302 Ford - Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups
Jeep-Short Wheelbase All discussion of short wheelbase Jeeps: CJ, TJ, YJ and JK

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of (permalink) Old 03-28-2000, 06:47 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
302 Ford

Anyone running a 302 Ford in their CJ7? I would like to get information on the swap or direction to a website with that info. Thank you, Edward.

Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of (permalink) Old 03-28-2000, 07:33 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 302 Ford

I think it was in JP magazine within the last year. They did a write up on the swap and a company that specializes in 302 swaps. If I find I'll repost. Not much help but a start.

post #3 of (permalink) Old 03-28-2000, 07:47 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 302 Ford

Z and M http://www.zandm.com specializes in 302 swaps. Advance adapters is coming out with a plate to adapt the 302 to chevy auto trannies in the near future. I'm doing the same swap also in the near future

Bakes
83 Scrambler
http://www5.ewebcity.com/4x4trails
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of (permalink) Old 03-28-2000, 08:30 PM
TEX
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 302 Ford

<font color=purple>Not really sure why anyone would seek out a 302 for a swap, but if you already have access to a good one, it could work. If it were me (well, if it were me, it'd be a Chevy[img]/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif[/img], but let's assume I like Fords[img]/wwwthreads_images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]), I'd be looking at 351's. They are a bit taller, but fit fine under the hood of a Jeep & with a 3.5" stroke (vs. the 3" 302 stroke), they make much better low-end power. Again, use the 302 if you have it, but think hard about that 351 if you're still looking for an engine. Just my $.02.</font color=purple>

TEX

[img]/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Got Mud?
G.U.M.B.O. Mud Racing

post #5 of (permalink) Old 03-28-2000, 11:42 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 302 Ford

Tex, do you like the 351 Windsor, or the 351M? I thought that the 302 was a bit smaller, physically speaking, and fitment would be better in the engine compartment, am I wrong??? Thx.

post #6 of (permalink) Old 03-29-2000, 12:07 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 302 Ford

you would want to use the 351w. the M is a bit on the long side for a cj. my personal fave is the cleveland, but i would only use it in a mud, or other racing machine as they are built for high rpm usage. the windsor has smaller heads and built for more low end torque, and they are not muck larger than a 302, as well as share the same mounts and bell housing pattern (the cleveland shares the same mounts and bell pattern, but is a longer, heavier smallblock). the M series shares the big block bell pattern.


dan
<font color=blue>Good things come to those who do research!!</font color=blue>


post #7 of (permalink) Old 03-29-2000, 10:26 AM
TEX
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 302 Ford

<font color=purple>Yeah, what he said[img]/wwwthreads_images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]! You're right to think of the 302 as somewhat more compact, but I don't think that's an issue with a CJ like it would be with a Ranger or Toy pickup. I too really like the Cleveland as the "best of the bunch", but for the same reasons mentioned - me being a gearhead. Not so practical for a Jeep, unless mud is your forte. And even then, the Windsor does offer some interesting possibilities. You can safely stroke a stock 351w to in excess of 400" for a real torque monster. And from what I've been reading on the Pre '78 Bronco board (see "302 vs. 460"), apparently the injection from a 302 can be made to work well with much larger displacement Windsors. So, for a Jeep swap, the 351w seems the best route - but again, I would consider a 302 if I happened to have a good one laying around looking for a home. I just think that if you're going to take the time & effort to try to gain more power than a stock powerplant, that you should go "all out", so to speak, and get something that'll really set you back in the seat[img]/wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif[/img].</font color=purple>

TEX

[img]/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Got Mud?
G.U.M.B.O. Mud Racing

post #8 of (permalink) Old 03-29-2000, 11:15 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 302 Ford

The 351W has a stronger block and bottom end than the Cleveland. The Cleveland had some oiling problems, nothing major though.
IMO, 351W all the way.

I want to be a follower, but all the leaders seem to be lost.
post #9 of (permalink) Old 03-29-2000, 11:24 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 302 Ford

i dont know about the cleveland having a weaker bottom end (especially the four bold main), they do need a little help with oiling, but that is cured by running a solid or roller cam and a couple of restrictors for the top end. if you want to see a real set of heads, take a look at them, ports as large as a big block, and valves (2.19int 1.71ex) to match. a chev 350 could only wish to have ports like a cleveland. this is why they are only good for making hp rather than low end.

dan
<font color=blue>Good things come to those who do research!!</font color=blue>


post #10 of (permalink) Old 03-29-2000, 11:41 AM
TEX
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 302 Ford

<font color=purple>I've been told that in stock form, the only heads that outflow Clevelands are Rec-port BB-Chevy. Even Ford's own big-block doesn't get heads as good as a Cleveland. We had a guy with a severely hopped up Cleveland in a 2,800 lb CJ2A running 42's that just dominated Super Stock in Missouri Mud Racing for several years.</font color=purple>

TEX

[img]/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Got Mud?
G.U.M.B.O. Mud Racing

Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome