recently picked up a '71 xj6 lumped with a stock '83 low compression 302 ford/AOD. car runs out ok. doesn’t really feel terribly under powered, but the engine sits up too high and too far forward due to the double hump oil pan. the AC compressor fittings hit the hood and make closing a 2 man job.
the engine leaks a bit of oil as well.
i want to pull the engine and reseal it, do i throw in a cam and maybe aluminum heads and an aftermarket accessory drive from March to relocate the front engine accessories? do i pick up a used 5.0 roller block to replace the non-roller block?
or do i drop in the 6.2 LS engine i have in the corner of the garage?
Seems every time i go out to the garage i start eyeballing the ls and start thinking…
my intent is a spirited daily driver, not a full race car.
the car is also getting S3 front and rear sub frames with poly bushings, king springs, and bilstein shocks.
suggestions? opinions? all are welcome. thx!
LS engine is my first choice… it what I would use if I was doing my conversion today. With matching GM 6 speed auto.
Jay – I’m interested in a solution to the double humped oil pan also.
I think the positioning of the front oil pump is the reason for the front hump – it has to be that low to clear the pump, right?
I did see a rear sump pan for a Bronco (??) or F150??
(I have some pics of these oil pan options, but I do not know how to post pix on this forum…???any clues how to do this?) (Here’s a link to a rear sump pan on EBAY - no affiliation: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-Truck-oil-pan-NEW-5-0-302-Bronco-Eddie-Bauer-1980-thru-1996-Rear-Sump/301837616830?fits=Make%3AFord&hash=item4646ec86be:g:kCMAAOSwcu5UO0~G&vxp=mtr )
Unless you can get around that front oil pump, your only choices are as you describe above: work on repositioning the accessories on top (there are several images on line showing serpentine belt configurations), or move to another engine (like your LS).
I would have chosen an LS also for our '56 XK140, but since it was already set up for a 302/5.0, we chose to stay with 5.0 for the sake of expediency and less mods required – work still in progress, because the garage we chose to do the work has some severe and frustrating limitations (!).
The 6.2 LS would be my pick of your choices. Done proper you will have ample power, modern reliability, a mostly leak free design, and a solid 25 to 27 mpg on the highway.
Fixing what is there is the budget winner of your choices. If you check with vendors advertising in the specialty Ford hot rod magazines I’m confident you will find solutions to your oil pan issue. No great need for the roller block unless you are chasing horsepower.
That rings a couple of bells.
-
The 302 in my 88 T Bird was lively. It had that 'double hump" Oil pan. Two drain plugs,
I liked it a lot. -
A similar 302 in my 85 F150. Ford’s first EFI truck. No double hump. Same platform and engine used in Broncos. A bit underpowered for the “big wheels” it had. But, I liked it a lot and it did look great in black with neat graphics.
So, in the use what you have mode, got the Bronco pan. Other 302 installs in other critters done that way.
Any pictures? All of us love to look !
Carl
“…2 drain plugs…” yep, that’s the one.
Do you know how to post pictures? Ahhh! Just blundered onto the icon that is for uploading pix!
Below are pis of the Bronco rear sump, the double hump sump, as well as some serpentine belt configuration options to try to relocate engine accessories to tailor fitment to the engine compartment
Hello, I bought a 63 Mk2 that has a Ford 302/AOD installed it place of the Jag bits. The engine sits fairly low as it uses an oil pan with a large rear sump and a small forward sump. Similar to the oil pan on my 1985 Tbird 5.0 Elan. The nice thing about the Ford/AOD is that the AOD does not need any electronics to control the AOD. Of course the Chevy LS is a much better engine but then you get into the ECM to transmission problem. I would guess the LS will give 100/150 more HP than the Ford so remember its your car and its your money. Keep us informed. Pete
thanks for all the replies and suggestions. i’ll get a few pics and try to post or at least a link to them.
the bronco double hump looks close to what may in there.
the no hump pan is deeper all the way around and would raise the engine further.
i could go dry sump/external pump, but that’s way too much $$$$
my thinking on going to roller motor was not for hp, but so i dont have to buy zinc additive or hunt for oil with added inc already.
i’ll get a couple pics from underneath sometime later this week.
since those pics, i upgraded to S3 M/C and 7" euro lights
Very nice, almost looks like GM Indigo Blue.
Interesting how far forward the engine has been mounted - and half the transmission is forward of the firewall! I think my SBC is mounted about 5" or 6" further back. Sure makes everything easy to service on yours.
The 7" headlamps and series 3 M/C on my list of future mods
Jay - sorry about the mis-labelled pix of the oil sumps. The double hump pic (pan looks gold) is of a Mustang 5.0 oil pan. The single hump one is for an older Bronco, which some Ford forums mention as a doulbe hump alternative.
However, yes, I think you are correct in that the single hump pan really does not reduce the clearance of the front of the pan, but instead, just increases the depth all the way around to equal that of the front hump.
I started checking Ford sites to see if this front clearance is a problem, and I have found that it indeed is addressed often enough. The dry sump is mentioned – too expensive a solution. Others mention trying to find a lower profile oil pump itself, but it must not be possible.
Yah, I went with a roller motor just for the sake of modernity and reliability (and fuel injection). Actually, I first got a Ford 4.6 motor with its many engineering advancements (including OHC, coil on plug, etc.) and because its mounts supposedly were very similar to the 302/5.0 (which the previous owner had installed in the car), but it was much too wide to fit into the engine compartment of the XK140. Too bad.
I think I should have gone with an LS from the start, except that with the mount modifications, I might as well have just re-altered everything back to fit in a period-correct and traditional Jag DOHC inline 6.
With a MIG and some 14 gauge sheet metal, it’s not terribly difficult to remake the front end of the pan.
Wiggs,
It looks like that’s what hot rodders are doing – cutting down the pan.
I found a forum where someone had the same difficulties with the front of the double hump pan. They recommended either modify the cross member, or modify the pan.
Here’s the link: https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/302-in-47-ford-experience-low-profile-oil-pump-relocate.12348/
The pan is WAY easier!
