Talk:Ford small block engine

Boss 302 claimed power potential?

I know the Boss 302 was a pretty impressive engine, but I question the validity of this statement: "Removal of the limiter could allow nearly 400 hp (298 kW) at 6500 rpm or more, but voided the Ford warranty."

So, only (supposedly) 310 horsepower at 6000 RPM, but 400 horsepower at only 500 RPM more, from 302 cubic inches, naturally aspirated, with 1960s technology, delivered to the consumer? This seems incredibly unlikely, even in the pre-1972 horsepower measurements. Cleveland heads are good, but not that good. Does anyone have any information to back this? I'm otherwise tempted to remove that sentence.--King V 15:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitive cc size of 5.0?

I see both 4949 and 4942 cc listed for the "5.0" engine. Anyone have a definitive source? --SFoskett 01:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

The actuall cc conversion of 302 cubic inches is equal to 4,948.89 cubic centimeters or 4949cc/4.95L rounded up.

302 X 16.387064 = 4948.893328

A cubic centimeter = 1 milliliter = .001 Liter

Since the rules for rounding state that if the digit to the right of the number you want to round to in a fraction is a 5 6 7 8 or 9 you round UP. Thus 4.95 gets rounded up to 5.0 and not 4.9 as contended in this article.

There are two reasons your logic fails. Firstly, 4.948893328 would round down to 4.9. Without that added intermediate rounding step to 4.95, even your own logic would conclude that it's 4.9L instead of 5.0L. Why are you rounding 4.948893328 to 4.95 before applying the rounding rule you state in your last paragraph? The digit to the right of the number you want to round to is clearly 4, not 5.

However, even that is irrelevant, because your basis for the math is incorrect. The 302 is not actually 302 cubic inches. Displacement is (pi × r² × h × cylinders), which becomes (pi × 4 × 3 × 8), thus pi × 96, thus 301.59289 cubic inches.

Using 16.387064 cc per cubic inch, we get 4942.222068 cc, which, if you were going to add that extra rounding step (going 3 places past the decimal to 2 past the decimal to 1, instead of doing a direct rounding), still comes to 4.9L.

--King V 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Acutally King V they DID do the math for 302 cid did they not? And yes to round correctly you start at the furthest digit out and keep rounding in. It's more accurate. And if you apply the rounding rules to 301.59289 you get.. oh look... 302. Please stop removing Displacement that actually exsists. 4.9 is as incorrect as 5.0. By the way, 4.9L = 299.01634609 cid or 2.5 cid less than actual. It would be more proper to call the 302 Windsor a 4.95L. SternLX 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't start at the furthest digit out and round them inward one at a time. Please see the rules of rounding, particularly the section titled "Rounding to the Nearest..." on this page.

Further, you don't round off cubic inches, then convert that rounded number to metric, then again round off the metric value. You take the original values, convert, then do your rounding at the very end.

I'm not "removing displacement that actually exists", but rather, applying the correct mathematical rules to rounding. Let's keep accuracy here in Wikipedia and leave the marketing gimmicks to the car companies.

--King V 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Firing order

Around 1985~1986, Ford changed the 302 to the 351W firing order, so it's important when changing camshafts to know the right firing order for the engine.

Cam and fuel delivery

The steel roller cam was introduced in 1985, not 1986. It came for certain on the 5.0 HO engine in the Mustang. Not relavent to this page, but the rear end was still the old 7.5" which wasn't upgraded to the 8.8 until 1986. I'm not certain about other Ford models, but sequential EFI didn't get introduced to the Mustang until 1987. I left that portion unchanged.

I was under the impression that both the regular 5.0 and the HO version got sequential EFI, at least in the cars (not trucks), from 1986 onward, and that the only difference between the 1986 5.0 HO and 1987 was the switch to the E7 heads. Don't hold me to this, though.--King V 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I was thinking of the prior year. It was sequential EFI in '86, but carbureted in 85 for manuals and CFI for the automatic. BTW the E7 heads you mentioned were the truck heads. 1986 was the attempt to used the "swirl" design that failed to acheive the power goals Ford wanted. They scrapped them and had to use the E7 since the '85 molds were gone.

Just a few notes worth mentioning...

This is very nicely written, but it has one major flaw; the 351W was the only one of the bunch that was actually a "Windsor", according to Ford. The others are, again, according to Ford, "Windsor style" engines.

Whether or not "all SBF blocks were superior in strength to most late model, lightweight castings" is debatable, but one thing that's not was one of Fords biggest weaknesses with their engines; not enough head bolts. Suggesting the Ford small block is stronger than other makes is misleading because they don't handle boost very well without modification. They blow head gaskets like no one else. Ford engines are not necessarily the best choice to modify, except of course for the 429/460, which can be bored and stroked to give more displacement than any other American production car engine (810ci).

As far as the displacement, the 5.0L is actually a 4.9L, when rounded properly, but Ford didn't want their V8 confused with their 4.9L inline six truck engine, so they called it a 5.0L.

Also worth mentioning is that as of 1988, the 5.0L block used in the trucks was the exact same one that was used in the Mustangs (it was a roller block), but it wasn't fitted with a roller cam until 1992. In other words, you aren't limited to Mustangs if you want a roller 5.0L engine.

Take care,

          -Chris

PKRWUD 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a few points:

1 - Whether or not the head gaskets blow due to insufficient head bolts has nothing to do with the strength of the block itself. The block might well be capable of handling far more abuse than can ever be thrown at it in a practical sense because of the weakness of the head bolts (er, rather, insufficient numbers). In essence, an analogy to what you're saying is "his arms aren't that strong because his legs are weak."

2 - As to the 4.9L vs 5.0L designation, I hardly think anyone is going to confuse an inline six with a V8. I understood it to be a marketing issue more than anything else that made Ford decide to call it the 5.0. That label simply sells better. Don't hold me to that, though, because I can't for the life of me find the reference where that was mentioned.

3 - Since the 351 didn't exist until after some of the smaller displacement Windsors did, then what did Ford call them? Isn't the only difference between the 351W and the other blocks simply a matter of deck-height? Why would one be called a Windsor and not the other?

--King V 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. Time flies, and all that.

According to “The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference and Performance Handbook”, by Al Kirschenbaum, Conventions can be confusing. Enthusiasts typically refer to Ford’s popular V-8s by names that describe the combustion chamber/valve arrangement in the engine’s cylinder heads. In enthusiast parlance, Ford Windsor engines are V-8s built with inline valves, while Cleveland powerplants have staggered, compound-angle (canted) valves. Ford understandably prefers to apply the Windsor and Cleveland nomenclature to engines produced by those particular plants. According to the factory way of thinking, the Fox Mustang’s 5-liter V-8 was manufactured only by Ford’s Cleveland Engine Plant, so therefore it can not be a “Windsor V-8.” Enthusiasts see inline valves and know it can not be called a “Cleveland.” For this reason, this guide refers to the 5-liter V-8 only as a member of Ford’s small block V-8 family and not by its popular (but formally inappropriate) “Windsor” designation. The Ford FRPP catalog refers to the 289 and 302 V-8s as “Windsor-style” engines. This series of small blocks has also been referred to as Ford’s ‘90°V” powerplant family.

The 302 cubic-inch engine was first referred to by Ford as a “5.0-liter” V-8 (using metric rather than U.S. customary notation) when it was part of the 1978 Mustang II King Cobra package. Mathematically, the engine’s displacement actually measures closer to 4.9 liters than 5.0, but Ford understandably wanted to avoid confusion with the Cleveland Engine Plant’s other 4.9-liter engine, the dependable 300 cid inline-six.

PKRWUD 23:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that's information I've been waiting to see for a long time. Thanks. Gzuckier 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Windsor" incorrectly used

Many people call almost all small block Ford engines, following the Y block series, "Windsor" engines. This is incorrect however. The one and only "Windsor" engine is the 351W engine. The reason for this is all of the other small block ford engines were built in the Cleveland pland, while the 351W was built in the Windsor plant. Hotrod2005 04:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite right, but you're on the right track. The 351W was the only "Windsor" engine, but it was not the only small block built at the Windsor Engine Plant Number Two. From 1980 through 1982, the 4.2L V8 was built there, and starting in 1994, the 5.0L truck engines were built there as well.

PKRWUD 01:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions?

Can someone come up with physical measurements of the blocks themselves? Height, weight, etc which would be especially useful to people looking to swap engines. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.107.17 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)