Boss Mustang stocker

[Bill Diehl]

from Tim.....

January 5th I drive to the foundry to inspect the changes to the Track Boss Cleveland block. If everything looks OK, they can pour 2 samples for us immediately.

We probably won't know the exact price until we have run a few blocks. Our estimate is cast iron blocks will be in the $3250-$3750, Our aluminum blocks will be in the $4900-$5900 range.

[FireSale]

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

Actually my point is that the guide is wrong. The 351C has a 5.78 rod length, the 351M and 400 both have 6.58" rods.
Deck height on a 351C is 9.206, the 351M and 400 are 10.297"
To put it bluntly, you cannot use 351C rods in a 351M.
Pull the crank and pistons out of a 400 and put in 351M crank and pistons and you now have a 351M, everything is the same except crank and pistons.

So, why has this never been picked up? I'll assume it's because nobody has ran a 351M in anything. Although I do remember a mid 70's green wagon but I'm sure it was running a 400. (jolly green giant maybe?) Regardless there's no replacement rod for the 400 (or 351M)

I wouldn't really trust the NHRA Blueprints on fine details of engine building.

As noted, the only rod length for the 1970 302 listed is 5.090 when everyone in the Ford community knows the BOSS 302 ran 5.155 rods.

They list it in 69 but not 70. You also can't race a 68 GT350 with the good 4bbl legally because that car is nowhere in the Stock Car Classification Guide. Just the GT500. As if no one ever took a GT350 to the strip in the 60s...

You are correct with the rod lengths for the 351. NHRA lists the 70 351c with 5.780 rod length. For 1975, the 351m has 6.580 rods listed and there is a 351w in that year with 5.959 rods.

If I were to build a 351 to move up in GT, I would be very careful with the details.

Dale

[Bill Diehl]

The rearend, or bringing up the rear..LOL

I am taking a hard long look at housing ends, and really like the Strange H1149 and P1018 axle kit although its overkill for a stock HP level.

But, I do like the idea of a mis-alignment bearing as these cars use the longest housing so the chance of bending/flexing ect is more

and of course if I am going to blow that kind of cash might as well get the bearings/gear micro blued as well also.

I have selected lamb brakes for the front, but not decided on rear yet, the axle kit does have a MW brake option

Suggestions?

[FireSale]

I watched more than a few "stock HP" cars drop rear ends and axles at the track before I got off my butt to build my 68 coupe, so I put $3100 in Strange hardware back there. And I drive it to the track at the time being. It has a Detroit locker.

Just Do It.

Dale

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Bill Diehl

The rearend, or bringing up the rear..LOL

I am taking a hard long look at housing ends, and really like the Strange H1149 and P1018 axle kit although its overkill for a stock HP level.

But, I do like the idea of a mis-alignment bearing as these cars use the longest housing so the chance of bending/flexing ect is more

and of course if I am going to blow that kind of cash might as well get the bearings/gear micro blued as well also.

I have selected lamb brakes for the front, but not decided on rear yet, the axle kit does have a MW brake option

Suggestions?

For the rear, you have several options such as Strange, Lamb or a newcomer in the field, TBM (The Brake Man).

http://www.tbmbrakes.com/

[Bill Diehl]

The 351C Track Boss block part TB9-2C11B has been listed in the approved products list as of 1-5-2016 for 1970-74 Cleveland applications

[Dave Noll]

....

[Bill Diehl]

I will be using the high misalignment bearing system, either Strange or MW EV4.1 system....I have not made up my mind yet. but, with a 60+ long flange to flange I see the benefits of it

Lamb brakes at all 4 corners

[Bill Diehl]

The correct part number for the 351C block has been updated in the accepted products list available from Tim Meyer inc

There is also a new diamond piston available for the Boss 351/330hp that has been approved also it will be on the list soon as I have a part number

[Bill Diehl]

Debating...anotherwords, I can't make up my mind on weather or not to bump this up to a SS combo. I am at the point now where it is cheaper to backhalf instead of restore the 45 year old rear section to stock specs. The rear end is cheaper, the entire driveline for that matter will cost me less than top of the line parts, that will work, look right and pass tech in "stock"

I really do want it to be a stocker though