type of 351?

What 351 engine is the best to put into a 1967 mustang? I'm looking to get
350 to 400 hp out of it. Is there a better model of 351(cleveland,windsor,M)
if so is there a better year to look for?
Reply to
Scott Jones
I just had a 351 W built bored and stroked to a380 with Jack Roush heads and a performer intake ten to one compression , and a 750 double pumper ,Hooker super comp headers , and a comp. cam this combo is said to put out about 425 hp . I put this in a 69 fast back M 1
351(cleveland,windsor,M)
Reply to
Hugh Garrison
Here is an example:
1970 Mustang Mach I 351C stroked to 377 CID Edelbrock Performer intake manifold Holley 750 CFM 4 barrel carburator Custom made headers 4 speed close ratio Top-Loader 3.50:1 limited slip (Traction-Lok) diff
340 HP @ 5,000 RPM (rear wheels) 400 ft lb torque @ 3,300 RPM
As a friend of mine says, "That's some tree-stump pullin' torque"...
Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C @
formatting link

351(cleveland,windsor,M)
Reply to
Grover C. McCoury III
This engine has Cleveland 4V heads featuring HUGE valves and ports (~2.19" intake and ~1.71" exhaust valves). The heads are what made this engine the powerhouse that it is.
Not sure what heads you would be referring to as "better".
Reply to
Grover C. McCoury III
IMO that should be making more power on top than it is. Peaking at 340 hp @ 5000 rpm is really low espesacliy for 4v heads. The 4v heads should be pulling a lot higher rpms. What size is your cam?
MadDAWG
Reply to
MadDAWG
I'm pretty sure that's the hp at the wheels he's quoting... quite different than at the crank, or net, or gross....
Rob
Reply to
trainfan1
351(cleveland,windsor,M)
since no 351's were installed in 67 the choice is yours,IMO the 351W is your best bet after the 289/302,the 351W is basically a bigger/wider 302, next choice is 351C 2V or 4V version, they were built from 70-74 and have the 302/351W engine to bellhousing bolt pattern and engine mounts. The 351M or 400 is the least practical choice, they are similar to the 351C but they are wider/taller and have unique engine mounts and the 429-460 C6 bellhousing bolt patern.
Reply to
winze
Typicaly a manual tranny will lose between 10-15% in the drive line while an auto is 15-20%. That puts you around 385 hp at the crank.
After rereading your description I saw whats killing your top end ---Edelbrock Performer intake manifold---
swap that for a good single plane and then watch it turn the rpms. :)
MadDAWG
Reply to
MadDAWG
If the car is set-up for an FE big block, and for some reason the OP MUST have a 351, the 352 ci FE shares the same 4" bore 3.5" stroke as the 351W, 351C, & 351M... all 4 engines displace 351.86 ci.
The old original 352 is the one that actually represents it's displacement most accurately.
Rob
Reply to
trainfan1
"trainfan1" wrote
And it's a boat anchor. Though I've heard of some turning them into 427's. The only problem then is you can shine a flashlight down a cylinder and the block lights up like a Chinese lantern. :)
Reply to
Scott Williams
Right, 427 is pushing it. They make nice serviceable 390's, though. And they're heavy... but he wants a 351...
Rob
Reply to
trainfan1
Been there done that.
Had a Torker 351 and swapped it out. The single plane was a not friendly for daily street driving.
Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C @
formatting link

Reply to
Grover C. McCoury III
Thats surprising. A buddy of mine ran a Torker on a 351c in a 73 stang that didn't make as much power as yours and didn't have any problems on the street. He did have a 3.90 gear, but the 73 is bigger than a 70 too.
MadDAWG
Reply to
MadDAWG

Site Timeline Threads

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.