big jim

I'm pretty sure ford motorsports sells a wiring harness for a set up like this to use with a mustang ecu and it is much cheaper than a painless. I f you realy want a 351 i would sugest getting any roller 351 and use a cumputer/harnsess,intake etc for a 93 cobra as they had 351's. as for ford axles. 80-96 f-150 front ttb d44, rear 80-82 ford 9'' 83-present ford 8.8''
80-98 f-250 ttb d44 or ttb d50 on f-250 hd 99-01 solid d50 02-present d60
F-350 front 80-85 ttb d50 86-present solid d60 there might have been a few solid 50's in 99-01
most f250/350 rears have been sterling 10.25's since 1980 with a rare d70 or semi floating 60. i hope some of this helps someone

colsoncj

thanks for more info!

JamesD

Jim if I'am reading that correctly then you are incorrect. The 93 Cobra did not come with a 351, no fox bady did(79-04) except the 95 Cobra R that came from Ford with a 351 and those are rare. One other exception is the Saleen Mustangs, in the mid 90's put the 351 in there.

Kind of hard to find a roller 351. Is is easier to get a non-roller 351 and use Crane Cams conversion rollers what I forgot to mention earlier. Here is the link: 351w Roller lifters

James

big jim

Ok here is one thing that would work for you. 351w roller or not, trickflow or lightning intake manifold, ford motorsports harness(or foctory 5.0 mustang harnes if you're decent with electrical) and a stock 5.0 mustang ecu. All mass air stuff. then when you get it running depending on what other mods you do to the engine you may or may not have to have a chip burned for it. but i know a mass air 5.0 ecu from a mustang will work with a 351. or 331 or 347 stroker for that mater. I would probably go as some one else already said with a stock 5.0. it would be cheaper, my buddy just picked one up complete with harness and ecu for 500 bucks.) and if thats not enough go from there. stroker, blower etc.

Churnd

If I wanted to make more power, I'd do some thinking in terms of power to weight ratios. You can get a much smaller engine that might make slightly less power at the crank, but overall more at the wheels with some mods than a 351. Plus with gas prices as high as they are and 351's getting less than 10 mpg average, I can't imagine having one these days.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen.

colsoncj

I hear that... the more and more thought i put into this, the more and more sense a FI 302 makes....

Chris, can we change the title of this to reflect something more fitting like 302/351 swap info? for the purpose of helping future searchers, cause theres a lot of good info in this thread!

kyle_22r

that'd be absolutely insane. i wonder how drag slicks would handle off-road?

DudeBud

i wonder what the extra bolt holes on thoes world blocks are for i haven't seen any heads that match up with them

Churnd

Done. Is that how you wanted it?

colsoncj

looks good! thanks! I just figured it would help those searching in the future with all this info in one spot!

Cargun

If the 302 and 351 are nearly identical they should weigh the same? Maybe I'm reading what you're saying wrong... but if a 302 makes less at the crank than a 351 but more at the wheels that isn't an engine issue, that's a drivetrain issue. Through the same drivetrain a 302 will have the same parasitic loss as a 351.

I don't know about fuel economy between similar 351's and 302's... but for most big/small V8 pairs (305/350, 318/360, 4.8/5.3, 4.6/5.4) the smaller, less powerful engines don't get noticeably better fuel economy than their bigger brothers. Maybe 1-2 MPG at most. I'm assuming the 302/351 are the same way? Getting under 10mpg with a 351 sounds like a 3/4 or 1 ton truck... which wouldn't be available for comparison with a 302. A 1/2 ton truck will have a lighter duty drivetrain which is more efficient, leading to better fuel economy. I've never heard of stockish small block getting under 10 empty in a 1/2 ton unless something was seriously wrong with it.

So I vote for more cubes... unless there some big differences between the 302 and 351 that make the 302 a better platform (seems like roller cam availability in stock form is one of them).

JamesD

The difference between the two is the 351 is taller and wider. Both share a 4" bore and cams. The 302 will probably get you better gas mileage than the 351. The 302 with FI will get you the same if not better gas mileage than the 3.0. Ask some people here with the Fords in them and they can tell you. I stay clear of the 351 due to fitment issues. The 351 has the same reliability as the 302 does anyway. Plus you can stroke the 302 in many ways like 331 or a 347 and still keep the 302 dimensions.

Like I said earlier, a STOCK 302 HO motor in a regeared Toy 4wd will be plenty to run your 35's down the road. Just add a mild cam and some other bolt ons for a little more power and you would be set if not leave it stock. If you need more power then you have many more ways to go about it. If a stock-mild 302 can move a 3400lb Mustang into the high 13's/low 14's in the 1/4 then you would have no problem turning some decent sized meats. If I do put a V8 in mine, it will be a 302 using mostly HO stuff.

James

DudeBud

dont worry about milage with the right gearing and a good running motor there should be no reason to get decent milage.with a good tank of gas i run anywhere from 10-16 mpg,i'v recorded almost 300 miles to a tank on a long trip. i have a 17 gal tank and my motor is mildly built and running about 10.5 comp with a 625 demon carb. it's not that bad at all and really is better than the 22r with the weber that was in it before and makes almost 3 times the power

jposey66

I run a EFI 5.0L with AOD in my 88 4Runner. I went with Total Chaos IFS up front. The extra width of the 351 would have interfered with the shock hoops/shock towers in this combination. I first tried using rubber Mustang motor mounts, but the motor was moving all over the place and the headers were banging against the shock towers. I'm in the process of swapping to either poly or solid motor mounts(undecided). The fuel mileage is great and comes in equal to or better than the 3.0 Toyota motor, that was in there previously. My 5.0 is speed density and has mild head porting. The compression has been lowered a little, so that I don't have to be picky about the quality of gas(I take it down into Mexico and you never know where your next tank of gas is going to come from or how good it is going to be down there). I can't imagine ever needing more power than this. I've had it up to 98 MPH on the pavement and somewhere in the 70's in the dirt. It could go faster in either situation. I you go with much more than that, you will have to replace everything. I can't imagine that the factory axles and t-case(W56) could handle much more than I am throwing at it. I also think that, if I were currently running a manual instead of automatic, those parts would all suffer a quick death.

colsoncj

Excellent post! On a side note, what is your compression lowered to? I've thought about driving my truck to Chile, and am curious about what should be done to make sure I wont have problems on such a long trek. (possibly carry some heavy duty octane booster?) I dont think i wanna lower the comp. ratio, this would be a one time only trip....

jposey66

Compression is lowered only a very little. Don't have an exact number. Difference may not even be measureable?? When porting the heads, the combustion chamber volume was increased a little more. Nothing drastic. The porting made up for any power loss and then some. I really wanted to make sure that any machine work, to the block and heads, didn't bring the compression up at all. I am certain that I'm making more power than stock.

As long as you keep you compression around stock or less, you should be able to compensate for any bad gas you run into by adjusting the timing. Make sure you carry an extra fuel filter though, when you go to Chile.

Posey

colsoncj

Thanks.... im not too worried about the Chile run yet... i have a feeling that will be a long while from now...

JamesD

Posey you didnt state what 5.0 you were running but anyways stock 5.0 HO motors are 8.9:1-9:1 compression ratio so you can run the 87 or whatever is lowest in your area. Also post some pics up of the install or anything that would help any of us out putting a 302 in a Yoda.

James

jposey66

It's an HO from an 88 Mustang GT. Fuel gets lower than 87 octane sometimes, when you run around down in Mexico, so I was planning for the worst case.

I'll try and get some pics up.

Posey

jposey66

My truck was built as a marathon 2 month project(front Total Chaos kit, rear chevy springs, and engine conversion all done at the same time), so I didn't have a lot of time to take pics, but here is one of the engine bay. In this pic, there were a few things still left to do, like coil placement, wiring, air filter, fuel lines, and belt. I'll take more when I get it back together. Still working on swapping the mounts to something a little tougher. Also sending the Tranny out for repair.

Posey