[1967JMG]

Should I be worried about the trans? I keep seeing the torque rating for them is 335 ft/lbs... other builds that I have seen that are somewhat similar to what i want are mostly making 400tq or more...

[1967JMG]

And again, this will not ever be a race car and may see the track once in a year... the only time i have ever been known to get on it is entering the highway which is three or four times a week... is my transmission going to explode on the on ramp? lol

[bwkelley76]

<<<If you stay with a mild-built 351 your trans should be fine. Keep in mind that a basically stock 351 produces over 350 lb/ft of torque when you goose the throttle, some stockers I've heard make up closer to 380+, I want to say the '69 4v Windsor was something like that. Just food for thought.

It doesn't sound like you're going to beat up on it too much though so I'm sure you'll be ok. You're not going to blow it up just getting on the freeway or anything like that. The T5z is fairly durable for what it is, just not a good trans behind a FULL-RACE 351w on a heavy race car with lots of traction. It would have a short life under those circumstances.

The more I think about it I'm still picturing your setup being more fun with a roller 302 that's built to rev-up nicely. It would have great gas mileage potential and still a kick in the pants when you stab the gas. Parts are a little cheaper and readily available as well. Just something to think about.

Like I said I love 351 windsors for their all-out race potential and durability. I've never really thought about using one as a daily driver though, unless it's in a Bronco or F150...lol. In the past my 289's and 302's have been the best daily-driver/weekend racers and they don't break stuff like axles, driveshafts, clutches, and trannys. I look at it this way, if you have a weak-link in your build it will always be on your mind, and if you ever did want to outrun the guy next to you they will win if you stab the gas and break something...lol.

Call me conservative, I dunno

[1967JMG]

well... now that im thinking about roller 302's... what would be the difference in hp and torque everything being equal besides the motors? both .030 over, twisted wedge heads, 9.7:1 CR, mild cam, stealth intake, and 650 vac secondary carb? Any ideas?

[69fastback]

The 302 won't make as much, obviously. Just depending on what you end up with, you should be able to make 300 rwhp, which would still be a lot of fun in a DD.

I can't give you much info on the T5, other than what I've heard. They seem to be hit and miss on how they hold up.

[bwkelley76]

I hear ya on the hit and miss thing. Some hang in there and some go kaboom. I've had a few apart and found even with some of the Z trannys, the gears will be cut differently from tranny to tranny. One will have helical (longer, curved) teeth that are way stronger, and some will have straight ones which are a lot weaker. Seems like Ford did a lot of experimentation over the years and sometimes even months. I've heard that if you have them built properly with better internals, they can be pretty strong.

[bwkelley76]

Originally Posted by 1967JMG well... now that im thinking about roller 302's... what would be the difference in hp and torque everything being equal besides the motors? both .030 over, twisted wedge heads, 9.7:1 CR, mild cam, stealth intake, and 650 vac secondary carb? Any ideas?

Just built a roller 306 (302 with .030" overbore) for a customer with AFR 165 heads, Comp 274 XEHR cam, older nodular 28oz crankshaft turned down for 1-piece rear seal, inexpensive forged cap-screw rods, and good forged flat-top full-floating pistons. We estimate 375+ flywheel horsepower and 375 tq? It's going into a '68 coupe.

I'm throwing out numbers here but I'd guess if you built a Windsor with those specs you'd probably have about 20-30 more horsepower and maybe another 40+lb/ft or more of torque? I'd upgrade to the 185 heads and one size up on the cam for the Windsor so it can breathe a bit better though.

It's the torque that kills the trans, not the hp so much.

Your car would be one heck of a street car with the 306 mentioned above.

[1967JMG]

well. I'm kinda rethinking everything now. i cant afford to beef up my transmission or replace it and I'm looking for the least amount of down time as possible as i start the swap. I'm beginning to think the 302 may be a better option for now. Its a great improvement over the six and and a years down the line i can always go stroker or 351w i suppose. Since the 302 originally had the t5 behind it I'm hoping that a few mild mods won't cause my trans to freak out. Why the 28oz? Aren't the roller motors 50oz?

[bwkelley76]

Originally Posted by 1967JMG well. I'm kinda rethinking everything now. i cant afford to beef up my transmission or replace it and I'm looking for the least amount of down time as possible as i start the swap. I'm beginning to think the 302 may be a better option for now. Its a great improvement over the six and and a years down the line i can always go stroker or 351w i suppose. Since the 302 originally had the t5 behind it I'm hoping that a few mild mods won't cause my trans to freak out. Why the 28oz? Aren't the roller motors 50oz?

Yes, 1982 and later 302's are normally 50oz imbalance from the factory. In late 1985 they kept the 50 oz imbalance and made the lifter bore deeper for the roller lifters to have more support. Also at this time they added a few thread-bosses in the lifter-galley to bolt down the retaining assembly (spider) for the roller lifters and link-bars (dog bones).

It's perfectly fine and just as affective to run 50 oz, just make sure you get a 50 oz harmonic balancer and flywheel. In your case I'd stick with 50 oz and buy a factory T5 302 flywheel out of a 5.0 stang or other.

The reason for the 28 oz balance in a newer block is because some of the older 28oz 302 cranks were a bit more desirable (stronger nodular Iron). So you find the occasional 28 oz crank in a later roller block. It's kindof a bastard setup but it makes sense. The older crankshaft bolts right into the roller block but needs machining at the rear seal area for the later one-piece rear seal that the block is designed for. I believe all the crank journals are the same or at least within a machinable tolerance of the late-model parts so it works. In this particular case our engine builder ran out of older blocks so he did this combo for us instead. Not the first one I've seen, and I believe a friend of a friend used a forged 302 boss crankshaft in a roller block back in the day.

Yeah if you're going to go with a Windsor you might as well stroke it. Hope all this helps and by all means I'm always here if you have any questions along the way, just hit me up!