I don't mean to bag on 351's, but out of the several hundred examples of the two motors I've seen in person race, this always seems to be true with a few exceptions.

So opinions/discusion on 302 vrs. 351.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mpcoluv:
Maybe all the examples you see are using stock heads.
A 351 should ALWAYS run better than a 302 given the same level of modification simply because it is 49 inches larger.

---

Exactly.

Anyway I still think displacement rules.

------------------
SCOOP

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastymz:
Would the same hold true for a 351w VS a 392 stroker. If both motor were set up the same heads, cam, compression ect.Would the 392 out do it just because of size.
The way I understand it and correct me if I'm wrong. A motor is a just a pump, pumping in fuel and air and out exhaust. The larger the size motor the more it can pump through it for each cycle. So it would make sense that a larger motor would also make more power at a give RPM.

---

Yep, bigger is generally better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mpcoluv:
Yep, bigger is generally better.

---

as long as the heads/intake/exhaust used are not restricting the largest engine. Otherwise the big cube will be starved for flow where the smaller will be quite happy still

almost guaranteed that the 351 will make a decent amount more of torque at every rpm

See in Chevy land they have the same strange deal. A 302 makes squirt for power 327 is better a 350 better still but a 383 stroker and a 400 small block generaly get beat by the smaller 350's. Again same parts for all the engines.

Just curious if it's because of the over square bore and stroke? Or is it that more people run 302 Fords and 350 Chevy's?

I always considered a Chevy 350 to run better (more horse) then a Ford 351. But the 351 from a design stand point should be superior?

------------------
SCOOP

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

Trying to compare sbc motors is hard to do. A properly built 400 will run away from a similarly built 350. A properly 327 will also run with a 350, but it will require at least a thousand more rpm than the 350 to make the same power.

The one problem with your comparison is, the bigger motor will need a bigger cam than the small motor. So if the cam is optimum for the small motor, it will be too small for the bigger motor hurting power production. Heads that work best on the bigger motor will be too large for the small motor. Basically, if you build each motor with parts specific to each motor, the big motor will win.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:

I always considered a Chevy 350 to run better (more horse) then a Ford 351. But the 351 from a design stand point should be superior?

---

The short block of a 350 chevy and a 351w Ford are similar in bore and stroke. The Windsor is a stronger block, and the W has a larger crank too. Some 350 chevy engines were available with better heads and didn't have the narrow engine compartment that the Fords did (due to Fords shock towers) so the headers don't have to make a serious 90* turn at the exhaust ports.

The aftermarket has always supported the 350 Chevy better than the 351w Ford, until recently. We're catching up thanks to the popularity of the 5.0's.

As far as a 350 making more power than a 383, that would only happen if all the guy did was put a 400 crank in his 350 with no other changes. More cubes need more cam and better heads. And to spin the longer stroke the same rpms as the short stroke engine you'll need a better reciprocating assly if you want it to last.

Also, a 351w is a stroked 289/302! It's just packaged in a taller stronger block.

I only can add one thing to this wonderful thread, a small piece of advice for sundanace. Try to look at a few more examples before you make a final decision. I think you have had some bad examples swaying your opinions somewhere down the line.
Check out a few more race cars then the answer to the bigger cubes question will become clearer.
Take Care and good luck!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsracingbbf:
this is a VERY entertaining thread!
Check out a few more race cars then the answer to the bigger cubes question will become clearer.
Take Care and good luck!

---

Yep,

Come to SearsPoint/Infenion raceway and check out the field. Melissa's stang with a 408w is whooping a bunch of BBC's and there isn't a 302 in sight. And this motor is layed back and looking for consistancy, not best et. Some of the competition run stroked chevys, 406s etc. and they are usually in the 11's. 347 strokers are usually 12.0 runners. (unless they are in lightened race cars) And 350 chevys are anywhere from 18 seconds to 11 seconds depending on what they weigh. The 408 is a square motor, 4" bore 4" stroke. They can push a light race car into the low 9's. Not bad, huh?

------------------
SCOOP

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

------------------
SCOOP

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

Steve, the fact your 408 is whoopin on the big blocks is another strange happenstance I notice regularly.

Now I did not say there was a limit on RPM and that is one of the keys to why a smaller motor can match a larger.
The 327's used to hit 7000-7500 when I was shifting around 6500-6700 with my 350.

I agree the 351 has a stronger block then a 302 but would disagree that a 351 is a stronger block then a four bolt main chevy 350.

Torque production/RPM realy is another arguement all together, I was more refering to HP and et.

Also, why is it all the car mag wizzards can make a 302 with 400+ hp every time, but can't seem to make a 351 best 370ish horsepower? Not that I've ever belived a car mag, but it realy begs to question!!

I'll admit I am biased to smaller engines (less then 400) I used to have a 350 Chevy that strait whooped on everything, the closest competition I had were those damn 5.0's lol this includes a good lot of cars and engines.

My 350 and those 5.0's where faster then:

440 six pack roadrunner
360 Duster
383 Roadrunner
Ferarri Testarosa
502 72 Chevelle
327 67 Camaro
427 67 Chevelle
Blown 383 66 Nova
SB 406 69 Camaro
Dual quad 289 65 Mustang
454 74 Corvette
96 V10 Viper
440 Coronett Super Bee
455 70 Buick GSX

Those are some of the cooler cars of memory

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:

Also, why is it all the car mag wizzards can make a 302 with 400+ hp every time, but can't seem to make a 351 best 370ish horsepower? Not that I've ever belived a car mag, but it realy begs to question!!

I'll admit I am biased to smaller engines (less then 400) I used to have a 350 Chevy that strait whooped on everything, the closest competition I had were those damn 5.0's lol this includes a good lot of cars and engines.

---

Mags can't do it because most of the sbf heads are made for the 5.0 not the 5.8. also the 5.0 is a roller cammed engine, where the 5.8 is not, so unless you do a retrofit, which little to none of the mags do, you don't get that power benifit

and your list has nothing to do with equality of engines. They are not all running the same comp, running with the same technology, using heads that work best for their application, same design of intake, cams that are suited to thier application, ect. And were you racing these people on the track, i doubt a 450+hp 500ft-lb viper lost to a NA 350 in a car of equal weights

so much more than the engine size deals with how fast the cars are. Not all cars are set up for 1/4 and not all people know how to drive. If you raced the ferrari to top speed you would have lost horribly

and you beat a Blown 383 66 Nova, unless the car was set up horrible, you would have stood no chance at all.

Dave & Terri

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubz:
Mags can't do it because most of the sbf heads are made for the 5.0 not the 5.8. also the 5.0 is a roller cammed engine, where the 5.8 is not, so unless you do a retrofit, which little to none of the mags do, you don't get that power benifit)

---

351's can be had with rollers, even so a roller cam only frees up a little horse power. Last time I checked AFR 185's seem to do ok?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubz:

and your list has nothing to do with equality of engines. They are not all running the same comp, running with the same technology, using heads that work best for their application, same design of intake, cams that are suited to thier application, ect. And were you racing these people on the track, i doubt a 450+hp 500ft-lb viper lost to a NA 350 in a car of equal weights

---

Your right, it has absolutely nothing to do with the original question or equality. I was mearly stating why I was biased to small engines apposed to large ones as I was asked earlier in a previous post. I did race those cars and won. I never said my car was of equal weight either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubz:

so much more than the engine size deals with how fast the cars are. Not all cars are set up for 1/4 and not all people know how to drive. If you raced the ferrari to top speed you would have lost horribly

---

I understand, again I'm talking motors to motors not chassis and motors combined. The Ferrari story (one of my favorites) involves a rich store owner that couldn't drive for sh!t even if he could I would have beat him till 90-100 or so then he would have ate me for lunch. Same would hold true of the viper...which I raced right after he pulled of the lot. (he was very dissapointed!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubz:

and you beat a Blown 383 66 Nova, unless the car was set up horrible, you would have stood no chance at all.

---

I raced this guy every weekend for three years. He was close but not close enough. He never did get even a bumper on me.

If you realy want to get down to it all my combination was so dialed in that even with my little 350 that I rebuilt for a wopping 200.00 I was able to desimate some pretty cool machinery.

I started this thread to explore bore to stroke ratios, oversquare engines and how it effects power production, engine weight comparisons, prices, RPM to power comparissons ect. Not to get into a bench racing session. Cuz honestly I hate bench racing, that's why I rarely participate in it.

Thanks for your input

round track cars are a completely different scenerio. BTW NASCAR did run Big blocks until they were limited by rules. You dont seriously think they would leave the cubic inches at 358 if nascar would allow them to run 400 do you? weight isnt an issue if money is no object, ever hear of aluminum? they have been making aluminum big blocks for years.
I love the list of cars
some expensive iron in that list. a viper huh? impressive 350 you had there for 2 bills.

HEY I just remembered! I whooped John Force last week too! with a $150.00 dollar rebuilt old 390 Fe motor in a 65 LTD LOL( I had him by a car length because of the 3 deuce set up on the LTD

man that was easy to type!

I hope some of you dont seriously believe a smaller motor set up the same as a bigger motor would win? No really? LOL this thread should be on Jay Leno, or DRR forum.

Some body better call Warren Johnson and tell him to stick a 350 SBC in that Hass body cuz it'll whoop the pants off the twin dominator 500 cid BBC motor

I guess if you tell yourself something enough it starts to sound true? (shrugs)

Yanno there is a simple way to solve this
---- anyone who wants can go to the track and try to back it up with REAL timeslips. Just make sure there is a good representative of a big block there and not some broke down old car with a worn out motor.

PS. if you cant find one I can round up a volunteer or two.

JS--- tellin it like it is ----
layin the smack down.

Hey T-Bird are you reading this thread!!!! LOL

HINT #1 typing is easy, timeslips & win lights are a little harder.
HINT #2 quit tryin to re- invent the wheel, there are some things where SIZE really does matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
......Thanks for your input

---

edited : too nasty

I hate people that tell stories to make them sound better, when there is alot more to the story than they tell

The only think i hate more is people who argue irrelevant points, when thier statements have nothing to do with the real comparison

If a stock set of heads are used on a 351W, the engine will be wheezing anywhere above 4k rpm... where a 302 will turn around 5k rpm before it is completely out of breath. When racing, (especially traction limited street racing) the lower torque of the smaller engine can help it launch without blowing the tires off... and the extra rpm range will allow it to pull better down track. This is how I won so many street races back in the day. Those stock headed 400's would blow the tires off on the line with all their torque, then wheeze out once they started to rev through the gears.

Nowadays with all the aftermarket heads out to support those extra cubes, all bets are off! There are heads and intakes out there that will allow these big engines to spin high enough to fling parts into the next state! The 351W was a DOG until aftermarket became available. If you wanted to go fast with a 351 ford... it was the 351C! Either that, or a 351W with 351C heads bolted to it. The aftermarket didn't come to our rescue in a big way until the mid 90's. The Alan Root (later sold by Ford as the J302) head was the first, but sold for around $1600/pr. bare BACK IN THE LATE 80's! They weren't that common. The World Products and TFS Hi-Port heads came next, and were what ignited the performance revolution of Ford small block. By the mid 90's, things had really started to take off. Today there are more cylinder heads out there that you can count! H*ll, it wasn't too long ago, there wasn't even a decent intake out there for the 302. The best availale forever was the Offy Port-O-Sonic. The Victor Jr 302 didn't even come out until around 1991. The 351W unit was quite a bit later.

The heads that came on a 351W were too small for a 302, let alone a 351ci engine. Small block fords were at a MAJOR disadvantage to the chevy and dodge camp before the aftermarket heads became common. If you wanted to go FAST, you did a LOT of studying, and a LOT of porting! Most chevy boys saw fords as 'easy money'. Ones that actually ran GOOD were few and far between. Since mine was a sleeper FORD, I was able to make a lot of money with that 302 powered mustang back then. Racing another ford was a near guaranteed win... as were the vast majority of chevys. One guy with a nitroused big block chevelle SOLD his car a week after losing to a certain 4-speed NON-nitroused (at the time) 302 mustang. If you wanted to go fast back then, you spent MANY hours holding onto a die grinder. You had to EARN it.

But, as an answer to the question.... If you've got the airflow to support those cubes, you WILL make plenty more power. The next engine build for the mustang will most likely be a stroked 351W. They just make too much power!

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

[This message has been edited by n2oMike (edited 10-10-2003).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubz:
I give up.... *pissed off*

I hate people that tell stories to make them sound better, when there is alot more to the story than they tell

The only think i hate more is people who argue irrelevant points, when thier statements have nothing to do with the real comparison

[This message has been edited by Dubz (edited 10-10-2003).]

---

Damn dubz, Ya'll need to calm down bud! I do not disagree with you at all, I'm trying, maybe unsucessfully, to see the other side of the arguement. I have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone especialy to a bunch of people I more then likely will never meet!

If I was telling stories to make myself look better I'd probably not be telling the ones I've told here...ever thought of that?? No, I sound like I'm full of sh!t...belive what you will? I care less?

The rebuild was 104.00 from PAW included bearings, rings, oil pump, gaskets and seals. the headers I bought for 20.00 Hooker super comps I found on the floor of my auto shop class. They cleaned up well. The cam, lifters and valve springs I bought for 75.00 from a guy named Chris Nielson that did custom cam grinds out of a little shack about 20 miles from my home at the time. An Edelbrock intake and a rebuilt QuadraJet round out the killer monster I built...lol Oh, and there was some serious head porting I did myself with the help of my shop teacher. 350 Nothin special!
Oh, and when I beat the Viper, I had 3.08 gears to add insult to injury.

Is there anyone willing to debate the other side?

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:

The rebuild was 104.00 from PAW included bearings, rings, oil pump, gaskets and seals. the headers I bought for 20.00 Hooker super comps I found on the floor of my auto shop class. They cleaned up well. The cam, lifters and valve springs I bought for 75.00 from a guy named Chris Nielson that did custom cam grinds out of a little shack about 20 miles from my home at the time. An Edelbrock intake and a rebuilt QuadraJet
Oh, and there was some serious head porting I did myself

Oh, and when I beat the Viper, I had 3.08 gears to add insult to injury.

---

There is NFW you beat a Viper (that was actually racing you) with stock pistons, ported stock heads and 3.08 dog cogs.

The fact that you have 3.08s tells me you have an open dif. A Viper has an LS dif and tires as wide as my ass. For reference, I'm 6'1", 210lb.

Second, why do you guys care if someone claims to beat a viper and you don't believe it? There are llots of race stories that may be hard to believe. So what. I'll tell you one of mine so you can call me a liar too. At a test and tune night in the early seventies I beat a big block Corvette two out of three runs with a 2.0 liter Pinto. Of course my car was the national record holding stock eliminator car in its class and the Corvette was straight from the dealer. If you don't believe me don't feel alone, the Corvette driver didn't believe it either and he was there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHIPSBAD67:
without the 5.0 there wouldnt be near the market there is now for ford high perf. parts. the 408 is about the baddest total package ive seen/read about thus far.

---

Yep,

That's the truth.

SteveW

I guess there realy isn't much to discus or debate then?

I started this thread to see other peoples opinions and thoughts. All I ended up doing is discrediting myself and getting flammed by others...hmmm Nice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 68DARKHORSE:

There is NFW you beat a Viper (that was actually racing you) with stock pistons, ported stock heads and 3.08 dog cogs.

The fact that you have 3.08s tells me you have an open dif. A Viper has an LS dif and tires as wide as my ass. For reference, I'm 6'1", 210lb.

[This message has been edited by 68DARKHORSE (edited 10-11-2003).]

---

K, sorry I had to reply to this one.

Stock pistons? No flat top pistons that netted 9.5:1 compression. with a .030 over bore. It was a freshening up after I purchased the car.
If you look at the package you will notice that the car was not built with high RPM peak power, but with a larger torque band within the middle of the RPM range.

What does this tell you? It tells you when I switched to 4.11:1 gears on my Auburn LSD I lost a few tenths.

Can you guess why?

Can you understand the use of higher gears in the first place?

If you can't understand either of those questions you are unqualified to have a qualified opinion.

Also lets understand in full what your tire comment means.

At the time if memory serves your ass is 315mm wide with a side wall of 35% it's width....what does that mean your ass is gonna do when a shock load from an estemated 5000-6000 RPM drop is gonna do to said wide ass?? Spin and spin alot! Also at the time (1996) Vipers were rated at 450 hp. (while impressive not that big a deal)

My adjusted track times indicated that I had somwhere inbetween 400-425 at sea level. A Viper of that vintage also weighs an awefull lot more then my 2600 lb. with me in it car...are things starting to add up??

We haven't even mentioned how wide my tires were (how much narrower then your ass that is.)
They were 265's made by BFG, they were brand new on the market at the time, they were called "drag radials" They were one of the first of their kind.

I remember at that time M/T's street tires were your only other choice...and they sucked.

Nice and sticky BFG's with lots of soft side wall to flex worked well when combined with said BS engine makeing BS power and hooked to a BS manualy shifted TH350...

Personaly the only thing around here full of sh!t is your aforementioned wide ass.

LOL, I swear you mention a car like a Viper or Ferrari...and people seem to have some mystic about the car. That 1. Instantly makes my story unbeliveable. 2. Makes that story one of the funner stories to tell to people who havn't the faintest clue what an actual fast car is.

Also, to all those that doubt my stories...you would have to know me, to know that I do not Bull Sh!t!
Also you assume alot and we all know what that does.

I asked an honest question looking for an honest answer. Instead I recieved the same sort of crap that goes on at any given honda site...tsk tsk..

Sorry for the waste of bandwidth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
It has always seemed to me that if you take a stock stroke 302 and a 351 and install the exact same parts ie. same cam, same intake type, same carb, same headers, same heads. The 302 makes the same or more power?

---

First off if you?re comparing the two engines you can?t make an accurate comparison if you?re using the same head and same headers. If you going to make a true comparison you?ll need to build two engines that will turn the same RPM. Therefore, the heads will need to flow more on the 351W and the headers will need to be larger as well.

Then if you end up making the same horsepower per cubic inch, say one horsepower per CID, your 302 would end up producing 302 HP and the 351W would make 351 HP. Simple math.

Even if you used the 302 heads and headers on the 351W and it made less horsepower per cubic inch, for the sake of argument lets say .9 hp per cubic inch, it would still make more horsepower then the 302.

Now the 351W is a little heaver then the 302, somewhere around 50 pounds I think is the difference, not that big a deal.

However, when you go to a 358 series engine the weight difference is much greater. Although if your making 1 horsepower per cubic inch, 460 hp, the added weight is overcome buy the added horsepower.

An engine is nothing more then a pump and if you restricted the larger pump using less flowing heads it will hurt its power output. Doesn?t matter if it?s a Ford or something else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
[B] K, sorry I had to reply to this one.

What does this tell you? It tells you when I switched to 4.11:1 gears on my Auburn LSD I lost a few tenths.

Can you guess why?

Can you understand the use of higher gears in the first place?

If you can't understand either of those questions you are unqualified to have a qualified opinion.

Also lets understand in full what your tire comment means.

At the time if memory serves your ass is 315mm wide with a side wall of 35% it's width..

My adjusted track times indicated that I had somwhere inbetween 400-425 at sea level. A Viper of that vintage also weighs an awefull lot more then my 2600 lb. with me in it car...are things starting to add up??

Personaly the only thing around here full of sh!t is your aforementioned wide ass.

Also, to all those that doubt my stories...you would have to know me, to know that I do not Bull Sh!t!
Also you assume alot and we all know what that does.

I asked an honest question looking for an honest answer. Instead I recieved the same sort of crap that goes on at any given honda site...tsk tsk..

Sorry for the waste of bandwidth.

[B]

---

I posted that I beat John Force to prove a point, I didn't say I doubted what you said, but it does seem a bit farfetched. Without proof you must admit it would be hard to belive I beat John Force. Same thing applies to your post. If you want folks to belive an outrageous claim back it up with some proof.

I would like to remind you that their are REAL people behind these screens with REAL feelings and just because your typing stuff doesn't make you superman or credible.

If you really want to prove everything you say, do what I suggested, build you a 350 and a 351W or a 302 or race a viper, whatever makes your crank turn, and then post some time slips. Take some pics, hell make a movie, that way no one can cast doubt on your story. You might want to consider that the more outlandish the tale the less likely folks will believe it in print. And do us all a favor and apologize to darkhorse, man that was uncalled for. I thought folks here were better than that. I guess not.
Have a nice day!

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
I do appologize, I am sorry.

---

I recall somewhere you asked which would make more power with "stock-stroke" with the same performance parts (see first post)

However, in your lengthy amount of arguing that the smaller displacement engine is better because in a lighter/better set up car it beat cars with "MORE POWER", do you ever actually make a valid point about smaller displacement engines making "more power"

Now, if you want to compare engines, you would need someone with the same mods done to your 302 on his/her 351. The engine would need to be fitted in YOUR car, because only it is exactly setup the same as itself, and then find which makes better times. Since as you allready stated cars with more power arn't allways setup to get down the 1/4 fast, and car weight (including driver weight) plays a large role.

You have in no way argued that the smaller displacement engine would provide more power. You have argued that we are being ignorant because we belive that cars of more power (ie the viper) were beat by your car(which you never listed mods for), while ignoring the fact yourself that this defeats your whole standpoint in your argument. That your engine makes more power because it beat said cars that have larger displacement.

In my Pinto story above (yes it's true) I would be foolish to believe that my pinto made more horsepower than the Corvette. My Pinto made 106 HP at the rear wheels and weighed about 2100 lbs. That would be a power to weight ratio of about 19 lbs/hp. Just guessing on the Corvette He might be around 3700 lbs and would be making about 195 hp to have an equal lbs/hp. I would guess that he was a little higher than that and should still have beaten me three out of three. But (and this is a big one) my car was set up for competitive drag racing and launched very well. No 60 foot clocks then so I have no numbers. His car was street driven so I had a huge traction advantage and was able to turn on the win light two out of three times.

The point of all this is that the individual car set up is a whole lot more important than advertised horsepower.

*Edit* [/flames]

Sundance has been around a while. He was a chebbie guy, but now he's building a Mustang for road racing. He's not trying to stir the crap, just offering a question to have us clear up in his mind. I do not think it warrants any flames! His past experiences were at hi altitude and probably on the street. So, take it for what it's worth and don't let it ruin the thread. The thread is a good one, debating cubes vs. rpm.

LOL, bag on Sundance...WTF..? LOL First off if I was a Chevy guy trolling for giggles...I would have done it sooner then three years and 1,000 post later?? LOL

These are observations I've made over 20+ years I've been into the car hobby. I "was" a Chevy guy. Now I have a 65 Mustang that I love and spend time on. Even when I was a "Chevy guy" I was probably the most un-biased Chevy guy there was. I was very impressed by what a "little" 5.0 could do which may have perpetuated my liking for small displacement engines.

What on earth made you think that I was agueing any one side? I was mearly pointing out the other side of the debate because no one else was..not much to a debate if it is only one sided? Hell, I might just build a 302 up so I don't get all touchy when anyone might not like my 351 based motor...sheeez?

Dubz, I fully understand that a properly prepaired chassis makes a big differance on how a car launches the driver makes even more of a differance. It's the part in the middle of the race that tells you what car is making more power. The 502 powered Chevelle I mentioned earlier would be "pulled" by my 350 and the 5.0 crowd especialy strong after 2nd gear for me and third for the 5.0 manual guys.

BTW I've been a member of this forum community longer then most of you all?

I usualy stay srtictly to technicle posts and very rarely post on the chat style forums like Sams place...I've never even asked for a password to the bodyshop. I avoid bench racing like the plege! Bench racing is like argueing about religion.

When my integrety is questioned I did get a little irked. When the focus of the tread went to crap and was highjacked by flammes I strait got pissed, unfortunatly I replied in a negative manner.

I appologized and now I still have questions.

I have a 351 standard bore block and a set of Speed Pro flat top pistons P/N H273CP .040 bore. Can I use those pistons to build a 393? Will these pistons deck to high? What is the rod length I need and what is the concensus on cranks? Who makes the best one? I'm not planning on anything more then what a cast crank can handle. I was looking at AFR 165's if I went with a 302, and AFR 185's If I built a 351? That all sound about right? What are your thoughts on Canfield heads? Will a 351W have too much torque for the Tremec TKO I already have?

Now my intended purpose for my Mustang will not be for drag racing, As Steve stated above I am a road racer that primarly races at high altitude. Weight is a super big deal when you road race. 50 more lb's in the front of a drag car might not be much but 50 lbs. of weight in a track car can make a huge differance. I've spent so much time on my Mustang (short of a tube frame) to make it as light a possible. Once finished I should be several hundred pounds lighter then a factory car.

Can we keep the reply flames down to a minimum on this post? I'd hate to have you pick these paragraphs apart...LOL

Also, 69redmach I'd like to hear more about your setup, where you purchased parts ect.

Where do you road race primarily?? is it long straights, or all in the twisties? What's the cars current weight distribution (guesses are allright too)

I also have a question for anyone willing to answer; Does flexiform make springs for a track car with a slightly higher rate then the usual drag Mustang? I'm thinking the fiberglass equivlent to a 5 leaf spring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
Stock pistons? No flat top pistons that netted 9.5:1 compression. with a .030 over bore.

If you look at the package you will notice that the car was not built with high RPM peak power, but with a larger torque band within the middle of the RPM range.

What does this tell you? It tells you when I switched to 4.11:1 gears on my Auburn LSD I lost a few tenths.

My adjusted track times indicated that I had somwhere inbetween 400-425 at sea level. A Viper of that vintage also weighs an awefull lot more then my 2600 lb. with me in it car...are things starting to add up??

---

In the post I responded to, you made it sound like you beat a Viper with a buget rebuild and 3.08 gears.

I couldn't look at the package or the track times as they were not posted.

Sorry, I did not intend to flame you personally(I'm not a flamer). I was being emphatic, but could have phrased it better.

I have no problem believing that a 2600lb Mustang putting out 400hp with 4.10s can beat a Viper.

The 331 mentioned above will sounds fun.
Use SIR rods with a cast crank. SIR rods are plenty strong for an NA motor. Because they weigh less than H-beams, they will rev quicker, and put lees stress on the crank.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
BTW I've been a member of this forum community longer then most of you all?

---

That proves nothing other than you found the site earlier than other members. It does not add to the quality or credibility of your posts, or anyone elses for that matter, including mine (I've been here longer than you.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
I have a 351 standard bore block and a set of Speed Pro flat top pistons P/N H273CP .040 bore. Can I use those pistons to build a 393? Will these pistons deck to high? What is the rod length I need and what is the concensus on cranks? Who makes the best one?

---

I do not beleive those pistons will work. Most of the 393's I have heard about, or seen built use a 3.85 stroke crank, stock length windsor rods, and stock pin height 302 .030 over pistons. To make the pistons you have work (if it could be done at all) would require an extremely short rod.

A lot of them use Scat cranks. Scat offers several different levels of crankshafts. If I were to build a 393 (and I might in the near future), that's what I would use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
I am contemplating lightening the rear even more. Which may cause a balance closer to 60/40.
So far I have gone to a MII tubular front suspension, moved the engine back and plan to use aluminum and fiberglass through out.

---

I am removing a bunch of unsprung weight from the rear by replacing the 9" with an 8.8" from a '98 Explorer. This rear come from Ford with 31 spline t-loc, 3.73s, and disc brakes.

Did you make your own motor mounts?

------------------
68 GT FASTBACK

www.imboc.com/phpBB/Uploads/1020432917.jpg

01 GT BULLITT

------------------
68 GT FASTBACK

www.imboc.com/phpBB/Uploads/1020432917.jpg

01 GT BULLITT

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
I race two series (IVR and SCCA) and may race the Silverstate classic once I get the car sorted.
The IVR events are long roadraces that top over 120-130 mph and have corners that stop you to 15-20 mph basicly drag racing with turns.
The SCCA events are auto cross events and rarely top 50-60 mph lot's of skill testing corners.
And of course the Silver State classic is all out top speed event with long sweeping turns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kid vishus:
I do not beleive those pistons will work. Most of the 393's I have heard about, or seen built use a 3.85 stroke crank, stock length windsor rods, and stock pin height 302 .030 over pistons. To make the pistons you have work (if it could be done at all) would require an extremely short rod.

A lot of them use Scat cranks. Scat offers several different levels of crankshafts. If I were to build a 393 (and I might in the near future), that's what I would use.

---

Thanks for the Scat recomendation. I've read and have been told that the Scat cranks require alot of balancing. I've also heard they have lessened the amount of mallory in their latest run of cranks? Any truth to any of that?

I was under the impression that a 393 used 302 pistons. I may have read wrong?

The pistons I stated above are stock height but do not have the inverted dome of a stock piston? They are of the 4 valve relief variety.

I am seriously considering a larger engine for the mild manners and performance ratio.

One of my concerns other then weight is the low RPM torque is will provide. I have thought about muteing the low RPM torque by using a single plane intake, but otherwise build it as a mild engine ie. 270 280 cam ect.
Any thoughts on that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 68DARKHORSE:
With a .68 5th he can run 4.10s and never go over 5000rpm.

---

It's the very low first gear that stops me from going to a lower gear. I have a set of 2.50:1's for the Silverstate. I have a set of 3.50:1 for street and the IVR races.

I may purchase a set of 3.70:1 gears for SCCA, any lower and I wouldn't be able to use 1st on the realy tight dead stop turns.

That is realy the hardest part to making desicions on how to setup my Mustang. If I was drag racing again, I would have an unlimited pool of knowledge to build upon. Here I am making a track car and there's not many people who do it with a 65 Mustang.

------------------
http://mustangsandmore.50megs.com/MembersPics/Kellxr7.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:
I've read and have been told that the Scat cranks require alot of balancing. I've also heard they have lessened the amount of mallory in their latest run of cranks? Any truth to any of that?

---

I don't know if they changed them or not. I know the shop I used to use liked to grind the counterweights down to balance them. Saved on the expensive mallory metal, and also cut down on the weight of the crank.

I beleive there are a couple of other companies making that same style crank, but I don't know anything about them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SundanceKid:

I was under the impression that a 393 used 302 pistons. I may have read wrong?

---

You read correctly. If you use a stock length 351W rod, then you can use 302 pistons in it. That's what makes them so affordable to build. The only non-"factory" piece you have to buy is the crank. Everything else is easily available.