351 swap in my fox... - Page 2 - Forums at Modded Mustangs
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #21 of 52 Old December 18th, 2010, 11:26 PM
Come at me bro
 
302Army187's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Denver, Co
Posts: 3,135
     
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93lxreef View Post
With all due respect....not trying to argue all things equal. Just saying that with a 347 you are limited by how much power you will ever make. Period. with the 351 you can stroke it and make waaaaayyy more horse power than the little 347. If you're ok with that, cool. If you want 600+ hp later, get the windsor....that's my plan. My car is a weekend toy, not a DD.

Honestly, if I were to build a daily driver, I'd probably go 347. But I'm gonna be the guy that shuts up the shit talkers and make more power. peace.
no on is going to argue that a 302w block is better then a 351w block for future mods/goals.


but the way you said it that a 351w will be faster with the same set up as a 347 because of torque.

which is not true.

Everything on the motor's being equal a 347 will net a lower ET. because it will accelerate faster, and a 351 adds a pretty good amount of weight.

1989 Fox H/C/I 302 & 2013 GT 5.0 Stock 370rwhp 352rwtrq


www.youtube.com/Xarmy187

Please support my YouTube channel! My videos don't disappoint!
2.2 MILLION views (and counting) can't be wrong!!
302Army187 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 52 Old December 18th, 2010, 11:39 PM
Newbie
 
93lxreef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Boonieville,Texas
Posts: 44
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93lxreef View Post
Not necesseeerrrarlilly....The 351w will out torque a 347 hands down. I know and love em. When I buy a fox, first thing I do is find a buyer for the 302, and in goes the windsor. The 9.5 inch deck height is hard to beat!
AGAIN.... Let's see... did I say same set up....nope! I did, however say to lose the small heads in a later post, though! never mind! ugh! *smirking* ALL HAIL THE 347!!! TO HELL WITH THE 351!!!!

Coming soon.....408w TKO tremec.....
-----------------------------------
NEVER enough horsepower!

93lxreef is offline  
post #23 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 12:35 AM
MM Fanatic
 
fogged306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 4,875
     
iTrader: 2 reviews
Not saying I wouldn't go with a 9.5 deck over a 8.2... All I'm saying is that what you said about a 351 making more torque than a 347 was incorrect. Like I said, of course a stroked 9.5 deck will make more power, not disputing that at all. I just don't want someone reading that statement and thinking that dropping in a 351 would be a cheaper option to get the same result.
fogged306 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #24 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 08:24 AM
Newbie
 
93lxreef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Boonieville,Texas
Posts: 44
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
For starters...This got me wound up for someone posting a 351w is a waste of money. It's just not so....


Ok, let's clear this up... Yes, the 347 is lighter. I agree. Would it trap faster than an equal 351w due to weight? Yes, I'll agree with that, also. You're all right, don't deny it! ........ But, torque, I don't agree that the 347 would take the 351 on because of MASS. Post a dyno sheet and disprove it....you won't find one.

I've read countless articles on how on dynos an FE 427 will tromp all over a 427 windsor torquewise because of the big block's MASS.

Will a lighter engine trap faster? mmyeah. More throttle response?? Yes. More fun to drive??? ....Opinion.....maybe no. Torque is fun on the street.

ANYWAY....My point wasn't apples to apples.... I'd stroke the windsor....with out teeny 170 heads.....and make more power!!!! 408 beats 347!!! Sorry I wasn't more clear on that!!!!!!

peace!

Coming soon.....408w TKO tremec.....
-----------------------------------
NEVER enough horsepower!


Last edited by 93lxreef; December 19th, 2010 at 08:55 AM.
93lxreef is offline  
post #25 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 12:22 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gatorland
Posts: 7,599
     
iTrader: 3 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93lxreef View Post
With all due respect....not trying to argue all things equal. Just saying that with a 347 you are limited by how much power you will ever make. Period. with the 351 you can stroke it and make waaaaayyy more horse power than the little 347. If you're ok with that, cool. If you want 600+ hp later, get the windsor....that's my plan. My car is a weekend toy, not a DD.

Honestly, if I were to build a daily driver, I'd probably go 347. But I'm gonna be the guy that shuts up the shit talkers and make more power. peace.
Annnnnd? What you fail to realize is that were not comparing to stroked combos for the o.p. One stroked being a 347 which is a stroked 302 and the other a 351 which is stock cubed. Who mentioned stroking the 351? You said a 351 the way it is vs a 347 has more potential. You couldn't be more wrong. Not to mention trap represents the speed you cross the line at the track. 10.5 isn't a trap.
flattusmaximus78 is offline  
post #26 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 12:52 PM
Come at me bro
 
302Army187's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Denver, Co
Posts: 3,135
     
iTrader: 0 reviews
see? easy to understand when you explain correctly.


I fully agree. a 351w is a better motor hands down. but under the right circumstances, I.E. the same engine components 347vs351 its different.


not to mention the extra cost of putting a 351w into the car in the first place.

1989 Fox H/C/I 302 & 2013 GT 5.0 Stock 370rwhp 352rwtrq


www.youtube.com/Xarmy187

Please support my YouTube channel! My videos don't disappoint!
2.2 MILLION views (and counting) can't be wrong!!
302Army187 is offline  
post #27 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 01:24 PM
Newbie
 
93lxreef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Boonieville,Texas
Posts: 44
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by 302Army187 View Post
see? easy to understand when you explain correctly.


I fully agree. a 351w is a better motor hands down. but under the right circumstances, I.E. the same engine components 347vs351 its different.


not to mention the extra cost of putting a 351w into the car in the first place.
Cool! No more tomatoes... please!

Btw, to the op, sorry to thread jack, just didn't want the value of the w to be discredited......
peace!

Coming soon.....408w TKO tremec.....
-----------------------------------
NEVER enough horsepower!

93lxreef is offline  
post #28 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 02:11 PM
Hardcore Enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,527
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
well settle with if you do the motor correctly weather its a 347 or a 351 you can make power out of both of them.
ddarkslayer is offline  
post #29 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 06:26 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
FastStang91Lx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,990
         
iTrader: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddarkslayer View Post
well settle with if you do the motor correctly weather its a 347 or a 351 you can make power out of both of them.

FastStang's Ongoing projects thread Click here!
FastStang91Lx is offline  
post #30 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 06:33 PM
Newbie
 
93lxreef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Boonieville,Texas
Posts: 44
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastStang91Lx View Post


LOL!!!!

Coming soon.....408w TKO tremec.....
-----------------------------------
NEVER enough horsepower!

93lxreef is offline  
post #31 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 07:05 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Phoenix,AZ
Posts: 3,014
   
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93lxreef View Post
For starters...This got me wound up for someone posting a 351w is a waste of money. It's just not so....


Ok, let's clear this up... Yes, the 347 is lighter. I agree. Would it trap faster than an equal 351w due to weight? Yes, I'll agree with that, also. You're all right, don't deny it! ........ But, torque, I don't agree that the 347 would take the 351 on because of MASS. Post a dyno sheet and disprove it....you won't find one.

I've read countless articles on how on dynos an FE 427 will tromp all over a 427 windsor torquewise because of the big block's MASS.

Will a lighter engine trap faster? mmyeah. More throttle response?? Yes. More fun to drive??? ....Opinion.....maybe no. Torque is fun on the street.

ANYWAY....My point wasn't apples to apples.... I'd stroke the windsor....with out teeny 170 heads.....and make more power!!!! 408 beats 347!!! Sorry I wasn't more clear on that!!!!!!

peace!
You must be drooling on yourself right now......

MAss???? Wtf is mass?

Acceleration is key..not some stupid dyno sheet.

Torque is fun on the street? What torque? Where does this torque happen ? I hope your not talkin low end... 351 vs 347 is retarded .... Use your friggin head.

PeteAndersonRacing.com
93mustank is offline  
post #32 of 52 Old December 19th, 2010, 07:42 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 11,614
                 
iTrader: 0 reviews
trailer pullin

[QUOTE=93mustank;2577445]We speed tested my right arm for quickness in shifts... So he could design the cam for proper shift recovery.[/QUOTE]
93hatch is offline  
post #33 of 52 Old December 20th, 2010, 10:02 AM
Hardcore Enthusiast
 
86_Notch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,572
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
I'll always take a 351 over a 302 based motor anyday . You get a stronger block, bigger headbolts for better clamping, and @ 50 more avaliable cubic inches either stock or stroked. Torque rules !!



" Spending money I don't have.... on things I don't need .... to impress people I don't know "


.
86_Notch is offline  
post #34 of 52 Old December 20th, 2010, 10:15 AM
Free Mouth Hugs
 
sickfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rocky River OHIO
Posts: 9,037
                     
iTrader: 3 reviews
e3sean has had it wrong all this time!!!! AHHHHHHHHH


<img src=http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Thurston22782/siggg.png border=0 alt= />
MM Clevage Club #15
MMWNBCC CO-Founder
DD 2015 Ram QC 4x4 blackout
DD2 2016 Challenger R/T
Toy 1991 Mustang lx 5.0
sickfox is offline  
post #35 of 52 Old December 20th, 2010, 04:09 PM
Hardcore Enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,527
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
rotational mass is good for diesel engines
ddarkslayer is offline  
post #36 of 52 Old December 20th, 2010, 06:26 PM Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 20
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Well I picked it up for 900 its ford racing rotating assembly. I dont think any one would argue forged 351w for 900 is not a bad deal with about 3000 miles on it.

I will get pics up later of it.. What do you guys think about lakewood traction bars?

Its going to be a weekend warrior so solid mounts or urethaine mounts.. Which either one what company?

like I said this is my first ford so need to get pointed in the right direction.. any help is greatly appreciated
Ijuswan2gofast is offline  
post #37 of 52 Old December 20th, 2010, 07:14 PM Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 20
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
[IMG][/IMG]
Ijuswan2gofast is offline  
post #38 of 52 Old December 20th, 2010, 09:19 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
FastStang91Lx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,990
         
iTrader: 2 reviews
Looks like low(er) compression pistons... Boost that biatch!

FastStang's Ongoing projects thread Click here!
FastStang91Lx is offline  
post #39 of 52 Old December 20th, 2010, 09:41 PM Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 20
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastStang91Lx View Post
Looks like low(er) compression pistons... Boost that biatch!
What do you think about runnin nitrous on it?
Ijuswan2gofast is offline  
post #40 of 52 Old December 20th, 2010, 09:46 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
FastStang91Lx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,990
         
iTrader: 2 reviews
Let 'er buck. I know nitrous works well with higher compression and medium compression, not sure about lower You would have to do the math to figure out exactly where you are on compression anyway. A 58cc head will keep the compression up whereas a 65cc head will obviously lower it. Compressed thickness of headgasket as well as actual deck height vs. piston height are all determining factors.

Edit: Just reread... You have 66cc heads. Didn't know that was an option though?

FastStang's Ongoing projects thread Click here!
FastStang91Lx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome