By the 351 not breathing enough to make power I guess. I would interpret this to say that this is not the optimal package for a 351 and it is time to look up one notch in their product line....or at a different company's solution altogether.
I would not trust those charts, they should use the exact same chart if you ask me. Notice the torque #'s on the chart differ. Makes it harder to understand, but it seems before 5000 it has a lot more than the 302, and it should I would think. Again, look at other alternatives. I think, if the charts were the same, to compare would be much easier.
Peak torque is significantly higher for the 351. ~330 vs ~285. It appears it significantly falls off at higher RPMs. Kinda wierd. The performer package is suppost to give a nice flat torque curve.
Peak torque is significantly higher for the 351. ~330 vs ~285. It appears it significantly falls off at higher RPMs. Kinda wierd. The performer package is suppost to give a nice flat torque curve.
They fall off so quick because the engine is being choked after it reaches ~3500 rpms. I bet if you threw just a Performer RPM Air Gap on those engines they would each breathe much better and make way better numbers