1979 mustang

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

05-24-2007, 04:52 PM

#41

chrizzle17

1st Gear Member

Join Date: Mar 2007

Location:

Posts: 131

RE: 1979 mustang

ha yea i knew people would jump at this one, i personally think the four eyes are kinda cool. i prefer my 87 but the pre 87's front ends don't bother me. Its a waste of time and effort to change the front out, and yea, i can't see the car looking right like that

05-24-2007, 06:00 PM

#42

P Zero

5th Gear Member

Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: Michigan

Posts: 3,986

RE: 1979 mustang

Quote:

ORIGINAL: bds95stang

ya they are light but you dont have to stroke a 351 to make some serious horsepower, it think r.barn had 475 hp with standard bore....a 302 isnt going to push those kind of numbers. and that guys combo prolly wasnt very good from what u said he only had heads on the motor, no cam or intake, they are made for torque not hp from the factory, no one will make tons of power with a 351 windsor if they dont do the whole h/c/i swap

so i am not saying a 302 will not make decent power, but simply stated the 351 will make tons more with the right top end combo (no replacement for displacement.....im not opposed to a stroker either

)

Maybe his combo sucked or he just couldnt drive, but he did have a cam and intake right along with heads full length headers and such, BTW it was a carbed car not EFI.
I met the guy sometime later and asked what he done to it. IMO, it was geared too high (4.10). Like I said he got into 4th gear in the same time I only did a 1-2 shift. Mind you my '79 did only weigh 2500lbs, as opposed to his 3600+.
He's already got the 302 in there, if he gets some TFS hi-ports (TW = poop, IMO), with a nice cam, a victor jr. and a 650 or 700 cfm carb, that thing will make TONS of power, and that car being so light it'll smoke damn near anything he comes up against. THat being said, the 79's are so light because they have thinner firewalls aluminum bumpers front and rear, and the sheetmetal alltogether is thinner, he will NEED to get battle boxes and subframes just to keep the car from tearing itself apart, I tore the rear-end off of my '79 racing a friend, put a nice 2" crack in the frame above the rear axle and tore the whole torque box completely off of the car. Had it fixed just for it to tear apart again. Had to junk it unfortunately.
Im not saying that 351w's are junk or anything like that, but he's got a VERY capable motor in there that can EASILY get over the 350rwhp mark with relatvely little work, just the right parts. I dont think the 351 is needed in his case. Not to mention the #'s will still match.
-P.

05-24-2007, 06:52 PM

#43

bds95stang

2nd Gear Member

Join Date: Dec 2006

Posts: 270

RE: 1979 mustang

it may not be needed but if he already has 351 y not, extra power is always welcome. the 351 is not heavy enough to destroy the power to weight ratio of the car it will only improve it, an extra 100 hp or so over the 302 is more than enough to make up for the added 75 pounds between the motors. what im saying is it not a heavy brick as u had stated previously [8D]

05-24-2007, 07:02 PM

#44

P Zero

5th Gear Member

Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: Michigan

Posts: 3,986

RE: 1979 mustang

Quote:

ORIGINAL: bds95stang

it may not be needed but if he already has 351 y not, extra power is always welcome. the 351 is not heavy enough to destroy the power to weight ratio of the car it will only improve it, an extra 100 hp or so over the 302 is more than enough to make up for the added 75 pounds between the motors. what im saying is it not a heavy brick as u had stated previously [8D]

Fine their not heavy bricks [8D]. I just like 302's, great motors that rev fast.

-P.