Register now to get rid of these ads!

Customs 51 Poncho with a Ford 302?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Empire187, Aug 17, 2015.

  1. Empire187
    Joined: Jan 6, 2007
    Posts: 10

    Empire187
    Member
    from Toronto

    Recently aquired a '92 Ford 5.0 302 off a friend. It needs a quick rebuild but was free.

    Thinking of swapping into my American 1951 Pontiac. I've got the longer front end but still the quiet lil straight 6 with 3 on tree.

    I can pick up a Ford aod tranny cheap and car already has a non torque tube rear end.

    Anyone ever heard of one these 302 being swapped in a poncho? I'd like to do a cummins but the bank account doesn't permit it.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. If you can put a Pontiac engine in a Ford, nobody should cry if you do the opposite.
     
  3. I haven't heard of anyone doing it but that doesn't mean that no one has for sure. I don't see it being too big a problem. you may struggle with oil filter cross member clearance. But that is no big deal to overcome.

    They shouldn't but they no doubt will.
     
    kiwijeff likes this.
  4. town sedan
    Joined: Aug 18, 2011
    Posts: 1,290

    town sedan
    Member

    Have no idea what you would have to do to make the Ford fit. But, I'd be concerned with trying to move your tin Indian with just 3" of stroke in the crankcase. Maybe trade the 5.0 for something with more low end power...?
    -Dave
     

  5. Mike51Merc
    Joined: Dec 5, 2008
    Posts: 3,856

    Mike51Merc
    Member

    Are you serious? Even though this swap is a bit unorthodox (by today's SBC "standards"), a 5.0 can easily move an F150 or Crown Vic or Lincoln Town car which probably all outweigh the Pontiac steel balloon
     
  6. E87,

    Is the '92 Ford 302 front sump? If its front sump that may be tough, I installed a '70 Pontiac 350 in my '52 Pontiac. Its rear sump and has a very shallow front oil pan depth and yet the front oil pan depth to steering link clearance still dictated the engine height. Mounted any higher and I'd have to carve up the Frame/Firewall/Trans Tunnel/Floor, the factory frame has a hole/slot in the factory bracing that the driveshaft resides in.

    I ended up modifying the factory frame X brace but was able to leave the firewall and floor alone.

    Note - the factory firewall relief is off center and makes the driver side clearance tighter than the pass side.

    Good Luck

    Pontiac V8 first fit.jpg
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2015
  7. 49ratfink
    Joined: Feb 8, 2004
    Posts: 18,093

    49ratfink
    Member
    from California

    this swap makes me think of the 52 Chevy truck my buddy bought for like $400.00 with a 289 and tunnel ram. he put a 350 in it and sold it for like $1800.00. this was a while back, today that truck would be worth $4,000 or $5,000.00.

    still only worth $400.00 with a 289.
     
  8. town sedan
    Joined: Aug 18, 2011
    Posts: 1,290

    town sedan
    Member

    It's amazing what can be done with computers, electronic engine controls and all the other modern got to haves or it won't run right stuff. I like power the old fashion way from mechanical advantage. So, if your going to the trouble to change an engine out why not start with something that has a better chance to satisfy?
    -Dave
     
  9. A guy I worked with in 73, or so, had an AD with a 289. This was in North Hollywood. Same truck???? Who knows, but there couldn't have been a lot of them with that combo
     
  10. 40fordtudor
    Joined: Jan 3, 2010
    Posts: 2,503

    40fordtudor
    Member

    Back home in Nebraska, a guy that worked in a wrecking yard near David City swapped a 289 SBF and tranny into a 51 Olds 2door. Ran out just fine altho it was considered a pretty unorthodox swap by almost everybody. It did not look all that amateurish either.
     
  11. Bad Eye Bill
    Joined: Sep 1, 2010
    Posts: 841

    Bad Eye Bill
    Member
    from NB Canada

    Would that old Poncho need more power to motivate it than a '69 Mercury Meteor sedan would? I had one back about 1975 with a 302 2bbl, it had no trouble getting around at all, could even get some smoke from the right rear just about any time I wanted to. True, no great power plant but I think it would work alright.
     
  12. Well here's the numbers for the Poncho

    Model Designation: Silver Streak 8: 51-27

    Wheel base: 120

    Valve Location: In block

    Bore and Stroke: 3-3/8 x 3-3/4

    Piston displacement, Cubic Inches: 268.2

    Compression ratio: 6.50

    Maximum Brake Horsepower: 116 @ 3600 RPM

    Maximum Torque Lbs.Ft. @ RPM: 220 @ 2000 RPM

    Normal Oil Pressure Pounds: 35

    I got an idea that even a carbureted 302 makes a little more zot then that. LOL

    It will never sound as neat as the old poncho though.

    While on oddball combos there was a '36 Chevy truck for sale for the longest time around here with a 289" ford in it. I had actually thought about buying it and putting an SBC in it. Then I decided against it.
     
  13. Speaking of oddballs, I put a 390 FE in a '63 Chevy pickup once.
     
  14. Mike51Merc
    Joined: Dec 5, 2008
    Posts: 3,856

    Mike51Merc
    Member

    I wasn't referencing modern stuff. A stripped down early-spec points-and-carburetor SBF would have plenty of grunt for that Poncho, but it seems from the sound of this thread that it wouldn't fit anyway.
     
  15. I'll cry. I say leave the 6 in the Poncho and put the Ford in a Ford.
     
  16. indyjps
    Joined: Feb 21, 2007
    Posts: 4,282

    indyjps
    Member

    If your keeping the car for a long time go for it, agree on verifying oil pan, steering, oil filter etc, plenty of block hugger style shorty mustang headers on the market.

    If you plan to sell the car, that swap will limit your market greatly.
     
  17. town sedan
    Joined: Aug 18, 2011
    Posts: 1,290

    town sedan
    Member

    Should probably let this rest. The 302 Mavericks and Granadas I've owned could be described as having adequate performance. But, in no way could be called barn burners. Unless parked in the barn when the fire started.

    Just seems like a lot of work to end up at adequate. And, as others have said don't plan on great resale value. -Dave
     
    falcongeorge likes this.
  18. You won't spend much on the 302 rebuild ... unless it was really not taken care of. Running the 5.0 era roller engines ... we would blow 'em up, pull the valvetrain/upper end and yank another short block from the junkyard. I'd spray that one for a year or two ... until it too would grenade. Every 5.0 owner racing with spray would do the same. The bore and stroke ratio of those lower ends are almost bulletproof ... no wear ridges ... regardless of miles. Spend your $$ on the heads, and I hope it's a stick. Good heads and a cam ... easy 250-280 horses .... cheaply.
     
  19. Empire187
    Joined: Jan 6, 2007
    Posts: 10

    Empire187
    Member
    from Toronto

    Not really looking to get burning rubber. The 6 is just so quiet and dull. 302 just sound good. I've got a 90 mustang too and I love the sound.
     
    kidcampbell71 likes this.
  20. The car looks beautiful...I love old Pontiacs. I think I'd sell the ford motor and use the $$$ to buy a Pontiac V/8 I just couldn't put any ford motor in that car but I put Pontiac motors in everything. I'll bet it'd be easier than trying to cobble that front-sump motor in that front-crossmember car. Yeah, I know all about econoline/bronco oil pans/pickup tubes but it's still wrong. I've had problems with every single ford engine I've ever owned except the 67, 289 in my old F-1
    I don't trust 'em.......
     
  21. JeffB2
    Joined: Dec 18, 2006
    Posts: 8,917

    JeffB2
    Member
    from Phoenix,AZ

    Empire187 likes this.
  22. Kerrynzl
    Joined: Jun 20, 2010
    Posts: 2,283

    Kerrynzl
    Member

    If a Cummins is what you would like
    Try a Jap Cummins .
    An Isuzu 4BD-1 or 6BD-1 [ Cummins is 4BT-1 and 6BT-1 ] and have identical outside dimensions

    Commonly found in NPR an NKR trucks , the damn things will do a million miles and outlast the donor trucks.
     
  23. Rusty O'Toole
    Joined: Sep 17, 2006
    Posts: 9,601

    Rusty O'Toole
    Member

    You have the original engine in the car and it is running???? Don't swap it out, you will kill the value of the car and not get much improvement in performance.

    How many miles on it?

    Do a compression test on the engine and check the oil pressure. It could be slightly worn and down on power. A ring and valve job could give you a 25% HP boost at the cost of a few hundred dollars worth of gaskets and rings.

    If compression is good across the board try a tuneup. The original engine won't set any speed records but should have enough power for all practical purposes.
     
  24. Empire187
    Joined: Jan 6, 2007
    Posts: 10

    Empire187
    Member
    from Toronto

    I like the sound of an 8, especially the 302. Car isn't worth much anyway. It's been patched everywhere. Cars in Ontario just don't last. It's a low buck car and a low buck build.
     
  25. Gearhead Graphics
    Joined: Oct 4, 2008
    Posts: 3,851

    Gearhead Graphics
    Member
    from Denver Co

    E303 cam, 19 lb inectors, 70mm MAF and an A9L on it and youll be just fine (assuming you keep the efi) If not, a carb will be great.
    Might need the "rear" sump pan which was on the cars, crown vic and such. and still it has a small front sump that makes mounting a pain. Heck, go for it
     
  26. bryan6902
    Joined: May 5, 2008
    Posts: 1,137

    bryan6902
    Member

    I have a friend with a 289 in that era Pontiac wagon. It drives fine.. He has tens of thousands of miles on it.
     
  27. mgtstumpy
    Joined: Jul 20, 2006
    Posts: 8,866

    mgtstumpy
    Member

    Unorthodox swap to say the least. Knew a fellow who put a 427 BBC in a 66 Ford wagon. You may need a Bronco style rear sump & pickup to clear steering and frame. Measure twice, cut once.
     
  28. stimpy
    Joined: Apr 16, 2006
    Posts: 3,547

    stimpy

    Sharpening up my Tomahawk as we Talk about this disgracefull act ... or as a buddy of mine would say .... " what the Pontiac got to much power for you to handle little boy ???" kidding aside ( except the part about the tomahawk ) the 302 is a decent motor

    I know you are doing it because its available and cheap , the 302 has more than enough power to pull the coupe along as they were used in pick up trucks and the big boat mercurys of the late 1960's and early 70's if it would pull my brother in laws mercury montego down the road ( with a 2 bbl ) it will pull a Chieftain down the road
     
  29. stimpy
    Joined: Apr 16, 2006
    Posts: 3,547

    stimpy

    didn't the roller 5.0s use the 351 firing order ??? that would give it a different note due to the 5-4 change in the firing order . kind of like the 7-2 change in the note that the latter chevy engines have
     
  30. stimpy
    Joined: Apr 16, 2006
    Posts: 3,547

    stimpy

    those are not common here ( North America ) Isuzu diesel straight trucks were not good sellers and because of the "chicken law" of the 60's , most of them got gas engines ( as they were shipped as a kit form and assembled with gm motors) untill the d max came out as they were sold at Chevy/Gmc dealers . and the chevy /gm 4500-6500 series ( kodiacs) were pushed as they were bigger . now GM is out of the "medium truck market"

    You can find the BT4 s as they were used in bread trucks ,stepvans and small implements ( rollers and graders ) and all you do is change out the bell housing . but still a pretty penny .

    If you were closer I could set you up with parts ( block /crank/heads ) to build a stockish 400
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2015

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.