Fulla bull? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Fulla bull?


okie
10-12-2012, 06:57
This guy at work told me he used to own a 1966 Ford Mustang that had a 302 plant under the hood, he also said that motor came from GM. I'm no Ford or GM expert, is this true or an extreme load of bull ****:headscratch:

Dennis in MA
10-12-2012, 07:02
Body by Plymouth? :rofl:

I wanna say 302 is STILL a Ford motor. 307 is GM, right?

Quick interwebs check - stock largest motor in the '66 was a 289, but a 302 WILL barely fit, but wasn't there/available (was it even in existence?) in 66.

skinny99
10-12-2012, 07:03
302 started in 1968. It was the same size as a 289 and an easy swap. Not factory for 1966.

GM also made a 302. Started in 1967, it was designed to run in the Trans Am series.

It would be possible to put a GM motor in a Mustang but makes no real sense. So your friend is either confused, full of bull or someone did an engine swap at some point.

BEANCOUNTER
10-12-2012, 07:05
The Camaro Z-28's of the late 1960's (1967-1969 I think) had a 302 that produced ~300 hp.

okie
10-12-2012, 07:05
302 started in 1968. It was the same size as a 289 and an easy swap. Not factory for 1966.

GM also made a 302. Started in 1967, it was designed to run in the Trans Am series.

It would be possible to put a GM motor in a Mustang but makes no real sense. So your friend is either confused, full of bull or someone did an engine swap at some point.

He said this motor was factory. Skinny is right the 302 started in 68, that much I do know:supergrin:

BuckeyePPC
10-12-2012, 08:15
A friend used to have a Sunbeam Alpine ? with a factory Ford 289 V8. Fast little car with an overheating problem.

slick64
10-12-2012, 08:17
The 302 Boss Mustang did exist and so did a Camaro 302 as previously stated.

kirgi08
10-12-2012, 08:22
You could also get a 302 in a Monte Carlo.'08.

CanMan
10-12-2012, 08:24
A friend used to have a Sunbeam Alpine ? with a factory Ford 289 V8. Fast little car with an overheating problem.

Yep, I rember them there cars. Had to run 'em with the heater on full bore to mitigate the overheating problem. Really.

jlprtr
10-12-2012, 08:26
A friend used to have a Sunbeam Alpine ? with a factory Ford 289 V8. Fast little car with an overheating problem.

That was the Sunbeam Tiger. :cool:

okie
10-12-2012, 08:31
The 302 Boss Mustang did exist and so did a Camaro 302 as previously stated.

That is indeed correct my friend, but was the 302 GM motor an option in the 66 Stang:dunno::supergrin:

SC Tiger
10-12-2012, 08:45
302 started in 1968. It was the same size as a 289 and an easy swap. Not factory for 1966.

GM also made a 302. Started in 1967, it was designed to run in the Trans Am series.

It would be possible to put a GM motor in a Mustang but makes no real sense. So your friend is either confused, full of bull or someone did an engine swap at some point.

Some people used to put GM small-block V8s in Mustangs because parts (especially high-performance parts) were easier to get for the GM. This was primarily done with the 350 I believe. The 350 and 305 are the same external dimensions so I guess a 305 would fit.

I don't know if the GM 302 and the 305/350 have enough interchangability among parts to make it worth putting a GM 302 in a Ford Mustang though.

In all likelihood the person you spoke to was as full of ### as a christmas goose.

RenoF250
10-12-2012, 08:45
That is indeed correct my friend, but was the 302 GM motor an option in the 66 Stang:dunno::supergrin:

I would say no. I have never heard of GM and Ford working together on anything. The closest they get is to use some of the same transmissions and axles but even those are not directly interchangeable.

okie
10-12-2012, 08:45
You could also get a 302 in a Monte Carlo.'08.

I don't think I would want that small a plant in that big a car, Roger:alex:

okie
10-12-2012, 08:47
In all likelihood the person you spoke to was as full of ### as a christmas goose.

That's what I'm kinda thinkin my friend:rofl::rofl:

Geko45
10-12-2012, 08:50
"No, it is a trick question! 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center."

slick64
10-12-2012, 08:58
That is indeed correct my friend, but was the 302 GM motor an option in the 66 Stang:dunno::supergrin:

Of course not, but the 426 Hemi was. :whistling:

aircarver
10-12-2012, 09:01
...
In all likelihood the person you spoke to was as full of ### as a christmas goose.

I'd go with this one, too ... :rofl:

.

SC Tiger
10-12-2012, 09:02
I would say no. I have never heard of GM and Ford working together on anything. The closest they get is to use some of the same transmissions and axles but even those are not directly interchangeable.

Even then I doubt they are 100% interchangable without changing the bellhousing or something. Usually if that happens it is because both are buying the part complete from a supplier who owns the design (ie not a GM or Ford design that was subcontracted).

The Mustang 5-speed and the Firebird/Camaro 6-speed manual transmissions were both Borg Warner units for a while and were very similar in design but the ratios were different (plus the Firebird/Camaro had one more gear obviously).

okie
10-12-2012, 09:03
Of course not, but the 426 Hemi was. :whistling:

I think not:tongueout::rofl:

Batesmotel
10-12-2012, 10:10
"No, it is a trick question! 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center."

For the win! :supergrin:

Hauptmann6
10-12-2012, 11:43
That is indeed correct my friend, but was the 302 GM motor an option in the 66 Stang:dunno::supergrin:

Ford had a 302. They wouldn't need to use a GM 302.

It was probably swapped for the next year's 302 or somehow Ford let a pre-production slip. Or it was a 67 built in 66.

dre23
10-12-2012, 11:56
"No, it is a trick question! 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center."



I love "My cousin Vinny" thats some funny s**t!

jfost11
10-12-2012, 12:03
I worked at a Mustang performance shop for years. I could go on for hours with tales of misinformed idiots or just plain liars that have told me complete BS. Some folks think the one car they've owned makes them an expert on that model. I've perfected my "mmm hmm, and walk away" routine. The last idiot at a car show told me his run of the mill, factory '02 Mustang GT, with an Automatic was a special edition supercharged Roush that was 1 of 50. :whistling: BTW, the hood was up and I have to assume the supercharger ran away, along with the body kit, Roush wheels and interior.

dan1488
10-12-2012, 16:02
I can tell you GM did make a Hemi back in the day. I seen it in Iowa. It was years ago went to see a guys collection of Yenko's and he had a GM car with a hemi in it I can't tell you much about it but I know it was not a Mopar product and was stock.

DrMaxit
10-12-2012, 18:10
"No, it is a trick question! 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center."

:rofl: Nice!

tous
10-12-2012, 18:47
A friend used to have a Sunbeam Alpine ? with a factory Ford 289 V8. Fast little car with an overheating problem.

The Sunbeam Tiger, an offering from the same company, was the poor man's Cobra.

The Alpine was pretty much on par with the contemporary MGs and Triumphs. Nice roadster if you weren't in a hurry.

I concur with most everyone else. 302 cubic inches (5 liter) was the largest engine the Trans Am series allowed in the beginning, so there was no reason to campaign a smaller, less powerful engine if you could make a firebreathing 5 liter. Like Le Mans, they had two classes, smaller engines and bigger engines, that ran the track together.

Good racing, bad manegement.

:wavey:

jakebrake
10-12-2012, 18:52
302 started in 1968. It was the same size as a 289 and an easy swap. Not factory for 1966.

GM also made a 302. Started in 1967, it was designed to run in the Trans Am series.

It would be possible to put a GM motor in a Mustang but makes no real sense. So your friend is either confused, full of bull or someone did an engine swap at some point.

i'm thinking putting a 4 bolt main chevy into a ford...that job would be, at best, a real *****.

he's gotta be confusing ford and chevy 302.

jdavionic
10-12-2012, 18:58
Perhaps he meant it's a factory 289 that's been bored to a 302:dunno:

okie
10-12-2012, 20:19
Perhaps he meant it's a factory 289 that's been bored to a 302:dunno:

The man specifically said it had a GM plant under the hood:supergrin:

okie
10-12-2012, 20:20
"No, it is a trick question! 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center."

However we talkin about a 302:supergrin:

HollowHead
10-12-2012, 20:45
"No, it is a trick question! 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center."

"Yutes? What are yutes?" HH

tous
10-12-2012, 20:50
The man specifically said it had a GM plant under the hood:supergrin:

T'wasn't Joe Biden, was it?

okie
10-12-2012, 21:05
T'wasn't Joe Biden, was it?

Don't believe it was, Tous:supergrin:

Trapped_in_Kali
10-12-2012, 21:12
For the Trans-Am series Ford & Chevy were limited to a 5.0 liter motor (302ci). Neither mfg had one, Chevy put a 283 (3" stroke) crank in a 327 (4" bore) block and got 302ci.
Ford's 302 was also 3"x4" but I don't know what motor(s) they started with.
Same bore & stroke, completely different motors.

Clutch Cargo
10-12-2012, 21:32
Body by Plymouth? :rofl:

I wanna say 302 is STILL a Ford motor. 307 is GM, right?

Quick interwebs check - stock largest motor in the '66 was a 289, but a 302 WILL barely fit, but wasn't there/available (was it even in existence?) in 66.

The LEGENDARY DZ 302 was pure Chevy.

That said, 25 years ago, I built a hotrod using an American Motors body (1968 AMX), Chevy engine/tramsmission (355 small block/350 turbo transmission), and a Ford rear (9" w/5.14 gears). The street legal combination ran 11.80s all day long.

JuneyBooney
10-13-2012, 00:33
He said this motor was factory. Skinny is right the 302 started in 68, that much I do know:supergrin:

He just didn't know what he was saying. :whistling: A pal of mine has a side oiler Mustang and won't let me have it. :crying:Now that really sucks. :rofl:

AA_Khost
10-13-2012, 04:19
That is indeed correct my friend, but was the 302 GM motor an option in the 66 Stang:dunno::supergrin:

No.

http://www.66mustang.net/convertible/stats.htm

okie
10-13-2012, 07:53
No.

http://www.66mustang.net/convertible/stats.htm

Yup, looks as though he is fulla bull:supergrin:

tous
10-13-2012, 09:00
Take the car away from him.
He obviously doesn't deserve it.

okie
10-13-2012, 09:11
Take the car away from him.
He obviously doesn't deserve it.

He don't own it no more, Doug:supergrin:

tous
10-13-2012, 09:16
He don't own it no more, Doug:supergrin:

The shoot the feller a little for bein' such a bad liar.

okie
10-13-2012, 09:24
The shoot the feller a little for bein' such a bad liar.

I don't have a 9mm, Doug:embarassed:

tous
10-13-2012, 09:33
I don't have a 9mm, Doug:embarassed:

Don't be chagrined, you are to be commended. :thumbsup:

Guess you'll just have to beat him a bit with a stick, then.
Or, make him wash your truck every Saturday for a year.

Be creative, but the feller needs to feel the pain of spinning a bad yarn.

okie
10-13-2012, 09:44
Don't be chagrined, you are to be commended. :thumbsup:

Guess you'll just have to beat him a bit with a stick, then.
Or, make him wash your truck every Saturday for a year.

Be creative, but the feller needs to feel the pain of spinning a bad yarn.
I can get the stick, no problem, Doug:supergrin::rofl:

Dubble-Tapper
10-13-2012, 09:49
I don't think I would want that small a plant in that big a car, Roger:alex:
big car?!? they werent that big, they only weighed like 3200 lbs. small block G-bodies are fun cars.

okie
10-13-2012, 10:19
big car?!? they werent that big, they only weighed like 3200 lbs. small block G-bodies are fun cars.

I guess they look bigger than they are:embarassed:

Clutch Cargo
10-13-2012, 10:58
"No, it is a trick question! 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center."

Plus, the early model 327 used the small journal crankshaft and rods. Small journal crank/rods are coveted by racers because less reciprocating mass makes for a faster revving engine than the large journal setup.

I've taken a large journal 350 crank and had it offset ground to fit small journal rods. This inexpensive stroker setup was a tough to beat combination in it's day.