Thoughts on using this setup on 351 build

[Hoytster]

A friend of mine is using in 81 or 84 block and that requires different lifters he said from some other regular 351 that people use. He said he has his has both front and rear.

I guess it will depend on which block I end up using ?

Your friend is probably talking about the difference between the later roller 93+ F4TE blocks and earlier non-roller blocks. Yes, you will have to know which block you have and which lifters to run. If you want to run rollers in the earlier non-roller blocks, most people either run link bar retrofit roller lifters or a small base circle cam with the block tapped for the spider and dog bones to run rollers. I haven't looked at sourcing an OEM F4TE for years but know they used to be a little harder to come by then an earlier block...

The oil pan is a rear sump design. Like most 302/351 oil pans in a mustang, you will have a front and rear "sump" area that will need to be drained, but the pickup is in the rear.

I'm assuming you saw my answer above (before the whole fox body to sn95 discussion) to your throttle body and intake question also. Just some suggestions.

 

[a91what]

The early 351 non-roller blocks require the use of link lifters when running a roller cam. they are much taller than a standard lifter, and much more expensive. I am using a rear sump oil pan for a 351w in a fox [same for an sn95, its a fox platform as well] it will have a "double hump" two drain plugs.

 

[from6to8]

Your friend is probably talking about the difference between the later roller 93+ F4TE blocks and earlier non-roller blocks. Yes, you will have to know which block you have and which lifters to run. If you want to run rollers in the earlier non-roller blocks, most people either run link bar retrofit roller lifters or a small base circle cam with the block tapped for the spider and dog bones to run rollers. I haven't looked at sourcing an OEM F4TE for years but know they used to be a little harder to come by then an earlier block...

The oil pan is a rear sump design. Like most 302/351 oil pans in a mustang, you will have a front and rear "sump" area that will need to be drained, but the pickup is in the rear.

I'm assuming you saw my answer above (before the whole fox body to sn95 discussion) to your throttle body and intake question also. Just some suggestions.

Okay cool thanks. Yeah Yeahs too I have I forgot that for the 94-95 elbow you're limited in throttle body selection as far as size of throttle body so in that regard and needing a 90 to match the intake if I go with the trick flow r I'll likely do the fox throttle body swap

 

[General karthief]

After looking up some 'stuff' I understand the fox, sn95, new edge names much better.
i've been stuck in the 79-93 era for too long. Time to expand my horizons.
Oh, while looking around I found that they don't import yugo cars anymore WTF!

 

[Hoytster]

Okay cool thanks. Yeah Yeahs too I have I forgot that for the 94-95 elbow you're limited in throttle body selection as far as size of throttle body so in that regard and needing a 90 to match the intake if I go with the trick flow r I'll likely do the fox throttle body swap

You can get the R intake in the 75MM TB version. Really no reason to go to 90mm unless your trying for absolute max power.
EDIT: Or are going above 400 cubes and wanting more than 6000+ RPM.

 

[CarMichael Angelo]

But it's not a 'fox' platform, right?

Jesus! Strip off the fat fenders, and the bulging quarter panels and you have a fox chassis. Excepting a slightly wider track width, EVERYTHING bolts on between the models. Remove the 5.0, or the 4.6 from a 95 mustang engine bay, and look down. The exact same k member, rack and pinion and front strut suspension that is on a 1978 Fairmont is starting you back in the face. Remove and swap out the entire front suspension into an early model fox including the brakes. Therefore, It will ALWAYS be a rear sump pan. Take the longer, disk brake rear out of a SN and put it under the fox and it bolts up to the factory control arm locations.
A fox mustang is a " platform" not a body style. In our cars case, It means front McPherson strut, front steer rack and pinion, and rear independent 4 link rear suspension. The same platform that was used in 1978-83 fairmont/zephyr 80-82, t bird, cougar, Ltd, and 79-2004 Mustang.
The only differences being wheel base, track width, and structural improvements between the years and models.

I can't believe you gotta tell anybody that here.

 

[General karthief]

Jesus! Strip off the fat fenders, and the bulging quarter panels and you have a fox chassis. Excepting a slightly wider track width, EVERYTHING bolts on between the models. Remove the 5.0, or the 4.6 from a 95 mustang engine bay, and look down. The exact same k member, rack and pinion and front strut suspension that is on a 1978 Fairmont is starting you back in the face. Remove and swap out the entire front suspension into an early model fox including the brakes. Therefore, It will ALWAYS be a rear sump pan. Take the longer, disk brake rear out of a SN and put it under the fox and it bolts up to the factory control arm locations.
A fox mustang is a " platform" not a body style. In our cars case, It means front McPherson strut, front steer rack and pinion, and rear independent 4 link rear suspension. The same platform that was used in 1978-83 fairmont/zephyr 80-82, t bird, cougar, Ltd, and 79-2004 Mustang.
The only differences being wheel base, track width, and structural improvements between the years and models.

I can't believe you gotta tell anybody that here.

Settle down! I have not worked on sn95 cars and didn't think much past the suspension.
don't blow a gasket whenever someone is getting 'educated' on something that would be obvious to you.

 

[jozsefsz]

Ford engineers would disagree that the Fox and the SN95 are the same platform, so they're not. Obviously they're extraordinarily similar, and many components can bolt on. Many cannot, so it's never safe to assume what works for the Fox will work on the SN95. Headers, bellhousings, input shafts, upper intakes & elbows, etc., will not fit, won't be long enough, or won't clear the hood. The EEC, while largely similar, is also completely different when you get into the details.

The colloquial terms Fox, SN95, New Edge (an Sn95 technically) are far more useful, as generally speaking EVERYTHING will bolt on between the years (79-93, 94-98, 99-2004).

The link below has all you need to know about the differences.

What Is An SN95 Mustang? - LMR.com

Late Model Restoration explains what an SN95 Mustang is and what SN95 stands for. Follow along as we walk through the history of the 1994-2004 Mustangs.

lmr.com

 

[revhead347]

I would go with bigger heads. Building a 351 with 302 sized heads isn't money well spent.

Kurt

 

[Hoytster]

I would go with bigger heads. Building a 351 with 302 sized heads isn't money well spent.

Kurt

Bigger than 190's on a less then 390 cubic inch mild street build built primarily for low end torque? Of course a bigger head would have more HP potential, but if his goal is truly a mild torquey street build, I think he would be fine with 190's. Last 351 based motor I had my hands on with TW190's made ~420HP and 470TQ to the tire with a very mild .550 lift cam.

 

[a91what]

this is what i am building... 180cc head with a mild 224/236 57x lift on a 114... should make a very nice street car and have a nice broad torque curve...

 

[from6to8]

After looking up some 'stuff' I understand the fox, sn95, new edge names much better.
i've been stuck in the 79-93 era for too long. Time to expand my horizons.
Oh, while looking around I found that they don't import yugo cars anymore WTF!

that's understandable if you primarily dealt with those cars lol.
I bought my 95 new late 95 as a v6 and until 2015 when it got hit in the rear that's all I focused on. Even from then til I bought a terminator in July this year I had since bought a clone of my 95 and a 94 cobra.

 

[from6to8]

You can get the R intake in the 75MM TB version. Really no reason to go to 90mm unless your trying for absolute max power.
EDIT: Or are going above 400 cubes and wanting more than 6000+ RPM.

really? Yea I know it came in 75mm version too but thought it might be too small. I guess sometimes smaller ain't bad in that regard and I definitely want to try and properly match the combo this time around as opposed to what I did back in 03. I think I'd be better served going with the 75 mm one

 

[from6to8]

Settle down! I have not worked on sn95 cars and didn't think much past the suspension.
don't blow a gasket whenever someone is getting 'educated' on something that would be obvious to you.

that's all I was trying to say was explain what you're trying to say and that's all folks ask. Everyone may not use the same languo lol. All good either way

 

[from6to8]

Ford engineers would disagree that the Fox and the SN95 are the same platform, so they're not. Obviously they're extraordinarily similar, and many components can bolt on. Many cannot, so it's never safe to assume what works for the Fox will work on the SN95. Headers, bellhousings, input shafts, upper intakes & elbows, etc., will not fit, won't be long enough, or won't clear the hood. The EEC, while largely similar, is also completely different when you get into the details.

The colloquial terms Fox, SN95, New Edge (an Sn95 technically) are far more useful, as generally speaking EVERYTHING will bolt on between the years (79-93, 94-98, 99-2004).

The link below has all you need to know about the differences.

What Is An SN95 Mustang? - LMR.com

Late Model Restoration explains what an SN95 Mustang is and what SN95 stands for. Follow along as we walk through the history of the 1994-2004 Mustangs.

lmr.com

nice

 

[from6to8]

I would go with bigger heads. Building a 351 with 302 sized heads isn't money well spent.

Kurt

yeah not trying to get the max hp and lose out on drivability and gas mileage, ect but I get what you're saying

 

[from6to8]

Bigger than 190's on a less then 390 cubic inch mild street build built primarily for low end torque? Of course a bigger head would have more HP potential, but if his goal is truly a mild torquey street build, I think he would be fine with 190's. Last 351 based motor I had my hands on with TW190's made ~420HP and 470TQ to the tire with a very mild .550 lift cam.

yeah that's basically what I'd say too. What would get me to 450 hp without losing a good bit of low end and the drivability I'm after with this setup:
Intend on using a stock 351 block with maybe a 3.750 crank ( 385 c.i.), custom cam, Trick flow R intake, AFR 185 or Trick Flow 190 heads, BBK or Mac 1 3/4 LT's , and probably 4 hole fuel injectors.

And what was your setup that made 420hp?

 

[from6to8]

this is what i am building... 180cc head with a mild 224/236 57x lift on a 114... should make a very nice street car and have a nice broad torque curve...

Nice.
What numbers are you expecting potentially?

 

[a91what]

Nice.
What numbers are you expecting potentially?

450tq 400hp at the tire.

 

[from6to8]

450tq 400hp at the tire.

114?

efi or carb? And what intake