what year 5.0L or 5.8L

[loomis]

I have a 83 mustang LX with a 3.8L and I wnated to install a 5.0 or 5.8. What year engine would be best and what mods should I should I do to increase perfomance for street/strip racing.

[Unit 5302]

1987-1992 5.0. Are you converting to EFI, or are you going to stay carbed?

[Stang_ROTY]

An early 351w is a good choice in my opinion. from 69-74 the 5.8 was stronger than the ones used in Crown Vic police cars in the 80's and 90's. however, it costs a little more to put one in a fox body mustang.

------------------
In progress for Spring:

93 GT less motor and tranny, 8 pt cage, chute,
Sothside Machine bars & Sub-frames, 3.73's
'69 393 stroker Edlebrock Performer heads, Performer RPM Upper & Lower Manifold..Crane Gold 1.6 Rollers..BBK 70MM TB & cats..30lb Injectors..Cartech Fuel System..

[82 GT]

Get an early 351W. Even if you mod it slightly there will be a nght/day diffeence between an equally modded 302. You will never want another 302 in that engine compartment again!!......GUARANTEED!!


------------------
'82 GT 351W C-4,BBK headers,Carter 625 carb,Comp.Cam,Flowmaster exhaust.
1988 GT...T-5,bone stock

[82 GT]

BTW, the best year 351W would be a 1969 they had good heads(small cc heads) with 10:1 compression. They made a 4 bbl head 351 in that year and only that year but those are tought to find.
1969 was the best year for the 351W, compression dropped after that through the years.


------------------
'82 GT 351W C-4,BBK headers,Carter 625 carb,Comp.Cam,Flowmaster exhaust.
1988 GT...T-5,bone stock

[BowTie Eater 5 Liter]

82GT, what hp rating did the stock 69 351 have?
thanks

------------------
1988 Mustang GT, T-5
3.08's, No Smog Pump (Shorty Belt), Dumps At The End Of Stock H-Pipe, K&N Air Filter (Stock Air Box), Removed Air SilencerMy Stang
My Site (Not Done Yet)

[82 GT]

I would guess about 250-275 stock....only a guess though. Get a nice cam,intake/carb and exhaust and that engine will scream!!



------------------
'82 GT 351W C-4,BBK headers,Carter 625 carb,Comp.Cam,Flowmaster exhaust.
1988 GT...T-5,bone stock

[Stang_ROTY]

82 GT is real close..the motor was rated (remember..underrated at the time) at 250hp but with close to 300 ft lb's of torque. The stock windsor heads are horrible flowing..that's why those small block Chevy's became so popular.

------------------
In progress for Spring:

93 GT less motor and tranny, 8 pt cage, chute,
Sothside Machine bars & Sub-frames, 3.73's
'69 393 stroker Edlebrock Performer heads, Performer RPM Upper & Lower Manifold..Crane Gold 1.6 Rollers..BBK 70MM TB & cats..30lb Injectors..Cartech Fuel System..

[Unit 5302]

Yes underrated, but in gross figures, not net. All in all, probably pretty accurate, maybe a little high. Those old 351's were 15sec cars. The 351 Cleveland was an engine that really hauled, but they add more expense and install problems.

You could spend your money and mod it up, or you could spend $500, pick up a solid running 5.0 HO and drop it in, and probably beat the pants off the 351. To boot the 5.0 will last, unlike the high compression high octane built for leaded fuel 351.

[Stang_ROTY]

Here we go. I found the real numbers guys.

1969-1970 351W w/4bbl had 290 horses @ 4800, 385 torque @ 4800 w/10.7 compression.

1969 2bbl had 250 horse @ 4600, 355 torque w/ 9.5 comp.

The question is, was the 4bbl a Cleveland or a Windsor?



------------------
In progress for Spring:

93 GT less motor and tranny, 8 pt cage, chute,
Sothside Machine bars & Sub-frames, 3.73's
'69 393 stroker Edlebrock Performer heads, Performer RPM Upper & Lower Manifold..Crane Gold 1.6 Rollers..BBK 70MM TB & cats..30lb Injectors..Cartech Fuel System..

[Unit 5302]

The 351C didn't debut until 1970, so a 69 will not be of the Cleveland varient.

[82 GT]

1969 was the only year for a 351W with 4v heads.

Unit5302,you mentioned before that the early 351w were 15 second cars. That might be true but also remember that suspension sucked back then. If you drop one of those in a modern fox body chassis I bet anything that it would run mid 14's right out of the box!
I know factory fox bodies are not the best in the world but they sure beat the old fashioned leaf spring suspension with oil shocks!!

[Stang_ROTY]

Hey guys,

A good estimate of what a fox-body Mustang with a 351W could do in 1/4 mi would be the 87-93 Saleen, right?? I'm pretty sure Steve Saleen put 351W's in his limited edition cars with the 4 wheel disc brakes, but I could be wrong. I can't imagine what else he could of done besides supercharging a "GT-40" 302 or putting a 351 in. I know for a fact that the 1994 and 95 Saleen's had 351's in them. FYI-The 94-95's also came with Edelbrock aluminum heads.

Unit is correct, Those are SAE gross horsepower numbers so they come out to be approxamately 15-20% less depending on trans/accesories, etc. to be close to SAE net., but yeah, those earlier blocks are stronger and would produce quite a bit of power.
I read this site where this guy with a 351 and mild cam/intake/carb and stock exhaust manifolds -from the 302- with dual exhaust ran low 14's with his otherwise stock early fox mustang (think it was an '81 or so). But it's a site on Geocities.
I personally want to build up a stroked 351 because i don't like the idea of revving really high or using nitrous/forced induction (at least on a carbureted car) to get the power of a big cubic inch engine, which would probably be the most reliable route to go. Just my opinion, good luck loomis!

------------------
'84 Mustang 5.0 LX
My car

[Unit 5302]

Originally posted by Stang_ROTY:
Hey guys,

A good estimate of what a fox-body Mustang with a 351W could do in 1/4 mi would be the 87-93 Saleen, right?? I'm pretty sure Steve Saleen put 351W's in his limited edition cars...

Nope. The Fox Saleens were stock 5.0's.

Originally posted by 82GT:
1969 was the only year for a 351W with 4v heads.
Unit5302,you mentioned before that the early 351w were 15 second cars. That might be true but also remember that suspension sucked back then. If you drop one of those in a modern fox body chassis I bet anything that it would run mid 14's right out of the box!

The 69 4v heads had the same size valves as the 2v. The 4v had different pistons (which changed the CR I think), a higher compression ratio, along with a 4bbl carb to make it's 40 additional rated hp. I don't know as the heads were significantly different.

As far as the older stang's having shitty suspensions, it's true, but mid 14's is nothing special. A run of the mill Fox 5.0 can run that out of the box as well.

Originally posted by 84stangLX:
I read this site where this guy with a 351 and mild cam/intake/carb and stock exhaust manifolds -from the 302- with dual exhaust ran low 14's with his otherwise stock early fox mustang

Not to sound unimpressed, but a 1987-1993 5.0HO engine with those mods should be deep into the 13's.

I don't know why everybody see's 351 and get's all excited. In stock form, most of the 351 Windsors are nothing short of a crunchy turd. I can't begin to count how many people throw some old 351 into their car expecting major performance, only to find out they run 14's and 15's.

The 1969 4v 351W is about as hi-po as the stock 351W's got. It's still lackluster in the performance category. With a few mods, you can easily wake it up, but the same holds true for the later 302HO.

Already with a decent roller cam, mild head modifications, and an intake can put the 5.0 into some good hp.

The 69 351 will require headwork if you expect to unleaded pump gas, a different intake, carb, and a better cam if you really want to make some power with it. When those are performed you're in the same boat as the 5.0. Same mods for significant performance increases.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 05-24-2001).]

[82 GT]

Unit5302, there is an old saying that says
"There is no substitution for cubic inches"
For some reason you don't like 351's and hey,that's ok because it's your choice.
Ford never spend the time/resources on the 351 like they did the 302. If they would develope a well engineered 351 complete with better heads,roller cam, intakes,T/B and put it into a modern mustang....LOOK OUT!!
If I was building the ultimate mustang, the 302 would not be one of my top choices.
Chevy stuck with the 350 and look how they perform still today. You don't see them spending all their time on the 305.
Instead of re-designing the 351, Ford went backwards and came up with the 4.6??????
Like I said before, I have a mild 351w in my '82GT and I will never go back to a boring 302 again!!



------------------
'82 GT 351W C-4,BBK headers,Carter 625 carb,Comp.Cam,Flowmaster exhaust.
1988 GT...T-5,bone stock

[Unit 5302]

The saying is

"There's no replacement for displacement."

It's partially true, based on the idea two engines are of the same basic design.

The 99 Cobra's are making about 340hp with the fix. They are smooth as silk, and completely docile in everyday driving. They even get good fuel economy when driven moderately.

A redesigned 351? I'm not seeing how that is moving forward at all. Unless the engine is fitted with Cleveland style heads, they will be limited to below the DOHC heads' potential.

The fact is, there has NEVER been a 351W to roll off the assembly line and be placed into a production Ford car producing as much HP as the 281ci 4.6L DOHC engine.

1995 Cobra R 280hp
1969 351 4v 290hp (gross)

Ford could have taken the old Windsor block recast it in aluminum, completely redesigned the heads, made a cam for it, an intake for it, and then slapped it into a Mustang. It probably wouldn't have any more power than the current Cobra (which is severly detuned), it probably wouldn't get as good of fuel economy as the current Cobra. It would have more low end grunt, but it wouldn't have any more potential either. It wouldn't respond as well to forced induction, it wouldn't take up much less space.

I guess the bottom line is they could have built a "look out" 351, or they could just release a "look out" 4.6L DOHC producing 400hp pretty easy.

It would have necessitated a complete and total redesign of an obsolete engine to get a less obsolete engine, at a huge cost no less. Ford put the money into the 302 because it was compact, fuel efficient, and it was versitle. It made good power over a wide powerband and it was more suitable to meet emissions and cafe standards.

I'm certainly not saying the "Ultimate Mustang" would have a 302 in it. It certainly wouldn't have a 351 in it either. For production engines, the 5.4L DOHC engine will crush both of those old windsors.

Hey Unit,
Yes that does sound unimpressive, but stock the guy's car went something like 17's and he did the whole thing REALLY inexpensive, basically a stock rebuild with i think a performer intake, 600cfm carburetor, and an automatic transmission and stock gears. The stock exhaust manifolds are a real restriction, and i think he had a "RV cam" or a stock replacement, so for what he put into it he got alot back. I was just trying to point out that for very little $$$ you can get alot out of a 351.

------------------
'84 Mustang 5.0 LX
My car

[Stang_ROTY]

Wow, you guys are really going at it. That's cool, but remember this. A 351W is stronger than a production 5.0 block. The 351W has a better rod to stroke ratio than even a big block chevy. The main caps on the 351W are stronger than the 5.0. Those are the facts. Plus, a 351 can be stroked to over 400 cubes. That's why I went to the 351. Yes, they are heavier and more expensive to dump into a fox body but I bought my car with no motor, tranny, or hood anyway. Unit5302, you are correct about "The 69 351 will require headwork if you expect to unleaded pump gas, a different intake, carb, and a better cam if you really want to make some power with it. When those are performed you're in the same boat as the 5.0. Same mods for significant performance increases." I had to have some work done on my forged pistons b/c of the shorter deck height on the '69. I also got aluminum heads for it. One thing that hasn't been brought up is the fact that the 5.0's need more RPM's to make the power, which in turn is eventual damage and quicker wear. My 351 won't need to see 6 grand to make the HP#s I'm expecting, which in turn means more fun on the street. It's really comes down to affordability and what you want to do. The bottom line is that the 351 is a better choice IF you got the $$$.

------------------
Almost done

93 GT, Undecided btw Lentech AOD & Dynamic C4, 8 pt cage, chute,
Sothside Machine bars & Sub-frames, 3.73's
'69 393 stroker w/SRP pistons, Edlebrock Performer heads, Performer RPM Upper & Lower Manifold..Crane Gold 1.6 Rollers Comp Cam..BBK 70MM TB, ceraminc shorties & H-pipe w/cats..30lb Injectors..Cartech Fuel System..etc

[82 GT]

Quoted by Unit 5302
"A redesigned 351? I'm not seeing how that is moving forward at all. Unless the engine is fitted with Cleveland style heads, they will be limited to below the DOHC heads' potential."
............................................
That's what I'm talking about. Could you imagine a DOHC 351? Any engine ever made had the potential to be better. Look how far the 302 went, look how far the Chevy 350 has come
Now Ford has the 4.6 as their pride and joy.
I was just saying the 351w could have been made into a real performer. AS much as I hate to say this but the mustang will NEVER be any competition to the vette with a 4.6
I'm not saying the 4.6 isn't impressive for how small it is but Ford could make a car to compete with the vette if they fixed all the flaws with the 351.
All 302's and 351's will require head work to make power, that goes without saying.
Ford had something going there with the Cleveland/Boss heads but stopped for some reason,probably for economical reasons.
The "Ultimate" windsor engine IMO would have Chevy heads on them!!
Hell, Ford is struggling to keep up with camaros/firebirds.
I was just trying to say that if Ford would bring the 351 out of the stone ages, they would have a n/a car to compete with the vettes instead of resorting to supercharged 4.6's like the Roush mustangs.




------------------
'82 GT 351W C-4,BBK headers,Carter 625 carb,Comp.Cam,Flowmaster exhaust.
1988 GT...T-5,bone stock