Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.
View Poll Results: A poll
351 W
47.46%
390
52.54%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

351W vs 390

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-08-2004, 10:27 AM
  #21  
69FECoupe
3rd Gear Member
 
69FECoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 686
Default RE: 351W vs 390

If you have any questions on the motor, check out the Ford FE Forum. The guys over there have a wealth of knowledge on the FE series. Just remember, it's gonna be TIGHT! Plugs changes are a PITA. You'll need to use GT heads also as they have a lower exhaust port to allow room for the manifolds in the Mustang engine bay. Was your car originally a big block car?
69FECoupe is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 10:23 PM
  #22  
quig
1st Gear Member
 
quig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 101
Default RE: 351W vs 390

Thats right about the heads except I think port size is the same, the holes for the manifolds are diagonal as opposed to vertical. This should not be a problem in 69-70 cars only 67-8 skock towers are too close with big car/ truck heads. Headers have both bolt patterns so that is an option. Edelbrock heads have both patterns too.
Quig
quig is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 10:55 AM
  #23  
69FECoupe
3rd Gear Member
 
69FECoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 686
Default RE: 351W vs 390

There were a few different heads that were termed "GT". I don't know if it's 100% true, but the general rule of thumb is that you need to use a head with 14 exhaust bolt holes when installing an FE motor in any unibody Ford. That said, I've never measured the distance between the shock towers in my 69. I can tell you that my headers (Hooker) hit in a few places even though my towers were shaved by one of the previous owners. My car started life as a 200ci six. Do you know if the six cyl./small block cars had different shock towers? Do you already have a 390 that you plan to use?



69 Coupe 390/C6/3.25 9".
69FECoupe is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 11:23 PM
  #24  
horseshoeing
3rd Gear Member
 
horseshoeing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 590
Default RE: 351W vs 390

A 289 and 302 is easy to change the plugs in and much, much lighter. I got like the small blocks. The big blocks are just to big and rev to slow. Good luck with your 390 and I hope you like it. It doesn't matter what I think about a 390 as long as you like it, it is a good motor for you.
horseshoeing is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 12:10 PM
  #25  
horseshoeing
3rd Gear Member
 
horseshoeing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 590
Default RE: 351W vs 390

Was browsing in an old mag and found specs on the 390 engine. Seems the bore is 4.05. Looked further and the 289 engine has a bore of 4.00. Now, let me see, 390 CI and 289CI, which is the longer stroke? No difference really in piston size, hmmmm, seems to me the 390 CI MUST be a long stoke! This being the case, the 390 CI engine would make a wonderful truck motor, which it was!
horseshoeing is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 01:05 PM
  #26  
69FECoupe
3rd Gear Member
 
69FECoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 686
Default RE: 351W vs 390

My stroke comparison in the earlier post was 390 to 351, not 289. But since you seem to think that the 390 was a "very long stroke" motor, let's look at some popular Ford and Chevy big blocks that are not generally considered truck motors. Ford: 390 stroke = 3.78, 427 stroke = 3.78, 428 stroke = 3.98.

Now for Chevrolet: 396 stroke = 3.76, 427 stroke = 3.76, 454 stroke = 4.00.

I guess by your definition these are all truck motors.

It might interest you to know that the 390 was not designed as a truck motor and in fact it was modified strengthen it for truck use.

[quote]ORIGINAL: horseshoeing

Was browsing in an old mag and found specs on the 390 engine. Seems the bore is 4.05. Looked further and the 289 engine has a bore of 4.00. Now, let me see, 390 CI and 289CI, which is the longer stroke? No difference really in piston size, hmmmm, seems to me the 390 CI MUST be a long stoke! This being the case, the 390 CI engine would make a wonderful truck motor, which it was!
[/quote
69FECoupe is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 01:43 PM
  #27  
69FECoupe
3rd Gear Member
 
69FECoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 686
Default RE: 351W vs 390

My earlier posting compared the stroke of a 390 and 351, not a 289. Since you seem to think that the 390 is a "very long stroke" motor, lets compare the stroke from some popular Ford and Chevy big block that are not generally considered truck motors.

Ford first: 390 stroke = 3.78, 427 = 3.78, 428 = 3.98

Now Chevy: 396 = 3.76, 427 = 3.76, 454 = 4.00

By your definition, these are all "long stroke" truck motors.

It might interest you to know that the 390 was never designed to be a truck motor in fact it was modified to strengthen it for truck use.

Sorry if this gets posted twice.


ORIGINAL: horseshoeing

Was browsing in an old mag and found specs on the 390 engine. Seems the bore is 4.05. Looked further and the 289 engine has a bore of 4.00. Now, let me see, 390 CI and 289CI, which is the longer stroke? No difference really in piston size, hmmmm, seems to me the 390 CI MUST be a long stoke! This being the case, the 390 CI engine would make a wonderful truck motor, which it was!
69FECoupe is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 09:29 AM
  #28  
horseshoeing
3rd Gear Member
 
horseshoeing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 590
Default RE: 351W vs 390

Short stroke........long stroke, the 390 was one doggie motor! Make a damn good boat anchor.
horseshoeing is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 10:37 AM
  #29  
69FECoupe
3rd Gear Member
 
69FECoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 686
Default RE: 351W vs 390

Your facts? are undisputable as I'm sure you've had tons of hand's on experience with 390's. I'll just have to learn to deal with the fact that I've have a boat anchor under my hood. I won't be committing it to the briney deep anytime soon though.
ORIGINAL: horseshoeing

Short stroke........long stroke, the 390 was one doggie motor! Make a damn good boat anchor.
69FECoupe is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 10:56 AM
  #30  
horseshoeing
3rd Gear Member
 
horseshoeing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 590
Default RE: 351W vs 390

If you are happy with it, than keep it. If someone ask me what I think about it, I will say to get a 289 or 302. How do you like changing spark plugs in you 390 lol. Theres that one that a bear. I going to keep my 289 and love it. What is your gas milage? Mine is about 17mpg. I pushing about 350hp. Is yours about 12mpg? If I had your car I would keep the 390. Its to much work to change it. Well a 302 boss would be nice....... I would have to keep the 390. I to cheap to change.
horseshoeing is offline  


Quick Reply: 351W vs 390



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 AM.