Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have heard rumors of Ford making a 306 HP 302 in 68' and I even found a website the referenced it. I did find an article on HotRod magazine's website about the tunnel ram heads that Ford Racing used on the 302 in 68' but the article claimed it only made 240 HP, which seems impossibly low for an engine that ran at 8000 RPM. Plus, that engine never made it to production.


So has anyone else ever heard that Ford put a 306 HP 302 in a Mustang in '68?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,737 Posts
I have heard rumors of Ford making a 306 HP 302 in 68' and I even found a website the referenced it. I did find an article on HotRod magazine's website about the tunnel ram heads that Ford Racing used on the 302 in 68' but the article claimed it only made 240 HP, which seems impossibly low for an engine that ran at 8000 RPM. Plus, that engine never made it to production.


So has anyone else ever heard that Ford put a 306 HP 302 in a Mustang in '68?
65-67 Mustang 289 HiPo was rated 271 HP and 312 lb ft TQ.

65-67 Shelby 289 was rated 306 HP and 329 lb ft TQ.

68 Mustang 302 4V (J code) rated 230 HP and 310 lb ft TQ

68 Shelby 302 was rated 250 HP and 318 lb ft TQ

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,224 Posts
And was dropped when it transpired that the tunnel port engine, which was very powerful, could not finish a race. The BOSS 302 replaced it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Could be the pre-production specs for the 302-4V Tunnel Port engine, but it never got put into a production car.
And was dropped when it transpired that the tunnel port engine, which was very powerful, could not finish a race. The BOSS 302 replaced it.
That would make sense. The Hotrod article did mention there was a lot of media hype about the engine before it was used in racing. But I could be wrong. I mean, when was the last time the media blew something out of proportion?
 

·
Registered
1967 Mustang GT fastback
Joined
·
4,007 Posts
I've got a Road and Track test from June 1968 where they track tested 2 1968 GT350's. The first one was a regular plain vanilla Hertz rental with 302 and automatic (250hp at 4800 rpm) and their other car was an optional high performance package with 4 speed and a 4.11 rear. It had this info (I quote the actual road test here)

"To the basic price of $4287 for the cooler version, the high performance package adds $692 and includes these items: special cylinder heads with larger valves (intake 1.875 in, exhaust 1.600 vs 1.773 and 1.442), higher compression ratio (11.0 vs 10.5), an aluminum high-riser intake manifold with a 715-cu-ft/min Holley 4-barrel carburetor (vs. an Automate rated at about 650 cm), a camshaft that still works with hydraulic lifters but gives greater duration (6º greater intake, 8º greater exhaust), limited slip differential, stiffer rear springs and supplementary anti-windup leaves added to the front underside of the rear springs. Official figures weren't available at the time we tested it but the factory people estimated it as having 315 bhp @ 5000 rpm and 333 lb-ft torque @ 3800." This was obviously not the tunnel port version of the 302.

The thrust of the article was that this optional performance package that Shelby "had persuaded For to offer" was to counter the new Z/28 that Chevy had just released.
For those who may be interested, their hot GT350 did 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and cleared the 1/4 in 14.9 seconds at 94 mph. Shift points were 6400 rpm and it was gear limited to a redlined top speed of 119 mph. The automatic did 16.5 seconds 1/4 at about 85 mph.

Regarding the TP302, here's a link to a comparison test of Sam Posey driving a TP302 and a Z28: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/1968-tunnel-port-ford-mustang-vs-chevrolet-camaro-z-28-archived-comparison
 

·
(actually Slim Jr now)
Joined
·
24,597 Posts
I have heard rumors of Ford making a 306 HP 302 in 68' and I even found a website the referenced it. I did find an article on HotRod magazine's website about the tunnel ram heads that Ford Racing used on the 302 in 68' but the article claimed it only made 240 HP, which seems impossibly low for an engine that ran at 8000 RPM. Plus, that engine never made it to production.


So has anyone else ever heard that Ford put a 306 HP 302 in a Mustang in '68?
It was serious enough to have it in the 68 Mustang dealer brochure.

My original Mustang 1968 ... better ideas in action W366 (W058 REVISED) 12-67

Back cover 6th engine left column:
For sedan racing, available on special order only: 302 cu. in. V-8-306 hp;
4.00" bore x 3.00" stroke; 11.0 to 1 comp. ratio; prem. fuel; specialhigh per-
formance fuel induction system; solid valve lifters; oil cap'y,including filter,5qt.;
dual exhausts. Available with 4-speed transmission and GT Group only.

12 Mustang Power Teams (right column).

Engines Transmissions.

3-speead Man Cruis-O-Matic 4-speed manual
200 six Std. Opt. N.A.
289 Challanger V-8 Std. Opt. Opt.
302 Challanger Special V-8 Std. Opt. Opt.
302 High Performance V-8* N.A. N.A. Opt.
390 Thunderbird V-8 N.A. Opt. N.A.
390 Thunderbird Special V8 N.A. Opt. Opt.
*Available on special order only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,272 Posts
I've got a Road and Track test from June 1968 where they track tested 2 1968 GT350's. The first one was a regular plain vanilla Hertz rental with 302 and automatic (250hp at 4800 rpm) and their other car was an optional high performance package with 4 speed and a 4.11 rear. It had this info (I quote the actual road test here)

"To the basic price of $4287 for the cooler version, the high performance package adds $692 and includes these items: special cylinder heads with larger valves (intake 1.875 in, exhaust 1.600 vs 1.773 and 1.442), higher compression ratio (11.0 vs 10.5), an aluminum high-riser intake manifold with a 715-cu-ft/min Holley 4-barrel carburetor (vs. an Automate rated at about 650 cm), a camshaft that still works with hydraulic lifters but gives greater duration (6º greater intake, 8º greater exhaust), limited slip differential, stiffer rear springs and supplementary anti-windup leaves added to the front underside of the rear springs. Official figures weren't available at the time we tested it but the factory people estimated it as having 315 bhp @ 5000 rpm and 333 lb-ft torque @ 3800." This was obviously not the tunnel port version of the 302.

The thrust of the article was that this optional performance package that Shelby "had persuaded For to offer" was to counter the new Z/28 that Chevy had just released.
For those who may be interested, their hot GT350 did 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and cleared the 1/4 in 14.9 seconds at 94 mph. Shift points were 6400 rpm and it was gear limited to a redlined top speed of 119 mph. The automatic did 16.5 seconds 1/4 at about 85 mph.

Regarding the TP302, here's a link to a comparison test of Sam Posey driving a TP302 and a Z28: 1968: Tunnel Port Ford Mustang vs. Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 - Archived Comparison
Here's the "low down" on this engine....

You are visiting the best 1968 Shelby webpage !!!
 

·
Registered
1967 Mustang GT fastback
Joined
·
4,007 Posts
Neat, thanks Bartl. I never saw that Shelby web page before, I just have the Road and Track article. Now we know the rest of the story -- it was just a hopped up Tasca car that made the test magazine rounds. Whoda thunk it -- GT40 heads! All sorts of funny stuff went on with supposedly "stock" performance cars back then.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,807 Posts
i have posted fotos i took of the 68 302 TP engine here on the forum. i have seen several apart. i have seen 2 of the original 68 T/A mustangs race at willowsprings. a good race prepped 289 with modified 69 351W heads will outrun them. the 427 TP engine was such a big success and ford thought the some type of huge ports would work wonders on a 302 in racing. the ports were too big for roadracing and had a narrow peaky power band. the engine needed to be close to the redline to make good power. there was also the issue of over stressing the rods and blown engines. the TP heads were too big for a 302 but were found to work good on a 351W engine. an engine builder i know built a 351W TP and might still have a set of heads. after ford got their rear end gears handed to them in 68 an engine guy suggested they try heads from the new 351C engine that was being developed. the C heads flowed way better at lower rpms and that was the beginning of the B2. the TP heads are obsolete and there are WAY WAY WAY better SBF heads available today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
I find this thread interesting - great story! I like the thought that if you were willing to pay for it - then Ford would have built it for you.

I have been reading the old brochures as well - do any of you know, how common the optional Paxton supercharger was i 1968. I have read articles and seen pictures of a few different cars that had them from new, but I don't think that I have ever seen one that was a 1968 model.
 

·
Registered
1967 Mustang GT fastback
Joined
·
4,007 Posts
I find this thread interesting - great story! I like the thought that if you were willing to pay for it - then Ford would have built it for you.
QUOTE]
A bit off the OP's question, but the above quote is true. An example of that is there is a unique Ford station wagon (1967 I think) running around somewhere with a 428. No big issue there, but the original owner wanted a 4 speed with it. His local dealers said no way, they can't order wagons like that. Ticked off, the guy wrote a letter to Lee Iacocca requesting it be built, as they already built regular 428 4 speed sedans. Sure enough, Lee sent down the order and it was built - the one and only 428 4 speed 67 wagon. The car still exists now. I don't think you can do that sort of thing today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,913 Posts
Carroll Shelby snake oil: The 65 and 66 Shelby's at least had headers. Gotta wonder why, with no headers on a 67 GT 350, the horsies are still 306. Still a great car and engine.

No one has gotten to the bottom of why, with the Ford engine plant supplying the Tunnel port 302, no one was allowed to take one apart and see if better connecting rods were available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,990 Posts
As I've posted here before, I had a set of those heads and the intake. There's no "action" until
way over 6500 rpm. Most of that is courtesy of the huge ports. The metallurgy of the day in the
60's couldn't provide a crankshaft or rods (or pistons) that would hang together, so it was a
fact of life that those engines blew up around the time they started making horsepower.
These days you could run a Paxton or other blower to supply the intake charge you need to
make up for the soggy bottom end. You can get a Crower crank and rods that's good to 10K,
so you could theoretically make it work on the street. Even better if you could locate one of
the two single four barrel intake manifolds..... all the others were dual quad.
J Bittle's #29 sedan has one of the few 302TP's that are racing these days.
The guy out here in LA that has all the 302TP stuff is Mike Cook, the Bonneville guy. Unfortunately,
none of it is for sale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
We actually still don't have an answer to the original question. The GT350 in the magazine article was a Tasca Ford creation, and the TP heads never went into production. However, slim's original Mustang brochure from '68 lists the 306 HP 302 engine as a special order from the factory. So, did Ford put a 306HP 302 in the Mustang or is it a myth?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,990 Posts
It was serious enough to have it in the 68 Mustang dealer brochure.

My original Mustang 1968 ... better ideas in action W366 (W058 REVISED) 12-67

Back cover 6th engine left column:
For sedan racing, available on special order only: 302 cu. in. V-8-306 hp;
4.00" bore x 3.00" stroke; 11.0 to 1 comp. ratio; prem. fuel; specialhigh per-
formance fuel induction system; solid valve lifters; oil cap'y,including filter,5qt.;
dual exhausts. Available with 4-speed transmission and GT Group only.
Commonly thought to be a description of the TP engine. There was supposed to be a race
version and a street version. The publicity photos do show a dual quad TP with a Thermactor
system on it. My TP heads didn't have any provisions for Thermactor.
Ford never offered the "mystery" 306 hp, 302 engine...... obviously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
I find this thread interesting - great story! I like the thought that if you were willing to pay for it - then Ford would have built it for you.
QUOTE]
A bit off the OP's question, but the above quote is true. An example of that is there is a unique Ford station wagon (1967 I think) running around somewhere with a 428. No big issue there, but the original owner wanted a 4 speed with it. His local dealers said no way, they can't order wagons like that. Ticked off, the guy wrote a letter to Lee Iacocca requesting it be built, as they already built regular 428 4 speed sedans. Sure enough, Lee sent down the order and it was built - the one and only 428 4 speed 67 wagon. The car still exists now. I don't think you can do that sort of thing today.
Yep, sorry about that. I believe I got carried away by the fairy tale of another special mustang :nerd:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
The TP street engine program went as far before termination, that at least one magazine had a road test of it and it was mentioned in some of the new '68 brochures allready printed.

Overstock TP engines was later sold by Gratiot Auto Supply in Detroit as crate engines. Gratiot was the Summit Racing of the early 70s. They used "The World's Largest Hot Rod Shop" in their ads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Wow, I have to admit that this was a really interesting trip through some hidden Mustang history. Thanks to everybody in the know who added to it.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top