Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I went with the 302 to 347, but has any one here done the 351W to 427? I wanted to go that route but the suspension work to get it to lock up right was over my head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,630 Posts
what suspension work?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,205 Posts
Suspension work is necessary to get a 351 into a 1st generation Mustang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Not front end.
Rear susp./tranny/rear end/rim and tire.
My rear end floats enough with the 347. I didn't want to slap in a big motor and go in strieght line I want it to acctually handle too. I dodn't want to have to burn up a clutch everytime I launch the car.
I didn't want to half @$$ the install I wanted everything to work together and not have a weak link in the setup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,038 Posts
I'm considering a stroked 351 for my '65 someday, and the only suspension work I ever heard about is done using a big hammer. The 351 is big in the 65/66 bay, but not that big. Stock hood won't close and the shock towers need a little "modifying for headers to clear.

A 351 Cleveland, on the other hand........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
There is no suspension work required. Headers are a little tricky, and manual transmissions (clutch linkage) makes it a little more of a challenge. Other than that it's largely the same as a 302 swap.

I wouldn't hesistate to do it again.

Mine's a 388 inch 351 - 3.75 stroke, .060 over. There are several on the forum with 408's, but I don't know if I remember anyone with a 427 W. I do know a guy with a '57 Chevy that has a 427 W in it though !! With an intercooled turbo..

K
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,654 Posts
okay, okay.....

what some may be referring to as "suspension work" in relation to transplanting a 351, especially a stroked one putting out EVEN more cubic inches, is the amount of TORQUE produced by one of these "potential" torque monsters. While upgrading the chassis on Xtremestang (ie subframe connectors, Stage III Global West setup, 8 point rollbar/cage), my friend who constructs racecars pointed out several areas on the unibody where STRESS TEARS had begun (requiring gussetting), all of this with a stock C-code 289-2V....

keep in mind that these 30+ year old unibodies were never designed to handle LOTS of horsepower and torque. True, some of the more "elite" (Bosses, Shelbys, Cobrajets) received "add-ons" to help cope with additional power. In today's age of techno this, that and the other, it is not uncommon to hear people pushing for 300, 400 and yes even 500 REAR WHEEL HP and beyond in an otherwise stock chassis Mustang. Like with anything else, when you upgrade one system (ie drivetrain) then it is reasonable to expect upgrades in other areas. As you add more and more power (especially torque) you can see the potential to literally turn your old Mustang into a driving "pretzel". In the past, most were concerned with stock restorations with primarly stock rebuilds and MAYBE an upgrade of a set of headers or maybe 4 barrel carb and intake. In today's world, we are now pushing for large cubic inch engines in smaller, lighter packages putting an enormous strain on an outdated chassis....

I would STRONGLY suggest anyone contemplating on building a stroked 351 potentially making gobs of horsepower and torque CONSULT someone who is well versed in strengthening the chassis to handle any increases.....


randy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,656 Posts
I assumed that the 57 Chevy had a stroked 351W (427) in it from your post. That being the case, I'll bet it tightens the strings of the bow-tie boys, particularly being intalled in such a bow-tie icon. Regarding the strokers.... I gave serious consideration to a 351W for the 66 (even collected several), but opted for the 302 stroker in the end. This was mainly a size, maintenance, and weight decision (65-66 cars). The 351W can be made lighter, but the 302 is that much lighter again with the same aluminum parts. Everytime I change plugs or adjust the valves, I'm happier with the decision. Besides, the 342" is scarey enough for this old geezer anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Thanks bosscars,

I was running out to lunch when replying last that is exactly where I was going with that. I would have been making some serious chassis bending torque if I would have used all the components I wanted to. I apologize to everyone for not saying "making the (What I feel to be) necessary mods to the chassis."

Do they burn oil like the early 347's used to stuff like that is what I am looking for. Thanks and sorry for the confussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
I'm running a 393 Stroker. It's making about 475 hp and has massive torque. I can outrun my buddy's 502 c.i. '68 Camaro and it's supposed to be making 502 hp. It's the best upgrade I've done to my '69 yet. When you open the hood everyone sees my ho-hum 351W, little do they know i'm packing big block power. ::
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
I presently building a 393 stroker, actuallly a 399 (+0.60 over) and would be interested in what combo of intake, heads, carb and cam you folks are using. If you don't mind sharing.

Thx,

Lou
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
Yup, it really tightens jaws in the bowtie crowd at the cruises.
He even put repro '63 427 badges in several strategic places!
I must say it sure impresses..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Cosmo, did you have hood clearance issues with the 351W in your car? What motor mounts are you using?
 

·
Incorporated Sell Out
Joined
·
17,130 Posts
FOr the cleveland stroker I put in my 65
I added 620 coils for the weight
5 leafs and under rider track bars for the rear and axle wrap prevention
subframe connectors
and the most important...2 front torque boxes which the 65-6 don't ahve.
1 1/4 front sway bar
3/4 rear sway bar
Disc brakes to stop
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,058 Posts
I did my stroker (377) back when they were just introduced. Meaning before any 347 kits were available. Given the chioce NOW, I woulda done the 347 instead.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top