MustangWorks.com - The Ford Mustang Power Source!

Go Back   MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums > Mustang & Ford Tech > Windsor Power
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-24-2001, 01:26 PM   #1 (permalink)
jerryIII
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post 302-302HO difference???

this question may have been asked before, but I couldn't find it...

what is the difference between the two. My HO motor just turned 100,000. pulling it this weekend, to either rebuild it or replace it, plenty of low mileage 302's around.....

thx in advance

------------------
Black, 84 GT, ground effects, shorty headers, dual exh., rear spoiler from a 87, just getting started...
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2001, 01:57 PM   #2 (permalink)
bada$$lx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

As far as I know, the Ford 302's are all HO.

------------------
'90 LX 5.0; 12K original miles (no sh*&); 3.55 gears; pulleys;Edelbrock Performer Heads; BBK shorties; MSD 6AL box w/ blaster 2 coil; Motorsport E303 cam; Pro-M 75mm MAF; BBK 70mm TB; Eibach spring kit; Southside welded subs; K&N cone filter charger; Hurst shifter; fiberglass turbo hood; A/C-less; rear seat-less; cat-less; 2 chamber Flos; Corbeau racing seats (fronts);
30# injectors; JMS Chip; 190 lb fp; TFS track heat Intake (12.299 @ 113)
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2001, 02:52 PM   #3 (permalink)
smokedchevy
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: ventura,CA
Posts: 438
Smile

H.O. is just an abbreviation for high output. It really means nothing. As far as building an engine, make sure you build one with the mass air set-up. Since your stang is an 84 you don't have mass air. I'd try to get a complete engine used with mass air and computer. That's why everyone is running so fast while attaining a good street car. The mass air and EECIV computer makes it possible. Speed density is o.k. with little bolt ons, but change the airflow like a small cam or such, the computer can't tell there's more airflow and the computer's tables are mixed up and the car is going to run crappy. Also your 84 engine does not have a roller cam. That is a big disadvantage. Try to rebuild an engine from 90-93. Make sure you research everything before you start buying. Good Luck!
smokedchevy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2001, 03:05 PM   #4 (permalink)
Chevyguy
Backyard Mechanic/Chemist
 
Chevyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Acton MA USA
Posts: 435
Lightbulb

During most of the model run of the 5.0 Mustangs Ford made 2 versions of the 302 HO and standard. In 84-85 the standard 302 was a CFI (throttle body injection) about 130 HP, earlier versions had feedback 2 barrel carbs. 86 - 91 were EFI motors many with the plenum pointing to the pass side those were 150 HP. At the least a milder cam, different computer calibration, possibly different head castings as well. Those motors were installed in Thunderbirds, LTDII, Crown Vics, Lincolns etc.. Trucks had their own versions all tuned more for torque but basically the same as the other 302's

The 302 HO was just that, higher output only in Mustangs, 85 Capri RS and Lincoln LSC's. We all know about the 82 - 95 Mustang 302 HO's

Some slightly tweaked CFI 302's were installed in LSC's and LTD II's (the "euro sedans") before the switch to EFI

What is my point, not sure, oh yeah, if you get a crown vic 302 it wont be good much more than a short block core, expect to junk the heads intake cam etc.

------------------
Frank W
90 5.0 LX coupe Daily driver. Silencer removed, K&N filter. Flexalite fan, 3 core radiator. FMS flywheel and Clutch, FMS blue wires Energy Suspension end links
88 Notch 2.3L 5 speed Parts/beater car My two Notchbacks

74 Chevy Laguna Type S-3 305 Finally fixed getting a 454 to put in garage
<A HREF="http://www.chevellepages.com/folingo" TARGET=_blank>www.chevellepages.
Chevyguy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2001, 05:11 PM   #5 (permalink)
red82gt
Sober voice of Reason
 
red82gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Kelowna, B.C., Canada
Posts: 1,514
Thumbs down

The non-HO motors have cast pistons with no valve reliefs-HO's had forged from 85-92 and hypereutectic from 93 on, corporate Ford lowflow heads rather than the E7TE's, a low lift and duration camshaft compared to the HO. The block is the only thing I'd consider using off one of these.
red82gt is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2001, 06:56 PM   #6 (permalink)
faststang90
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: baytown,tx,us
Posts: 127
Post

a ho use a roller cam, the lifter valley has 2 bolt holes in it to bolt down the spider that keeps them from turning and the dis has a bronze gear and also the ho and non ho does not fire the same
faststang90 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2001, 07:57 PM   #7 (permalink)
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,245
Post

It all depends on the years, basically. There are quite a few differences between models, and even differences within models back in the early/mid 80's.

The HO motor is exactly what it says though. High output. It makes significantly more hp than the standard version.

Quote:
Originally posted by smokedchevy:

Since your stang is an 84 you don't have mass air. I'd try to get a complete engine used with mass air and computer. That's why everyone is running so fast while attaining a good street car. The mass air and EECIV computer makes it possible. Speed density is o.k. with little bolt ons, but change the airflow like a small cam or such, the computer can't tell there's more airflow and the computer's tables are mixed up and the car is going to run crappy. Also your 84 engine does not have a roller cam. That is a big disadvantage. Try to rebuild an engine from 90-93. Make sure you research everything before you start buying.
MAF is not the reason the 5.0HO is quick. The MAF system will cost you 20hp vs a SD system stock for stock.

SD is capable of accepting cams, heads, intakes, and many other mods with tuning. If you have everything tuned and the fuel pressure adjusted correctly the car will run fine with a solid combo. 88workcar is running low 12's, 11's on NOS with his SD LX 5.0. His combo consists of a Cobra inake, E cam (had the B cam), Edelbrock aluminum heads, and some other goodies. The whole SD can't accept mods is some fairy tale. Some people have more problems with their SD cars than others, it's probably all in keeping the car tuned up, and making sure everything is put together right.

Why 1990-1993? 1988(CA), 1989(all) were MAF cars. They did a mild cam revision along with the addition of the MAF system, but it basically didn't change anything. The 1987-1992 engines are basically all the same. 1993 got cast hypereutic pistons instead of the forged units, and if I had a choice, I'd stick to the forged units.



[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 05-24-2001).]
Unit 5302 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2001, 09:08 PM   #8 (permalink)
Nic92LXConv50
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 78
Thumbs up

There's a good wealth of information in the above posts. I'll spare repeating it all over again to you, but these guys are right in what they're telling you. I'm just now finishing up putting heads/cam/intake on my non-HO motor in my coupe. I've had some major problems getting the pulleys to fit right (crank pulley has a different offset than the HO's). Also, the fuel rails were different. The FPR was on the opposite side, so I've had to buy/fabricate new fuel rails. It's pretty much been a major PITA, but the final results should justify it all.

------------------
1989 LX 5.0 Coupe
1992 LX 5.0 Convertible

Moderator SN95.com, Stangtec.com
Nic92LXConv50 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2001, 02:49 AM   #9 (permalink)
84stangLX
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Here's what i know about the HO engines compared to the non-HO:
HO engines originally came with the 351W camshaft, which had more lift and duration i believe (hence the 351 firing order), and later years used the 351 firing order, but with a roller camshaft (not sure when non-HO engines and 5.8's became roller cammed)
The HO came with valve reliefs as previously mentioned and forged aluminum pistons from '85 until '92 whereas non-HO were cast (as previously mentioned)
The HO engines came stock with Steel timing sprokets and double roller timing chains whereas the non-HO came with the silent type.
HO engines came with a reverse rotation water pump
HO engines came with better induction systems (all years) and better exhaust ('85+ for exhaust).
These are for the most part general statements but apply to nearly every year HO engine in most ways.
Hope this helped in some way.


------------------
'84 Mustang 5.0 LX
My car
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2001, 09:45 AM   #10 (permalink)
jerryIII
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

thx for the info.... My car just turned 100,000 and i'm pullin it this weekend to rebuild it... this will be my first solo rebuild.....

have all the parts located and ready for purchase, machine shop takes 3 days to prep the block and crank....

i do have some questions though...

at 10:1 compression, this motor would be ok on pump gas????

and the cam I don't have a clue, what would be a good duration and lift?? the following cam ok???

Duration at .006 Lift: Intake 280 Exhaust 290 Centerlines
Duration at .050 Lift: Intake 214 Exhaust 224 Lobe Separation: 112
Lift at Cam: Intake .295 Exhaust .310 Lift at Valve: Intake .472 Exhaust .496

thx
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2001, 10:04 AM   #11 (permalink)
QUIN
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Chillicothe, OH.
Posts: 1,289
Post

just as a point, ive never known anyone to have a 302 that didnt last to damn near 200,000. of course if your looking to upgrade, the rebuild is never a bad idea,,, but just wanted to point that out.
as for the cam, you could probably swing a little larger lift than that happily. not sure what your trying to do with the car. your on the right track with the dual pattern though and the 112 lobe seperation should be great for idle.
Q

------------------
Quin, 87 GT,306,forged pistons,edelbrock head\intak,steeda#18cam,1.7rr,MSD Blaster tfi coil,A9L,pro-m75mm,24#inj,accufab65mm,2.5"pipes,hooker headers,dynomax exhaust,3.73 gr,110 lph fp,180*therm,moroso cold air,ASP pullies, weld rims

See my engine on user rides.

I see your shwartz is as big as mine, now lets see how well you handle it!
QUIN is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2001, 12:20 PM   #12 (permalink)
jerryIII
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I'm just lookin to improve the performance, drive it to work every day, but still have the ability to give people a run for their money and I really love the sound of a nice cam...

the motor currently runs great, just started leakin oil really bad and the oil pressure goes to near 0 at idle, so for the money I may as well rebuild the motor....

------------------
Black, 84 GT, ground effects, shorty headers, dual exh., rear spoiler from a 87, just getting started...
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
whats the difference?? pedley Windsor Power 17 03-23-2004 05:17 PM
whats the difference between a 79-93 oil pan and a 94-95 oil pan?? jruppert Windsor Power 1 03-26-2003 10:06 PM
302 vs 302HO, difference?? jerryIII Windsor Power 12 08-05-2001 04:11 AM
TFS O-Ringer vs. Non O-Ringed Heads. Whats The Difference? BowTie Eater 5 Liter Windsor Power 3 02-08-2001 07:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 PM.


SEARCH