foothilltom

Hi guys, doing a 302 to 351 engine swap on my 69 coupe (standard hood w/faux scoop) and I'm sitting her totally unsure if my setup is going to fit under the hood. Does anybody know generically how much space there is between, say, an Edelbrock Performer manifold and the hood? Sadly, I didn't take any good measurements before removing the original 302 and the current motor is sitting on an engine stand in the garage, so I feel like this is all going to come down to installing the motor and finding out the hard way, but I'm hopeful there is some way to get out in front of this. This drama all started when I bought an HEI dizzy from Summit (still wondering if this was a good idea) as I had no original dizzy to use. This thing is gigantic with the coil built into the top. Mocking it all up, I would need a 1" carb spacer plus the 1/2" air cleaner spacer that came with it. The air cleaner seems to be low profile compared to my original, but I'm sure this setup is going to be at least 1" higher than my previous setup. In summary: Performer 351-W intake, Holly carb, "oval shaped" air cleaner from Summit, HEI dizzy Including a photo with arrows pointing to the two spacers (1" block of wood and the plastic space that came with the air cleaner) Thoughts and opinions are very much appreciated. Tom

Hi Barnett. My answers are not great because the Stang was down south for 6 years and I have to rely on what I experienced for just a few months I had it (in late Winter) before I pulled the motor and began this quest. I would say it was running hot to my way of thinking. It "felt" hot if you get my drift. The temp gauge never got into dangerous country. I wound up flushing the cooling system months ago and thought that helped quite a bit. (Car has lived most of its life in Northern Cali, some years on Southern Cali. It can get quite warm here, but it's not desert hot) It did in fact smoke quite badly until I replaced the carb with a new Holly 600 I had lying around from a previous project. I attributed the smoking to a rich mixture as the smoke was smelly and greasy (not blue-ish). To me, not indicative of burning oil but rich. After the carb rebuild (and general tune-up), I felt like the main problems were general low-power and a "loping" at idle (that didn't exist 10 years ago, so it isn't a cam). The loping forced me to set the idle up beyond what I'd like (around 900 RPM) just to keep 'er running at various stop lights around town. The motor leaked a lot of oil, but I don't think it is getting out into the exhaust. Honestly, the leaking was huge motivation to pull the motor as it appeared to be leaking from everywhere. Engine bay and undercarriage or gross to an annoying degree, not to mention the mess on my driveway. I'm not sure how clear I've been since the removal and tear-down, but the only oddities I am sure of at the moment are mismatching but probably not different heads, a fairly loose timing chain, .060" over bores, low-compression pistons. This week I plan to get into the rotating gear and see if there's any signs of distress or poor-quality build. If I were to stumble on a good 351W soon, I would probably lose interest in this 302. But until then, I keep playing with the idea of just solving any obvious problems on the cheap and taking another whack at running that motor. As I say, I'm not really interested in throwing good money after bad, but if this old motor just needs rings (I assume the oil ring is doing its job), new timing chain, and some valve work, this is all stuff I could do in my garage and I could probably justify the expense. But the down-side is I really don't know if I'm just putting lipstick on a pig and would be better off just turning my back on it. Like I said, I have time to think on this while I'm looking for a replacement and I'm maybe a bit antsy to get this car back on the road. I appreciate your questions and advice. Tom

Ok, I hear you. I'm going to invest/borrow a quality tester and repeat along with a more careful leak-down test. This motor wasn't anything to write home about, but maybe I condemned it too quickly with the low compression numbers on my 70's vintage gauge (of unknown brand). There was obviously more to the story, but the low compression was the main factor in motivating me to take it out and start this conversation.

It is indeed .060" over. And it's a 1968 Torino/Fairlane block in a 69 Mustang. That 2nd part I knew. Regarding my other thread, I wouldn't dream of doing any machining on this block or throwing any machine-shop money at it, but I am still toying with the notion of just trying to solve some of the complaints I had (low compression, poor idle, leaks) with a ring job, timing chain, and new gaskets. I've probably not been super clear nor am I really super savvy on all this, but part of me wants to salvage what the boy has. I want to get him road-worthy and the Stang out of my garage :) If money were no object, this block would have been on craigs yesterday. But as it is, I'm not having a ton of luck finding a quality 351w rebuild out there nor am I getting super good reports on crate motors (with the exception of certain builders that would be out of my budget). That's what is putting me on the fence about a super low-budge operation. Probably not smart. Like I said, I need shoving to a different motor. I appreciate you helping me out with these heads. So, I guess back in whatever decade the owners did this, they just chucked on two heads that were functionally equivalent but in no way matching. I don't know if that would indicate a sloppy rebuild or what. I guess when you stir in the .060 over business, they probably weren't super concerned about longevity. I should just skulk away from this motor, but other than the stuff I've reported, I don't have physical evidence that the bottom end is in bad shape. In your opinion, would you not even drive on a .060 over? Tom

Hey, thanks for responding. I'm in Livermore and wondering where you might suggest one find a 351w roller (other than craigs, which i'm scouring like a brillo pad). Have spent some time at Pick/Pull when I lived near Sacto, but I don't know what the hip spot down here in the East Bay might be. Any recommendations are highly appreciated.

They are dished on top. I'll get a photo if that helps. So, based on that, would you say 95 lbs compression across the board is relatively expected or indicates something out of whack?

And thanks for the tip about testing for leaking. I don't know if you've seen my other thread, but I'm at this cross-roads of whether I should throw my time at this 302. If the heads are "functionally" the same, that wouldn't count as a strike against it.

Ok, I think I have it. On the 289 (Windsor) head, the date code is "8B27". On the 302 (Cleveland), it appears to be "8B1". Would that make sense? If there are other codes casted in there, I'm not seeing them.

Updated the post with the right photos. Where would a brother find the date codes? I'm staring intently at the photos...maybe I need to go back out in the daylight tomorrow and look for smaller castings?

Hey guys, I took some good photos. I hope they help identify what I have here. In case the pictures are too difficult to see, I can say the following with confidence: The 289 head is from Windsor Factory and only has C80E and 7A casted on the valve side. The 302 head has the Cleveland Factory casting and has C80E as well as a J. So clearly these heads are not "matching" but I'm not sure if they are functionally different. They sure came from different places. My dial caliper only goes to 1/64 inch resolution and it appears to me the valve diameter is the same for both heads. I'm less skilled at measuring the combustion chamber, but they also appear to be the same. Let me know if the photos aren't useful and I'll zoom in. Valve side: https://photos.app.goo.gl/KnApKw86hSdAZyj22 https://photos.app.goo.gl/iRN9EIMSCGdtE58T2 Rocker side: https://photos.app.goo.gl/hBEL7WavyfwpGpxb8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZmquHdqLRFyDcew53

I need to go get some close-up photos in the daylight tomorrow. Will post, but thanks for responding. Other thread:

Hi guys, some background to provide context to my questions far below. Restored a junker 1969 coupe about 11 years ago with my then 14 year old son. Plain jane, 302/2V, C4. We focused on body work, interior, paint, etc. back in those days and never really tore into the drivetrain except to remove the motor about 10 years ago to replace a cracked shock tower. In other words, pretty ignorant about the history of the moving parts. We made modest upgrades (4V manifold, holley 600, pertronix, just simple stuff). I would say motor was never "strong" but started reliably and got the boy from A to B. 10 years later, the Mustang is back with me. Boy has no place to store it but has plans one day to make it his daily driver. So, my fatherly instincts have kicked in and I'm back to wrenching on the old girl. The motor has been leaking oil for what seems like years to me (engine bay and undercarriage coated) and I'd say the motor is generally just not running well. Sorry for the lack of specifics, but I'd describe the behavior as under-powered, poor idle, a noticeable "loping", runs hot, and some gray-ish colored exhaust. Did the diagnostics and tune-ups that I'm capable of. It's properly timed, makes good vacuum, and has low/consistent compression (95 lbs give or take all the way around). It runs, but I wouldn't trust it as a daily driver in Los Angeles area (where boy lives, I'm in Northern Cali). I've pulled the motor and breaking it down to find some "smoking gun". First oddity was cylinder heads with different castings: "302" and "289". I asked about that in a separate thread. 2nd surprise was noting the bores are .060 over. The PO was a doof and had no history on the car, but clearly this motor has been rebuilt once or twice (or thrice). Timing chain was quite loose. Bores looked "good" to my untrained eye (no scoring or obvious signs of distress). Rotating assembly seems good from 10 feet as I haven't pulled the crank or cam and done any close-up measurements. With all that...to my dilemma: I'd like to have confidence in the Stang so my boy can take it with him and Dad can retire as his mechanic. I'm getting old and it's high time he learn what it means to own a 50 year old vehicle. So, I'd very much like to have one last rodeo with my son and work his Stang back into daily driver status. The question is: swap the motor entirely, do a rebuild, or just "freshen" the motor (rings, gaskets, prayers). The biggest limitation is dough. I don't want to throw my money at the car as my 25 year old boy needs to experience what it means to own a car. He's just barely getting by (long story, this generation confuses me) and doesn't have endless money to put into the car. I'd say the budget is $2000. I'm happy to donate my time and it gives us a reason to get together. When I saw the .060 over, my first reaction was "game over". From what I've read, there's not a whole lot of room left and that size bore may already be part of the troubles. The heads with different castings might be a non-issue, but it would blow my mind if they are functionally different. I realize I'm asking this question badly, so I will try to get to the point now. Based on what I've said so far, would you be inclined to: 1. "Freshen up" the existing 302 (rings, gaskets). Solves leaks and possibly the low compression and pray that it runs better 2. Rebuild existing 302 in a bigger way (requiring machine shop and all that goes with that) 3. Swap the motor. Thinking a 351W swap for example. Make effort to re-use parts as I can. And as a variant of #3, I'm wondering if folks have opinions on crate 351W from places like Summit vs. shopping around on craigs looking for somebody's awesome project motor that just never got where it was going. I hope I've provided enough information to at least get some initial opinions. I just need a hard SHOVE in one direction or another. I don't want to put several hundred in the existing motor only to be told it's a lost-cause, but if there's optimism that the motor is worth salvaging, I'm open to the rebuild idea. Thanks very much for listening and hope to get some opinions. Tom

Hey guys. Was surprised to see two different castings on the driver/passenger heads on my boy's 69 coupe 302 . Wondering if you can help me determine if there's any real difference between them. One head has "302" stamped on the valve cover side. Turning it over, I see "C8OE" with a "J". Research suggests this is : C8OE-J 68-70 302 Valves 1.78, 1.45 The other head is stamped "289" and "7A" on the valve cover side and a smaller but readable "C80E" stamped on the other side. No letter designations that I could find. This makes it hard for me to figure out if these heads are the same fundamentally. The motor isn't original and the casting reveals a 1971 Torino/Fairlane origin. I only mention that as there clearly wasn't a purist doing the engine swap back in the day. If these have different specifications, it may explain a lot of the weird running behavior this motor has (separate thread on that). Would love to hear any confirmation that these heads are different based on what I've reported. God bless, Tom

Hey Bob, there will be pictures, sho' nuff in good time. I'm moving into a big decision phase with the Stang and will need group wisdom. Stay tuned.

Hey guys. It's been about 8 years since I darkened the doorway of this great forum. Hope everybody is still alive and kicking. This game called life has unfolded and the 69 302 coupe my son and I built together oh so many moons ago has once again landed in my garage. My son is 25 now and off living his life and has no place for the stang. So it sits with me now. Bwah-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Anyway, I would like to get back on the horse (pun intended) and start asking some questions. Just thought I should say "howdy" first before just shamelessly picking your brains. Hope all is well. FoothillTom

Based on what you've described, the return spring is the next best suspect, but the "jerky" behavior you initially reported doesn't quite square with an overly energetic spring. You'd think it would just be consistently harder to open the throttle. One way to find out...swap out a weaker spring! Best of luck. Tom

Based on what you've described, the return spring is the next best suspect, but the "jerky" behavior you initially reported doesn't quite square with an overly energetic spring. You'd think it would just be consistently harder to open the throttle. One way to find out...swap out a weaker spring! Best of luck. Tom

Perhaps pictures of your throttle cable setup (coming out of the firewall, the angle at which it comes in to the carb, the bracket that holds it, and the attachment to the carb itself) would help. The geometry of the cable bending toward the carb could cause the stiffness you are describing. Can you try the experiment mikem suggested? This mystery can be solved by removing variables in a controlled way. And speaking of variables, it's unlikely, but perhaps the bushing in your throttle pedal is bad and causing it to hang up? Good luck.

Perhaps pictures of your throttle cable setup (coming out of the firewall, the angle at which it comes in to the carb, the bracket that holds it, and the attachment to the carb itself) would help. The geometry of the cable bending toward the carb could cause the stiffness you are describing. Can you try the experiment mikem suggested? This mystery can be solved by removing variables in a controlled way. And speaking of variables, it's unlikely, but perhaps the bushing in your throttle pedal is bad and causing it to hang up? Good luck.

Your brother sounds like a fair, honest, nice guy. $1K over what he paid is a smoking good deal for you. Above all else, family first. If the deal gets sideways, walk away from it and never think of it again. There are many cars out there for you. My sage advice. Cough. Ahem.

Your brother sounds like a fair, honest, nice guy. $1K over what he paid is a smoking good deal for you. Above all else, family first. If the deal gets sideways, walk away from it and never think of it again. There are many cars out there for you. My sage advice. Cough. Ahem.

Sounds to me like a bad turn signal switch. This little guy is located behind your steering wheel and has many circuits coming through it including your tail lights, front/rear signals, and more. If you do replace it, be very careful how you match up the 9 or 10 wires coming out of that bad boy. Turn signal swtich, IMHO, based on the above. Though there are a number of other simpler explanations: bad ground, bad headlamp switch, bad bulbs, etc. Best to rule things out in some logical sequence using a test meter. I can't imagine they are soldered, but POs have done stranger things. I'd try prying the plug off the headlight gently and if you're convinced it's permanently attached, you will need to locate your wire cutters. Your "parking lamps" in the front are also your turn signals which are controlled by the flasher. It's possible your flasher is bad, but it's best to test all this with a meter before you start shot-gunning new parts. If it looks "factory", it could be for a trunk light option, the license plate marker light (this should be obvious). Best to get a meter and test for 12V with the light switch in the first, then 2nd position, with the turn signal activated, etc. A picture of the plug along the harness will also be helpful to identify it. Seriously, you should consider getting familiar with basic wiring, the wiring diagram for our 69s, and a volt meter. These skills are indispensable when debugging electrical issues... ...or it could be a low battery as Burn suggested...be systematic and you'll find the problems! Good luck! Tom

Here's a pretty simple test to rule out the gauge (and the associated electronics): Remove the plug connected to the fuel tank sending unit on the underside of the tank. It should pull right off. With the key in the ON position, touch the metal part of the connector you just removed to a good ground. You may have to pull the rubber sleeve out of the way if it has one. If the needle goes all the way to full, you most likely have a bad sending unit. After sitting 8 years, the float could have developed a hole and it's just sitting at the bottom of your tank (more or less). If that's the case, drain your tank, remove the sending unit and check it out. It's a pretty simple repair. Be sure to use jack stands. Good luck. Tom

+1 on Mach1Rider. I just stared at my parts manual some more and there is another nut that is VERY hard to reach/see that comes off from the inside. And it was stupid of me to say it "is not rusted". How would I know? I meant to say, it is probably not rusted given how much hardware holds this baby in place. FWIW, it took me a LONG time to get my booster off. I would up removing the seat to minimize all the contorting. Get yourself in there good and tight and find that bastard nut. Good luck!

You should probably get a parts & body illustrations or some kind of repair manual. Getting the booster off is back-breaking if your seats are in. The bolts that come off from the engine side are just the beginning. You have to disconnect the power booster from the brake pedal and at least 3 (possibly 4) bolts from the inside of the car. Your booster is not rusted to your firewall...it's just held in by lots of stuff. Good luck.