Restoring 1974 revisited.

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

Pretty sure it is on the casting...... ​

 

[ringmaster]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

as soon as you take the valve cover off it will be on the right side of the head in between the valve springs in big numbers. its not a stupid question it took me awhile to learn that to.

 

[ringmaster]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

it will be right above a head bolt hole

 

[Jim Marshall]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

It is a 351. I also attached a couple of pictures of the exhaust manifolds. These are Glasstrons like the boat. Anyone know anything about them?

Jim

 

[ringmaster]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

never seen those before the only thing i know is there are heavy. its cool you have the 351 heads cause there are better then the 302 heads.

 

[Jim Marshall]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

Check this out. Dane Anderson provided me with this old brochure that shows why it has the 351 heads. By the way the heads are 1979. Glastron was doing the whole thing I guess.

Jim

 

[Jim Marshall]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

Apparently Glastron was building and guaranteeing its own engines with some of its old components.

Jim

 

[ringmaster]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

thats cool you know what you have now. wish i could get the pic bigger so i could read i would like to know more info on the head swap to.

 

[Jim Marshall]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

I had to compress it to get it on the forum. Try http://www.readylens.com/messageboard/default.asp it is the second thread on the Glastron owners forum. There are several posts.

Jim

 

[ringmaster]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

that is an excelent site. i know ford changed the cam in the 302 to the 351 in 1985 making the 302 ho the reason they did it was it took alot of the compression stress off a couple of the mains. i didnt know that marine applications was doing it way before them. i know form experiance that going from the 302 cam to a 351 came does make a huge difference.

 

[Jim Marshall]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

You never know what you are going to find out. It sounds like the engine is a 302 HO basically. It is an engine that is using a 351 cam and heads. Does it stop there? What about the distributor? I noticed that the 302 and 351 seem to take a different distributor.

Jim

 

[ringmaster]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

im not sure on the marine dist but i know for sure the car engine the 302 ho does have a bigger oil pump shaft. the 5/16. if you want to build something different see about putting a 289 crank in it i was building a moter for a 65 mustang and needed a crank for the 85 302 ho i was putting in it. the only crank i had was the 289. i had to machine the flang off the back so it would work with the one piece seal but when it was done man that thing would run. i talked to a guy that drags races and he told me i destroked it. what it did was made it real torquy with higher rpm's. and no strain on the motor.

 

[Jim Marshall]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

I am thinking about rebuilding it to gain some torque and horsepower. I look and see all of these rod, piston, head, cam, and manifold combinations. Seems like it is a bit confusing. How does one sort it out?

Thanks,

Jim

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

Ebasic power sells a brand new 285 hp 351 with all of the tin for like $3300.....​

 

[ringmaster]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

all you would need is the 289 crank in the 302. everything else is the same.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

..... What about the distributor? I noticed that the 302 and 351 seem to take a different distributor.

351's need a longer distributor shaft due to the taller deck height of the block. Also, the intake manifold is wider to span the larger gap created by the taller deck height.

All OMC 190 hp Ford 302's and Merc 188/888 302's and I assume Volvo too, used the 351 marine cam and 351 cylinder heads that were Factory drilled for the smaller 302 head bolt diameter. To use any automotive 351 head on a 302 you would need to buy a set of special head bolt washers built for that purpose.

Although Glastron may have warranted the motor, they did not build it. It was a Ford factory item.

Believe me, you do not want the added weight and size of the 351 in your Glastron. There are many options to make your 302 reliably drive your boat as fast and quick as is prudent. Example, see my post above re 2001 Ford Explorer engine. Also there is no reason you cannot just rebuild yours to similar specs. Just keep your eyes out for a set of GT40P heads.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

351's need a longer distributor shaft due to the taller deck height of the block. Also, the intake manifold is wider to span the larger gap created by the taller deck height.

All OMC 190 hp Ford 302's and Merc 188/888 302's and I assume Volvo too, used the 351 marine cam and 351 cylinder heads that were Factory drilled for the smaller 302 head bolt diameter. To use any automotive 351 head on a 302 you would need to buy a set of special head bolt washers built for that purpose.

Although Glastron may have warranted the motor, they did not build it. It was a Ford factory item.

Believe me, you do not want the added weight and size of the 351 in your Glastron.

That's a good point Boom....
I wonder what the HP rating is for the hull?....

 

[Jim Marshall]

Re: Restoring 1974 revisited.

If my memory serves me correctly I believe that the boat was available with a jet using a 351. I opted for the stern drive. I think that the 302 will do just fine.

Glastron did have someone make the manifolds for them. Most manifolds that I see have a camelback on them. These do not.

Jim