|
Author
|
Topic: Anyone destroked a 351C?
|
MrWesson22
Gearhead Posts: 1286
From: Dacula, GA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 10-29-2002 09:13 PM
   
Using a 3" stroke, you'd basically have a long rod Boss 302. I think it would be a helluva fun engine with a healthy solid cam, strip dominator, and 750HP as long as you had 4.56s or so and a 4 speed. Have any thoughts on this?Edit: Oops... Steve, could you move this to Ford Racing? I believe that would be more appropriate. Thanks! ------------------
Neal 69 Gulfstream Aqua Grande
351C/4sp
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/MrWesson22.html [This message has been edited by MrWesson22 (edited 10-29-2002).]
IP: Logged |
68DARKHORSE
Gearhead Posts: 446
From: Austin, Tx
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 10-29-2002 10:41 PM
They did that down under in the Aussie Falcon.------------------
Alton 68 GT FASTBACK J code
http://www.bullittclub.com/phpBB/Uploads/1020432917.jpg
01 GT BULLITT http://www.bullittclub.com/phpBB/Uploads/1020440453.jpg
96 OJ BRONCO
IP: Logged |
MrWesson22
Gearhead Posts: 1286
From: Dacula, GA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 10-29-2002 10:42 PM
With the 9.2" deck height?
------------------
Neal 69 Gulfstream Aqua Grande
351C/4sp
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/MrWesson22.html
IP: Logged |
68DARKHORSE
Gearhead Posts: 446
From: Austin, Tx
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 10-29-2002 11:01 PM
All I can say is a friend of mine was doing some work on an Australian Calypso Coral Falcon (looks like a short Torino btw)that had a Cleveland style block and heads with 4.9 on the fender. The Aussies used the Cleveland engines much longer than we did in the states. So I asked around and was told (as I suspected) that it was a destroked 351C.
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6590
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 10-30-2002 10:44 AM
That's basically what the old pro stock motors were, but they used a 3.25 (I think stroke) instead. It would need spun to the moon, even worse than a stock stroke cleveland, to make good power. Then, more than likely a stock stroke motor with the same amount of money spent on it would out run it. More cubic inches is almost always better, especailly if the cylinder heads will support it, and 4v cleveland heads will easily support more than 357 inches.
IP: Logged |
bluestreek
Gearhead Posts: 1724
From: Athens,GA
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 10-30-2002 11:30 AM
I agree!!  If you want a short stroker just use the lighter and more plentiful 289/302 or even a 351W. The heads available are far more suited for smaller cubes .
IP: Logged |
Thud
Gearhead Posts: 1344
From: Cumming,Ga.,USofA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-30-2002 11:51 AM
I've been told that the desirable Aussie heads (small port/quench chamber) are from the Australian 302 Cleveland and the Aussie 351's used heads like the US 4V heads. (just what I've been told.... be nice)------------------
Once in while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.... Robert Hunter Dwayne M&M Member #18
'94 Lightning #942 of 4007
'70 Mach1
2 '69 Cyclone Spoiler II's
'65 Galaxie 500 + parts car
IP: Logged |
clevelandstyle
Gearhead Posts: 1309
From: central Indiana
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 10-30-2002 12:02 PM
I only advantage to less cubes is in class racing, where is a weight to cubic inch class. Bigger engines are almost always at a disadvantage to a smaller engine. As for street engines and bracket engines, go for more cubes. There is no such thing as "too big".  ------------------
Ben
Grabber Green '70 Mach I 351C 4V
Robbin Egg Blue '79 Fairmont 351C 4V
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6590
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 10-30-2002 12:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by clevelandstyle:
I only advantage to less cubes is in class racing, where is a weight to cubic inch class.
And in that case, you would be much better off starting with a smaller and lighter block for the smaller cubes. The cleveland block is alot heavier than a 302 block, and I think it's also a little heavier than a windsor block.
IP: Logged |
MrWesson22
Gearhead Posts: 1286
From: Dacula, GA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 10-30-2002 12:10 PM
That's kinda what I thought. But the idea of a poor man's boss 302 making about 500hp at 9K rpms did have a bit of a ring to it.
------------------
Neal 69 Gulfstream Aqua Grande
351C/4sp
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/MrWesson22.html
IP: Logged |
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1341
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-30-2002 01:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MrWesson22:
That's kinda what I thought. But the idea of a poor man's boss 302 making about 500hp at 9K rpms did have a bit of a ring to it.
I would rather have a 393C that made 500 hp at 6500 rpm.....be a lot easier on parts
IP: Logged |
Rustang1
Gearhead Posts: 110
From:
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-30-2002 03:24 PM
Hope you plan on turning some rpm to get any power out of it! Those heads with mild port work require some hellacious RPM even at 351 cubes (to take full advantage of the airflow)! Talk about a 10K holeshot!
IP: Logged |
MrWesson22
Gearhead Posts: 1286
From: Dacula, GA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 10-30-2002 04:29 PM
I'm not going to do it. If anything, with my next engine, I'm either going 377C or some sort of 385 series engine. I was just benchracing.
------------------
Neal 69 Gulfstream Aqua Grande
351C/4sp
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/MrWesson22.html
IP: Logged |
MrWesson22
Gearhead Posts: 1286
From: Dacula, GA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 10-30-2002 04:31 PM
Actually, my longterm goal - $$$ won't happen until I'm out of college - is a turbocharged EFI 514 (coilover front suspension). Can you say torque?? Of course, knowing me, it'll change 100 times before I ever get to that point.------------------
Neal 69 Gulfstream Aqua Grande
351C/4sp
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/MrWesson22.html
IP: Logged |
Dusty Kiser
Gearhead Posts: 184
From: Bethel,Oh USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-30-2002 07:01 PM
It seems engines less than 300 cubes are more efficient. In the seventies (when everyone was still using modified factory heads) the Chevvy guys were running 287 inches and putting out 2.1 hp/cu.in! Roush took that as a challenge and built some destroked 290 inch Bosses and put out 2.3 hp/cu.in. As inches climb power per cube drops. As noted in this thread the little ones want to buzz. As one writer noted, they shift at 9500 (no mistakes please) RPM!
IP: Logged |
fastbackRb
Gearhead Posts: 100
From: Columbus,Ga.
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 11-02-2002 12:05 AM
I personally think destroking to 331 would be a good move if you like spinning rpm. I ran a desk top dyno with my new heads and the 331 produced 860hp@ 10500rpm and the next best was a 408 that produced 830hp@ 9500rpm.Since we run a clutch with a 4 speed lenco I like the 331. Both will kill the valve train quickly. If we ran an auto a converter to get in the power band on either one would be costly and the tranny to go with it also would brake the bank .It would seem also that if I am going to spinn those kind of rpm I would rather have a stout block with less cylinder side load than alite weight peice that won't last because of the of the side load on it.Then add alittle juice to it say 250hp worth you would be streching even a filled c block much less a w block. It really comes down to NO GUTS NO GLORY. Why have a cookie cutter mold of what everyone else has and what kind of racing you do run what you brung or braket racing. Because you do not need a 9500rpm bracket motor if you want consistancy.
Rudy
------------------
70 fastback cleveland 5.80's@117 with a 4 speed lenco (broke it)
69 cougar elimnator Boss 302
84 droptop 5.0
86 hatchback 289
92 explorer
97 f350 dullie power stroke
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
