Reply #78 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:44:51 PM »

that seems like the way to go to me then, all the other plates require an electric fuel pump that i have seen

WTR 70 · « **Reply #79 on:** September 26, 2011, 02:31:41 PM »

so i looked at a 4 cylinder mustang 2 tipped on its side, junkyard, got a set of shock plates for the rear axle to start fabbing up the traction bar setup, anyway, the 4 cylinder looked like it had a lot of room around the cross member and sway bar. just wondering how much different the 302 mustang 2 oil pan is from that or how they are different. i know the 4 cyl to 302 is different, but was wondering if they sat lower or what in them

Pinto5.0 · « **Reply #80 on:** September 26, 2011, 05:29:58 PM »

The thing is that the crossmember & suspension pieces are the same between both cars but the engine bays are completely different. Inner fenders, core support, firewall etc. do not interchange & frankly it's amazing that the MII oil pan is even close enough to allow the swap.

The framerails are the same width which is why the mounts will fit but the V8 sits a tad farther forward & slightly higher in the MII but you can't do that in a Pinto so it's a tight fit.

79prostreet · « **Reply #81 on:** September 26, 2011, 08:24:14 PM »

I pulled a tape measure on a Mustang ll and found it was 5'' longer from cowl to radiator support,the pc from bottom of steering shaft to rack looked about 3'' to 4'' longer. That's why a v8 fits so much better and would think a better weight transfer for racing. From what I deducted the motor frame mounts had the same location to rack/ crossmember so they allow it to work on the Pinto,just a little tight on the transmission side.

WTR 70 · « **Reply #82 on:** September 26, 2011, 08:52:53 PM »

That is really suprising there is that much difference, i always kinda figured they were realtively the same chassis's

Pinto5.0 · « **Reply #83 on:** September 26, 2011, 11:44:57 PM »

Quote from: WTR 70 on September 26, 2011, 08:52:53 PM

That is really suprising there is that much difference, i always kinda figured they were realtively the same chassis's

I always thought they shared more myself till I wanted to use repop MII floorpans on my Pinto & began to realize absolutely nothing interchanges.

Quote from: 79prostreet on September 26, 2011, 08:24:14 PM

From what I deducted the motor frame mounts had the same location to rack/ crossmember so they allow it to work on the Pinto,just a little tight on the transmission side.

If that was true the sway bar would fit. I've never measured but I "think" the engines all mount about 3/4" to 1 1/4" forward in an MII compared to a Pinto. MII & Pinto front framerails dont interchange & I'm betting if you measured engine mount bolt hole locations in both cars you would find the MII holes slightly farther forward from the crossmember. I would also bet the mounts are 3/8" to 5/8" higher on the frame rails as well. That tiny bit makes a HUGE difference in fit.

WTR 70 · « **Reply #84 on:** September 28, 2011, 08:14:21 PM »

so whats better, mechanical or electric fuel pump? and does the battery have to be moved out of the engine compartment?

RSM · « **Reply #85 on:** September 29, 2011, 12:06:11 AM »

I'm going to attempt to leave the battery in the original location on mine. If I can find a battery with the right dimensions and enough CCA's I'll try it. I think I might have to wrap 1 header tube to keep the heat down under the battery. The only reason why I want to try this is since moving the battery away from the stock location means you have to have a kill switch per NHRA rules for racing. I dont want to drill any holes in the car and I would be very limited on where I can put the battery with the roll cage I have in the car.

smallfryefarm · « **Reply #86 on:** September 29, 2011, 12:06:38 PM »

I used 71 pintoracers post and made his mounts, made my oil pan to get the motor low as possible and it closes under a stock hood, but its a little snug. Had to move the battery back cause of the headers.

71hotrodpinto · « **Reply #87 on:** September 29, 2011, 03:01:11 PM »

About the battery in the front. Id reconsider. The stock location boils batterys with the 4cly as it is. Plus theres the weight transfer issue if your drag racing a front heavy car.
I didnt even consider keeping it up front when i did mine just for the reliability factor.
Maybe you could put a kill switch in the backup lens or some other conspicuous location that would keep you from drilling holes in the sheetmetal?
Just some thoughts!

RSM · « **Reply #88 on:** September 29, 2011, 04:14:53 PM »

For right now I wont be drag racing the car. It's just got to run and be driveable enough to get it on and off of a trailer for car shows. Per NHRA rules the master switch has to be accessible so thats not happening right now.

WTR 70 · « **Reply #89 on:** September 29, 2011, 04:33:19 PM »

I actually looked at a drag wagon a while ago, and he put his kill switch in his tail light lens, he said everyone told him it would crack, but it worked great

News:

Current Classifieds

Author Topic: 302 motor mounting (Read 39038 times)

RSM

RSM

RSM

RSM