Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
1967 Convertible
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
$180

Was just rebuilt 10k miles ago. Issues with one of the cylinders. When we pulled it, it still ran. It was leaking oil. My mechanic said one of the cylinders went bad, but couldn’t say how bad without breaking it down. That’s all we know. It came out of a ‘79 mustang.
I found this for sale. Did someone just put the rings in upside down? Bad cylinder? Leaking oil? Crack in the block. Might be worth looking at. Are these engines even any good?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,245 Posts
For that price, as long as the block is intact I would take it. A 302 has endless possibilities. You ask whether they’re any good. Well, a STOCK one will give you varying opinions, mine is that they’re not quite fast enough for my taste. But like I said, 302’s can be stroked to a 347 with a nice lopey, long duration cam and some 10:1 pistons, all the sudden you’re havin’ some fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jr_Palm

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,619 Posts
Talk em down to 150 and if it's bone stock or smokes, put it on a riding mower til you're ready to rebuild it haha
 

·
Registered
1967 Convertible
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Would it be fair to say that different heads and intake would alone wake up that engine? What was the choke point on the 79 engines, what made them so neutered?

If you were going to stroke a 302 I wouldn't start with a rebuilt engine.

Game plan would be to pull the heads and check the bore. Worse case would be a scored cylinder or a crack.
 

·
Just some guy
67 coupe, 69 Sportsroof, 86 hatchback
Joined
·
21,205 Posts
What was the choke point on the 79 engines, what made them so neutered?
A lot of people used to say "smog" controls but's it's not really. 1979 engines were really detuned and you could breathe some more life into them with some tweaking. But they were essentially crippled by 8.5 (low) compression and about the second worst possible stock heads.
 

·
Just some guy
67 coupe, 69 Sportsroof, 86 hatchback
Joined
·
21,205 Posts
Oil out the filler? Probably blowby from somewhere. You can't do a compression test on the engine as is but you could do a leak down test and narrow down what's causing that. But seeing as it's kind of a given that this engine needs to be torn down to what all is wrong with it anyway.... up to you. It wouldn't hurt to already have an idea of what to look for first.

You can tweak the compression a bit with different heads (different sized "chambers") but figure on new pistons to really bump compression up to where you would want it.
 

·
Just some guy
67 coupe, 69 Sportsroof, 86 hatchback
Joined
·
21,205 Posts
Have you actually purchased this engine? Might want to find out if it's viable first.
 

·
Registered
1967 Convertible
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Have you actually purchased this engine? Might want to find out if it's viable first.
Nope.

I might completely pass on it. My original goal was to get an original 1967-ish 289 and get that sorted. Easier to sort out a stock configuration and then later down the road upgrade the V-8.

$200 for what is basically a supposedly rebuilt bottom end (and if it's not working correctly up top you don't know if they also messed up the bottom end) sounds like a low ante but I suspect the pot will go up quickly.

If I can get a gentled used stock 60s 289 for under $500 I thought I was going to be doing good. And I have time on my side.
 

·
Just some guy
67 coupe, 69 Sportsroof, 86 hatchback
Joined
·
21,205 Posts
It might not be a bad piece but for certain it would be a gamble. My personal preference in old cars is always used and abused over molested every time. Broken and needing help is one thing, Joe Amateur tried to fix/rebuild/restore and failed generally makes everything thing bad about such things three times worse and twice as expensive to sort out.

I have to admit sometimes I AM that Joe Amateur because, hey, you know. But I do everything I can to fix my own problems and never foist them off on someone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acooljt

·
Registered
1967 Convertible
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I have to admit sometimes I AM that Joe Amateur because, hey, you know. But I do everything I can to fix my own problems and never foist them off on someone else.
I fit in that bucket too which is the reason I don’t want to buy a finished car. I want to know a vehicle inside and out, especially old ones, so that when they break I know what it is. And also who to blame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
SwooshD, it looks decent for the money. Why is the carb on backwards ? Oil leaking at the valvecover may be as simple as he didn't know how to hook up his PCV. LSG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,015 Posts
It depends on what you are building...the 8.5:1 CR would be a good starting point for a high boost turbo build....leave the cams etc stock and get your power with boost instead...of course it would be a dog when not under boost...but not sure you care about those times anyway.
 

·
Registered
1967 Convertible
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I'm cracking up at the different forum sections here. Post in the main one and merely mention you want to pull the six and put in a V-8 and they are up in arms. In this section you say you want to put a V-8 in and they ask you why you aren't also putting a turbo on it too. ?
 

·
Just some guy
67 coupe, 69 Sportsroof, 86 hatchback
Joined
·
21,205 Posts
And in the Concours section....
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top