302 Ford oil pan clearence problem

I pulled the 302/5-speed from a 84 mustang GT,,,,with high expectations of dropping it in the 54 Ford Ranch Wagon,,,,,,,,,

The problem is the oil pan hits the steering linkage preventing me from lowering the engine into its new home ,,,,,,the ****** needs to come down also but that is easy enough to do,,,a little cut and grind,,,

I guess my question is,,,Is there a different oil pan and pump that will allow me to change the placement of the oil pickup on the engine,,,,right now its in the back,,,,It needs to be in the front to gain the extra few inches. HRP

 

So you've got a rear sump pan and you need a front sump, right? I've got a shoebox and it's the other way around (have to use a Bronco-style rear sump pan). If you can't find a front sump pan locally, do a quick search for SBF front sump and you should come up with a few options.

 

Here's a early bronco pan 66-77 , would something like this help?

 

Nah,he's got a Mustang pan,which is basically a double sump pan. SOB even has two drain plugs. Has clearance in the middle to clear the Mustang crossmember.

Sounds to me like what he needs is a stock 289 to pre-Fox body 302 base pan,and his problem will be solved.

 

Does the fox bodied oil pans have two sumps?

And a picture of my problem,,,,,

 

HRP,


Sent ya' a PM.

 

The motor sets a little high with the pressure treated 4x4's and 2x6 but I'm gettin' WOOD just lookin' at it!,,,, Figuratively and literarily ,,,,Ha,ha,ha,,,HRP

 

Your steering box placement is the same as my 52, but I know that the x-member is different, the steering linkage in mine went between the back of the pan and in front of the dust cover on the front of the trans bellhousing. It's tight, no room for slop.

 

In all likelihood, you need a van pan with a pseudo-center sump.

The Mustang (and other Fox ch***is cars) use the dual sump. The Bronco & 4x4 use the "rear" sump (really an early version of a dual sump with less clearance in the middle & no front drain plug). The early-mid '60s Econolines had a great pan with more of a center sump - can be tough to find, but then they seem to pop up everywhere, then they disappear again...typically when you need them (of course). Be sure to get the pickup tube.

You may be able to modify one of the Fox/Bronco pans to work depending on how much clearance you need.

Most other applications all had a front sump - although I'm not familiar with your year, I would speculate it won't work.

 

Yup. Otherwise they wouldn't work.

 

O.K.,,,,So when I replace the oil pan with a 289 style,,,do I block of the rear sump or what? HRP

 

Nope,it will work,and that is the one he needs. I have a 390 in a 53 coupe with the front sump oil pan on it,and I have a friend with a 57 Ranchero with a front sump FE in that,too. I also had a couple of 390 57 Fords with stock front sump pans back in the late 60's. His original engine was a Y-Block Ford with a front sump. They had to have the front sump to clear the crossmember. The only rear sump Y-Blocks were in 55-57 T-Birds,and 54-62 Ford big trucks and school buses.

Think about it for a minute,if the Ford factory used front sump oil pans for clearance in the original engines,why wouldn't a replacement engine need a front sump oil pan,too?

 

Yeah. Or at least take the pickup tube off. If you don't the pan won't fit.

As for blocking the opening with a plate or something,I honestly don't know about that. I am GUESSING that it wouldn't hurt anything to leave it open and that it may even need to be open to "breathe" so the oil pump picks up properly,BUT I am not 100% positive about this. You are going to have to ask somebody who knows a lot more than me about this to get a difinitive answer.

On the other hand,if you were to use a new oil pump that works for the year and model application as your donor oil pan, I really don't see how closing it would hurt anything since the original pumps surely didn't need a special vent.

I'm hoping this makes sense in words. I know what I mean even if I don't know for sure how to say it.

BTW,when this motor needs to be rebuilt,go ahead and look for a 86 or newer 302 to replace it with. Those are the ones that came with the roller rockers. Even the ones put in LTD's and Lincolns. The 86 and newer Mustangs are the ones that had the good heads,though.

 

Thanks a lot!,,,,the engine was rebuilt last year and runs great,,,I drove the mustang before I bought it and drove it tuesday before pulling it out,,

Thanks again for the heads up on the oil pan problem! HRP

 

What kind of motor mounts did you get. I had the same problem?

 

Hence my caveat that I wasn't familiar with the year in question...

 

I don't have motor mounts yet,,,I plan on using 3/8" plate to make them,,,

I do know some of the guys are using a kit but I don't know how makes it.HRP

 

The early Mustangs, Falcons and so forth used the front sump pan. I think this is what you need. This is the most common one and easiest one to find.

 

How about a truck version for the same motor?

 

HRP... The 1986+ Ford 302's came with Roller Rockers, like mentioned above. The Intakes, Heads, & Camshafts were the difference in "HO" (High Output) and non-HO. Mustang's and police cars got the HO, I've seen a few trucks with them too. Most other p***enger cars and trucks got the non-HO. The firing order is different than a non-HO, and the waterpump/timing gear housing gasket is always a pain in the ***.

But, in '86, power was down to 210 due to a stupid engineer trying to increase mileage with some swirly chambered heads. "E6" casting heads are '86ers...the '87-95's have the "E7"s that bumped the hp up to 225hp.

Since your '84 is fresh, I wouldn't worry too much about it...but just some info if you decide to go with a newer motor.

PLEASE let me know what you come up with as far as your oil pan & motor mounts. I'll be dropping a 302 in my '54 Mainline soon, and would like to save some cash and not buy the $125 motor mounts from this ***hole...

www.ndgearheadscruiserproducts.com

Take care...

 

If you use the front sumppan, you should get the timing cover that has the dipstick in it. Also get the oil pickup that goes with the front sump

As far as motor mounts, it seems to me that I heard that if you use 64 Galaxie 289 mounts the engine is almost a bolt in. Will try to check on that further.

 

The dipstick placement is in the side of the block not in the oil pan,,,but I would like to know if the 64/289 motor mounts would work! HRP

 

Me too! Go get some and give it a try! haha

 

hye HRP, I think i gotta 60's mustang 289 pan you can have if you need it. Either come get it, or pay for shipping.
I used a dual sump in my 53. The linkage goes right inbetween the pan and trans. I used econoline van mounts and some s**** steel to mount mine. It ain't pretty but it seems to be working well.

 

When i put the 302W in my 54 ford, I went down to the local ford dealer and asked for a bronco sump and pick up. This was about 1990 and I pointed out the door to one of the f150 pickups and said gimme a sump and pick up for one of those. Worked just fine.
I used local Aussie falcon mounts in mine, would be like your mustangs I guess.

I had an engineer/welder buddy also skim/m***age a bit out of that big crossmember to get her down a little lower , was a nice neat fit.
If I remember correctly the motor and trans came out of an 84 mustang via Japan.

 

No Ford engine every came with roller rockers from the factory - I think you may be confusing this with the hydraulic roller lifters available in the 5.0HO - which actually debuted in '85 along with forged pistons, double-roller timing chain, 4-bbl Holley, & shorty headers. '86 was the first year for EFI & is often mistakenly believed to be the first HO...

 

Ahhh!, but small block fords did come with roller rockers on the '93 and up cobra 5.0s. They were manufactured by Crane I believe, but were definately a factory item. In fact i think that the F150 lightning may have had them also. I drag raced 5.0 mustangs for several years and this is one of the reasons that so many late model stock eliminator mustangs are cobra clones. By running the car as a Cobra they can use the roller rockers and GT40 heads.

 

You are 100% correct - they did that for the '94 Cobra. It was such a short production run, I forgot all about it. Can't say for the Lightning, but quite probable.

Color me wrong - again

 

I've put a 5.0 in both a 53, and a 54, you need an older 302, or 289 front sump pan. you have to change both the pan, and the pickup. Don't get a 351W pan, it won't fit.

 

enjenjo, what mounts did you use in the '54?

it seems there's about 15 different suggestions so far from various sources, not saying anyone is wrong, just wanna make sure.


HRP, I've got a few SBF pans laying in a shed from various cars & trucks if you can't find anything I might have what you need also.