351m = junk?
09-25-2006, 09:45 PM
#31
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 845
RE: 351m = junk?
ive had a few over the years in pickups and they are nothing special. poor heads and intakes. you can use spacers to use a clevland intake with them.
edelbrock finally released a set of heads that make good power. with the heads, intake, carb, cam (mighty big i might add- almost .600 lift), and headers it makes 456hp. the sad part is a 351w can make the same power for much less, weigh 75#'s less, and not run into fitment issues because it is much smaller.
edelbrock finally released a set of heads that make good power. with the heads, intake, carb, cam (mighty big i might add- almost .600 lift), and headers it makes 456hp. the sad part is a 351w can make the same power for much less, weigh 75#'s less, and not run into fitment issues because it is much smaller.
09-25-2006, 09:51 PM
#32
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Alton, New Hampshire
Posts: 2,518
RE: 351m = junk?
ORIGINAL: mrbigshot
ive had a few over the years in pickups and they are nothing special. poor heads and intakes. you can use spacers to use a clevland intake with them.
edelbrock finally released a set of heads that make good power. with the heads, intake, carb, cam (mighty big i might add- almost .600 lift), and headers it makes 456hp. the sad part is a 351w can make the same power for much less, weigh 75#'s less, and not run into fitment issues because it is much smaller.
ive had a few over the years in pickups and they are nothing special. poor heads and intakes. you can use spacers to use a clevland intake with them.
edelbrock finally released a set of heads that make good power. with the heads, intake, carb, cam (mighty big i might add- almost .600 lift), and headers it makes 456hp. the sad part is a 351w can make the same power for much less, weigh 75#'s less, and not run into fitment issues because it is much smaller.
09-25-2006, 09:59 PM
#33
Yukon Cornelius
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: deep in the heart of dixie GEORGIA
Posts: 11,808
RE: 351m = junk?
ORIGINAL: mrbigshot
ive had a few over the years in pickups and they are nothing special. poor heads and intakes. you can use spacers to use a clevland intake with them.
edelbrock finally released a set of heads that make good power. with the heads, intake, carb, cam (mighty big i might add- almost .600 lift), and headers it makes 456hp. the sad part is a 351w can make the same power for much less, weigh 75#'s less, and not run into fitment issues because it is much smaller.
ive had a few over the years in pickups and they are nothing special. poor heads and intakes. you can use spacers to use a clevland intake with them.
edelbrock finally released a set of heads that make good power. with the heads, intake, carb, cam (mighty big i might add- almost .600 lift), and headers it makes 456hp. the sad part is a 351w can make the same power for much less, weigh 75#'s less, and not run into fitment issues because it is much smaller.
the main problem is with the m is the compression something (like 7.5:1 in some of them and i beileve lower) its a smog era engine there are quite a few heads out besides the edelbrock like afd blue thunder etc the stock 4v heads off of a cleveland fit the block those support 500hp with out any porting! the m family must have a big block bell housing but other than that it uses small block motor mounts. and the demisions are a little larger but would fit fine in a fox, now the m made 456 hp but what was the torque i bet it was way up there off idle
09-25-2006, 09:59 PM
#34
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 845
RE: 351m = junk?
351/400 heads are small valve, small port emission heads. the 351c was made until 74, they all had big exaust ports and no emission (thermactor bumps).
351/400's were a longer stroke emissions motors. thats why they were built in the first place. fully ported 351m heads flow almost as well as 2v C heads.
the crutch is the tiney bore for the displacment in the 400's. its only a 4.00" bore, yes it had super long rods that made it good for low end torque but its unreliable at best above 5000rpm. there not completly junk but they have no buisness in fox mustang. a lighter weight car can make less lb-ft and still be fast. if we were debating putting it in a full size 6000lb 4x4 than it would be ideal.
the most hp the 400 made was in 1971 when it was first offered, it made 285hp. starting in 74 compression was dropped to 7:9.1 when the late 70's were in effect and the motor was starting to show its age they made 155hp. compare it to a 460 that made 365hp "lopo" passanger car in 1971. or a 351c 4v that made 300hp.
351/400's were a longer stroke emissions motors. thats why they were built in the first place. fully ported 351m heads flow almost as well as 2v C heads.
the crutch is the tiney bore for the displacment in the 400's. its only a 4.00" bore, yes it had super long rods that made it good for low end torque but its unreliable at best above 5000rpm. there not completly junk but they have no buisness in fox mustang. a lighter weight car can make less lb-ft and still be fast. if we were debating putting it in a full size 6000lb 4x4 than it would be ideal.
the most hp the 400 made was in 1971 when it was first offered, it made 285hp. starting in 74 compression was dropped to 7:9.1 when the late 70's were in effect and the motor was starting to show its age they made 155hp. compare it to a 460 that made 365hp "lopo" passanger car in 1971. or a 351c 4v that made 300hp.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
M3hunter
S197 Handling Section
0
09-05-2015 03:42 PM
