Almost any transmission/transfer case can be bolted to the 302. An NP435 with a NP205/203 doubler transfer case will bolt directly to it. You could never break it. This super basic 302 makes 350 ft-lbs. Even better it made over 325 ft-lbs at 2000 rpm. It's better than the original 352. http://sbftec...

All Mustang T5's had a 0.68 5th gear starting in '85. I would shoot for no less than 2200 rpm at 70 mph in 5th gear regardless of your tire height. A 255/60R15 is around 26.5" when sitting with a load. About 27" unloaded. Let's assume you have 28" tires. To get 2200 rpm at 70 mph you ...

From what I recall the kick down is needed for the C4 or C6 to work correctly, unless it has a full manual valve body.

My guess would be the market is not big enough for the engineering investment.

They're taller by about 1.3" and about 2" wider. They are way stronger. A 302 will split down the middle at around 500 hp. 351W's can live beyond 700 hp. They really shine with good heads and it's so easy to make them into a 408, it's silly not too. The only issue with a 351W based engine ...

A T5 would be your best bet. They are plentiful and not a lot of money to buy one. Try to find a 5.0 Mustang version around the early 90's. I think they were designated as WC or "World Class". Not sure on the years but a quick Internet search should yield several results. A T5 won't live ...

Sounds to me like you want a truck that falls someplace between a V8 Mustang street toy and a truck. Something to cruise around in. Go to a car show/cruise night. Go out to dinner. Drive to work once and a while, maybe all the time. Etc... But nothing you plan to race regularly and/or competitively....

Hey Rich, good point about the 351W as a starting point. I have no opposition to them. Guess I was impressed with how light a 302 could be made that I overlooked the 351. Would be nice indeed to have the extra grunt/torque of a 351's cubes. Would the extra 50 pounds of heft be far outweighed by the...

tjm73, I have a donor late 70s 302 in storage that appears to be a good core. I'll probably just rebuild it. I don't mind spending a few more bucks and getting some new aluminum cylinder heads. I like that aluminum heads and intake can shed 100 lbs off the front. I also like the idea of picking up ...

$350 and he pulls it so you only pick it up. Seems reasonable to me. Does that include the entire front dress? Because the Explorer front dress is unique to the Explorer/Mountaineer. It is the shortest overall length 302 Ford ever made. If it doesn’t have the front dress, don’t worry just run the Fo...

The arguments for a 331 being better than a 347 are left over from the early days when 347's were not as reliable. They are just as reliable today as long as you follow the guidelines for assembly. Oil control is an assembly issue not a design issue. Millions of SBC's have a similar pin in the ring ...

Cool. I'd run some shorty headers that clear the altered spark plug angles and fab up the rest of the exhaust. You might be able to use a Foxbody mid-pipe under the truck between the frame rails. Several guys in the Mustang world have made close to 300 hp with what you have and a stock 5.0 camshaft....

I found an offset spec on a technical drawing for 67-72 F100's on the fordification forum. It was spec'd at 0.44". I took it to mean +0.44". I would hazard a guess that the wheels are the same. Could be wrong.

I never said a word about using negative offset wheels. In fact I never said a word about using any particular wheel. Only that the rotor to rotor width was very close. As for using wheels other than OE, every change results in a give and take. If I swapped a Ranger frame I would run a 7" wheel...

I am talking about basic elementary mathematics. And the concept can't get any simpler. I am not trying to calculate a trackwidth. I am talking how far is it from where one wheel bolts on to where the other bolts on. +12mm is right there in the drawing and shows clear as day that the +12mm is from t...

Once again, you are contradicting yourself! Might want to verify your info. You correctly state that positive offset does move the mounting surface outboard, IN RELATION TO WHEEL CENTERLINE, which is now moved inboard, thus narrowing the track! I believe you will find that positive offset positions...

I did mention that the Ranger wheel was -12mm in another thread. But that was a typo and I changed it when I saw my mistake. If you are familiar with offset you know that positive offset moves the mounting surface out toward the outside of the vehicle and negative offset moves it in toward the frame...

I have been poking around the site learning what I can, reading about a bunch of things. One of the things I was looking to learn about was frame swaps. To my surprise I don't see anyone using the SLA Ranger chassis. The longbox Ranger has a wheelbase of 117.5" and the supercab has a 125.7"...

If you stick with a carbureted engine you can pick up almost 70 hp over the "rated" 208 hp 352 and also gain about 10-15 ft-lbs at the same 2000 rpm but also have the torque continue to climb to around 350 ft-lbs from 3000-4000 rpm. This is with using 60's era parts. Stepping up to "m...

I found this article on using F-150 front brakes a year or so back and bookmarked it. http://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/installation-of-manual-or-power-brakes-disc-brakes-in-a-1957-1964-f100/ A part of me thinks that if I do buy a 61-64 I want to keep it rolling on the OE straight axle. A lot less...