I was looking at my 1971 Ford Car Shop Manual, and it has information pertaining to a 302HO, which was apparently a solid-lifter, 4-barrel 302. It tells you all about how to work on it, but not what it might be found in, or power production, etc. I also asked the googles, but not exhaustively. Does the hive know anything about this engine?
Are there any images of the valvetrain?
It has been my understanding that the only 302 based engines with solid lifters were Boss 302s.
It isn't uncommon, especially with Ford, to have incorrect information in the manuals or sales brochures, as those get written up with more lead time than they make production decisions. According to the books, you could get a Cougar Eliminator with a Boss 429 and a two speed rearend.
In short, I wonder if that was a Boss 302 renamed for the new chassis, and Ford bailed on it when they stopped racing in Trans-Am.
In reply to snailmont5oh :
It might be referring to the 302 High Performance engine, It replaced the 289 HI-PO in Fords starting in '68. You are looking for the usual suspects, Mustangs, Cougars, and probably other small and mid size Mercury's. It will be a needle in a haystack. Most of the 302s were pedestrian, 2V or lower spec 4V engines.
Knurled. said:It isn't uncommon, especially with Ford, to have incorrect information in the manuals or sales brochures, as those get written up with more lead time than they make production decisions. According to the books, you could get a Cougar Eliminator with a Boss 429 and a two speed rearend.
While Ford was bad about listing things that never made production, over at ChryCo anything seemed to be possible, even combinations that weren't listed. I used to read a lot of Mopar Action and somebody would write in asking if the 440 Coronet sedan with a 4-speed and Dana 60 with every single option under the sun that they saw at a swap meet was produced that way and Richard Ehrenberg would always say something along the lines of "While I would need the numbers and option plate to confirm that, I've learned with Mopar to never say never"
Ford planned to release the 1971 Mustang with a Boss 302 version. Tooled up, created spares and filled the pipelines to the dealerships, even had a pre-release car equipped with the Boss 302 and stickers then pulled the plug without releasing them to manufacturing. The show car was found without the Boss 302 as it had been replaced with a 351 Cleveland 2 barrel and relabeled by Ford with a new door tag applied over the door tag noting the Boss 302.
After seeing Ford v Ferrari I blame Leo Beebe
Yeah, Ford originally intended on putting the Boss 302 in the '71 but bailed on the idea and instead made a Boss 351 for 1971 only. Boss 351 was a Cleveland, high compression, flat tappet cam rated at 330HP. It had an awful Autolite carb though many of which were promptly replaced with a 780 Holley. NHRA even lets Boss 351 cars in "stock" run the Holley. The engine was carried over to the '72 model without the "Boss" nomenclature and was just called a 351 HO.
Does the service manual show canted valve heads for the '71 302 HO? That would definitely be a Boss.
In reply to stukndapast :
'72 had lower compression and hydraulic lifters, no?
I actually like the Autolite carbs. They work really well in stock applications. Holleys are better if you need to do deep tuning, which you'd need for drag racing, but the street drivability of a 4300 or even a 4100 on a stock engine always felt better to me. Different tools for different jobs and all that.
In reply to Knurled. :
I went back and checked on the specs. I misspoke on the '72 351 HO, it was actually called a 351 CJ in '72. It still had pretty high compression but a point and a half lower than the '71 Boss (10.3:1 vs 11.8:1) due to a flat top piston instead of a dome. It still had a solid lifter cam. In '73 they de-tuned the 351C-4V, as Detroit did for almost all engines due to the gas crunch, dropping the compression to 9.4:1 with a dished piston and larger chamber and using a hydraulic cam with less lift. It was that '73 engine that was called the 351 HO.
I really like the old Autolite 4100 carb, it was a very nice piece, easy to work on, advanced design with annular boosters (especially considering it came out in the 1950's). The 4300's, not so much. Ford's attempt at a Rochester Quadrajet. It's interesting that even Ford decided to use the Rochester carb on their 429CJ engine in '70 and '71 instead of their own 4300 (429SCJ had a Holley 780). Then, in 1974, they used the Carter Thermoquad on the 460. Odd choices.
stukndapast said:In reply to Knurled. :
I went back and checked on the specs. I misspoke on the '72 351 HO, it was actually called a 351 CJ in '72. It still had pretty high compression but a point and a half lower than the '71 Boss (10.3:1 vs 11.8:1) due to a flat top piston instead of a dome. It still had a solid lifter cam.
I seem to recall Hot Rod Mag testing a bunch of bone-stock muscle era small-blocks a few years back. That 351 CJ was still a pretty hot unit, even with less compression. The Shelby 289 was not so hot. And they found that weirdly the 1971 LT-1, with less compression but otherwise unchanged, made more power than the 1970 LT-1 which was a bit of a shocker. It was also interesting how Ford's tactic was usually wild cylinder heads (Boss 302, Boss 351, 351 CJ) with relatively mild camshafts, while Chevy went for pretty tame cylinder heads (the "double-hump" Fuelie heads aren't that great) and rowdier camshafts (typically the Duntov 30-30).
EDit: Found the article, they did not test the 351 CJ. Whoops. But the Boss 351 made 383hp, which is stout.
Looking through the manual more, it looks like it’s a Boss 302. The manual even says BOSS a few times, and it’s got a “valve angle” of 44°, the same as a Cleveland.
NickD said:stukndapast said:In reply to Knurled. :
I went back and checked on the specs. I misspoke on the '72 351 HO, it was actually called a 351 CJ in '72. It still had pretty high compression but a point and a half lower than the '71 Boss (10.3:1 vs 11.8:1) due to a flat top piston instead of a dome. It still had a solid lifter cam.
I seem to recall Hot Rod Mag testing a bunch of bone-stock muscle era small-blocks a few years back. That 351 CJ was still a pretty hot unit, even with less compression. The Shelby 289 was not so hot. And they found that weirdly the 1971 LT-1, with less compression but otherwise unchanged, made more power than the 1970 LT-1 which was a bit of a shocker. It was also interesting how Ford's tactic was usually wild cylinder heads (Boss 302, Boss 351, 351 CJ) with relatively mild camshafts, while Chevy went for pretty tame cylinder heads (the "double-hump" Fuelie heads aren't that great) and rowdier camshafts (typically the Duntov 30-30).
EDit: Found the article, they did not test the 351 CJ. Whoops. But the Boss 351 made 383hp, which is stout.
Yes - ‘71 Boss 351 is a known stud. No surprises there. Look at the old 1/4 mile times of that in a Mustang. It’s right up there with the year or so older 428 CJ’s and everything else from the other brands.
You'll need to log in to post.
