|
Author
|
Topic: 331 or 393 into my '65
|
I65Stang
Gearhead Posts: 5941
From: Antelope, CA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-14-2003 11:33 AM
   
I know the answer may seem apparent at first glance but here is the deal. The '65s engine is blown up and I am trying to decide which way to go. The end goal is to have a nice cruiser (c4 or aod if I have the $$$) that will run 12s. I dont want to go below 12 as the '65 will NOT be receiving a roll bar. Ease of maintenance is a concern as it will be street driven a lot (Im sure since it was an I6 the towers are sagging). If I decide to go the 331, the 5.0 will be pulled out of the '88 (has 3K miles on it, yes its back together again  ) and put into the '65 while gathering the parts to build the 331 in the roller block (I could run nitrous in the mean time on the 5.0 that I built ). The '88 will just get a crate engine with a warrantee. My plan has always been to put a 393 into her (schwing ) but I dont know now. So can I reach my goal of a cruisable/streetable '65 running 12s on DOT legal tires with a 331? If so, what as far as heads and intakes/carbs? Should I just go with the more cubic inches (and more hp ) of the 393? There are no emission rules on '65s so thats not of concern  . Thanks all  . ------------------
Tim M&M Member #35
1965 Mustang coupe, 200 I6, Holley 2300, Clifford header, true duals w/ 26" Smithys *blown up, new engine soon*
1988 Mustang GT AOD vert, 15.810 @ 88.871 mph 100% stock w/ no traction
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/I65Stang.html
IP: Logged |
Fastymz
Moderator Posts: 11429
From: Reno Nv USA MEM#1240
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-14-2003 01:08 PM
Tim I'd think a hot 331 would get you there.Follow what Todd (Thumper66) did his car has to be close to 12's with street tires. As for a "cruisable/streetable" is a matter of what your willing to put up with.
Todd's car runs great on the street idle's good too.
------------------
SCOOP2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH 65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc. https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Fastymz.html
[This message has been edited by Fastymz (edited 08-14-2003).]
IP: Logged |
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 945
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-14-2003 06:03 PM
Definately the 393. It would require little to no clearencing of the block, and have 50 more cubes.
I imagine the cost of building each will be very close.
Why not go with the larger displacement?
IP: Logged |
bluestreek
Gearhead Posts: 1289
From: Athens,GA
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 08-14-2003 09:07 PM
Most people seem to think that a 351 stroker makes more sense and they're probably right. I just happened to have a nice 289 motor laying around that I wanted to put to good use. The 331 has nice street manners, gets good mpg and I was even able to use a lot of leftover parts from the last 289 project. My '66 can run mid 12s all day long with 8" wide street tires. It has ran 11's with drag radials but I wore those out fast! Todds 331 is similar to mine except for the cam. I use a roller cam and he used a solid flat tappet. I'm real pleased with the 331 overall . ------------------
1966 Mustang Coupe: Custom glass hood and BIG scoop sits atop a 289 stroked to 331 c.i., Steel crank and girdle, 5.4 H-beams, Forged slugs, TFS alum. heads, ported Stealth 8020 intake, Xtreme 274 Solid Roller, Holley 750 HP, long tubes, 4speed, 9" 3.50 posi.
11.86 @ 116 mph (7.62 @ 93 mph)full street trim!
DanH
IP: Logged |
steve'66
Gearhead Posts: 6522
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 08-14-2003 10:22 PM
Tim,You are missing the obvious! Just run a healthy 351w, it'll run 12's all day like Melissa's used to. Then when you want to go faster stroke it like we did. I really think you can build a 351w cheaper than any stroker, whether 331 or 383. Most 347 strokers I see in street trim run low 12s just like we did with the 351w in street trim. Equal performance for less cost. You won't need a stroker crank, or rods etc. but you will need aluminum heads. Of course you should have them on a 331 or 347 too. SteveW
IP: Logged |
V8 Thumper
Gearhead Posts: 3467
From: Orange, Ca. United States of America
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 08-14-2003 10:24 PM
I'm with Dan; I built a 333 because I already had a bunch of 8.2" deck stuff; including a Mexican block  Cubic inches make horsepower, plain and simple. If I were starting from scratch, I'd build a 393-408. Don't get me wrong; a well-engineered, carefully machined and assembled 'little' Windsor can cause you to load your shorts just fine  You can also buzz a 3.25" stroke to the moon ------------------
1965 GT coupe, 333ci aluminum headed/solid cammed stroker, four speed, 3.70:1 9" All Blue Oval, no blue bottle
http://mustangsandmore.50megs.com/V8Thumper.html
IP: Logged |
Buster
Gearhead Posts: 780
From: Orlando
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-14-2003 11:24 PM
Long rod 351w using 351M/400 rods. This is a great Street/Strip setup that I've done in the past and it's very streetable.... Done right, this combo will get great gas milage and run in the 11's if you wish, as long as your car is under 3400lbs that is... btw, that's using ported 69 351W production iron heads and I have all the specs on this combo if you are interested. [This message has been edited by Buster (edited 08-14-2003).]
IP: Logged |
Fastymz
Moderator Posts: 11429
From: Reno Nv USA MEM#1240
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-15-2003 01:39 AM
Buster I'd like to see the specs.Steve how much would it cost to build a strong running 351w. ------------------
SCOOP 2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH 65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc. https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Fastymz.html
IP: Logged |
two89w
Gearhead Posts: 196
From: sydney australia
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 08-15-2003 05:22 AM
being the owner of a mild 347
i recommend a 393 ! same cost, **** loads more torque,power but less room in engine bay and a little heavier
IP: Logged |
steve'66
Gearhead Posts: 6522
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 08-15-2003 10:23 AM
Scoop,It wouldn't cost you much at all. Heads, forged pistons, cam, and roller rockers. Maybe $1,500 plus machining. SteveW
IP: Logged |
Fastymz
Moderator Posts: 11429
From: Reno Nv USA MEM#1240
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-15-2003 01:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by steve'66:
Scoop,It wouldn't cost you much at all. Heads, forged pistons, cam, and roller rockers. Maybe $1,500 plus machining. SteveW
Tim sorry to jump into your post.
Ok Steve now you have my interest.With heads and all the rebuild parts how can I stay under $1500 for all?
------------------
SCOOP 2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH 65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc. https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Fastymz.html
IP: Logged |
steve'66
Gearhead Posts: 6522
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 08-15-2003 01:30 PM
Shop for deals. SteveW
IP: Logged |
I65Stang
Gearhead Posts: 5941
From: Antelope, CA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-15-2003 02:09 PM
Thanks all, it seems that you all concur with my initial gut reaction, I was just thinking about having a warranteed engine in the '88 . Steve, that is something that I actually didnt think of this time around lol. A built 351 wouldnt be less, great dependability and power plus have the ability to be stroked . Buster, I am very interested on the specs of the engine you are referring too . Damn you scoop, commandering yet another post . Lol, just kidding. ------------------
Tim M&M Member #35
1965 Mustang coupe, 200 I6, Holley 2300, Clifford header, true duals w/ 26" Smithys *blown up, new engine soon*
1988 Mustang GT AOD vert, 15.810 @ 88.871 mph 100% stock w/ no traction
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/I65Stang.html
IP: Logged |
Buster
Gearhead Posts: 780
From: Orlando
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-15-2003 07:11 PM
OK, here ya go....I would suggest using JE, Ross, Wiseco ect... The compression height would depend on the year of the block. 1969-70 is 9.480 and 1971 and up is 9.503. The rod bearings used in this combo are 351C. I have used King bearings with very good luck. I set the piston to deck at (+.005?) above the deck. The JE piston I use are part number #127540 with a compression height of 1.173? for the later model block, not sure but I think there off the shelf items from JE. I set the compression ratio to 10.8:1 Your compression ratio would depend on the combustion chamber size and head gaskets ect, which is as long as you use the 1969 ? 1970 351W head. If I remember correctly, the chambers are 60cc, maybe 61cc?s after cleaning up the chambers. Felpro makes at least two head gaskets, one is 8.5cc and the other is 9.5cc and I can?t remember for sure which one I used, I would haft to do some more digging in my notes to find out, but I think it was the smaller of the two to end up with the 10.8:1 ratio. The cylinder heads I like to use are 69 or 70 351W?s fully ported using 1.94? intake & 1.60? exhaust valves and 1.6 roller rockers. The rods are 351M/400M. The rod length for a 351W is 5.956? and the Modified rod is 6.580?, .624? longer. This changes the rod ratio from a 1.70:1 stock 351W to 1.88:1. What happens with a longer rod engine (better rod ratio, higher ratio number) is the piston hangs (longer dwell time) at TDC longer, therefore the engine has more time to burn the fuel/air mixture. Also, I was able to run as much as 42 to 46 deg total timing on pump gas. To make the Modified rod work in a 351W you need to take .050? off both sides of the big end of the rod, .025? off each side. There is a boss on the little end that needs to be removed as well, in order to keep the rod boss from hitting the bottom of the piston. It?s up to you whether or not the rods are full floating or pressed fit. You might run this by whichever machine shop you use to see if it?s worth using stock rods(cost wise). The stock modified rods are VERY strong forged rods and they are spot faced too, or maybe some Eagle rods if there isn?t that much price difference between a new set of Eagle rods or machining a stock set. Also, I imbalance the engine, 48% / 52% lighter reciprocating weight. The cam I use is a Comcams part # 32-000.5 mechanical street roller. You could hardly hear this cam at idle, and it sounded like a stock 5.0 Mustang. Valve adjustment .020? intake & .022? exhaust
Duration @ .050? 244 / 248
Lift .578 intake & exhaust
Lobe separation 112
Seat pressure 145# closed With street tires, mufflers and 2 1/2 exhaust out the back, one of the cars that I built using this combo ran 11.88 in the quarter, unfortunately I don?t remember what the MPH was. It also got 19 to 21 mpg on the hwy, 19 with the A/C on. This particular vehicles was a 1988 Mustang with no weight removed, I think the owner said it weighted in at 3400 lbs, but I don?t remember if that was with him or not. I would bet, with more tuning and slicks, it would run deep into the 11.50?s and the street drivability was like a stock 5.0 Mustang I also used a Weiand Stealth manifold and a 750 Holley carb, 3310-3 I think.... anyhoo, I think this is everything.... btw, yes I used both centrifugal and vacuum advance on this setup =) [This message has been edited by Buster (edited 08-16-2003).]
IP: Logged |
Fastymz
Moderator Posts: 11429
From: Reno Nv USA MEM#1240
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-15-2003 07:43 PM
Buster what did you do to the heads?------------------
SCOOP 2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH 65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc. https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Fastymz.html
IP: Logged |
Buster
Gearhead Posts: 780
From: Orlando
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-15-2003 08:09 PM
Well Ron, I really spend more time then I should on a set of heads, especially on cast iron heads, about 50 or 60 hours just on the intake and exhaust ports. I also do a three-angle valve job, 30, 45 and 60 on the seats. Unfortunately, I don?t have any fancy three or five angle cutters, just the regular valve grinding stones. I drill and tap the heads for screw in studs. I also cut the spring pockets for double valve springs and PC seal size guides for the valve seals, although I DON?T USE PC SEALS, IMHO they suck compared to the good Ford valve steam seals which are the same size as the PC seals and they don?t leak oil. The nice thing about a long rod engine is they don?t need as much airflow as a shorter rod engine. A long rod engine has slower piston speed towards the top and bottom of the stroke then a shorter rod engine. You can get away with smaller ports and more timing with a longer rod engine and they like RPM.... I think that?s about it. [This message has been edited by Buster (edited 08-15-2003).]
IP: Logged |
Fastymz
Moderator Posts: 11429
From: Reno Nv USA MEM#1240
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-15-2003 08:25 PM
About how much money do you put into the heads?
Just thinking if a port and valve job is worth it over new Alum heads.------------------
SCOOP 2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH 65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc. https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Fastymz.html
IP: Logged |
Buster
Gearhead Posts: 780
From: Orlando
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-15-2003 08:39 PM
Well, I do all the work my self, so the only money is in the valve springs, valves, keepers, retainers, valve seals, locks and studs.Although, most likely you could buy a set of aluminum heads and just bolt them on without porting and flow better then a set of ported 69-70 iron head.... Keep in mind that a long rod engine doesn't needs as much flow as a shorter rod engine.... IMHO that is.
IP: Logged |
65racecoupe
Gearhead Posts: 126
From: Layton UT,
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-19-2003 09:59 AM
Well, I would suggest the smaller smallblock.I am running a 331 that is putting out 470 HP to the flywheel (not a very strong cam). I picked the 302 block because my car is more of a road race oriented ride. The 302 is a lot lighter and, therefore will help the car handle better. I plan on running low 12s on drag radials, mid to low 11s on slicks and a small shot.
If you really want to drag, go with the 351 and stroke it to 393 or 408 ci. You will have to get a scoop on your hood to run a Vic Jr or similar intake. I can run the vic jr intake under the stock hood with a 331.
IP: Logged |
mustangboy
Gearhead Posts: 652
From: Ont, Canada
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 08-19-2003 12:54 PM
Obviously either combo will get you into the 12s fairly easy.Here is what I would look at.Do you want the extra bulk and wieght and height of the 351 in the engine bay?Do you already have a lot of 302 parts that can be used for the 331?I would build whatever would be cheaper for you in the long run.If I had to start from scratch I'd probably do the 351 but it sounds like you may already have some 302-5.0 stuff.------------------
1968 mustang j-code sprint.13.69@101 306cu.in, stock ported heads,weiand exellerator,650 holley DP,hedman hedders,comp 292 Magnum cam,4-speed,8 inch 4.11 detroit locker http://mustangsandmore.50megs.com/MembersPics/mustangboy.html
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 1547
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 08-19-2003 01:26 PM
A mild 351W based engine will make the same peak horsepower (and way more low end and midrange) as a hotter 331. And due to it's milder nature, it will also last longer. If it's being run behind an automatic, it will also be able to get by with a tighter converter (which is less expensive than, and much easier to live with on the street) Once the car has been set up for a 351W based engine, the infrastructure is there for a SERIOUS powerplant in the future if your project keeps growing. Just another $0.02 Good Luck! ------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
IP: Logged |
I65Stang
Gearhead Posts: 5941
From: Antelope, CA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-19-2003 05:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by n2oMike:
If it's being run behind an automatic, it will also be able to get by with a tighter converter (which is less expensive than, and much easier to live with on the street)
Lol, how did you know what I was just gonna ask Mike? I was wondering about stall speed. ------------------
Tim M&M Member #35
1965 Mustang coupe, 200 I6, Holley 2300, Clifford header, true duals w/ 26" Smithys *blown up, new engine soon*
1988 Mustang GT AOD vert, 15.810 @ 88.871 mph 100% stock w/ no traction
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/I65Stang.html
IP: Logged |
Buster
Gearhead Posts: 780
From: Orlando
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-19-2003 10:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by n2oMike:
Once the car has been set up for a 351W based engine, the infrastructure is there for a SERIOUS powerplant in the future if your project keeps growing.
Very true Mike....
IP: Logged |
Clasy66
Journeyman Posts: 58
From: Placerville, CA (near Sacramento)
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 08-20-2003 02:27 AM
Hmmm. . . now you've all got me thinking! I was planning on a 331 for my '66 (currently a 302), but I have NO parts that I was planning on using on the 331, so maybe I'll try to find a 351 block and go from there. . . Hmm. . . ------------------
Brandon
------------------------ '66 Mustang coupe
Fresh but stock 302
Holley 4V/Edelbrock Streetmaster 289 intake
Tri-y Headers/2.5" dual exhaust
C4
Front disk brakes
8" 300 open rear
Stock heads and cam Purchased car 06/2003
Goal: 12 second beautiful but mean daily driver.
IP: Logged |
I65Stang
Gearhead Posts: 5941
From: Antelope, CA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-26-2003 12:35 AM
Lets throw a lil wrench into this equation. Say you will have a basically free standard bore 5.0 long block(internals, heads, etc) with 3K miles on? What would you do then? Stroke it to 331 or try all the usual upper bolt-ons with a big a$$ cam (all of which would be needed with a 331 anyhow [at least the heads and intake, cam would need to be cut again probably])? Change the springs out and can reuse the heads (whatever aftermarket) with any W based engine.Side story is my mom has been wanting to buy my 5.0 vert back for my dad for a while now and she doesnt like the way it "sounds" lol with the looser rings for nitrous so they may buy a crate for me to put into it for them (I am considering selling it back to them and then maybe getting something else ). Still not definite but... Gives you all something more to think about . ------------------
Tim M&M Member #35
1965 Mustang coupe, 200 I6, Holley 2300, Clifford header, true duals w/ 26" Smithys *blown up, new engine soon*
1988 Mustang GT AOD vert, 15.810 @ 88.871 mph 100% stock w/ no traction
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/I65Stang.html
IP: Logged |
Fastymz
Moderator Posts: 11429
From: Reno Nv USA MEM#1240
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-26-2003 12:40 AM
Tim I'd say take it,sell the vert.Build a sweet 302 for the 65.I've seen plenty of healthy running 302 non strokers.You could use the money you save from the motor for the other needed parts.And then later you could always build another motor.Put a 5spd in it with some 4.11 gears.You'll have plenty of fun. ------------------
SCOOP 2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH 65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc. https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Fastymz.html
IP: Logged | |
Mustangsandmore Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
