At 11:23 PM 1/22/2000 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 01/22/2000 2:52:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>jamesbrt@mindspring.com writes:
>
>> Boss 302 rods are long 5.090.....<
>
>This is incorrect. The rods on a standard 302 are 5.090", but Boss 302 rods
>are 5.155" long, the same as a 221/260/289/289HP. Except for improvements in
>the machining under the 3/8" bolt heads (spot-faced vs. broached), Boss 302
>rods are virtually identical to 289HP rods. The improvements of the Boss
>design make them stronger, and thus more desirable. And although they are
>hard to find, they are not as rare as 289HP rods.
>
>>......with a 1.529 compression height on the pistons.<
>
>This is correct for a Boss 302. To maintain deck height in this engine, Ford
>reduced the compression height by moving the wrist pin to a location nearer
>the top of the piston.
>
>Dick Barker
If my message stated "long 5.090" instead of "long 5.155" then I a
truly sorry for the error. At least I got the compression height
correct. I had intended to indicate that the Boss 302 rods were the same
length as the 289. Other comments from the net about the rods contacting
the 260 piston skirt when using a 302 crank and 302 rods should be
checked out by anyone trying this conversion.
By the way, the Boss 302 had a very bad tendency to break the
piston skirts off of the pistons. Later TRW forged replacement pistons
had extra re-enforcement to help solve that problem. I had a Boss 302
that lost almost all of the skirts. The piston slap noise was extream.
Yes, I do have a Y2k date problem. Working on it. (Maybe, I
need hardened valve seats in the date cylinder head.)
James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others
|