? 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,

wrote:
> 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,
>
The concern is with the lower end of the cylinders. On some of the '69-70
blocks the cylinders are a little extra long. So you may have to notch them a bit
more than expected to clear the con rods. It's the same amount of clearance all
blocks need, but it just looks like more.
I wouldn't hesitate to use your block if it's in good conditions.
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. Ask the kit maker if it will work. If they don't, you'll just need to
replace the flywheel and balancer to match. All the other components will work just
fine. The external dimensions won't change.
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.

--
..boB
1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged!
2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92
1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver
1966 FFR Cobra - Ongoing project

> 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/

".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/

"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/