Talk:Ford small block engine

message: I believe the reason that the Ford 302 was called a 5.0 was to avoid confusion with the Ford pickup and truck 
300 straight six that they called  a 4.9.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyderdavee (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

message: The early design engines showed a weakness in the big end of the rod so Ford quit machining the lubrication squirt hole and revised the bolt clamping to solve the problem? This was not just isolated to the 351 (no 351s were made with the weaker type rods? due to that problem being solved earlier on?), where the rod revision is mentioned, but should be discussed earlier in the article in the appropriate chronological order of the engine's history?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.212.177 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early connecting rod revision 

message: The Boss 351 has a very brief description saying it's a crate motor, and the link goes to an article about it that describes it as a Cleveland motor.
Since it is neither a production engine, nor, according to the link, a Windsor engine, shouldn't the whole Boss 351 section be removed?--King V (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boss 351 shouldn't be here, should it? 

message: 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)
replies: text: In which case you're doing a very bad job of comparing apples and oranges. If the 310 horsepower at 6000 RPM is official, but you're saying that 400 horsepower at 6500 RPM is probably real, but not officially stated, then the comparison is completely meaningless.  I'm aware of what technology wasn't available at the time, but really, 10 second street cars?  Not from an as-delivered-by-the-factory engine to a customer in a dealer showroom.  This is an encyclopedia, and not really an appropriate place to speculate on what some engine or other might or might not have been doing.  Further, where, ANYWHERE, can you show an engine of any design, naturally aspirated, that produces at 29% increase in horsepower by increasing the RPM by only 8.3%?  What you appear to be suggesting is impossible.--King V (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boss 302 claimed power potential? 

message: This could go down below but it sort of goes along with this last posting above mine. About the 4.9L vs. 5.0L thing, why is it an argument as to what's technically correct when the company that made the engine typically referred to the engine as a 5.0L V8? Shouldn't that end the argument? Ford did put 5.0 badges on a number of Mustangs for a reason, right? I understand that 4.949 is not at least 5.000 but isn't it more important to refer to the engine as it is commonly known? Making a sidenote that the displacement is not technically 5.0 liters is fine, but when I see people on Wikipedia saying "Ford car X had the 4.9L V8" I think "what 4.9L V8?" When referring to the metric displacement of the Ford 302ci V8s, ANY of the car guys that I know call it "a 5.0" not "a 4.9". The engine may not technically be a 5.0 liter engine (as if 4.949 is so far off anyway), but that's how the engine was referred to historically and that's how it should continue to be referred to. I believe that referring to the engine as having a 5.0 liter displacement in articles should be standardized (or 302 cubic inches if the article prefers it, such as with older Fords before metric displacements were commonly used in marketing). Making a sidenote that the engine may technically have a 4.9 liter displacement is fine if it's relevant to say in the article. Otherwise, any inquiry to the true nature of the 5.0/302 V8 can be addressed by its main article here. Just my $0.02 (or £0.03 using another measurement ;P) --MN12Fan (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Ford's marketeering and advertising does not end the question. This is an encyclopædia. We report engine displacements as they actually, physically are, with appropriate mathematical expression. We do not substitute fibs from any particular company's promotions-and-PR department for actual, real displacement. We have very good uniform provisions for the expression of engine displacement in all automotive articles on Wikipedia. In cases like this one, the 4.9-litre actual, 5.0-advertised discrepancy is cleanly and clearly handled by those provisions: the actual displacement is expressed, and the advertised displacement is treated as part of the engine's name (designation): The  Ford Windsor 5.0 V8 engine. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. I understand that when writing or ammending an article it is appropriate to refer to an engine in full detail, as you did with " Ford Windsor 5.0 V8 engine", but what if you have to mention the engine multiple times in the same article. Is it fair to say " Ford Windsor 5.0 V8 engine" initially and then informally refer to it as "5.0 L Windsor", "5.0 L V8", "302 Windsor" et cetera with each additional instance in the article? My point in all of this is to emphasize how the engine is commonly known without compromising the accuracy of the engine's description.--MN12Fan (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good and fair question. Probably best to pick one or the other: either refer only to the engine's actual displacement ("the 4.9 L V8") or, probably easier, refer only to the engine's numerical sales designation, without a litre unit abbreviation ("the 5.0 V8"). —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After the initial 5.0 Windsor , it would be fair to say "the 5.0 V8" or some variation without the litre abbreviation for most of the article.  One may want to repeat the 5.0 Windsor  a second time in the article if the context is right.  Oilpanhands (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Oh, and I like the subheading ;).--MN12Fan (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable.  The initial argument, by the way, was because someone objected to the fact that the article states that the engine actually displaces 4.9 liters, and appears to have thought that 4.9L was a misrepresentation of the engine's actual displacement.  Using 5.0 because that's the name of the engine is fine, but insisting that it actually displaces 5.0 Liters is problematic, for the reasons Scheinwerfermann stated above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by King V (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford calls it a 5.0

message: Ford specified piston diameter of around 4.000-4.005", and then specified bore from that piston, so that the bore diameter could be anywhere from 4.0014" to 4.0078" and still be in specification.  Average is 4.0045", which with a 3.0" nominal crankshaft stroke is 4953cc.
I do not have a source for the 1978 5.0L (or any other year).
Eljamoquio (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The published cc size of the 5.0, and by extension, the 302, is 4,942 cc.  That's per Ford. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 1968, nominal sizing was more likely 5.0L than 4.9L 

message: 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.
The FO for the 302 HO was actually changed a bit earlier.
Around 1982 would be more accurate.
Another thing you need to consider is that the firing order only changed on HO engines! Non-HO 302s/5.0s continued with the 'old' FO.
The 'new' FO relocated stresses on the crankshaft to spread the load out and effectively make the crank stronger. One could argueably put a 351w or HO cam in a 'regular' SBF and effectively make the engine stronger with only a cam swap.
Anyway, the 351w FO is only used on specific 302s built during the years in question. Not all.
A far more important tech item to know is that ALL SBFs changed flywheel/flexplate and dampner balance in 1982! The Windsor was NOT changed! Only the SBF balance. This tidbit will damage parts/engine if not addressed. The FO will only inconvienence on one occasion until a couple wires are swapped. Dave 65.0.158.174 (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, when Ford changed to roller lifters in the 5.0, all 5.0 engines used the 351W firing order. Bizzybody (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firing order 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cam and fuel delivery 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dimensions? 

message: This whole article needs major repair for the following reasons.
I my opinion, Australia has a lot to do with the misinformation & confusion, associated with the terms Windsor V8 & the 4.9 moniker.
Firstly for our American friends, I’ll give a brief history of these engines in Australia.
The first Small Block Ford V8s to be seen in our country were in the ‘Compact’ Fairlanes from 1962 to 1964.  These were cars assembled here from Canadian-sourced CKD packs & featured the 260 ci & 289 ci versions, I don’t think we got the 221 ci V8 in Australia, but somebody more knowledgeable than I, may be able to correct me on this. The next versions we received were fitted to our locally built Falcons & Fairlanes in the 1966 & 1967 model years. These were 289 ci engines in both 2-barrel & 4-barrel versions. The 289 V8 was also seen in a small run of CKD Mustangs assembled here in at that time. For the 1968 model year we got the 302 (in 2 & 4 barrel). For 1969 we got the 302 (2-barrel), but now the 351 Windsor (4-barrel) was fitted as the performance engine. For 1970 (& 1971) the new Cleveland 351 replaced the 351W, while the 302 soldiered on. For 1972, Ford Australian began casting blocks & building the Cleveland style motor here. 
Note: Australia did get the 221ci engine. Ford Australia didn't start casting Cleveland engine blocks until 1976, made heads but not blocks in 1971. Ford Australia did get 260ci 289ci engines as said but the numbers were low over all compared to what the Americans were doing with these engines.
To avoid the costly & confusing procedure of building one motor here (the 351C) & importing another (the 302 Small Block), they built 2 different sized versions of the Cleveland, a 351 & de-stroked 302, which was unique to Australia. The 302 ‘Cleveland’ used all the components from the 351C with the exception of new crankshaft & pistons to suit. Unlike the USA, where I believe the 351 Cleveland ceased production around 1973, our two Cleveland engines remained in production up to 1983 & were stockpiled & still seen in production F Series trucks until 1985/86.
Now we get to the crux of the issue. Because we had two different 302 V8s in the same era, we had to name them. The Cleveland already had a name but what about the Small Block ? Australia already knew a Small Block as the Chev V8, so we couldn’t use that name, so they erroneously called it the 302 Windsor because it shared many design characteristics with the real Windsor V8, the 351.  The earlier engines (221 & 289) were also retrospectively  (& incorrectly) named Windsor V8s. Since that time, all non-Cleveland Small Block Ford V8s in Australia have been called Windsors.
The 4.9/5.0 thing is another Australian initiative. When the 302 V8 was first seen in the 1968 Falcon, Ford badged it as the 5.0 V8. Earlier that same year, GM-Holden was selling the 307 Small Block Chev V8, badged as the 5 Litre V8, so Ford just followed suit. The metric system was soon to be introduced in Australia, so the auto companies were just getting trendy. Strangely enough, a year or two later both automakers reverted to imperial measure & the 302 was again called the 302. In the mid-70s the Government made metric measure compulsory, so Ford (& Holden) again badged their engines in litres. At that time Holden’s ‘performance’ V8 was the 308 ci unit, now badged as their 5.0 Litre V8. Ford had the 302 & 351, with the 351 as the ‘performance’ option. Ford’s 302 was down on power when compared with the Holden 308, so they badged the 302 as the 4.9 Lire V8 so as direct comparison was avoided & this stayed until it ceased production in 1983. The 351 was badged the 5.8 Litre V8 & it had no equal from GM-Holden at that time. So there you have it. The whole 4.9/5.0 naming debacle was caused by two separate branches of Ford (USA & Australia), doing different things at different times. (Terrybebb (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding to the Confusion

message: Among the many parts Ford offered through their Motorsport catalog were roller camshaft bearings. For the FE series, they were direct replacements for the standard plain bearings. For the Windsor engines the cam bore had to be enlarged. A hard steel camshaft was also required as the hard needle bearings would quickly wear an iron camshaft. Provision for getting pressurized oil past the splash lubricated roller cam bearings was left to the installer. Bizzybody (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Motorsport parts. 

message: In the 302 as used in the Mustang II, Ford used two different combustion chamber sizes and two different styles of piston. 1975 and 1976 used dish top pistons and a smaller combustion chamber size, but not as small as some earlier SBF heads. For 1977 and 1978 the pistons were switched to flat top (as used in some 1960's SBF engines) and the combustion chamber size was increased to keep the compression ratio down, but IIRC slightly higher than the prior two years. All the heads had Thermactor AIR passages and bumps in the exhaust ports, with the air supply being fed in via a pipe to ports in the back ends of the heads. To keep side to side interchangeability, the AIR ports were threaded and closed end threaded inserts were used for accessory mounting at the front ends. (Someone should get a side by side image comparing AIR heads to ones without that.) That's how it was in the Mustang II, dunno if Ford used the same heads and pistons on the 302 in other vehicles those four years. Makes for an easy power boost by swapping 1975-76 heads onto a 1977-78 302. Bizzybody (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads and pistons. 

message: I noticed that Wikipedia does not have a page on the Small Block Ford (SBF). Today I set the page up, as a simple redirect to this page (Ford Windsor engine).  However, in my opinion, I would like to rename this page as "Small Block Ford", and set up individual pages for each motor considered a SBF, such as pages for "289 Hi-Po" (and I'm surprised that Wikipedia does not have a separate page for it) the iconic 5.0L motor (yes, it's different from a 302 in my book, but that's another discussion). Thus, this page would then be an "umbrella" or "top-level" page with links to each individual engine: Ford 289 engine , Ford 289 'Hi-Po' engine, Ford 302 'BOSS' engine, Ford 5.0L engine, Ford 351W engine, and so-on. Per WP:SIZE, if we don't do this, including every single SBF motor here with all details will make the article way too long. 
Before any of that though, there are some problems with the current way the page is, in that:
* In the Ford Racing catalogs, the motors covered by the present article are listed as "Small Block V-8 Engines", 
* Ford itself does not use the term "Windsor" except when referring to the 351W; in the catalog it explicitly states under the entry "351W (Windsor)" -but not any other motor- "The Windsor engine plant builds this engine; hence the name", and
* Ford includes the "351C, 351M, and 400" in the SBF category, but it does not use the term "Ford 335 engine family" anywhere I can see. However, other sources I've come across leave the "Cleveland" family out of the SBF by reasoning that it's "mid-sized", or just that it's a different design.
* Using the term "Windsor" to identify 289s, 302s, etc. started in the automotive magazine and aftermarket parts press as a way to "group" these motors together, as Ford does not have a common name for these motors with the same bore spacing, same block design, same cylinder head design, etc. with only bore diameter, rod length, and crankshaft diameter being the few differences among the motors themselves.
I want to edit the page to take all of this into consideration, and I want to make this article clear, concise, and encyclopedic (something which it currently needs lots of work on), but first we must decide whether to leave the page title as "Ford Windsor engine" and all the problems that brings, or to rename it as "Small block Ford" or "Small Block Ford" (my choice), "Ford 289-302-351W engine family" or whatever you suggest.
Please let me know your comments, concerns, and ideas (especially about re-naming the article). MarkGT (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As of March 2014, Ford Racing and Performance Parts refers to their 302 and 351 crate engines as "Windsor-style", so I think it's fair to say that regardless of how or when the term originated, Ford themselves have accepted it as common usage.  See info text here:  Mr Wednesday (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the page name to Small Block Ford? 

message: The section on the K-code HiPo engine claims that Mercury Comets with the K-code actually came with the lower-performance 4V version of the engine.  However, the reference that I have for Comet VINs  shows both the D-code (lower-performance 4V) and the K-code.  The suggestion that Ford would mix engine codes like that seems a little dubious; is there a reference for it?  This is why I put a cite-needed tag on that statement.  It seemed definite enough that I'm reticent to delete it, but it's not consistent with the limited info I've found. --Mr Wednesday (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing some of my own research, HowStuffWorks has an article claiming that the deviation on the Comet K-code was actually putting a 260 in the car!  I don't think that's substantiated anywhere else.  I have forum posts claiming that Mercury originally intended to use the HiPo and got shot down by Ford, and, even more interestingly, that the very few that were made used the "D" engine code, while the "K" code was equivalent to a Mustang "D" code but with a different carburetor.  I don't think either counts for a valid source, but it's interesting info nonetheless.    The latter thread had images of brochures at one point, but they're gone now. --Mr Wednesday (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  289 K-Code in the Mercury Comet 

message: In the 302 section it says that the first Ford product with the fuel-injected version of this engine was the 1980 Lincoln Continental and in 1983 it was offered for all other applications, except for the Ford Mustang and Mercury Capri. There are two key pieces of information missing from that section; 1) The Mercury Colony Park with this engine received fuel injection in 1981 (consistent with the "Mercury Colony Park" article) and 2) The Ford trucks with this engine didn't get fuel injection until 1985, and that information is consistent with Ford F-Series and Ford Bronco. Should there be any mentioning of all this in that section? Why or why not?--Kevjgav (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of "fuel injection replacing carburetor for the 302 engine" 

message: Someone (more dedicated and knowledgeable than me :)) needs to account for the Australian versions by Tickford Vehicle Engineering especially, which were hand-built and the most powerful naturally-aspirated versions of this engine. In fact, it was even renamed "Synergy 5000" in 220kW tune. To assist, it was fitted on the Ford Falcon (Australia) up to 2002. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian "Windsor" V8 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ford Windsor engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050518000641/http://www.fordclassics.com/enginespecs.html to http://www.fordclassics.com/enginespecs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see in the Specs a 335 cubic inch engine listed with a 3.90 bore and 3.51 stroke…It isn’t anywhere else in the page…and Likewise I have never heard of such of production engine.  Can someone look into this? I think it was info from an earlier incorrect edit and was missed… BIGTAZ351W (talk)BIGTAZ351W  —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 5.0 Mustang Technical Reference and Performance Handbook, it was a Mexican-market engine, basically a de-bored 351W, and only available in trucks. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  335 CID? 

message: Maybe I just haven't done enough reading, but I've never heard of Ford truck division commissioning the study of 4V heads of the small block.  My understanding has been that, by that point, it had been decided that the Modular V8 would be the go-to engine architecture for all new products going forward for the 90s, and that there wouldn't be any further development of the existing OHV V8 architectures beyond what had already been approved (such as the SN95 Mustang) and what was necessary for emissions compliance.  Has anyone else heard anything about this?  It really sounds like some fanboy dreaming, or a clever troll. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  4-valve heads 

message: Recently  change the infobox max power figure to 750 hp and  reverted him. I too was sceptical but a search for "750" in the article found it in the 427 Aluminum Block section. Is the 427 engine really that powerful? Is it a Ford factory engine or a tuner engine by Saleen? Either the max power figure of 750 hp should be re-instated or the 427 section should be fixed/removed.  Stepho  talk  09:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Saleen S7 article, "The all-aluminium engine is a proprietary unit developed and built in house, it is a bored-and-stroked derivative of Ford's 351 Windsor small block architecture with Cleveland-style canted valve heads which have been extensively reworked and modified." This sounds like a tuner engine that Ford had nothing to do with. That would suggest to me that the section should be removed entirely - aftermarket builds are not pertinent to the articles for the production engines they're based on, in my opinion. If the vehicle they were installed in is notable enough for an article, the engine can be covered there. --Sable232 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the S7 engine was a development of the engine Ford was running in NASCAR at the time (if I remember the C/D test correctly), which was/is an amalgam of small-block and 335-series dimensions and design (small block bottom-end and block and 335/Cleveland heads). I don't know if it'd notable enough for one or the other, honestly. Carguy1701 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I'll also add that I'm not entirely sure who was responsible for assembly; I'm guessing that was Saleen themselves. If true, I'd say that yeah, it probably should be restricted to the S7 article itself. Carguy1701 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cleveland 335 heads shouldn't be a problem - the Boss 302 Windsor also used Cleveland heads. As pointed out, it really depends on where they were assembled. Since the Saleen article says they were assembled by Saleen then they are tuner engines and should be moved to the Saleen article.  Stepho  talk  22:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 427 section has been deleted. Carguy1701 (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Stepho  talk  15:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  750 hp 

message: The section for the 302 says that it was built at Windsor engine from 1968 to 1978, but the next sentence in that section says that manufacturing was moved to Cleveland in 1970. Which is correct? It wouldn't surprise me if both plants were churning out the same engine for different models, but some clarification might be in order, if only because Windsor Engine is more commonly associated with the 351 cubic inch engine that was built there from 1969 to 1996. I'll add that according to the 5.0 Mustang Handbook, Windsor Engine #2 started cranking out truck-spec 5.0s after the 4.2L that had been built there was dropped. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturing locations for 302