 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Explorer / November 2005Ancient thread or am I dreaming?
It's time to replace the spark plugs on my '98 5.0L Expy. Right next to #5 I notice this empty hole - an exhaust manifold bolt somehow worked itself loose and disappeared. Not a big deal... But a 10mmx1.5 wouldn't fit, and 8mm is way too small. Totally baffled, I try a 3/8"x16 standard -- and it fits!!! Yes, I know that the 5.0L V8 engine has a long history, but an imperial thread on a '98 engine? Am I dreaming? Please, guys, save my sanity, quick. Big irritation having to always have two sets of tools on hand. We should have long ago converted to metric and been done with it, but it will probably never happen so we live with a mixture. >It's time to replace the spark plugs on my '98 5.0L Expy. Right next to #5 I >notice this empty hole - an exhaust manifold bolt somehow worked itself [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >imperial thread on a '98 engine? Am I dreaming? Please, guys, save my >sanity, quick. > Big irritation having to always have two sets of tools on hand. We > should have long ago converted to metric and been done with it, but it > will probably never happen so we live with a mixture. I agree. At least in the olden days, if it was American it used English, if it was foreign, it used metric, except if it was British it used Whitworth... ;-)) But once you get used to it, the metric system makes a lot more sense for everything. -Paul > It's time to replace the spark plugs on my '98 5.0L Expy. Right next to #5 > I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > imperial thread on a '98 engine? Am I dreaming? Please, guys, save my > sanity, quick. Not just plugs, but all sorts of different fasteners. And not confined to Ford. I ended up with a set of metric taps and dies in addition to the standard set. It turns out the handiest items in those sets are the thread pitch gauges. It is funny how often you are trying to find a matching nut or bolt for some application and the first three tries don't fit. Charlie Thanks for the comments. Guess I am lucky that this antique, iron-head pushrod engine uses any common fasteners at all; might have been the 18th century made-to-fit ones... Anyone know when was the 302 V8 introduced? Sometime in the early 60's? Even with multiport fuel injection it's a gas guzzler, but a rock-solid one. At almost 100K miles as smooth and powerful as it was when brand new. > Thanks for the comments. Guess I am lucky that this antique, iron-head > pushrod engine uses any common fasteners at all; might have been the 18th > century made-to-fit ones... Anyone know when was the 302 V8 introduced? > Sometime in the early 60's? Even with multiport fuel injection it's a gas > guzzler, but a rock-solid one. At almost 100K miles as smooth and powerful > as it was when brand new. Most engine fasterners are still US thread while chassis/body fasteners are metric. I think it's still that way today on many US models. The 25 year old 3.8L on my mid-size LTD has all metric threads. Not to mention the 4.6L on the Grand Marquis (which also has the 'metric' 4R70W transmission). My guess would be that anything designed after the oil crisis of the late 70's was metric, but they never changed the threads on existing designs, even through major updates, as long as those stayed in production. > Most engine fasterners are still US thread while chassis/body fasteners are > metric. > I think it's still that way today on many US models. > Thanks for the comments. Guess I am lucky that this antique, iron-head > pushrod engine uses any common fasteners at all; might have been the 18th > century made-to-fit ones... Anyone know when was the 302 V8 introduced? > Sometime in the early 60's? 1968, I believe. Dave >Thanks for the comments. Guess I am lucky that this antique, iron-head >pushrod engine uses any common fasteners at all; might have been the 18th >century made-to-fit ones... Anyone know when was the 302 V8 introduced? >Sometime in the early 60's? Even with multiport fuel injection it's a gas >guzzler, but a rock-solid one. At almost 100K miles as smooth and powerful >as it was when brand new. 1962 go to http://www.classiccar.com/articles/Ford_Small_Block_History.asp and they have a nice history of it. did i understand the article to say 302 (5.0) used until 1995? my 2000 Explorer has this engine. also, I have 1982 PU with 302 V8. On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:29:59 -0800, "Happy Traveler" <happy_traveler@abc.net> wrote: >Thanks for the comments. Guess I am lucky that this antique, iron-head >pushrod engine uses any common fasteners at all; might have been the 18th >century made-to-fit ones... Anyone know when was the 302 V8 introduced? >Sometime in the early 60's? Even with multiport fuel injection it's a gas >guzzler, but a rock-solid one. At almost 100K miles as smooth and powerful >as it was when brand new. 1962 go to http://www.classiccar.com/articles/Ford_Small_Block_History.asp and they have a nice history of it. Seems that they kept making them until replacement by the 4.6L 'modular' in the restyled 2002 Explorer. The article also tells that the displacement did not become 302 until 1968. Guess what it loses on one end, it gains on the other. Overall, 34 years of service is a very respectable accomplishment, any way you look at it. > did i understand the article to say 302 (5.0) used until 1995? > > my 2000 Explorer has this engine. The article also tells that the displacement did > not become 302 until 1968. 1968 was the last year for the 289 and also the first year for the 302. I'm not sure if they were both available at the same time, or if the 302 was a mid year change. Dave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.