Ford 302 SS build

[BRETV]

We ran a 95 Cobra R back in the late 90's early 00's. It was 351W. Had the F3 GT40 heads. We ran in it F/S. Went high 10's. weighing 3300 lbs. rated at 300 HP. Wasn't a roller motor. We were surprised when we took it apart for the first time when we started to build it as a stocker.




Bret Velde
2003 I/SA

[goinbroke2]

Originally Posted by BRETV

We ran a 95 Cobra R back in the late 90's early 00's. It was 351W. Had the F3 GT40 heads. We ran in it F/S. Went high 10's. weighing 3300 lbs. rated at 300 HP. Wasn't a roller motor. We were surprised when we took it apart for the first time when we started to build it as a stocker.




Bret Velde
2003 I/SA

So that's 490-500hp....that's impressive for a non roller gt40 headed 351! (also the first 351w that I've seen make any power with "stock" heads, lol)

[1347]

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

What 351w would be able to make any power? Even the rare D0 heads flow same/less than gt40P's. They barely support a 302 let alone 351 inches.

Reminds me when Ernie Elliot built a 327" for restrictor races and qualified WAY WAY quicker, so nascar made the "minimum cu in" ruling.

What secret am I missing where a top end that is barely enough to feed 300 cubes will run in a performance category with 50 more cubes?

Edit: On Stan's site I checked out the basic heads from ford/chev/dodge.

Mopar 051 head 1.88/1.60 (no idea if its good or bad)
50/49 113/97 165/123 188/123 193/137

Chev 462 1.94/1.50 (again no idea if this is a good head or not)
50/54 119/88 167/116 198/128 212/134

Ford E7 (as good as any and better than most stock ford heads) 1.78/1.45
52/39 95/74 132/98 143/104 159/109

To me, ford heads barely flow enough for 302's and once you see what 360's and 350's have for "base" heads, the 351W to me is way under headed.
Richard Holdener ran a stock junkyard 302 and got 259hp and a stock 351 got the same but at a lower rpm which to me says as cast, stock heads will flow enough to produce 260hp and that's it. (for a base to start from)

Am I reading something wrong??

I am not sure of your formula for the 290hp, but my 302 cast iron head super stock engine with 1968 heads and stock size valves goes 10.70s in a 3100lb car.

When I talked about the 351w, I had said research it, not.build it. I haven't looked to see if anyone has had success with it. There are multiple options

[Paul Precht]

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

What 351w would be able to make any power? Even the rare D0 heads flow same/less than gt40P's. They barely support a 302 let alone 351 inches.

Reminds me when Ernie Elliot built a 327" for restrictor races and qualified WAY WAY quicker, so nascar made the "minimum cu in" ruling.

What secret am I missing where a top end that is barely enough to feed 300 cubes will run in a performance category with 50 more cubes?

Edit: On Stan's site I checked out the basic heads from ford/chev/dodge.

Mopar 051 head 1.88/1.60 (no idea if its good or bad)
50/49 113/97 165/123 188/123 193/137

Chev 462 1.94/1.50 (again no idea if this is a good head or not)
50/54 119/88 167/116 198/128 212/134

Ford E7 (as good as any and better than most stock ford heads) 1.78/1.45
52/39 95/74 132/98 143/104 159/109

To me, ford heads barely flow enough for 302's and once you see what 360's and 350's have for "base" heads, the 351W to me is way under headed.
Richard Holdener ran a stock junkyard 302 and got 259hp and a stock 351 got the same but at a lower rpm which to me says as cast, stock heads will flow enough to produce 260hp and that's it. (for a base to start from)

Am I reading something wrong??

The only accurate way to compare these heads would be to flow test them through the stock manifolds and take an average between the lower and upper ports. If the Ford mani is better than the Chevy mani there may be much less of a gap between them. The actual carb flow as tested on a flow bench tells a big story too as far as HP potential.

[goinbroke2]

Originally Posted by 1347

I am not sure of your formula for the 290hp, but my 302 cast iron head super stock engine with 1968 heads and stock size valves goes 10.70s in a 3100lb car.

When I talked about the 351w, I had said research it, not.build it. I haven't looked to see if anyone has had success with it. There are multiple options

Research it, gotcha. To me at first glance it seems horrendous for hp potential, then looking on line to see examples of people making power with stock heads on a 351? Nobody does that, which again further convinced me it is not a good combo.

This was Richard Holdener on youtube making a base run on sbf's, same heads and cam pretty much and both made same power just at a lower rpm for the 351;

[Chris1529]

I had a 95 F150 with the 351W that I used to tow with. I think it was only rated at 210 HP then with EFI and was a non roller cam as well. It had 325# torque, but at 2800 rpm. It was a really good engine in that truck as far as pulling with a 1/2 ton 4x4. The Lightning trucks of the day had the GT40 heads I think, but I never drove one for comparison.
I also have the parts for a 69 290HP 351W, but feel its too high a factor to start out with in S/SS unless you really want to do it.

[ShipC1970]

Originally Posted by 1347

I am not sure of your formula for the 290hp, but my 302 cast iron head super stock engine with 1968 heads and stock size valves goes 10.70s in a 3100lb car.

When I talked about the 351w, I had said research it, not.build it. I haven't looked to see if anyone has had success with it. There are multiple options

Mr Hoven! Big fan of your maverick! I was on the fence about doing a 68 302 your car being the inspiration! I have decided to run a 351c. A local guy has one for sale that’s a 70 block and heads that I’m going to run in my 70 coupe.. Still doing a ton of homework though as this is new to me! Thank you everyone for your responses and intel I highly appreciate it!

Thanks!
Chris

[Jim Caughlin]

Originally Posted by ShipC1970

Mr Hoven! Big fan of your maverick! I was on the fence about doing a 68 302 your car being the inspiration! I have decided to run a 351c. A local guy has one for sale that’s a 70 block and heads that I’m going to run in my 70 coupe.. Still doing a ton of homework though as this is new to me! Thank you everyone for your responses and intel I highly appreciate it!

Thanks!
Chris

Which 351C combo are your referring to? Are you saying the local guy has a complete prepped SS motor or just the core engine? If it's a core, are they the correct head castings for the combo you want to run? Bear in mind the absolutely cheapest part of building a SS motor is going to be the engine core.

[Rory McNeil]

The 70 351C 4 barrel engine is not a very good combination in Stock, and likely Super Stock either. The 70 engine is rated at a higher HP than the 71-72 351C 4 barrels, and have a considerably smaller camshaft, which isn`t an issue for S/S, but the carb issue certainly is. Where the 71-72 is allowed to use a Holley 780, the 70s stuck with the small (480ish cfm?) Autolite 4300.
So less cam, smaller carb, and at a higher HP rating, not very surprising that there are numerous 71 and 72 Mustangs with 351C running in Stock and Super Stock, and some 71/73 351Cs running in the SS GT classes, but I can`t recall anybody running the 1970 version, in a number of years.

[ShipC1970]

Originally Posted by Jim Caughlin

Which 351C combo are your referring to? Are you saying the local guy has a complete prepped SS motor or just the core engine? If it's a core, are they the correct head castings for the combo you want to run? Bear in mind the absolutely cheapest part of building a SS motor is going to be the engine core.

I confirmed it’s a 1972 248hp combo and it’s a core. The block casting is D0AE-L. Since that is the same casting number for the 70 and 71 blocks if I somehow found a set of 71 351c heads could I run it as a 71 since the block numbers are the same and do everything else to 71 spec? I’d run it in GT class.