leiniesred

351M in my 1980 Bronco was the huge C6 slushy.

I wouldn't bother with the m engine: And the 351C's just don't oil well. My Dad kept blowing them up in his mustang vintage racer. He went with the Ford 351W crate motor and makes more power than the Mustang can use on the track using PUMP GAS! "Rude, go get 10 gallons of gas." me: "sure, which color? Purple or blue?" Dad: "no no no, hop in the truck and run down to the Safeway grocery store and get the highest octane they have."

Beat 3 out of 4 Dodge Vipers that day.

tip: The Ford 351 is a few inches thinner than the chevy 350. You might be able to get the spark plugs out of it after the install.

colsoncj

what would be a good slush box to put behind it? (need OD).... the bohemoth e4od?

DudeBud

AOD if you want od... another good place for info and adapters

kyle_22r

i think for 4x4 purposes, a 351c isn't the greatest engine, and the 351M/400M are heavy and wide, for the most part being a detuned cleveland engine with a 460 bellhousing pattern. aside from the somewhat thin cylinder walls(just sleeve them if you have to) they can be built into a pretty nice engine for a fullsize truck, as there are now good aftermarket intakes, edelbrock makes heads for them, and any good cleveland timing set and cam will work. they got their bad reputation mainly from the fact that they came on the scene in '71, and the year later the smog regs came into effect and they were severely crippled with bad emissions controls, low compression, and a retarded timing set.

my dad had one in his '78 f150 4x4, you couldn't kill that thing. don't think it'd be the best choice for a toyota though. i think a 289 or 302 are good candidates, being a nice compromise between power and size.

kev93p-up

I built a 351W for a 67 mustang I had. It came out of a 69 Galaxie 500. I built it with the stock crank and rods, forged pistons, stock 4bbl heads reworked, decent dual pattern cam, Edelbrock intake, Holley 750 carb, and a Mallory Unilite ingition. With a 3.90 9" rear end, it ran high 12s and it was my daily driver. I loved the 351W (Windsor). There's no way a 351C (Cleveland, BTW you don't want one of these anyhow) would fit. It's too wide.

stevenassco

not nearly enought to make any difference though, and nothing that tuning cannot fix. Mass air is MUCH better in every sense, especially if you were to mod your motor at all (and who the heck leaves a 302 stock?). Carb would be easiest to swap, but if you like the benefits of FI, you will have to use a aftermarket ECU anyways, which you have choices of SD or mass air.

I dyno'd my stock 88 SD notch i had and then also before I turbo'd it on my buddies dynometer and actually the mass air made more HP stock? stock parts have proven their worth and more. My buddy had dyno'd near 600rwhp (hard to tell as locked auto) with stock fuel rails, stock TB, intake.

either way 351 vs 302 FI is basically the same except for some minor things. All in all, easiest, cheapest, most reliable way to make 300/300 would be take stock mustang HO 302 from 87-93 (88-92 forges btw), then either supercharge it (TC if you you can fab), add a few fuel parts Stick an matching tranny and viola.

This is not rocket science with the SBF stuff, which makes it nice

colsoncj

Why could i not use the ECU out of whatever i pull the motor out of?

DudeBud

i would i dont see why not

JamesD

Yeah your right but you keep forgetting we are not putting the motor in a Mustang and we have less room to work with. So S/C or turbo is really not going to happen. S/C wouldnt be the greatest idea for people who off-road alot in wet condition since the belt could slip on the S/C and make it run like crap. Since the most of us here are looking for torque and not HP, the best bang for the buck would be stock speed density. Speed density you dont have to worry about a MASS sensor and since we dont have a lot of room for a mass, speed density works out. Who leaves them stock? Most of us here would probably since the HO motor in a Toyota would be more than sufficient to power our needs for bigger tires and pulling power. Also most of the people here probably dont know alot of about Fords especially the HO motors as we do. Mass air makes a little less HP than speed density does. So either one would work for us Toyota guys but SD is easier. You dont have issue with speed density when you have to worry about how and were you place your MASS air sensor.

James

colsoncj

For my application, I see keeping a stock bottom end, a good head job or aftermarket heads, aftermarket cam, some intake porting, and other little stuff... It sounds like SD would be easier for lack of MAF placement, but which application (SD/MAF) with the ECU that came with the motor out of whatever I pulled it from (probably HO stang or F-series), would allow the best results from the motor upgrades?

colsoncj

Also, on those applications (stang/f-series) are there any little things i should know about the ECU's? for instance does it need a speed input from the tranny to run other other stupid stuff like that...

Thanks guys and keep the discussion rolling!!!! This will be a great thread for searchers.

JamesD

If you do any upgrades you need to go with a Mass air system since speed density doesnt have adequate fuel and spark tables for add on parts.

F series trucks and Mustang computers are totally different. So pay attention cause this is going to help you out majorly. Of first off the motor or shortblock you want to use:

302: 87-92 Mustang motors and 87-92 Lincoln Mark 7 LSC only for the HO motors. Some other years had them but these are the easiest. Why an HO motor over other standard non-HO's? Here is the list why:

HO motors/Mustangs-LSC's:
Roller cam block
Forged pistons
Dual roller timing chain
E7 Heads-Same heads on F series trucks from 88 and up with a 302
19 lb injectors
Sequential fuel injection
HO roller camshaft
Mass air: 89-93(better for aftermarket upgrades) 86-88 had speed density and ALL Lincoln LSC's had speed density
Upper intake on 87-93 Mustangs were HO and other cars, except the LSC, were non-HO even though they looked identical. They flow a little more.
Computers had better fuel and spark tables both Speed density and Mass air of that of the NON-HO cars/trucks

These are just some of the stuff. Can you use non-HO blocks? Sure can. The 302 trucks didnt see roller until 93 or 94 I really cant remember. The regualr cars had some as early as 89 or 90 and after that they all were rollers. The truck and the car blocks did not have forged pistons, just cast. The trucks had the roller timing chains. The cams in the trucks weren't the greatest but made some decent low end torque. After 4k rpms, it ran out of breath about the same as the non-HO cars. The cams in the non-HO cars sucked.

Now here is other important info as well, the accesory brackets. Pay attention to this. The non-HO cars except the Lincoln Mark 7 were all different. The Mustang had their own, the Lincolns had their own, non-HO cars had their own and the trucks had their own. Which is the best? Well the Mustang since every bracket wasnt all one casted aluminum piece meaning the Alternator bracket was the alternator bracket, the P/S was the P/S and so on. All others usually had two brackets molded into one which made it hard to move some things around. The cars had one serpentine belt except the Town Car, Grand Marquis/Crown Vic which had two. Truck application varied. Sometimes one or sometimes two. The Mustang and Mark 7 had only one.

So all in all what do I really need? Well here you go:

Any 302 block will work for the most part. All 83 and new 302 blocks came with a one piece rear main seal. All the older blocks had a 2 piece so its your choice.
The HO cam is a great cam since it makes a good idle, great low end torque, good high rpm HP 5k rpms and it is emission friendly but remember it is a roller cam!
Roller blocks is nice but not neccessary. You can convert all non-roller blocks to roller. Ford racing sells the kit for a reasonable price or you can convert it yourself from roller parts out of junk roller block.
Any HO computer will do but if you decide to add heads or a cam then you need to go to mass air.
Oil pan is going to be custom or Advance Adapter.
Timing chain is basically a preference. You dont have to have a roller chain but they stock both at Advance Auto parts. Roller is usually stronger and doesnt stretch as fast as a non-roller chain but I have seen both wear at the same rate.
Intakes: Carb or FI? Either way their is tons of aftermarket intake for the 302, so again, preference.
Distributor:Same idea as the intake but you can use junkyard ones if you want for the FI or carb and each is different from each other.
Headers:Same as intakes but may be custom or Advance Adpators
Heads: Did I mention intakes?
Timing cover: A little tricky. HO had reverse water pump rotation as do the trucks all others are standard rotation and different hub height on the water pump so stick with truck and HO for timing covers for FI but use only the Mustang water pump since the trucks are different hub height and the belt wont align. Carb timing covers are basically on Mustangs 85 and older and have the hole for the mechanical fuel pump. If you have a FI one and are going to run carb, run an electric pump, but if you decide to use carb timing cover, dont forget the eccentric that is bolted to the cam sprocket so you can use the mechanical pump!
Flywheels and flexplates: Tons of aftermarket or stock stuff. Two different teeth count, 164t and 157teeth.

Probably more stuff, but I think that is good for now. Hope that helps!

James

JamesD

To answer you question, Speed density definetly does but Mass you can get away with it since it uses the Mass sensor for a good chunk of mapping the fuel. The trucks werent mass air until 94 or 95 so all the other were speed density.

James

JamesD

Oh and one more thing, if you want anymore info on the 94-95 Mustang HO and the Explorer crate engines, let me know.

James

DudeBud

great info but i like to add that oil pan from a van or bronco should work and maybe even one from a fox body stang? also go with a 157 tooth flywheel if you deside to go with a manual trans because you can use a smaller bellhousing. headers block huggers should work depends on what you do with motor mounts.

colsoncj

Great info guys! If you know any more, lemme know. We should get a mod to change the title to something like "Ford 302/351 engine swap selection info" for future searchers!

JamesD

Double humps came in all the cars but not the trucks. For a solid axle, you could probably use any car one and maybe a truck. For IFS I think you have to have a custom pan. The Mustang double hump pans are a little different than the rest of the cars. I think the Mark 7, TBird/Cougar 84-88 has the same pans as the Mustangs but all others are not as dimpled in the middle of the pan. The fox body cars had the K-member and the rack and pinion in the front. These cars had the double hump with the most amount of clearence due to the motor basically sitting on top of them so the dimple is pushed up towards the motor more.

James

DudeBud

yeah but he has a 4" lift so the pan should work right . this is one of the nicest swaps that i have seen and i think that he is on yotatech http://members.ozemail.com.au/~jonhel5/Engine.htm

colsoncj

when i go ford, im goin SFA.... thinkin about D60s fr and rr

also lookin at rear steer.... anyone know of an application with a real wide front d60 that has minimal offset?

RLJ3RD

[QUOTE=kyle_22r]i was gonna post the cardomain site about the guy who booty fabbed a 390 into his toyota. then again, at least he had the cajones to give it a shot. i never would've imagined a big block would ever fit in a toy bay...QUOTE]

How about a Ford 460? OK it is a bored and stroked small block but it is 460 cubic inches, something to think about or at least dream about ...
460 Small Block