|
Author
|
Topic: 351W ROLLER WITH H/C/I?
|
4MY8TERS
¯
Member # 7840
|
posted
 
 
WHAT KINd OF POWER WILL A 351W ROLLER MAKE WITH H/C/I?
SEEING THE POWER DIFFERENCE IN THE 302 AND 351 LMK THANKS
OH YEAH STOCK SHORT BLOCK BESIDES CAM
--------------------
1985 Notchback-393w Vortech
1991 Convert Lx-H/C/I-Vortech
1984 T-Top 306-H/C/I
Posts: 2337 | From: THE GOLDEN CITY AKA SFC | Registered: Aug 2007
| :
|
|
GOT 50
¯
Member # 1960
|
posted
If using the same aprts that were on the 302, I would say that you will make the same power as the 302 just power band will be about 500-800 rpm sooner.
If using parts that can support 351 cid the sky is the limit.
Eric
Posts: 2139 | From: SF/DALY CITY/MILLBRAE | Registered: Oct 2002
| :
|
|
phildog
¯
Member # 1214
|
posted
More cubes will give you more torque, and horsepower,though I noticed the biggest difference in seat of the pants torque. The more cubes, the more airflow you are going to need. Weight bias with the heavier block, and the issues with fitment into the car, plus all the swap parts... all the little things with 351 swaps will not be worth it unless you are building a serious 408,for example, in my opinion.
I had a 9.0-1 351 roller, with an F cam, ported GT40X heads, 1.6's, Lightning lower with a Downs box upper, 75 mm R series TB, Powerpipe, and shortie headers, and ran 13.3 @109 with no traction. A 302 with the same parts, minus the box intake, would not have been much slower. My next 351 based motor will need to be a serious mill to warrant that extra weight in the nose.
As much as I loved my 351, an HCI 302 with a blower is cheaper and simpler IMO.
[ January 05, 2009, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: phildog ]
Posts: 1554 | From: 510 | Registered: Apr 2002
| :
|
|
351mclaren
¯
Member # 2275
|
posted
Go with the 351. Tons more torque, the chevy boys will have to respect you, and you will enjoy the power. When and if you do the swap, think about weight distribution. Relocate battery to trunk, aluminum heads, and if budget permits a glass hood...imo....
--------------------
nlc
Posts: 44 | From: Stockton, Ca | Registered: Jan 2003
| :
|
|
BlowN67
¯
Member # 4229
|
posted
a 9:1 351w n/a motor is kinda weak. would of been a better motor with alittle more compression i would think
--------------------
AIM gonein67 JOHN
* californiafords.com
* corral.net
* foureyedpride.com
* yellowbullet.com
* theturboforums.com
Posts: 9809 | From: Home of LARD | Registered: Mar 2004
| :
|
|
phildog
¯
Member # 1214
|
posted
Oh yeah, a bump to about 11-1 would have really made that 351 pop. I was experiencing high oil temps and burning a bunch of oil, so the motor came out after the heads checked out good. I think the cylinders must have washed down and smoked the rings, because it only had about 10k on it.
The next time that motor comes out on the street, I'm hoping to do a 408 with about 11-1 and TFS-R heads. BEASTY!
Posts: 1554 | From: 510 | Registered: Apr 2002
| :
|
|
94 N.C.F GT
TEAM PLATINUM
Member # 8722
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by phildog:
Oh yeah, a bump to about 11-1 would have really made that 351 pop. I was experiencing high oil temps and burning a bunch of oil, so the motor came out after the heads checked out good. I think the cylinders must have washed down and smoked the rings, because it only had about 10k on it.
The next time that motor comes out on the street, I'm hoping to do a 408 with about 11-1 and TFS-R heads. BEASTY!
WOW THATS CRAZY
Posts: 1313 | From: RICHMOND/sanpablo | Registered: Oct 2008
| :
|
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
