• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

700hp 351w 69 block or 94 roller block

  • Thread starter Thread starter fox3streetracer
  • Start date Start date Mar 20, 2006
F

fox3streetracer

Member
Jul 6, 2003
195
0
16
ocala,fl
Mar 20, 2006
#1
  • Mar 20, 2006
  • #1
in the future i plan on building a 418 or 427 stroker for my street car.will be carbed with possibility of a vortech s-trim blow through@10psi or 150 shot nitous.was going to get a all forged stroker kit.engine will never see above 6200rpm.i am going to run a hyd roller cam.i can get ahold of a 69 351w block or a 94 roller block for the same price,was worried that the main seal design would leak more on the 69,also worried about the lower deck height with stroker kit and p/v interferance.also,will a regular 9.500 deck height intake work with the 69 9.480 deck height?would the roller block handle 650-700hp?both the blocks are stock bore and in very good shape.
 
R

Redrooster

New Member
Jul 13, 2005
73
0
0
Mar 21, 2006
#2
  • Mar 21, 2006
  • #2
I don't have any direct experience with a windsor engine; however, a friend has a 393 in a 69 block. The same question was asked to his engine builder as the retro roller lifters are expensive. The builder stated that the late model roller windsor blocks are weak compared to the early model and are not good for anything other than a mild build.
 

Modular2v

Founding Member
Jun 30, 2002
3,222
23
99
oklahoma
Mar 21, 2006
#3
  • Mar 21, 2006
  • #3
I just recently got a 69 block for my next build up. i would get the 69 just because it is stronger than the 94 due to higher nickel content
 

Stangninjak

Member
Apr 16, 2004
324
2
19
Mar 21, 2006
#4
  • Mar 21, 2006
  • #4
Modular2v said:
I just recently got a 69 block for my next build up. i would get the 69 just because it is stronger than the 94 due to higher nickel content
Click to expand...

What Mod2v says is true. I ran a 69 block, and now I have a 94 block. The 69 block will be stronger, and yes the intake will fit with no problems. I was able to fit my old intake from the 69 to the 94, even though I decided to upgrade later.

The roller block, 94, can handle that power easily. Its your lower end that needs beafing. If you are getting the forge stroker kit, you should not have a issue going with the roller block. If you can get the 69, I would say use it, and convert it to a roller if you are building it up from stroke kit. It may cost more, but 69 blocks are dam near indestructable.

I basically went with a 94 block in my new build basically because the machine shops around my parts are shady at best. So I basically just got a new short block because I needed to get the engine up quickly, and it was about the same cost.

In truth you really cannot go wrong with either one of those blocks. 94 is the next best block behind the 69 in a 351w
 

Modular2v

Founding Member
Jun 30, 2002
3,222
23
99
oklahoma
Mar 21, 2006
#5
  • Mar 21, 2006
  • #5
i already drilled my intake valley for the spider....it is easy to do! Either way you go you should be fine...i just wouldnt push the 94 over 600hp, but that is coming from a guy that is getting ready to push 550 through a stock 302 block
 
F

fox3streetracer

Member
Jul 6, 2003
195
0
16
ocala,fl
Apr 10, 2006
#6
  • Apr 10, 2006
  • #6
ttt
 

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master
Nov 29, 1999
9,692
95
99
PA
Apr 11, 2006
#7
  • Apr 11, 2006
  • #7
I would recommend a solid roller in the older model year block. The biggest issue with boost on the large cube strokers is compression, in 9 out of 10 cases a custom piston is needed...just food for thought. I am dealing with this with a customers 434ci stroker
 

Modular2v

Founding Member
Jun 30, 2002
3,222
23
99
oklahoma
Apr 11, 2006
#8
  • Apr 11, 2006
  • #8
Rick 91GT said:
I would recommend a solid roller in the older model year block. The biggest issue with boost on the large cube strokers is compression, in 9 out of 10 cases a custom piston is needed...just food for thought. I am dealing with this with a customers 434ci stroker
Click to expand...
how much more is this rick?
 

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master
Nov 29, 1999
9,692
95
99
PA
Apr 11, 2006
#9
  • Apr 11, 2006
  • #9
Rotating assembly would be in the $2000 range, custom pistons, crank, rods, pistons, rings, bearings, etc

All good name brand parts, no off shore junk.
 

Modular2v

Founding Member
Jun 30, 2002
3,222
23
99
oklahoma
Apr 11, 2006
#10
  • Apr 11, 2006
  • #10
why the custom pistons? because of the deck height?
 

bluevenom867

I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in
Dec 15, 2003
1,704
1
0
St.Petersburg,FL
Apr 11, 2006
#11
  • Apr 11, 2006
  • #11
Modular2v said:
why the custom pistons? because of the deck height?
Click to expand...

Compression hieght of the piston.

You make these big stroke motors,with long rods you need a short piston and a crappily (word?) made piston is junk and will also usually give you too much compression ( assuming flat top).

Anything serious I would deffenitly go with custom pistons,its just a litle extra saftey and can even hel pyou make a little more power,as alot of custom pistons can be ordered with special work done (like gas porting,lightening,modified pin oiling,and of course the best ring land and crown design for your app.).

They cost a few hundred more than off the selfers.
 

onefaststang

Kingpin
Founding Member
Jan 1, 1999
9,049
4
79
Elmira NY
Apr 11, 2006
#12
  • Apr 11, 2006
  • #12
Go with the 69 block. There are a lot of people who will tell you the late model blocks are strong enough but I disagree. I've been one of the un-lucky people to break one, and it cost me a LOT of money in the long run.


 

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master
Nov 29, 1999
9,692
95
99
PA
Apr 12, 2006
#13
  • Apr 12, 2006
  • #13
Compression Height and the Dish size...

Here is a typical 408ci stroker below, as you can see even with a 20cc dish the compression is still high.

Compression Ratio Calculator v2.d

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:44 am

* 408 cid *

Bore Size: 4.030
Gasket Bore: 4.100
Piston Top Land Dia: 3.995
Stroke: 4.000
Connecting Rod Length 6.200
Compression Height: 1.300
Deck Height: 9.500
Ring to Top of Piston 0.250
Gasket Thickness: 0.040
Valve Notches Volume: 20.00
Dome Volume: 0.00
Volume Head: 58.00
-------------------------------------
:COMPRESSION RATIO: 10.549
-------------------------------------



calculation variables:

Piston to Deck: 0.000
Crank Throw: 2.000
Vol. Above Top Ring: 0.90 cc
Piston to Dec Vol.: 0.00 cc
Gasket Volume: 8.65 cc
Volume Clearance: 87.56 cc
Cylinder Volume: 836.10 cc
CID: 408.018


(notes/messages)

× Piston Flush with Deck



I agree 110% with JR, although most guys do not listen.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
871
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
J
351w Rebuild - Looking for Guidance
  • Jakalope
  • Oct 25, 2019
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
1
Views
2K
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Nov 2, 2019
2Blue2
B
  • Locked
Expired Dart 427 Afr 220 All New Never Fired
  • brainstangs
  • Oct 2, 2015
  • Engine and Power Adder
Replies
2
Views
4K
Engine and Power Adder Mar 23, 2016
327notch
3
Building a 69/70 351W block w/9.48" deck height
  • Jason 302
  • Feb 8, 2012
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
13K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 12, 2026
ELP1
E
  • Locked
Fox Body Ready 393 Stroker with Conversion Headers and Pan
  • kikz19
  • Dec 5, 2011
  • Engine and Power Adder
Replies
0
Views
3K
Engine and Power Adder Dec 5, 2011
kikz19
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?