OK-ANOTHER ONE: 302 or 351 Windsor for a GT40 and How would you build it?
- Thread starter chip
- Start date
Chip, lots and lots of "elegant" solutions to this one. As for me, I've gotten together an aluminum 351 Ford Racing block, and will probably use a 3.85 or 3.9 stroke with a 4.125 bore. Somewhere around 410 cid. It will be topped with an updated set of Gurney heads, which are currently still in 'intensive care', having their exhaust ports welded to 'd' shape and trying to get the intakes to flow 325 or so. Making the final break from carbs and going with TWM throttle bodies on the Gurney weber bases. Only camming it to flow up to .600 in order to be somewhat conservative. Bolting it all to a 4 speed Porsche 930 gearbox. Less gears are better, imho, with gobs of torque. So, there's one way to do it, now just to decide on the chassis... Best of luck with whatever combo you choose. The '40 is a Mona Lisa with any blue oval V8.
I'm new to these engines, but looking at the Ford motorsport website, the 351 is 120lbs heavyer than the 302.
I don't know about the size issue, but there are postings on this forum indicating that altho the 351 fits, extra work is needed, possibly chassis mods?
if 400 bhp is the limit due to the tranny, How much does it cost to get 400 bhp from a 302? & if fitting a 351, it should really be 450+ to make up for the extra weight.
There are those in the UK that reckon on getting 400 bhp form the Rover (Buick) 3500 which has an alloy block.. altho personally I'd question the reliability/streetability at that level.
It's a tough one but let us know what you decide!
I don't know about the size issue, but there are postings on this forum indicating that altho the 351 fits, extra work is needed, possibly chassis mods?
if 400 bhp is the limit due to the tranny, How much does it cost to get 400 bhp from a 302? & if fitting a 351, it should really be 450+ to make up for the extra weight.
There are those in the UK that reckon on getting 400 bhp form the Rover (Buick) 3500 which has an alloy block.. altho personally I'd question the reliability/streetability at that level.
It's a tough one but let us know what you decide!
Chip, Advise you talk to some UK folks about the higher deck height of the 351. You may be in for some chassis mods. Probably best to speak to Andy @ Tornado. With the Renault, (which is what I am installing in my GTD) you are better off staying away from the torque monsters and going with a higher rpms power plant.You will NEED the AP racing clutch set up. By the way, I think the 302 sounds better with crossover exhaust.
In my opinion after a good 350 HP, you are better off putting your money into a good set of shocks, like the adjustable Konis (big bucks), with dual rate springs, then going with a better braking system, maybe poly suspension bushes, etc Whatever the case, have the car properly set up on scales.
In their environment, a better handling GT will smoke the big HP folks. Brian
In my opinion after a good 350 HP, you are better off putting your money into a good set of shocks, like the adjustable Konis (big bucks), with dual rate springs, then going with a better braking system, maybe poly suspension bushes, etc Whatever the case, have the car properly set up on scales.
In their environment, a better handling GT will smoke the big HP folks. Brian
Chip, keep it nice and simple! You can reliable 350hp by going to Eidelbrock for their performer rpm kit, Heads,hydraulic cam, inlet manifold etc. We run these engines regularly, they give 350 and are completly drivable.Frank
Frank,
Using the Eilderbrock kit, is it safe to retain the stock bottom end?
Using the Eilderbrock kit, is it safe to retain the stock bottom end?
There is always a lot of easy talk about horsepower, but we always put ours on a dyno and prove the figures (see pictures of Andrews engine on dyno posted today!)Reliable 400+HP is more difficult and expensive to get than most think--unless you have a US calibrated dyno! Frank
Ron Earp
Admin
I do agree with Frank, but not about the US dynos. Most of us spend the time to use a dyno and tune the motors - but some just guess and use computer programs.
400+ out of a 302 SB isn't that simple. It is simple if you stroke it, which is what I would do. But it isn't a 302 anymore.
Gordon and others get a lot more than 400+ out of a 302 but I'm not sure this is a motor for the street.
Get yourself a 302 block, stroke it to 347, put good heads and cam and you'll have your 400 crank hp without any trouble.
R
400+ out of a 302 SB isn't that simple. It is simple if you stroke it, which is what I would do. But it isn't a 302 anymore.
Gordon and others get a lot more than 400+ out of a 302 but I'm not sure this is a motor for the street.
Get yourself a 302 block, stroke it to 347, put good heads and cam and you'll have your 400 crank hp without any trouble.
R
Well Chip, I'm sorry that you are giving up on the 351W so soon in favor of the 302. Now I like the 302 mind you, and it will serve you well and all, but deep down inside when that pencil necked, pampered, turtle neck wearing, arrogant geek pulls up in his Viper, don't you want to know in your heart that you have the superior power to weight ratio?
I know that 350 HP in a 2500 lb car borders on the insane, but wouldn't just a little mare (say 425 or so
) give you a warm fuzzy feeling (assuming your transaxle can take it of course) the next time some bow tie loving Corvette owner asks you if that is "JUST a KIT car?"
So repeat after me "There is no replacement for displacement."
Again.
"There is no replacement for displacement."
And again.
"There is no replacement for displacement."
Ahh.. That's better.
I know that 350 HP in a 2500 lb car borders on the insane, but wouldn't just a little mare (say 425 or so
So repeat after me "There is no replacement for displacement."
Again.
"There is no replacement for displacement."
And again.
"There is no replacement for displacement."
Ahh.. That's better.
OK, I think it's time for this one...a real nice easy running grunt motor - a 427 block bored .030 over, with a 428 crank = 454 cu.in. No fancy injectors, just a big four barrel or two. You won't have to worry about the Viper boys either. Maybe you can even eliminate the transaxle worries and run a direct drive like Don Garlits...
Regards,
Blue
Regards,
Blue
Well MikeD as you can see in my post (if you read the full thing) I mentioned IF (emphasis here) your transaxle can take it.
Yes, the Renault that Chip is going to be using may not be strong enough to handle a 351W. My post though was meant more in fun than anything else.
Still the comment about a warmed over Mustang being quicker than a GT-40 baffles me.
Mustangs are a lot heavier, have a poorer weight distribution (most of the GT-40 weight is in the rear) and have less power.
Why in the world a GT-40 couldn't (shouldn't) be quicker than a Mustang is beyond me UNLESS the driver can't hook up and burns his tires for the fun of it or his gearing is just horrid.
Of course if warmed over means 450+ HP, then I would agree.
BTW, I didn't mean to imply drag racing on the street. Too many folks have died that way.
[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Darrin ]
Yes, the Renault that Chip is going to be using may not be strong enough to handle a 351W. My post though was meant more in fun than anything else.
Still the comment about a warmed over Mustang being quicker than a GT-40 baffles me.
Mustangs are a lot heavier, have a poorer weight distribution (most of the GT-40 weight is in the rear) and have less power.
Why in the world a GT-40 couldn't (shouldn't) be quicker than a Mustang is beyond me UNLESS the driver can't hook up and burns his tires for the fun of it or his gearing is just horrid.
Of course if warmed over means 450+ HP, then I would agree.
BTW, I didn't mean to imply drag racing on the street. Too many folks have died that way.
[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Darrin ]
Ron Earp
Admin
Gordon, enough bench racing.
How fast will the RF demo model you have run in the quarter?
I don't think slightly warmed over 5.0s will take it - the RF car weighs only 2300 lbs with 400+ hp.
At least, none of the 5.0 Mustangs I've built would and one of those had 378 rwhp - which is a little more than warmed over. They all have weight problems when compared to 40s.
R
How fast will the RF demo model you have run in the quarter?
I don't think slightly warmed over 5.0s will take it - the RF car weighs only 2300 lbs with 400+ hp.
At least, none of the 5.0 Mustangs I've built would and one of those had 378 rwhp - which is a little more than warmed over. They all have weight problems when compared to 40s.
R
G
Guest
Guest
Gosh I love tossing fuel on a fire!
I live close to (3) drag strips, and can tell you that a LOT of street 5.0 Stangs
run 12 second quarter miles WITHOUT
power adders. With a few simple traction aids
such as Southside bars and sticky tires, weight transfer is no problem.
These cars hook and GO!
With power adders (Nitrous is REALLY cheap)
there are also 10 and 11 second Stangs used on weekends in my area...but those are in the minority.
In all the Run and Gun articles I've read,
I've never seen a GT40 post a good 1/4 mile
time. My opinion is that most owners realize
the car was not designed for drag racing, and do not want to risk blowing up expensive parts, like Rick Merz did a few years back.
So I stand by my prior statement...
Unless you are prepared to spend BIG BUX
for the best in axle shafts/u-joints/trans
axles, don't expect to hook up those monster tires on a BANZAI start without breaking something. And slipping the clutch and easing into the throttle doesn't
produce good 1/4 mile times.
You snooze...you loose.
Now a rolling start is another matter...
but most "acceleration trials" in the USA
are from a dead stop. I guess it's different
across the pond.
MikeD
I live close to (3) drag strips, and can tell you that a LOT of street 5.0 Stangs
run 12 second quarter miles WITHOUT
power adders. With a few simple traction aids
such as Southside bars and sticky tires, weight transfer is no problem.
These cars hook and GO!
With power adders (Nitrous is REALLY cheap)
there are also 10 and 11 second Stangs used on weekends in my area...but those are in the minority.
In all the Run and Gun articles I've read,
I've never seen a GT40 post a good 1/4 mile
time. My opinion is that most owners realize
the car was not designed for drag racing, and do not want to risk blowing up expensive parts, like Rick Merz did a few years back.
So I stand by my prior statement...
Unless you are prepared to spend BIG BUX
for the best in axle shafts/u-joints/trans
axles, don't expect to hook up those monster tires on a BANZAI start without breaking something. And slipping the clutch and easing into the throttle doesn't
produce good 1/4 mile times.
You snooze...you loose.
Now a rolling start is another matter...
but most "acceleration trials" in the USA
are from a dead stop. I guess it's different
across the pond.
MikeD
Hey Mike,
Check out DRB if you want times for
the quarter in a 40. There are quite a few
that turn mid 11's WITHOUT nitrous,blowers, or any exotic traction producing goodies.
And that's with 400-450HP and without doing 6K+ launches from the lights.
I think if you put nitrous in a 40, no
Mustang would stand a chance. The difference in HP/Weight is too much in favor of the 40.
The physics just don't add up. Besides,
running a Mustang at high speed is like
trying to break the sound barrier in a refrigerator. Granted, it can be done, but it
takes a boatload of horsepower, and you need a really long extension cord!
Bill
[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Bayard ]
Check out DRB if you want times for
the quarter in a 40. There are quite a few
that turn mid 11's WITHOUT nitrous,blowers, or any exotic traction producing goodies.
And that's with 400-450HP and without doing 6K+ launches from the lights.
I think if you put nitrous in a 40, no
Mustang would stand a chance. The difference in HP/Weight is too much in favor of the 40.
The physics just don't add up. Besides,
running a Mustang at high speed is like
trying to break the sound barrier in a refrigerator. Granted, it can be done, but it
takes a boatload of horsepower, and you need a really long extension cord!
Bill
[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Bayard ]
