• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

WHat do you guys think of this for 72' 351c?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1973mach1
  • Start date Start date Jan 6, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

Jonstantine

Founding Member
Jul 20, 2002
487
0
0
Oklahoma
Jan 10, 2004
#21
  • Jan 10, 2004
  • #21
im just saying that id like to have a 12 second car instead of a 14 second car
and the real question is, does he want to build his 73 for the present 14 seconds or the future 12 seconds?
and if he wants the future, does he have the patience and money to see it through
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Jan 10, 2004
#22
  • Jan 10, 2004
  • #22
I hear ya there. I've been working my 89 Ranger towards that goal myself til ithe 5.0 in it cracked a cylinder wall with 400 horses.( well I was happy with a mid 13 it ran last time) But some people are just as happy with a somewhat slower but easier to live with car with a little less performance.
 

C.Harris

Da Boss
Founding Member
Dec 20, 1998
1,850
0
0
Jan 10, 2004
#23
  • Jan 10, 2004
  • #23
just a quick comment... the difference between the weight of a 65-66 V8 Mustang and a 71-73 Mustang being 1,000 lbs I think is a stretch.....maybe if the "small" Mustang had no options and some fiberglass body panels and the other is a big block equipped, luxuried optioned, cruiser. Looks can be deceiving. I'm not saying it's impossible to have this much of a weight discrepancy but it's definitely not the norm. I have had my small block equipped '71 on the scales to the tune of 3100 lbs with 1/4 tank of gas and removing only the bottom of the rear seat.

Here's a quick link I found for comparison: http://members.tripod.com/fast_wheels/compar.htm
 

Attachments

  • new71rear.webp
    38.2 KB · Views: 167

Jonstantine

Founding Member
Jul 20, 2002
487
0
0
Oklahoma
Jan 10, 2004
#24
  • Jan 10, 2004
  • #24
sorry, i had read on mach1style.com that 73's weighed in at 3600 (obviously varying according to options)
i weighed my car with a halftank of gas and with raindrops on top of hte car at 2860
 

ddonaca351

Active Member
Dec 1, 2002
2,055
1
48
Camas Washington
Jan 11, 2004
#25
  • Jan 11, 2004
  • #25
1973mach1 said:
Thanks for the help guys, after thinking about it for awhile im condsidering going to 4v heads. All's I would need is the new heads, headers, and manifolds I think so it would be an easy swap and if I sold my 2bbl intake and headers i'd break even. I worried about the low end power on the 4bbl heads but even though the torque to Hp ratio doesn't seem anywere near the 2bbl heads they still from what I seen make more torque then the 2bbl heads in stock form and cut alot of time off the 1/4 mile. Plus the intake options seem alot better for the 4v heads. Eventually with some 3.70 and shift kit it should take off pretty well. Any opinions on the 2bbl vs. 4bbl?

Thanks,
Jim
Click to expand...

Well, since you asked......
I would not switch to a 4bbl set up. You have all the 2bbl parts, the manifold, the carb, the headers, etc... just build a good reliable driver, with a mild cam and a little bit of stall. You will be out driving and enjoying your car long before you get done paying off your 350 dollar Blue Thunder intake, and your 300 dollar carb and your 250 dollar headers, and your 400 bare heads (that you pray arent cracked as you give the man your money), and etc....
Trust me, I have a 4bbl motor and I love it! I wouldnt trade it for ... most anything, but damn man, youve got the makings for a good set-up, and YOU ALREADY OWN ALL THE PARTS.
If you want a terror machine, go buy a 6cyl fox mustang and start scrounging junk yards for a 460. Even a mild, all cast, 460 with just a 4bbl manifold, mild hydraulic cam, and decent exhaust will make 400hp and close to 500lb/ft of torque. And there are several companies that make kits to slide one right in a stang.
( imho ) Keep your classic, fun, reliable and affordable.... then dump your money into a killer machine that is small and light. To try to turn a 71+ into a killer is alott more work than its worth...
Dont get me wrong they are a GREAT car, but they are big and heavy, two of the worst enemies to performance.
Keep everything in perspective, you'll have more fun and save more money in the long run.... youre driver will be more driveable, and your racer will be quicker...
Just my .02
Good luck with whatever you decide.
Dave-
 
K

Kurt

Founding Member
Feb 12, 2001
149
0
0
South Hill ,Va
Jan 14, 2004
#26
  • Jan 14, 2004
  • #26
I havea 73 351 c 2v c6
edelbroc 750 performer(changing jets to get it closer to 600 this weekend)
edelbroc performer intake
Edelbroc timming set
Petronix ignitor II
Edelbroc performer cam
Flat top pistons
3 angle valve job on the 2v heads
Rebuilt tranny(c6) with some extra work
and i love the combo,
I am adding dynomax headers this weekend,
could not find tag on rearend so not sure
There is something to be said about matching parts...

I had a 72 gran torino sport with same set up with the 4v heads and i like the 2v heads better and so does my gas tank

Kurt
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Jan 14, 2004
#27
  • Jan 14, 2004
  • #27
Kurt said:
I havea 73 351 c 2v c6
edelbroc 750 performer(changing jets to get it closer to 600 this weekend)


Kurt
Click to expand...
You CANNOT "rejet" a 750 carb to a 600. It ain't gonna happen. No Way, No How. We're not talking about EFI here, just carbs. A carb that's rated to flow 750 ( or any other CFM) is gonna flow just that, at what ever pressure differential it's rated at. The only carbs that I know of that you can change the CFM rating on is a certain model Barry Grant carb, it has replaceable throat inserts in the main body. Changing jets only alters the air/fuel ratio, not the cfm rating.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
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
982
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
SBF Head Flow Table - Work in Progress
  • Noobz347
  • Sep 29, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
17
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 30, 2025
Noobz347
M
For Sale Edelbrock Performer Ford cam and lifter set-429/460
  • My2001car
  • Dec 11, 2023
  • Other Classifieds
Replies
0
Views
890
Other Classifieds Dec 11, 2023
My2001car
M
F
carb vs cam help needed
  • forango
  • May 2, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
37
Views
3K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 22, 2025
forango
F
A
Fox Planning on building my foxbody and was wondering if I can get any tips or anything to watch out for!
  • Angelq1028
  • Oct 31, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
5K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 29, 2025
Robman8028
R
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang 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?