351????
 

Ok, I have an 1989 LX Notchback. I want to tear out my stock 302 engine and install a 351 5.8L engine. Does anyone know of a good site that will give me an idea of what it would cost to purchase the engine.Also, i would like to know what kind of manual transmission i should switch too, and if anyone has taken this task on before I would like to know what the total cost of the project was.

Thanx

Tom

Is there anyone at all out there that can help me?????

New, used, what? Try your search engine to look up sites that deal with FRPP. The 351 crate motors from Ford look kinda tasty? and are resonably priced. New I would say a long block engine would run you about 4000.00 dollars? But for about 500.00 more you could build a good 302 stroker thast could easily best the new crate motor in power using your block as a foundation.

I want a new engine. And I am looking for an high Horse Power engine that is reliable.
Im not sure that i could get a 10 second run out of a 302 and have the engine last a long time.

Oh ya, what is FRPP??

FRP=Ford Racing

------------------
2000 Mustang GT

I want and engine that will get up and go when i want it to. I want Loud Exhaust with that lumpy cam sound.
i just assume that a 351 would handle 350 HP alot better than a 302
having a 10-11 second car will take alot more than just engine i know that, and i dont plan on racing it all that much, but i want to know my car car if i wanted it too.

Try this link:
http://www.mustangworks.com/articles...n/351swap.html

There's lots of good info in this article.

stock block can handle 350hp without a sweat..stock is good for 550 hp daily or i seen people run 650 for short amounts..
BTW 350hp is not ganna get you into the 10's..you would need appox 500 to get into the 10's totally depending on the car



------------------
1987 black notch(ex 4 banger)
DSS 306 w/ main support...Elderbrock 6028 heads..gt-40 intake..24# injectors...70 mm tb..77 pro-m...accel 300+..mac full legnth..tremec w/ pro5oh...full MAC exhaust,off road h-pipe,long tubes, catback...ron davis radiator..subframes, control arms...CFDF II..o yea holley FPR sucks..dont buy one..
AIM=onesillynotch

Ya, I am just dreamin about the 10 second thing. I doubt my car will ever make it there. Thanx for all the help ppl.

Tom aka. FroMack

If you want good power, go with the 351W. I've never seen a stroker 347 that can handle 400+ HP without the use of expensive supers. The 351 has much more torque and the 2 blt bottom end is stronger than a 2blt 347. The problem I'm having is finding the right tried and true EFI setup that will pass emissions.

I think i am just gonna go with the 351. now i need to know a what kind of transmission i should use. I want a 6 speed trans. if i swap my trans am i gonna have to change the drive shaft and the stock rear end?

Yes, I'm 99% certain you'll need a shortened driveshaft with a 6 spd., as well as a new clutch, pressure plate, flywheel, bellhousing, shifter, throwout bearing, etc. All I can say is a 6 speed conversion is gonna cost $$$$. I was quoted a discounted price of $2,900 for parts only.

------------------
'91 LX
Procharger, 3 row intercooler, extrude honed Cobra intake, Mac full Length Headers, 30# inj., 73mm C&L, 75mm tb, E303 cam, 289 rods, ported E7 heads, MSD, T-Rex w/255 lph Walbro, 5 lug conversion, Cobra R wheels, 3.27 gears and Moser Axles.

Damn, maybe i wont be going 6 speed then.
That is alot of money.
I went to a performance shop today and got everything priced out and the parts alone r worth more than my car.
lol!!!

Hmmm... I'm wondering why in the hell a 351W is going to have "much more" torque than a 347 stroker. Same bore, nearly identical stroke. They are nearly the same engine.

To get the same hp out of the engine, the same mods need to be made.

Where am I going wrong? I'm thinking maybe somebody doesn't know what they are talking about?

Furthermore, where in the hell have you seen a supercharged 347? What kind of moron would do that? The 347 is a bomb waiting to go off with a charger on it. The biggest stroker that should ever be supercharged is the 331. There are a couple members on this board right now looking to get over 400hp with their 347 strokers, and at least one with it already. I don't know where you're pulling your numbers stroker, but they seem to be misleading.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 03-07-2001).]

Hey Unit...the Windsor has a notably superior rod ratio compared to the 347...that helps the 351 make more torque. How much more? I guess that's open for debate as I'm sure it depends on the configuration.

------------------
'91 LX
Procharger, 3 row intercooler, extrude honed Cobra intake, Mac full Length Headers, 30# inj., 73mm C&L, 75mm tb, E303 cam, 289 rods, ported E7 heads, MSD, T-Rex w/255 lph Walbro, 5 lug conversion, Cobra R wheels, 3.27 gears and Moser Axles.

[This message has been edited by NO SLO PK (edited 03-07-2001).]

That depends with the R/S ratio! A long rod motor isn't nessecarily the ideal combination. Engines that feature short rod to stroke ratio's tend to be able to utilize large heads better and operate more comfortably on pump gas with higher compression ratio's. Like you say however it all depends on the combo? As for Unit's statement about a 347 vs. a 351 making about the same torque, he's essentially correct. If each engine is given a comparable intake and exhaust set-up (air valve, cam, heads, headers, etc). Then except for the spare difference in overall size (and R/S ratio as you indicated creating some frictional difference), they should make about the same power. Where each might excel?

The 351 will definitely be a better high RPM motor by virtue of its better R/S ratio. It also can make use of slightly smaller intake ports, it will also last longer. The flip side; weight penalty, increased sensitivity to high compression, better suited to high octane fuels.

The 347 actually is a better street motor due to its reduced sensitivity to high compression, better sutied to low octane fuels, more tolerant of larger heads (and by extension possibly over camming), short R/S motors also tend to be volumetrically more efficient because the piston is travelling faster down the bore creating a intially stronger vaccum signal. and also the lighter and more compact dimensions. The flip side; reduced longevity, not quite as good in high rpm performance, can't take advantage of the slow burn rate of high octane fuel (which helps at high engine speeds, since the fuel burns slower helping to maintain the pressure exerted on the piston)

However, what somebody really needs to look at is the intended usage, and what your goals are. Personally I find the 347 a more attractive alternative to a 351 from a dispalcement point alone, maybe even upto 370 cubic inches which is achiveable with the siamese bore blocks available (4.155 x 3.40), which can swell to 377 cid at the extreme (using a 3.5 inch stroke) all mashed down into a block the size of a 302. Since this is the upper limit (at this time http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif ) Then anything larger is 351 territory.

Chevy's much vaunted 454 has an R/S of 1.53:1

The 347 by contrast has an R/S of 1.58:1 and only trails behind chevy's 350 which is 1.63:1, by .05 and everybody here with a brand x buddy has heard without fail countless times how much better the chevy stuff is than the ford stuff. How much tougher it is blah, blah, blah!

So to me the R/S issue is pretty much a moot topic and is really just a nit picking issue when trying to justify the 351 over the 302 based engines. Probably what makes a bigger difference in longevity is the location of the pison pin in relation to the ring lands. Push the pin up into the oil control ring and you'll have some oil control problems here (and down the road combined with the higher rate of wear).

And on the case of using a 331 as the max size for a SC'd engine, Eh, maybe on a stock 5.0 block. they tend to be on the fragile side of things, but an SC'ed 347 using an R302 or A4 block (and proabably even the new sportsman block) I don't think there would be a problem. If you build a 347 with a stock cast iron crank that is offset ground, using factory armasteel rods (which are cast) and then using some off the shelf pisotn that happend to fit, then your bound to have problems. Change this to a steel crank, forged rods, and purpose designed pistons then its not so much of a problem.

Hey MM, I gotta disagree. I recall a dyno test in MM&FF back in 93 or 94 where they compared long rod motors to their stock counterparts. In the article, the long rod motors made more torque and hp than those of standard rod length. Although I don't recall the specifics of the engines used in the test, they were definitely street motors running on pump gas without excessive camming/port work, etc.

Regarding that "legendary 454", it BETTER be making some decent torque...after all, it's got 454 cubes for crying out loud. What it lacks in rod ratio it makes up for in size.

You never hear anyone complaining that a rod ratio is too high, but the 347 is criticized quite often for having a poor rod ratio. Just saying maybe there's something there.

Btw, I totally agree that a 347 IS compatible with forced induction. Like you say, it just costs $$$ to assemble it with the necessary parts.

L8r

------------------
'91 LX
Procharger, 3 row intercooler, extrude honed Cobra intake, Mac full Length Headers, 30# inj., 73mm C&L, 75mm tb, E303 cam, 289 rods, ported E7 heads, MSD, T-Rex w/255 lph Walbro, 5 lug conversion, Cobra R wheels, 3.27 gears and Moser Axles.

[This message has been edited by NO SLO PK (edited 03-08-2001).]

From my understanding, that is one of the main reason the 347 kits should not be supercharged, MiracleMax.

If you were looking at a block strength aspect, an A and R block 302 would be stronger, but the R block really can't be run on the street because of cooling problems, and the A blocks are pretty hard to come by since they are no longer made. Since the A block can actually be used in a street car and the R can't, it's added even more demand for the A4 blocks.

Thanx for all your help guys. I think I know enough to make my decision.

Tom aka FroMack

Just illustrating a point http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif, the 347 gets a bad rap for a short R/S ratio and I just wanted to show an engine that was considered highly successful and one that had a shorter R/S than the 347 with a 5.4" rod. I think that BOP 455's had even crappier R/S ratios? but were pretty successful as perfromance engines.

There is a gut here in jacksonville fl that has a supercharged 347 making just over 700 hp and I have seen the print out from the dyno. I don't know if it's safe or if it will last long but there are people doing it.

------------------
James Cox
nochevy@hotmail.com
1991 Mustang LX
12.565 @109.38mph 1.764 60ft

I'm looking at it from a street legal, AFFORDABLE, emissions legal, 50-state dyno pass standpoint. I'm happy many of the people in this discussion don't have to worry about emissions. I DO! For MY money, it's much easier (and cheaper) to take a '69 Windsor out of a '69 Cougar, break it down, buy heads and EFI, roller valve train, Cartech fuel system, etc., bore it, hot tank it, balance and blueprint it, possibly stroke it, throw it in a gorgeous red 93GT with 60K on the dash that is set up to do 9's, and hit the street on a dialy basis. I agree that it all depends on the application. It cost WAY more to stroke a 302 than to find a 351 bare bones ready to rebuild. The cubes are already there. And so is the STRONGER BOTTOM END. The original reason for this discussion was to help someone decide on what to do with the limited amount of $$. Stroking motors costs big $$. I also read that to make good HP out of a 347 you a specially prepped shortblock. Most people don't have the $$ for that.

I think to dip into the 10's you need roughly 500 HP at the rear wheels in a 3000 pound car. Low 10's will take about 575 HP. You might look at the 392 (351W based) stroker that Ford Motorsport now produces. Just ad carb.

Ron

Just to correct some 411....

Motors with better rod ratios WILL make more torque due to more time spent at TDC and less friction losses to the piston/cylinder wall angle. They WILL handle higher compression better than the low ratio motor(302 and most strokers)

Strokers make more power due to more CI (inches are everything) and the use of the longer lever(stroke). They suffer from higher piston speed and friction/reliability issues caused by (relatively) poor piston/bore angles. Blowby is increased....seal is decreased. For a street application strokers will not last as long as a COMPARABLY built high ratio motor. That's why they build bulletproof strokers....they need to be that way. Any motor needs to be built for the ponys it's making! For the most part this is philosophy...most strokers aren't going to need to see 100k. The stock 351 has a much better rod ratio than a 302. It will also take money to convert that mustang. If you are worried about long term durability the 351 is better than a 347 stroker...how much? Too many variables to say, but apples to oranges the 351 WILL last longer. The longest ratio you can have in ANY application is desirable whether it's stock, stroker or long rod motor...stroker builders spend alot of time trying to get the best ratio out of their combinations. A racer planning a rebuild every season just doesn't care.

------------------
88LX notch, Speedpro EFI Procharged!

[This message has been edited by DirtKing (edited 03-09-2001).]

Hey, lots of good points! One option nobody mentioned is the 393 stroker (of course also a 351 block)- crate or shortblock. Personally, I'd do the shortblock (has a GREAT cam already in it) and add AFR 185 heads - the heads it comes with are too small for that motor and cam. NOW - I've got that article on the long rod 351 - with the smaller street tw heads, it made 380hp at 5000 & 430 torque at 4000 with only a 220 @ 050 & 498 lift hydr roller cam and efi. With the R heads and same cam, it made 20 more of each at the same rpms. With a bigger cam, the R heads would be probably 20 more again of each. The engine ran shelf JE forged pistons with the Yates style valve reliefs that matched the comb chamber shape for very good quench. It used slightly modified 400 rods which are over 1/2" longer than stock 351, but wasn't up too far into the ring pack because the 351W is the tallest deck of all small blocks so has the most room for long rods. It was able to run 11 comp ratio and ran best at only 32 max advance - shows very efficient combustion - and did it on 87 octane even. The article referenced a similar build on a 350 Chev with similar results. I can email that article if anyone wants. The long rod 351 made very close to the same torque and not much less hp than the crate 393, with a smaller cam, did it on 87, and I'll bet with a heck of a lot less gas. With the same cam as the 393, I'll bet it would come very close to the same output on both torque and hp and run a heck of alot cheaper. Not saying that the 393 with AFR 185's wouldn't be a blast, though! As to tranny, how about a tremec, or a Richmond 5 or even 6 speed - either would handle just about any motor.

Now those are #'s I like! I'm still figuring out if I should get my brand new Edlebrock heads worked for the stroker kit and if it would effect my emission's, or return them to Summit for a set of Tricflow's 50 state legal head. That particular cam you talked about sounds like the Ford Motrsports SVO E-303 cam that most run in street legal 11 and 12 second cars. I had a buddy who dumped 10K into a 89GT just to have it sit in the driveway b/c he stupidly used the B-cam that is much more beefy and never could pass that evil emissions dyno devil.

Yes, they can especially with slow burning racing fuels which can take advantage of the dwell time a long rod motor spends at TDC. However a stroker motor with what seems to be considered a less than Ideal R/S ratio is more comfortable on street or pump gas since this type of fuel burns more rapidly than race fuel. Once you've extracted whatever heat is available from the fuel mixture and it has began to cool down there's no advantage to maintaining the piston's dwell time. As for high compression tolerability with pump gas in a dynamic state I don't see how a long rod engine would reduce the tendancy to knock or detonate. Give me a solid argument in this paticular case and I'll relent http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif. All of this is academic I suppose since just about any engine can be made to perform sucessfully http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif. I can clearly see the advantage of using a 351 as a racing engine, it has every advantage to using it, but for the street (at least to me) a 302 based stroker seems more attractive.

Hey macx, that engine was run in an old hotrod then recycled in an old carcraft (or vice versa)

I was planning a 351 swap, and even bought some parts for the swap, when an opportunity to get an a4 came along. I understand that the A4 is significantly heavier than a production 302. Is this correct? For the money- $700 for a block that needs machine work- and the small weight difference between an A4 and a 351, the 351 may again be the best option.


Incidentally, how will a 10.9:1 stroker run on the street with a .060 overbore? That's what this block needs now.

I'd use the 351 if you're gonna stroke it, but the a4 IS a great block. 10.9:1 will run fine with aluminum heads, especially with the 351's better rod ratio.

hey miracle, I think the very article you referred too built a 400hp 450ftlbs torque using a long rod 351....11:1 compression on 87 octane! 32 degrees of total advance tell ya how efficient the motor was. That was with what would now be a stock 5.0 efi cam.
The reason ratio handles more compression is due to the more efficient combustion. so- `called bad ratios rely on faster pison speeds to promote better cylinder filling...

anyway, I'm building a 12.5:1 version, so I'll let ya know what gas I have to run. I'm looking for about 550hp@6500! I'll post the dyno numbers too.

------------------
88LX notch, Speedpro EFI Procharged!

Sir, This could turn into a lengthy discussion, so I'm going to do two things, at least for now. I'll make a couple of comments and then I will suggest areas for your further thought. Then, if you want/need to discuss the matter further, just let me know. Much has been written/practiced about the benefits of square, over-square and under-square engines. Actually, each has advantages and disadvantages depending upon application, method of aspiration and fuel type. Simply stated, piston motion approaching and leaving TDC {as you are obviously aware} changes the conditions observed during "constant volume combustion" at TDC. Your reference to combustion rate, based on fuel type, is valid...if no other changes are made that affect net cylinder pressure {mechanical compression ratio, spark timing, valve timing, etc.}. While currently available unleaded premium fuel has a quicker flame rate than a "racing" fuel, an engine's tendency toward detonation would increase {all else being equal} as a function of rod length increase. However, and here is an area for your thought process, I suggest to you that a quick flame rate can be advantageous in optimizing IMEP or "net" positive torque. Do you not have an opportunity to delay spark timing, as flame travel increases, and correspondingly reduce negative torque? The fact a "long rod" engine's piston is also leaving TDC {under positive torque conditions} slower than an engine of "short rod"? Perhaps this is an opportunity that could lead to a benefit for street engines of increased connecting rod length. Of course, as in the case of most "absolute" situations, there are other parts that govern the whole. Bottom line is I suggest you stay focused {as it appears you are} on factors that affect net cylinder pressure as a function of crank angle, working toward minimizing pre-TDC combustion pressure and maximizing post-TDC pressure. I hope this provides some clarification for you. But if it doesn't, my offer still stands. Jim McFarland

Hey Dirt I knew I wasn't entirely off base with the L vs. S rod thing on a street motor. I guess it depends on how you digest the information. This is the reponse I got to a question regarding the matter.

The site is http://www.n2performance.com/

Awesome tech! I know they have been debating this topic since smokey yunick. All I can say is I'll post my dyno sheets when I've got her done. should be in a month..cross my fingers! anyway, I appreciate the info.

------------------
88LX notch, Speedpro EFI Procharged!

I went with the stroked 351 and now im looking for a used miata to drop my 302 into.

As far as longditivity is concerned i think proper care is more important than what you go with i just had my heads off and everthings is still fairly clean and slick a friend has alot more money into his car and had to change a valve and there was tons of carbon simple things like oil changes can make a diffrence . PS lent my van to my dad and he wrote it off so i drove my stang all winter here in calgary . gald i got a block heater when i had the short block done.


------------------
89 with 395 single stage n2o and 373's need suspention upgrade

I'm sure EVERYONE has seen/heard it a couple hundred times by now, but my 351W (Eagle stroker kit), 418 made 572.6 HP @ 6400 and 517 ft lb. tq. @ 5200, carbureted. Plenty reliable motor. I'd stroke the 351!

So drag what is the stroke on your 418 and what is rod length?

I think this started out as 351 vs. 347? I'll reserve the 418 arguement for 418 vs. 428 when it comes up http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif