66 Coupe 302 vs 351W

js66coupe · May 10, 2009

I'm having my 66 Coupe, 289, 4v, auto, pony interior car restored. I'm considering my options for an engine. A stroker 302 (347) or a stroker 351W. What are the pros-cons of going with the 351W?

If I did the 351W stroker, I'd probably keep it under 400ci, around 383ci, or so. Mostly, I'm concerned with handling. Will the added weight be an issue even if I go with alumunum heads, to keep weight down? What heads would you recommend with the 351W? Will the frame handle the extra torque from this engine? Mileage?

My goal is for a nice drive with a good bump in power. Not a daily driver but definately to be driven.

2+2GT · May 10, 2009

If I did the 351W stroker, I'd probably keep it under 400ci, around 383ci, or so. Mostly, I'm concerned with handling. Will the added weight be an issue even if I go with alumunum heads, to keep weight down? What heads would you recommend with the 351W?
If you use aluminum heads, intake, and of course you'll need special conversion headers to get the 351W in there, you'll be fine on weight.

Will the frame handle the extra torque from this engine?
Of course. Structurally, 64-70 were almost identical.

Mileage?
It'll suck. Seriously, you'd build a hotrod like that and drive like Ralph Nader?

js66coupe · May 10, 2009

No, I wouldn't granny drive it. . I was just talking comparitively stroker 302 vs stroker 351W. Thanks for the info. Got any recommendations on a stroker kit?

Bosscat · May 11, 2009

Unless you plan on mini tubs, I would go with a 302/331/347.

Bosscat · May 11, 2009

2+2GT said:
If I did the 351W stroker, I'd probably keep it under 400ci, around 383ci, or so. Mostly, I'm concerned with handling. Will the added weight be an issue even if I go with alumunum heads, to keep weight down?

I really don't see a huge difference in the any of the stroker options of the 351Ws? What would be the weight difference of a 383 to a 426 stroker?

I am just asking the question, because for the 65-66 you just can't get the meat you need in the back for the torque with these strokers, IMHO of course.

2+2GT · May 11, 2009

The 351W conversion in 65-66 cars started about an hour after the first 69 351 car was totalled. Don't worry about how much tire you have on the rear end, even a stock-like 205-70R14 radial has WAY better traction than any 428SCJ mach1 ever had when new. Huge rear tires are great at cruise night for impressing the peasants, or leaping across an intersection as a stoplight king, for for getting that last .5 sec off your e.t. at the strip, but on real roads driving legally (but quickly) giant rear tires are no advantage, and can even kill you if you drive in the rain. Big rear tires will hydroplane much quicker than normal fronts, and before you can say OMG, it's raining the car can swap ends, turning you into a spectator, not driver.

Bosscat · May 11, 2009

My thinking is, if you are going to go through the trouble of getting more power, why limit yourself on being able to get to the ground, plus big rears tires look way better than those stock pizza cutters I have never seen a proper Foose car with skinny rears

95Vert383AOD · May 11, 2009

I have a 383 Internal Balance Probe kit. Heads/ Cam/ Intake are the key. I picked the 383 because it has a damn near perfect rod ratio. 6.2" Chevy Rods. Any stroker will consume gas if you're beating on it. Only Advise i can give you is to get at least an AFR 205 Head. If youre building from scratch and you want to get every ounce of power then i would suggest a Piston with a twisted dish. This way you could use a Trickflow twisted wedge head. Only drawback is the price of the heads you'll need. $1850 for Afr 205's or $2000 for the 225's.

Weight with aluminum heads isn't bad. My car handles the same if not better. But ive also removes all smog equip. and A/C. Realistically the difference between an iron headed 302 with iron headers and a aluminum headed 351 with tubular headers is relocating your battery to the trunk. (not even 40 pounds if that) So i doubt you'll notice it.

Chris

2+2GT · May 11, 2009

Bosscat said:
My thinking is, if you are going to go through the trouble of getting more power, why limit yourself on being able to get to the ground, plus big rears tires look way better than those stock pizza cutters I have never seen a proper Foose car with skinny rears

Yeah, lotta Foose daily drivers out there, commuting in the rain.

Bosscat · May 11, 2009

2+2GT said:
Yeah, lotta Foose daily drivers out there, commuting in the rain.

Key is, it is not a daily driver, but a car that will be driven. Which tells me not much rain time, would you agree

2+2GT · May 11, 2009

Bosscat said:
Key is, it is not a daily driver, but a car that will be driven. Which tells me not much rain time, would you agree

No doubt. Being more into road racing than drag racing, I prefer to see identical or similar size front to rear. With more weight on the front than rear, the Mustang tends to plow straight ahead when driven hard on dry pavement, if the front tires are much smaller than the rear. We have lots of turns around here, I like to turn.

Bosscat · May 11, 2009

When racing in class, those cars have limitations, do that not?

I can show you plenty of cars that have more rear rubber Plus it looks better w/ some meat out back.

Bigger tires up front like those set up for pure road race are crap to drive on the street, which is where his car will be prowling.

2+2GT · May 11, 2009

Bosscat said:
When racing in class, those cars have limitations, do that not?

I can show you plenty of cars that have more rear rubber Plus it looks better w/ some meat out back.

Bigger tires up front like those set up for pure road race are crap to drive on the street, which is where his car will be prowling.

Strange, it seems you do no practice what you advocate here.

Bosscat · May 11, 2009

2+2GT said:
Strange, it seems you do no practice what you advocate here.

GTR is set up with Fronts 245/45, rears 285/40 The last time I was a car meet with the GTR, the guys mentioned my car was like a steamroller from the rear

Stang is set up with 225/45 front, 295/35 rear.

Wide tires in the front

Bigger, I am talking width, not heigth

SadbutTrue · May 11, 2009

I think a 351w should be mandatory in the 67+ cars.

In the 66, the limited traction capacity for the car (without tubbing) should be considered, as should the weight balance and ability to change plugs etc. I tend to think that, if you're going to spend the money to do it right, a 347 is probably a better overall setup in a 66 than a 351w-based stroker. The 351w is better built than the 302 in a number of ways though, so if you're just going to buy a motor, do some mild mods and drop it in... the 351 then might become a better choice.

Can't go wrong with either though. And its always easier/cheaper to build what you have.

Bosscat · May 11, 2009

Don't this look good?

dodgestang · May 11, 2009

Bosscat said:
Don't this look good?

This looks better....but then again...I'm biased

PS...I also really like my 245 40 17 on the front.

js66coupe said:
Will the frame handle the extra torque from this engine? Mileage?

My goal is for a nice drive with a good bump in power. Not a daily driver but definitely to be driven.

Add front torque boxes and subframe connectors. You can get reasonable mileage with the addition of an overdrive trans. I run fast in the 1/4 with my 410c and still get double digit fuel mileage despite having 4.11 in the rear. I got good performance out of my old 5 leafs with shelby under riders but the under riders didn't last forever and one too many trips to the drag tore them apart. I upgraded the rear recently and in retrospect for all the years I ran the 5 leafs I probably would have been happier with a 4.5 leaf and gotten almost the same performance. With the adjustable shocks in the rear now I can dial it in anyway I want and having it a little softer is a huge plus...however...the watts makes it more doable with my 255 rear tires since it keeps the housing planted.

2+2GT · May 11, 2009

OK, fine, but neither of those cars is in your signature. It looks like that blue FB is going to have wheel lip issues.

You can get up to a 235/60R15 on the back of a 65-66 without modification.

SadbutTrue · May 11, 2009

2+2GT said:
OK, fine, but neither of those cars is in your signature. It looks like that blue FB is going to have wheel lip issues.

You can get up to a 235/60R15 on the back of a 65-66 without modification.

Have to get the backspacing perfect though. I had some serious rub issues all around with 225 60R15s w/ 3.75" backspacing. Even rolling fenders didn't quite get rid of it, I had to return them and get 225 50r15s eventually.

golf4283 · May 11, 2009

2+2GT said:
OK, fine, but neither of those cars is in your signature. It looks like that blue FB is going to have wheel lip issues.

You can get up to a 235/60R15 on the back of a 65-66 without modification.

I have 245/45R/17 on my '66 coupe with no modifications at all. Didn't even have to roll the lip. Only mod is the switch to a versailles rear-end. With some spacers I could easily get another inch wider on the wheel with no issues at all.

Just go with the 351 dude. Parts are just as available as the 302 and you get more cubes. Stroking a 302 to 347 will waste money when you can just keep the 351 where it is and upgrade the top end and get more power. No brainer to me.

66 Coupe 302 vs 351W

js66coupe

Member

2+2GT

js66coupe

Member

Bosscat

Bosscat

2+2GT

Bosscat

95Vert383AOD

2+2GT

Bosscat

2+2GT

Bosscat

2+2GT

Bosscat

SadbutTrue

Bosscat

dodgestang

Active Member

2+2GT

SadbutTrue

golf4283

Active Member

Similar threads

66 Coupe 302 vs 351W

Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency