If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
? 69 351W stroker tolerances
I was thinking about stroking my block to 393 or 408 as a winter
project. And getting a kit with forged parts for more strength on the bottom. Id like to use my stock block but I was looking on coasthigh.com whos kits were recommended by people on stangnet. They say 69-70 block extra care must be taken when machining/notching to make the kit fit. Should I be worried about this? Is it risky enuf to make it worth just getting a new block? If so will my old heads, headers, flywheel, waterpump, pulleys, balancer, etc. all be reusable on a newer 351w block?? Thanks, |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote >I was thinking about stroking my block to 393 or 408 as a winter > project. I'd get the 393 since you'll save money. The only non-stock part is the crank. You use stock 351W rods and dished 302 pistons. > Id like to use my stock block but I was looking on > coasthigh.com whos kits were recommended by people on stangnet. They are who I bought my crank from. Check this out... http://tinyurl.com/aw8nb > They > say 69-70 block extra care must be taken when machining/notching to > make the kit fit. Should I be worried about this? Well there are 3 different deck heights for the 351 (not counting the Cleveland) 9.48" for '69, 9.503" for '70+, and 9.20" for the SVO blocks. AFAIK, regarding the 69-70 Windsor the blocks are different, but the heads were the same. It's up to you if you want to worry about the .023" difference between the 69 block and the more numerous 70+ blocks. It could matter when it comes to assembled height of the crank/rod/piston and clearance to the valves and how wild a cam you run and rocker ratio. The other thing that had to be done to the bottom end was some slight notching, but also a few strategically placed outward "dents" in the oil pan for clearance. Make sure you mock it up before final assembly to make sure everything clears. >If so will my old heads, > headers, flywheel, waterpump, pulleys, balancer, etc. all be reusable > on a newer 351w block?? Yes! I'm using a D9 block with C0OE heads. Everything else that bolted onto the original '69 block will bolt on. In fact I swapped a few parts off the C6 289 that was in my Ranchero onto the D9 block. They didn't stay there long, but they all worked fine. You will HAVE to have it balanced or the engine WILL scatter itself in short order. You should have seen the flywheel before we dropped the motor in. I've never seen so much weight on one side of a flywheel before. sheesh! More info about my 393 stroker at my website. -- Scott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
".boB" > wrote >Your current flywheel and balancer may or may not work. Some kits use a >28oz balance, and some kits use a 50oz balance. I forget what the stock >'69 balance is, though. The CHP kits he's talking about will work. '69 351 was 28oz balance, just like the 302 and 289. Everything will HAVE to be balanced (balancer, flywheel, pistons, rods, crankshaft) since the stroker throws everything out of whack. My flywheel had so much weight on it it was scary. > You really need to reconsider using the stock heads. The stock '69 4V > heads are pretty good - by '69 standards. By today's standards, they > stink. Add another 55 cubic inches, and they get a lot worse. I'm running D0 cast iron heads and getting 372 lb/ft torque and 288hp with them, and that's at 5280' in Denver. Those peak numbers are separated by only 350rpm and both below 4500rpm. Not bad for 35 year old iron technology at a mile high. Although I'm bolting on a set of GT-40X heads ASAP. At sea level I'll be looking at the 450 range for both HP and torque, though the RPM's climb a bit -- Scott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"66 6F HCS" > wrote > I'm running D0 cast iron heads and getting 372 lb/ft torque and 288hp with > them, and that's at 5280' in Denver. Those peak numbers are separated by > only 350rpm and both below 4500rpm. Not bad for 35 year old iron > technology at a mile high. Although I'm bolting on a set of GT-40X heads > ASAP. At sea level I'll be looking at the 450 range for both HP and > torque, though the RPM's climb a bit Forgot to add this is a 393 kit, not a 400+ kit. -- Scott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
83 351W What will it fit? | Spike | Ford Mustang | 1 | May 8th 05 04:14 AM |
What's the difference between a 5.0 and 351W? | MP | Ford Mustang | 13 | March 25th 05 08:04 PM |
1983 Ford Bronco with 351W Parting out, Good Parts, | [email protected] | 4x4 | 0 | September 15th 04 08:47 PM |
351W Troubles........................ | Ben Witek | 4x4 | 0 | February 4th 04 03:58 PM |