Vintage Mustang Forums banner

21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
With all due respect I'll just say you're right and leave it at that. Far be it for me to question what's posted on the internet as Gospel. Only thing I agree with is the battery tray. Kinda. The first one I did was in my farthest shop bay that does indeed face North/South. This summer I did one in the parking lot and screwed it all up because the car was facing west. I put it in anyway and once I backed the car into the shop all looked good.......:)
Oh good lord... I guess I'll have to dumb it down a bit. The 1965/1966 mustang with the narrower engine bay and smaller radiator had the battery tray, if you're standing in front of the car, going east and west or left to right. The 1967/1968 mustang with a wider engine bay and much wider radiator used a different kind of battery tray. Sure you could probably make one work with the other but that being said, the 1967/1968 battery tray style goes from north to south when looking at the front of the car or from front to back. I've attached two pictures if you still don't understand the concept.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
Dumb it down? I'm so glad you explained that to me. I still have trouble with directions. For instance. The other day I was fitting a custom fit spark plug wire set on a 62 421 Super Duty Pontiac and it turned out the car was facing into the sun with the hood open and the ignition became solar polarized. Had to push the car 180 degrees to get it to start. Then.....get this......I wasn't paying attention to the battery cables because they were both black and hooked them up backwards. Turned the headlights on and all I saw was a black spot. Radio was listening to me. Right blinker was left. Heater was sucking air and hitting the brakes made the car accelerate. Took me awhile but I found it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
especially in a street application, because full length headers will drag on every speed bump and imperfection in the road.

Total BS JBA fan boy.-blanket statements like this are 100% wrong. Grow up and someday you'll understand what can actually be done.

I have full tube headers (1 7/8" tubes at that) with 3 1/2" merge collectors then 3 1/2" tube exhaust through the mufflers to the rear end. No dragging whatsoever in any normal situation, such as speed bumps and pot holes taken at normal speeds. Dukes of hazzard jumps are out though. The Lakewood scattershield actually sits lower than any parts of my exhaust lowered motor mounts. The motor is also lowered 1" with Ron Morris motor mounts.










That said and shown, all I was doing in my original post was warning the OP that headers can be an issue in an early Mustang with a 351w. I didn't say that it couldn't be done . . . . Your the one that came on with an attitude when all you had to say was that JBA mid length headers will work of which I have no comments one way or another. Again, once you grow up you will understand.

I'm done here. Have a great day!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,760 Posts
a 351w will fit in the early stangs, but there are clearance issues. the biggest issue is the exhaust at the head itself. there are ways to gain a little extra clearance without cutting up the shock towers, it involves a porta-power unit to push the shock towers apart slightly. they usually tend to bend inwards slightly making clearance even tighter.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
Dumb it down? I'm so glad you explained that to me. I still have trouble with directions. For instance. The other day I was fitting a custom fit spark plug wire set on a 62 421 Super Duty Pontiac and it turned out the car was facing into the sun with the hood open and the ignition became solar polarized. Had to push the car 180 degrees to get it to start. Then.....get this......I wasn't paying attention to the battery cables because they were both black and hooked them up backwards. Turned the headlights on and all I saw was a black spot. Radio was listening to me. Right blinker was left. Heater was sucking air and hitting the brakes made the car accelerate. Took me awhile but I found it.
At least you're not past the point of no return like some are. There's some hope left for you yet. :grin2:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
Total BS JBA fan boy.-blanket statements like this are 100% wrong. Grow up and someday you'll understand what can actually be done.

I have full tube headers (1 7/8" tubes at that) with 3 1/2" merge collectors then 3 1/2" tube exhaust through the mufflers to the rear end. No dragging whatsoever in any normal situation, such as speed bumps and pot holes taken at normal speeds. Dukes of hazzard jumps are out though. The Lakewood scattershield actually sits lower than any parts of my exhaust lowered motor mounts. The motor is also lowered 1" with Ron Morris motor mounts.










That said and shown, all I was doing in my original post was warning the OP that headers can be an issue in an early Mustang with a 351w. I didn't say that it couldn't be done . . . . Your the one that came on with an attitude when all you had to say was that JBA mid length headers will work of which I have no comments one way or another. Again, once you grow up you will understand.

I'm done here. Have a great day!
JBA fan boy? That's a thing? Hmmmm alright buddy, I guess you're one of those that can't admit to being wrong. When you say in your first post that the fitment of swap headers is iffy at best? Yeah that's not even close to being accurate. And grow up? Well I'll be 32 in January, have my own house, two cars, a boat, dog and a mortgage with a successful career... I'd say I'm quite grown up to most others in my age category. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that A. You're right and I'm wrong or B. That i'm insulting you. It's most likely the fact that your ego got in the way and you thought someone was giving you an "attitude." You know what they say about assuming right? I can say whatever I'd like on here, especially when I know that you're giving someone bad information and I don't have to adhere to your rules of how and what to say. So question... if you have no comments on JBA headers one way or the other, how am I a "JBA fan boy"? and why use the blanket statement of all swap headers fit iffy at best? You're admitting right there that you have no idea what you're talking about yet you're giving someone advice on it, which is bad advice imo as I actually have some knowledge on this very topic with the very swap in question. When you give someone bad advice like you did, how is the OP to know who or what to believe? And lastly... no S your headers aren't going to drag when your bellhousing or scattershield sits lower than it. I'm just going off my previous experience with long tube headers and many many more out there agree with me. I had a 302 in my current 65 fastback before the motor that I've got now. It had full length Hooker super competition headers on it that would bottom out over every speed bump I went over. So, you're basically the all knowing and everything... so if long tube headers don't drag, why did mine and why does everyone else's? There are dozens of other posts out there about people having the same issue with dragging the collector tubes over speed bumps and everything else.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
I've never had a desire to run mid length headers as they are performance limiting.
Here's a little homework for you tonight to watch. They did this exact test and concluded that the long tube headers gain about 10 peak hp over the mid length headers and a whopping 6 peak ft/lbs of torque. I guess that's considered performance limiting? I'd much rather not have to deal with the clearance issues of the long tube headers and lose a few ponies instead of the opposite. The guys on the show and hundreds more on various forums tend to agree with me. The hassle of the long tubes isn't worth the possible gain or benefit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
Here's a little homework for you tonight to watch. They did this exact test and concluded that the long tube headers gain about 10 peak hp over the mid length headers and a whopping 6 peak ft/lbs of torque. I guess that's considered performance limiting? I'd much rather not have to deal with the clearance issues of the long tube headers and lose a few ponies instead of the opposite. The guys on the show and hundreds more on various forums tend to agree with me. The hassle of the long tubes isn't worth the possible gain or benefit.
There you go relying on the internet again. Where's the apple to apple swaps of 351w motors with stock heads to cut down on my search time?

Without actually knowing what was really done one can believe that the motor was not retuned for the additional savaging of the new exhaust or it just wasn't needed for the combination given. Also dyno's can be manipulated to show whatever you want so an operator can accidently (or intentionally) screw things up.

Those who are fully successful at performance building rely on Math, not the internet for their information. Every part of a motor must be designed to work together for peak performance. From where the air enters the carb to when it exits the exhaust is a system and it must all work together to give proper results. Some improvements can normally be done by throwing parts at the car--its all a guess as to what the motor wants if you don't know what you are doing. Some things to try are easy and work, others are harder and can give you fits. Do the math right and you will almost always build a top performing motor that can run circles around similar competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
I did this swap on my 66 convertible. It does fit but it's tight and a pain to work on. I have used the Hedman long-tube swap headers. They fit well but the driver's side has one tube that kicks up and makes it a major pain to get a couple of the bolts installed in the flange. My pitman arm also made a small dent to "clearance" the header on that side. I think I also had to relocate a small clamp under the passenger side of the car because the header used that envelope.

I have also used the JBA shortie swap headers. I had some issues with initial fitment (they were not drilled correctly from the factory) and quality (the coating had little chips in it because they were not packed well for shipping) but once those were sorted out, they worked well.

Hood clearance is an issue and the stock hood most likely will not fit.

You will need a bracket for the upper alternator bolt and, if you have AC, you'll most likely either need to modify the bracket where it attaches to the head or get a 351 specific bracket. I have manual steering so I don't know if anything needs to be changed for power steering.

If you have the 5-bolt bellhousing you'll need to find a 6-bolt bellhousing but everything else should bolt right up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,675 Posts
Best Spark plugs EVER and install BEFORE you put the engine in. Ditto with the wires. Once in, you do not want to have to change them out.

I put a 351 C in a 1966 convertible. Exhaust was a nightmare, but once done, it did not pop against the towers.

Don't be afraid, try a 427 Side Oiler.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
I was just running something my head the last few days and they classify the 260-289 as a Windsor engine and that got me to thinking if a 351 W would fit in a first generation Mustang without major modifications?
My hat in the ring here....
Yes- it fits
No- it wasn't a pita (tighter fit sure, but no more difficult than you make it yourself, right?)
Yes- you should use adjustable motor mounts for clearance
Yes- JBA shorty headers fit just fine (on mine at least)
Yes- plug to shock towers is close, but still manageable with proper tools
Yes- it's a ton of fun to drive and I'd gladly do it again


All the above comments are based solely on my experience of building, installing, driving, and enjoying the aforementioned combination. Any statements made here within are not to be construed as internet law, mass consensus, or defamatory to any individuals that may have done it differently. :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,913 Posts
Yes, It will fit, but the 351W sits 1 1/2" inches higher than a 289/302 engine. It has a taller deck. You need to use a '65-'66 Shelby Hood Scoop with a hole cut in the hood to clear the engine, aircleaner, etc.,or other to make it work, though there are a few out there that say it will work with a stock hood, but I have yet to see that done, or I should say that I would like to see a pic of someone that has done it.

:eek:)

Tony K.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,184 Posts
Yes, It will fit, but the 351W sits 1 1/2" inches higher than a 289/302 engine. It has a taller deck. You need to use a '65-'66 Shelby Hood Scoop with a hole cut in the hood to clear the engine, aircleaner, etc.,or other to make it work, though there are a few out there that say it will work with a stock hood, but I have yet to see that done, or I should say that I would like to see a pic of someone that has done it.

:eek:)

Tony K.
A 351W Lurks within
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
There you go relying on the internet again. Where's the apple to apple swaps of 351w motors with stock heads to cut down on my search time?

Without actually knowing what was really done one can believe that the motor was not retuned for the additional savaging of the new exhaust or it just wasn't needed for the combination given. Also dyno's can be manipulated to show whatever you want so an operator can accidently (or intentionally) screw things up.

Those who are fully successful at performance building rely on Math, not the internet for their information. Every part of a motor must be designed to work together for peak performance. From where the air enters the carb to when it exits the exhaust is a system and it must all work together to give proper results. Some improvements can normally be done by throwing parts at the car--its all a guess as to what the motor wants if you don't know what you are doing. Some things to try are easy and work, others are harder and can give you fits. Do the math right and you will almost always build a top performing motor that can run circles around similar competition.
A. So what you're saying is that I shouldn't rely on the internet but that I should rely on your opinions and "expertise"... you of course being someone who is also on the internet and is giving his feeble opinion on things he admittedly knows nothing about? Lol makes total sense. B. What reason would this company or show have to manipulate a dyno in order to show more favorable horsepower numbers for exhaust manifolds/shorties or mid length headers compared to long tubes? It's not a conspiracy and you're clearly grasping at straws here. C. Why don't you show some proof of whatever it is that you're trying to say, instead of just giving your opinion? That's the main reason that started this whole predicament.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
Yes, It will fit, but the 351W sits 1 1/2" inches higher than a 289/302 engine. It has a taller deck. You need to use a '65-'66 Shelby Hood Scoop with a hole cut in the hood to clear the engine, aircleaner, etc.,or other to make it work, though there are a few out there that say it will work with a stock hood, but I have yet to see that done, or I should say that I would like to see a pic of someone that has done it.

:eek:)

Tony K.
I've heard of people having success using a lower profile intake manifold as well as using a low profile air cleaner and not needing to use a hood scoop. Some will even use the Ron Morris style adjustable motor mounts to get the engine to sit exactly where they want it. Intakes have different heights on them and can have a 1 3/4" difference in height or more from say an Edelbrock performer compared to an Edelbrock air gap intake. But yes, if you're looking for the most performance you probably don't want the things I mentioned previously and kind of defeats the whole point to going with a 351w.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
That's the main reason that started this whole predicament.
:shrug:

The main reason is that you don't know the definition of the word "iffy" which means "full of uncertainty."

OP, I'm sorry for helping crap on your thread. I've learned my lesson and will not post in here again.

:troll::deadhorse:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,050 Posts
Yes, It will fit, but the 351W sits 1 1/2" inches higher than a 289/302 engine. It has a taller deck. You need to use a '65-'66 Shelby Hood Scoop with a hole cut in the hood to clear the engine, aircleaner, etc.,or other to make it work, though there are a few out there that say it will work with a stock hood, but I have yet to see that done, or I should say that I would like to see a pic of someone that has done it.

:eek:)

Tony K.
Here you are... http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/2592/4501/6479750017_large.jpg?v=0
No hood scoop. And, I'm currently running a 3" tall air filter element with a dropped base with no hood clearance problem.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
That's the main reason that started this whole predicament.


The main reason is that you don't know the definition of the word "iffy" which means "full of uncertainty."

OP, I'm sorry for helping crap on your thread. I've learned my lesson and will not post in here again.

"Iffy at best" is the verbiage that was used and yes "iffy" does mean uncertain. "Iffy at best" I would define as almost impossible. I wouldn't consider the success stories from literally dozens of other people who've used JBA, amongst other, swap headers to be considered "iffy at best" or "uncertain."
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top