Since we were on a roll, on someone elses thread, just thought I'd continue here!
I'm well familiar with the 390 (car and pickup) / 391 MD and up Truck engines. Great analogy.
The 5.0 / 302 might be a good analogy as well, but I need a question (or 10 
) first. When Ford went from calling it a 302, to calling it a 5.0, I know it was about the same time as FI was becoming mainstream (owned a few 260/289/302's, but nothing new enough for FI). But I always assumed the name change was more about the US finally moving more to universal metric stuff (long process - still ain't there!) Is it really that much difference between a carb'd 302 and the 5.0 with its FI? I know a lot of stuff does interchange, but also know some stuff does not -don't remember what does and doesn't. Old age and lack of interest at the time. from 84 till 05, all cars i owned were for an appliance, and in trucks, I preferred the old stuff. I'm a Ford fan, but a lot of chebbys along the way, as apliances, and know their changes from 55 till the LS better.
So I'll start with what I remember.
302 vs 5.0 were minor differences that embodied a "whole" change. From roller camshaft to firing order on HO models to front cover there were little things. Kind of like a 307 Chevrolet to a 5.0L, they are variations on nearly identical architecture.
I have seen more than one 5.0 placed into early 302 cars with proper modifications to allow period looking components with better efficiency and power. They are FAR more closely related than the 3.8 to 3800 S-II Buicks are.
The biggest differences I recall involved oil pans and crankshaft balance. Beyond that is Gala and Jonathan apples.
The 5.0 came into being in 1982 with 1982 Ford Mustang GT. The 5.0 was essentially a 302, but with the 351W cam and firing order. The 302, 289 and 260 share a different firing order. This 351W firing order is one of the reasons for the sweet notes of the 5.0. The 5.0 didn't have roller cams until the 1985 Mustang GT. This version of the 5.0 shortblock continued well into the early 2000s in Explorers with very minor changes internally.
Look for the 1982 Mustang GT "The Boss is Back" ads, and you'll see the birth of the "new 5.0."
Now the Coyote 5.0, that's a totally new thing.
Look for the 1982 Mustang GT "The Boss is Back" ads, and you'll see the birth of the "new 5.0."
You forced me to look up Wiki... I know, they ain't always correct! But "From the 1978 car model year, the 302 became more commonly known as the 5.0 Liter"
But the Fairmont Fox Body, apparently only had the milder 302 during its short run. side bar, I did not remember it was only 78 till 83, and I was around for all that.
From the fox stang page - In 1982, the Cobra model was dropped in favor of the Mustang GT, which returned after 13 years. This would garner the slogan, "The Boss is Back!" This new GT model featured a re-engineered 157 hp (117 kW; 159 PS) 302 cu in (4.9 L) "5 Liter(The "5.0")" engine with new valves, a more aggressive cam (from a 1973 351W Torino application), a larger twin-barrel carburetor, a revised firing order, and a better breathing intake and exhaust system.
So from you, Quasi and Wiki, I get that the "5.0" was the "boss is back" in 82, and before FI - cool info, in a totally unnecessary trivia way! Agaoin was around bt more into high HP FE's at the time, and a boos from 140hp (or what ever the 302 had become) to 159HP was not impressing me at the time. Although a 9 year old cam in a "modern" engine, is kinda cool in itself!
Lots a stuff happening with ford from the mid 70's, to the mid 90's, and most of it - not all, but most - was not good stuff for somebody into 60's performance fords. Even though the fox 5 oh gt could be made to be hot, most of the drivers thought they were V-Ice.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
Now the Coyote 5.0, that's a totally new thing.
Yeah, with ferd and chebby reusing old names, and numbers, for marketing, it can sure confuse some. the current 5 oh, is way beyond my ever affording one, but I am at least vaguely familiar. Someone said they were buying a new truck with a 7.3, and that confused me for a minuit, but a quick type in the goog solved that.
Chebby using the lt1 name for (i think) the third time? or is it forth? got me once or twice, while I was trying to sell a F body with a LT1... but a 97!
Mercury referred to the 390 (FE?) they put in 67/68 Cougars as the "6.5 Litre." It was such a stylish boat anchor of a thing, but it seemed cool in the '90s, all metric and whatnot.
Side note on the 5.0--only the HO version had a 351 firing order. There were lesser 5.0s, and there were different intake heights. One of the key changes in the 5.0 was the steel cam versus the iron one of previous engines; put in the wrong dizzy gear and watch the teeth disappear. There was also a distributorless 5.0 (with terrible gt40 heads that had barely accessible spark plugs, but the highest power output) in 1997 that came in the Exploder; I put one of these in a 1963 Ranchero with a 4r70 auto. It worked pretty good.
In reply to rustomatic :
As we look back on the times of the name change, enough 302's get called 5.0's, to make the 2 names interchangeable! It looks like, at the time, the HO was called a 5.0, and the conventional non HO was referred to as a 302. Changeover times are always interesting, ant the rear view mirror always distorts things some. 
Anybody remember by what year all 302 cu in / 5.0L fords had the 351 firing order? Again, just idle curiosity, no real need to know.
I was into the Comets and big Merc's - the Cougar's were already out of my price range by the late 70's. Don't remember the 6.5L, but do remember the 7.0 Liter full size Fords. Almost bought a 66 or 67 7.0 liter convertible, a pale yellow with black top and interior, in the 80's, but (being a FE fan) was told a 7.0 Liter was a Lincoln 429 engine ford used for them, and never even bothered to pop the hood. I "knew" the 429 was a tame big old luxo-boat engine, and the 428 was better for a performance build! I could build either one, to respectable power, for about the same money today, but did not know that then.
Shamelessly copied from some other site the googles found:
S Code = 390 GT right? So 93S means XR7GT, right?
wrong, it has the 390 GT Engine only.
I have the 6.5 L emblems which mean it is NOT a GT but a 68 6.5 XR7 even though it has the 390 4V Disc brakes 9 in and so forth.
Looks like the original owner bought a very well optioned XR7 w/ the 325 Horse 390 but they didn't get the GT Package which would have given them a bigger sway bar, stiffer springs and the GT emblems. Who knew.
It turns out they made less 6.5 XR7's (1463) than XR7GT's (1845)
And considering some of the 6.5's were 2V even less 4V 6.5 XR7's.
Hmmm
And I always thought the S code was GT.
From CCOA Cougars 101
1967 & 1968 6.5 Litre
The 1967 and 1968 Cougar 6.5 Litre started as either a base model or XR-7, then has the "6.5 Litre Engine Option" added.
The 6.5 Litre Engine Option included the following advertised items:
67: 320 hp (325 hp in 68) Marauder 390 GT V-8 Engine (6.5 litre) with 600 CFM Holley Model 4150 Carburetor and 10.5:1 compression ratio. Includes chrome Dress-Up kit - Air Filter Cover, Engine Valve Covers, Oil Fill Cover/Crank Case Breather, Engine oil Dipstick Handle, and Autolite 13 pound Radiator Cap. -OR- 280 hp 390-2V V-S "X code" Engine in 68 with Autolite 2-barrel Carburetor.
Low restriction Air Filter
67: Normal restriction dual exhaust with acoustically tuned Mufflers. Oval resonators (not round as in GT option) were mounted in intermediate Pipes with transverse Muffler behind rear axle. Exhaust outlets "standard" - no chrome tips, etc. 68: Low restriction dual exhaust system. Intermediate Pipes with Mufflers followed by outlet Pipes over axle and then directly to rear Valance Panel. Transverse Muffler behind rear axle used on 1967 390 engine was deleted for 1968. Exhaust outlets "standard" - no chrome tips, etc. Two inch diameter Pipes throughout system on 390 Engine models.
Power booster (clutch) Fan.
"6.5 Litre" ornaments on front Fender sides.
The 6.5 Litre Engine Option required an optional transmission - heavy duty 3-speed manual ($79.00), 4-speed manual $184.02), or C-6 (heavy duty) 3-speed automatic transmission ($215.99).
rustomatic said:
Mercury referred to the 390 (FE?) they put in 67/68 Cougars as the "6.5 Litre." It was such a stylish boat anchor of a thing, but it seemed cool in the '90s, all metric and whatnot.
Yep, the 390 is def an FE. And although 325 HP (at the flywheel them days, not net like today) is not a lot by todays numbers, could not really callit a boat anchor, either.
This is just my opinion, but the proper change from 302 to 5.0 came with the redesign of the rear crank seal and various other internal changes. 302's leak like sieves , 5.0's do not.
In reply to Streetwiseguy :
I don't think that is an accurate data point, for the name. But accurate none the less!
I was into Fords during the last half of the 80s and up to about 2000. Read lots of the magazines (anyone remember super Ford?).
I might be hazy on the details but this is what I remember.
The first year fox mustang in 79 had a 302, about 140 hp. The 302 in my 79 panther LTD was 134 hp. The 80 and 81 mustang got a 260 inch engine with no performance potential. The HO was the reintroduction of the 302 for 82.
From what I remember, the cam for the HO engine was the marine cam. It would make sense for that cam to have come from an earlier automotive application, though this is the first time I've seen that.
The 260 goes way back; the one you are remembering is the 255. I don't actually know the specs - but I know no one wants one! I read since asking this, that the HO cam was the stock cam from a 73 351W out of a Torino.
It appears the HO (with 351W firing order) started the name change to 5.0 instead of 302
I always assumed it was just due to all the metric changes happening, and that FI started on them at the same time. I was partially wrong on both counts!
A windsor is a windsor... or a cleveland... or a modified.
With some minor exceptions, it is really no different than how GM did theirs. At some point they transitioned to roller cams, one-piece rear mains, but they're all basically otherwise interchangeable parts. Short-deck windsors used 7/16" head bolts and tall deck used 1/2", but otherwise not much different.
But the difference between a 302 and a 5.0L is the name. No different than GM calling it a 350 one year and a 5.7L the next.
Focus on the mechanical differences and not the name. I'm not the best source of info on Windsors so I'll leave that to Pete and the rest.
03Panther said:
The 260 goes way back; the one you are remembering is the 255. I don't actually know the specs - but I know no one wants one! I read since asking this, that the HO cam was the stock cam from a 73 351W out of a Torino.
It appears the HO (with 351W firing order) started the name change to 5.0 instead of 302
I always assumed it was just due to all the metric changes happening, and that FI started on them at the same time. I was partially wrong on both counts!
The only difference with the firing order is the cam and where you stab the plug wires on the cap. You can put a non-HO cam in an HO block, move the wires around, and you just have a non-HO 302. There wasn't any functional difference in the block itself. GM guys do the same thing with what they call a 4/7 swap. They swap the #4 and #7 cam timing to even out pulses in the intake and exhaust and it's supposed to run smoother and make more torque, but there is no difference in the block.
For that matter, you can put a 302 cam in a 351 and stab the wires on different posts and it works the same. My point is, that the firing order has nothing to do with the block, heads, or anything fancy, it's just that the lobes are different and the plug wires are on different posts of the cap.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
In reply to 03Panther :
My "windsor... cleveland... modified" comment was an easily-misinterpreted way of saying that "it's complicated" when you start talking about W, M, and C. I was saying "a windsor is a windsor - unless it isn't." Good clarification, thank you.
But if you think about it, the differences between the different Ford small blocks are not that dissimilar from the differences in Mopar B/RB/Magnum engines, or GM early/late/Vortec/LT1 small blocks, or any one of several other engine families.
My point is that calling it a 302 or a 5.0L is marketing. There may have been some changes (like roller cams, rear main seals, etc) that changed somewhere around the same time as the term five-oh started being used, but every American auto maker started using metric displacements at around the same time in response to consumer confusion. The stronger influence of foreign car marques in the US market in the 70s revealed that every other country uses the Metric system. In order to "fit in" US auto makers began using metric so you could more easily compare the 2.5L in your Chevette to the 2.0L in a Celica.
But to say that a 5.0L Ford small block is fundamentally different from a 302 Ford small block is patently false. It is no more true than saying a Vortec 5.7L is fundamentally different from a Chevy 350.
Now, I will say that people get confusingly militant about some things. For instance, GM guys always talk about Vortec heads. The Vortec name was used for decades on 4, 5, 6, and 8 cylinder engines in trucks, but the phrase "vortec heads" only applies to two casting numbers from one engine in one basic vehicle family that were only produced for 3 years. Confusing to someone new to the scene. But, just like 302/5.0, it all interchanges with the right parts. It's the same architecture.
Anyone who claims that 302 and 5.0L are different is applying their own delineation/judgement to an arbitrary choice made by the manufacturer. Ford changed the name for marketing. People who claim that means they are different engines are applying a judgement to a non-existent reality... much like GM folks use "vortec" to apply to something other than what GM intended.
