I'm planning my order for A RF and need some help figuring out a few issues.First there is an option for rear wheel arches,but I don't see much differance in the cars on there gallery of cars,I really like the look of the dark blue with white stripes,does this car have the optional wheel arches?Second can you use only 302 engine or can you also ues 351 with the adapter that comes with kit?Third It says it comes with Flywheel & clutch,don't I need these to balance my engine ?Thus not being able to work on it while waiting to get the kit to get here.Thanks
Planning my build,have a few ?s.
- Thread starter Wheels
- Start date
Robert Logan
Defunct Manufactuer - Old RF Company
Paul,
The Gulf car has wheel arches fitted and this is the only car on our web pages that has these arches fitted. The blue car does not and in my opinion looks great and very well balanced.
We have had 351 engines fitted but they are taller on the valley and this can cause problems with the breathers on the rocker covers striking the fiberglass deck over the engine. We have worked around this by opening the rectangular hole by a couple of inches.
Regarding the flywheel, this does require balancing to the engine but if the engine were "neutrally balanced" that is balanced to ZERO than the flywheel could be neutrally balanced and just fitted straight on. This is how race teams do the Ford race engines as it allows any engine to have any flywheel fitted to it. As ashamed as I can be this is how the opposition (the General) does it,
I hope this helps,
Best wishes,
Robert
The Gulf car has wheel arches fitted and this is the only car on our web pages that has these arches fitted. The blue car does not and in my opinion looks great and very well balanced.
We have had 351 engines fitted but they are taller on the valley and this can cause problems with the breathers on the rocker covers striking the fiberglass deck over the engine. We have worked around this by opening the rectangular hole by a couple of inches.
Regarding the flywheel, this does require balancing to the engine but if the engine were "neutrally balanced" that is balanced to ZERO than the flywheel could be neutrally balanced and just fitted straight on. This is how race teams do the Ford race engines as it allows any engine to have any flywheel fitted to it. As ashamed as I can be this is how the opposition (the General) does it,
I hope this helps,
Best wishes,
Robert
All the Windsor motors i.e. 3.8 v6 supercharged, 302 HO and all 351s have the same bell housing pattern. The 351 uses the same motor mounts as the 302 but is 3 1/2 inches taller and top of the motor is wider due to the 9.5" deck. The two bolt main block on the 351 can be bored .040 MAX. Go past that and you will have heating problems. You can get 427 c.i. from the motor by stroking it with longer rods and a crank. With AL heads it weighs in just above stock 302 weight. The 302 HO (85+)motors had roller cams where the 351 did not get that until about 95 in the truck motor. The
302 HO also had forged pistons until about 93. Food for thought. good luck with your RF
302 HO also had forged pistons until about 93. Food for thought. good luck with your RF
Tim Kay
Lifetime Supporter
Tommy,
[ QUOTE ]
.....3 1/2 inches taller and top of the motor is wider due to the 9.5" deck.
[/ QUOTE ]
I realize the Winsor being taller due to deck height changing from 8.5" (302) to 9.5" (351w) but I didn't realize it added as much as 3.5" (therefore the obstacle Robert just decribed above).
Can you decribe where the 3.5" developes from? Can low profile valve covers help minimize height? Oil pan maybe? What options are available to reduce the height, if any?
[ QUOTE ]
.....3 1/2 inches taller and top of the motor is wider due to the 9.5" deck.
[/ QUOTE ]
I realize the Winsor being taller due to deck height changing from 8.5" (302) to 9.5" (351w) but I didn't realize it added as much as 3.5" (therefore the obstacle Robert just decribed above).
Can you decribe where the 3.5" developes from? Can low profile valve covers help minimize height? Oil pan maybe? What options are available to reduce the height, if any?
Tim,
Applications with an inverted gearbox(eg. G50) and a 351W,
don't suffer the aforementioned clearance problem, and have
other benefits as well. I still have good clearance between
my oil cap/breather(1/2") and the back deck around the
induction hole. The lower CG ain't so bad either! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
If you are thinking about shorter valve covers, remember
they have to clear what's under them!
IMHO, go with a inverted G50. You'd eliminate the clearance
issue, get a much lower CG, and be able to handle the
increased torque of the 351W, all in one shot.
We're talking about some pretty serious mods, but you may
be forced to go this route, if other lowering options don't
get you there. Plus, I'd hate to see you make everything
fit with a Renault or Audi box, only to discover that the
351W had too much "heat" for them to handle.
Bill
Applications with an inverted gearbox(eg. G50) and a 351W,
don't suffer the aforementioned clearance problem, and have
other benefits as well. I still have good clearance between
my oil cap/breather(1/2") and the back deck around the
induction hole. The lower CG ain't so bad either! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
If you are thinking about shorter valve covers, remember
they have to clear what's under them!
IMHO, go with a inverted G50. You'd eliminate the clearance
issue, get a much lower CG, and be able to handle the
increased torque of the 351W, all in one shot.
We're talking about some pretty serious mods, but you may
be forced to go this route, if other lowering options don't
get you there. Plus, I'd hate to see you make everything
fit with a Renault or Audi box, only to discover that the
351W had too much "heat" for them to handle.
Bill
Attachments
Tim Kay
Lifetime Supporter
Bill,
Thanks, just what I needed to hear. My G50 is getting the "once over" right now so I am shopping for 351w builder with the hopes that chassis mods will be the only issues. I didn't want to upset the body fitment. I see others like yourself are getting the 351w's in so it is possible.
Thanks for the pic, looks great /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Since I want to stick with Webers, Inglese told me there is not a 351w manifold for IDF's, only IDA's (I think IDA's are taller). Any chance you could give a measurement from the top of engine block (rear of the engine) where the intake manifold makes contact, vertically to the window.
Thanks, just what I needed to hear. My G50 is getting the "once over" right now so I am shopping for 351w builder with the hopes that chassis mods will be the only issues. I didn't want to upset the body fitment. I see others like yourself are getting the 351w's in so it is possible.
Thanks for the pic, looks great /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Since I want to stick with Webers, Inglese told me there is not a 351w manifold for IDF's, only IDA's (I think IDA's are taller). Any chance you could give a measurement from the top of engine block (rear of the engine) where the intake manifold makes contact, vertically to the window.
Tim
I think Tom is in error...the 351 is not 3.5 " taller.
It uses the same heads as the 302, so my guess is closer
to 1 ".
MikeD
I think Tom is in error...the 351 is not 3.5 " taller.
It uses the same heads as the 302, so my guess is closer
to 1 ".
MikeD
Tim,
I get 11 3/4" from the block to the rear window. Don't bet the bank on that number, but it's pretty close. It's difficult to get an exact measurement around headers, heat shield, etc.
I have 4" from the window to the rear edge of
the induction hole, and then 7 1/4" to the block.
Something else to consider with a 351W, is routing of the
primary header tubes. If you already have a rollcage, that
could become a major issue.
Bill
I get 11 3/4" from the block to the rear window. Don't bet the bank on that number, but it's pretty close. It's difficult to get an exact measurement around headers, heat shield, etc.
I have 4" from the window to the rear edge of
the induction hole, and then 7 1/4" to the block.
Something else to consider with a 351W, is routing of the
primary header tubes. If you already have a rollcage, that
could become a major issue.
Bill
Tim Kay
Lifetime Supporter
Bill,
Thanks for taking the time. With the same measurement location I have 11 1/8" on my 302. I have at least 1" lower I can go in positioning the block. Should be ok assuming the intake, carbs and filters dont exceed 12"
If you have, show a pic of engine bay /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Thanks for taking the time. With the same measurement location I have 11 1/8" on my 302. I have at least 1" lower I can go in positioning the block. Should be ok assuming the intake, carbs and filters dont exceed 12"
If you have, show a pic of engine bay /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Tim,
Tom is NOT in error. Don't do it uless you have 3" more up top. I guess you could drop the motor mounts 3".
Here are some specs that are correct! I live by a junkyard.
Motor-------Length-----Width------Height------Deck-height
302 --------- 27 1/2" --18 3/4"----20 3/4"------8.205-----
351-----------27 1/2"-- 21" -------23 3/4"----9.480 69-70
--------------------------------------------- 9.503 71-95
460-----------32" ------26"--------26"------------------
4.6modSOHC----28"------ 28 5/8"----26"------------------
4.6modDOHC----28 ------ 30"------- 29 7/8"--------------
these are actual, make sure you can put a box in this size before attempting it. I would look for 606 HP on a 351 punched to 427. Petrol line should be close to 1/2". 3/8" is only good to 500horses. good luck with your build. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Tom is NOT in error. Don't do it uless you have 3" more up top. I guess you could drop the motor mounts 3".
Here are some specs that are correct! I live by a junkyard.
Motor-------Length-----Width------Height------Deck-height
302 --------- 27 1/2" --18 3/4"----20 3/4"------8.205-----
351-----------27 1/2"-- 21" -------23 3/4"----9.480 69-70
--------------------------------------------- 9.503 71-95
460-----------32" ------26"--------26"------------------
4.6modSOHC----28"------ 28 5/8"----26"------------------
4.6modDOHC----28 ------ 30"------- 29 7/8"--------------
these are actual, make sure you can put a box in this size before attempting it. I would look for 606 HP on a 351 punched to 427. Petrol line should be close to 1/2". 3/8" is only good to 500horses. good luck with your build. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Tim Kay
Lifetime Supporter
Tommy,
Thanks, even if it's not what I wanted the hear.
Maybe I'll call you the "Junk Yard Dawg" from now on /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Bill,
Pleased I am /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Thanks alot, beautiful work. It will become my reference picture /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Thanks, even if it's not what I wanted the hear.
Maybe I'll call you the "Junk Yard Dawg" from now on /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Bill,
Pleased I am /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Thanks alot, beautiful work. It will become my reference picture /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
The height of the engine is governed by the intake and carb combo so I would not consider the aforementioned info comparable. What intake did each motor have, etc? Reading numbers out of a table does not always cut it. Need to compare apples to apples.
Like the guys that say the FE (which is some tables weighs over 650 lbs) is 150 lbs heavier then the 351. Well I have both and weighed both on the same Longacre scales and:
Weight of this cast iron block 427 FE is 503 lbs.
And the weight of this cast iron block 351 is 467 lbs.
At any rate the deck height is 1.3 inches higher with a 351 versus a 302 thus the height of the surface where the intake bolts on = 1.3*sqrt(2)/2 = .91". With comparable intake manifolds and carbs I would expect ~1" difference. Further most 351 applications require the use of a higher torque carrying transmission (e.g. ZF or G50) then the Audi box and thus would result in the 351 being mounted lower (inverted transaxle) then the 302 (with an Audi box). YMMV.
Like the guys that say the FE (which is some tables weighs over 650 lbs) is 150 lbs heavier then the 351. Well I have both and weighed both on the same Longacre scales and:
Weight of this cast iron block 427 FE is 503 lbs.
And the weight of this cast iron block 351 is 467 lbs.
At any rate the deck height is 1.3 inches higher with a 351 versus a 302 thus the height of the surface where the intake bolts on = 1.3*sqrt(2)/2 = .91". With comparable intake manifolds and carbs I would expect ~1" difference. Further most 351 applications require the use of a higher torque carrying transmission (e.g. ZF or G50) then the Audi box and thus would result in the 351 being mounted lower (inverted transaxle) then the 302 (with an Audi box). YMMV.
Gary
I agree...can't be 3.50 difference in height.
302 and 351 motor mounts are the same, so to keep
the crankshaft centerline in the same plane, the
motor mounts on the block have to be in the same place.
That means the only extra height is the additional deck.
Of course you are right on regarding intake manifold height,
carb spacer, carb height, air cleaner height all varying.
But the basic long block should only be about 1 " taller.
MikeD
I agree...can't be 3.50 difference in height.
302 and 351 motor mounts are the same, so to keep
the crankshaft centerline in the same plane, the
motor mounts on the block have to be in the same place.
That means the only extra height is the additional deck.
Of course you are right on regarding intake manifold height,
carb spacer, carb height, air cleaner height all varying.
But the basic long block should only be about 1 " taller.
MikeD
if you buy a 351W motor from Ford Racing it will be 3" taller than the 302 you buy from them. That is their statement. I am not into all that hypoteneuse is the square root of the sides squared. I rode the short school bus and Ford Racing has no guarantees on anything you buy. If they say it is 3 inches taller, I would not buy the motor unless I had 3" of space to stuff it in. Just my IMHO.
Junkyard Dog LOL
Junkyard Dog LOL
If the oil pan they choose is 3" deeper then that justifies the difference?
I would like to see a relavant measurement like the distance from the motor mount bolt points to the carb mount flange with similar intake manifolds. The depth of the pan is relative to what type of pan you decide to mount. For instance the "GT40" style pan is about an inch shorter then a canton road race pan. But both motors can be equiped with the same style GT40 pan. Thus other measurements are not providing a fair comparison.
I have an idea. Is there someone on the forum that has a 302 with a edelbrock victor junior intake please measure the distance from the oil pan mount surface to the base of the carb mount on the intake. The carb would probably have a slope and thus the measurement would need to be taken at the front and rear of the motor with straight edges and averaged. I will make a like measurement on a 351 and we can report.
I have an idea. Is there someone on the forum that has a 302 with a edelbrock victor junior intake please measure the distance from the oil pan mount surface to the base of the carb mount on the intake. The carb would probably have a slope and thus the measurement would need to be taken at the front and rear of the motor with straight edges and averaged. I will make a like measurement on a 351 and we can report.
Similar threads
