• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech

Thoughts on using this setup on 351 build

  • Thread starter Thread starter from6to8
  • Start date Start date Sep 23, 2019
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
Next
First Prev 4 of 6 Next Last

Hoytster

I don't dare do that to my Knob
20+ Year Stangneter
Dec 30, 2002
1,069
700
164
Cornwall, PA
Sep 26, 2019
#61
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #61
from6to8 said:
what are the 302 block splitting hp numbers? 400 ish right?
Click to expand...

That's a loaded question, but the general consensus is 500 RWHP is the limit. RPM is what really kills these engines. My 93' is over 500RWHP but doesn't get spun over 5800 RPM and has lived since 2008 at that power level. Others have split the block at 450RWHP.
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Sep 26, 2019
#62
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #62
Hoytster said:
That's a loaded question, but the general consensus is 500 RWHP is the limit. RPM is what really kills these engines. My 93' is over 500RWHP but doesn't get spun over 5800 RPM and has lived since 2008 at that power level. Others have split the block at 450RWHP.
Click to expand...
wow
 

Labora

Founding Member
Jun 11, 2000
1,854
26
69
Dallas, Texas
Sep 26, 2019
#63
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #63
from6to8 said:
what are the 302 block splitting hp numbers? 400 ish right?
Click to expand...

People argue but it depends on tune, power adder, and I'm sure plenty of factors along with some luck. 450-550 IMO.
 
Reactions: from6to8

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Sep 26, 2019
#64
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #64
Labora said:
People argue but it depends on tune, power adder, and I'm sure plenty of factors along with some luck. 450-550 IMO.
Click to expand...
is it the same ballpark numbers for max hp on a 351 block?
 

a91what

SendMeUrDataLog
10 Year Member
Apr 6, 2011
10,739
6,720
214
Hillsborough county
Sep 26, 2019
#65
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #65
no 351w block can survive much higher numbers.
 

Hoytster

I don't dare do that to my Knob
20+ Year Stangneter
Dec 30, 2002
1,069
700
164
Cornwall, PA
Sep 26, 2019
#66
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #66
750 - 800RWHP is the what I've always heard on the stock 351 block, but I've never tested that.
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Sep 26, 2019
#67
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #67
a91what said:
no 351w block can survive much higher numbers.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to find numbers on header primary and collector lengths but can't find anything on google nor does BBK provide that information. I just called them.
I've never thought about those lengths other than understanding the difference in primary diameter. He must be talking about the overall length from the primary down to the collector. Just text him to ask but asking here too. Wondering if you guys have inquired about that when looking for headers lol?

He said 35-36 inches long primaries and not 30-31 inches
Collector length 16-18 inches and not 7-10 inches
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Sep 26, 2019
#68
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #68
Just had another conversation with him about a 347 as well as a 427 and the longevity of those cars as to rod length and stroke will not be really reliable. He said sure he can build a 408 or 410 but using a 4 " stroke is not what he'd recommend vs a 3.750 crank and talked about the advantages of the shorter crank. Ultimately he has always said building via big bore vs stroke is the way to go but understands for what I want to do a stock block is more wise.

He said if he did the 408 or 410 he'd use a brodix 17 degree head and that a 220 in it vs a 220 in a 20 degree head is huge difference. If I stick with the 3.750 crank (385 c.i.) I'd likely just do the AFR 185 or the brodix 17 degree 190.

so still thinking
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,296
1,640
214
Acworth, GA
Sep 26, 2019
#69
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #69
There is no specific number to where the 302 block splits. It was rumored 500hp. The rumor came from back when I started doing this. Hardly anybody did a computer tune back then. There was no where near as much understanding about tuning, and RPM, and how that stressed the block. There is a guy on sloppy that has put over 800 to the tire on a Turbo Mustang; complete stock bottom end; consistently. His name is not coming to my head. I know he is from South Carolina. I am not trying to say that if you through a ton of power at a 302 block it would be fine; more that the quality of the parts, and the time, effort, and restraint put into the combo/tune will be more rewarding and less likely to fail in the end.

Keep in mind that the primary reason a factory 351 block is regarded as "stronger," is due to the casting design in the main webs that allows it to be drilled for 4 bolt main caps. If you leave the 2 bolt main caps on there, it's not much stronger than a 302 block. So add the cost of three 4 bolt main caps, and the machine work to the 351 block when comparing prices. I still contend that it is usually cheaper to get a 4 bolt main 302 block into a Mustang than a stock 351 block.

FYI, my last 347 put 372hp to the tire with 192cc heads. You had to wind the snot out of it before the power kicked in. I don't think my new 347 will do a whole lot better.

Kurt
 

jozsefsz

15 Year Member
Aug 11, 2013
1,243
332
124
Cleveland OH Area
Sep 26, 2019
#70
  • Sep 26, 2019
  • #70
The failures aren't typically related to the main bearings, the block splits through the lifter valley. I imagine in the old days a cast-iron intake manifold bolted to cast-iron heads would have helped hold things together a bit. High rpm and high-lift cams seem to contribute from what I've gathered over the years. I've likewise been putting 400+ to the rear wheels since 2009 without issues, so it's probably somewhere north of that. I do run the stock cam with the turbo however.
 
Reactions: from6to8

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Sep 28, 2019
#71
  • Sep 28, 2019
  • #71
Hoytster said:
A 75MM TB will support some good power. I know Accufab rates their 75mm throttle body @ 924 CFM @ 28". 924 CFM will support 700-800 HP. I'm not saying you wouldn't pick up some additional power at that level with a larger throttle body due to reduced restriction, but 75mm is more than enough for your power goals and won't be a restriction at that level.

Edit, just did a quick calc and it looks like your engine will need ~600-650 CFM to make the desired power output (Spinning to 6000 RPM).
Click to expand...
hey in relations to what you just said, what size cold air pipe would I need 3" or 4" or either? Depending on which I find/have to buy new or used depending on availability , I just want to make sure I'm not doing anything to negatively affect drivability and low end torque which will be the ultimate goal and not high end hp/torque. Don't get me wrong it would be nice to have ALL lol but I realize to have the latter It'll be sacrificing down low.
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,296
1,640
214
Acworth, GA
Sep 28, 2019
#72
  • Sep 28, 2019
  • #72
jozsefsz said:
The failures aren't typically related to the main bearings, the block splits through the lifter valley. I imagine in the old days a cast-iron intake manifold bolted to cast-iron heads would have helped hold things together a bit. High rpm and high-lift cams seem to contribute from what I've gathered over the years. I've likewise been putting 400+ to the rear wheels since 2009 without issues, so it's probably somewhere north of that. I do run the stock cam with the turbo however.
Click to expand...

The block splits through the valley because the bearing caps start to walk at high rpm at high load. The cap walk wrenches on the main bolts that go up nearly to the top of the valley fatiguing the metal.

Kurt
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Oct 10, 2019
#73
  • Oct 10, 2019
  • #73
so what about the filer in the engine bay?
 

General karthief

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair
5 Year Member
Aug 25, 2016
27,872
10,543
203
polk county florida
Oct 10, 2019
#74
  • Oct 10, 2019
  • #74
from6to8 said:
so what about the filer in the engine bay?
Click to expand...
you mean filter? Yeah, that's a no no.
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Oct 10, 2019
#75
  • Oct 10, 2019
  • #75
General karthief said:
you mean filter? Yeah, that's a no no.
Click to expand...
Give me the scenario in on when should I use a 3 3 1/2 inch pipe instead of a 4-inch pipe? I'm thinking for is going to be Overkill and may hurt
 

General karthief

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair
5 Year Member
Aug 25, 2016
27,872
10,543
203
polk county florida
Oct 10, 2019
#76
  • Oct 10, 2019
  • #76
The bigger pipe would be needed on an engine that is gulping large amounts of in coming air at higher rpms, larger pipe may induce turbulence, less velocity may screw with the maf readings on stock engine even with mild modifications.
just thinking out loud,
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Oct 10, 2019
#77
  • Oct 10, 2019
  • #77
General karthief said:
The bigger pipe would be needed on an engine that is gulping large amounts of in coming air at higher rpms, larger pipe may induce turbulence, less velocity may screw with the maf readings on stock engine even with mild modifications.
just thinking out loud,
Click to expand...
So are you saying either way it could potentially be a negative LOL?
 

General karthief

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair
5 Year Member
Aug 25, 2016
27,872
10,543
203
polk county florida
Oct 10, 2019
#78
  • Oct 10, 2019
  • #78
I'm thinking yes
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Oct 10, 2019
#79
  • Oct 10, 2019
  • #79
General karthief said:
I'm thinking yes
Click to expand...
That's why I'm trying to figure out is there a formula to figure out exactly what size pipe you need? I mean many guys have done it before so do they just go by what people say hey get this get that don't get this don't get that LOL? I wish we can pretty much take your intended combination and match everything up according to cfm's of whatever to get the right thing
 

General karthief

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair
5 Year Member
Aug 25, 2016
27,872
10,543
203
polk county florida
Oct 10, 2019
#80
  • Oct 10, 2019
  • #80
Thats going to be scientific mathematical stuff with a bit of velocity/turbulence theory tossed in. WAY above my pay grade.
i can tell you that the air needs to be able to move smoothly but not be lazy about it. In reality if you size the tube to the throttle body just a little bigger and keep the tube size into and out of the maf the same on a mildly modified street engine you'll be good.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
Next
First Prev 4 of 6 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
Progress Thread Progress Thread- From6to8's 1994 Cobra Supercharger install
  • from6to8
  • Sep 25, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 20 21 22
Replies
420
Views
9K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 6, 2026
from6to8
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
763
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
Which one of these 3 intakes make the most sense for my 331 combo
  • from6to8
  • Jul 25, 2024
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
7
Views
2K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jul 26, 2024
AeroCoupe
Place to Avoid: Jamison Auto Group in Gulfport, MS
  • D Durden
  • Oct 20, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • 2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 4, 2026
nickyb
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific 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?