Whoa!! 351w is really a 352w.....
#1
03-31-2012, 11:54 PM
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conway, South Carolina
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa!! 351w is really a 352w.....
Got to messing around on the internet and found a sit that said a 351w was actually a 352w. 
That ford called it a 351w to keep it from being confused with the 352 FE series engine. I never knew that, and thought I would share.
Maybe we should just start calling it a 352w.
That ford called it a 351w to keep it from being confused with the 352 FE series engine. I never knew that, and thought I would share. Maybe we should just start calling it a 352w.
#5
04-01-2012, 11:15 AM
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wabanaki Indian Territory
Posts: 18,724
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
31 Posts
well,that's a 352 rounded up of course Brad.
ford did this a lot.check out the 300/6.iirc,that's a 302! but you could imagine the confusion had ford called it that, since they had the 302 v8 of course.
i think the old 400 was a 402 too (not sure why they didn't just call it so.)
if you want to have some fun.all you need to do is find the bore and stroke of an engine and convert here to see what it really is:
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpengine/...lacement_b.php
you cant convert liters to cubic inches and find the true values,because they round up the liters.start with bore/stroke and you'll find the true cubes.
(example; the 7.3l diesel = 444 cubic inches [rounded up] using it's bore/stroke.445ci when converting from liters to cubes due to 7.3 liters already being rounded up.)
ford did this a lot.check out the 300/6.iirc,that's a 302! but you could imagine the confusion had ford called it that, since they had the 302 v8 of course.
i think the old 400 was a 402 too (not sure why they didn't just call it so.)
if you want to have some fun.all you need to do is find the bore and stroke of an engine and convert here to see what it really is:
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpengine/...lacement_b.php
you cant convert liters to cubic inches and find the true values,because they round up the liters.start with bore/stroke and you'll find the true cubes.
(example; the 7.3l diesel = 444 cubic inches [rounded up] using it's bore/stroke.445ci when converting from liters to cubes due to 7.3 liters already being rounded up.)
#6
04-01-2012, 11:41 AM
#7
04-01-2012, 12:13 PM
Trending Topics
#8
04-01-2012, 12:14 PM
I'm personally biased and I'm one of "those guys" who likes my measurements to be in standard form instead of Metric. Haha. Going back to what FORDF250HDXLT said about the 300 ci I-6 (4.9L) actually being a 302. The actual 302 ci/ 5.0 L V-8 Is actually only a 4.9L, but rounded up improperly to 5.0 to differentiate it from the I-6.
#9
04-01-2012, 02:28 PM
Fleet Owner
well,that's a 352 rounded up of course Brad.
ford did this a lot.check out the 300/6.iirc,that's a 302! but you could imagine the confusion had ford called it that, since they had the 302 v8 of course.
i think the old 400 was a 402 too (not sure why they didn't just call it so.)
if you want to have some fun.all you need to do is find the bore and stroke of an engine and convert here to see what it really is:
Engine Design Equations Formulas Calculator Cubic Inch Displacement Bore Stroke
you cant convert liters to cubic inches and find the true values,because they round up the liters.start with bore/stroke and you'll find the true cubes.
(example; the 7.3l diesel = 444 cubic inches [rounded up] using it's bore/stroke.445ci when converting from liters to cubes due to 7.3 liters already being rounded up.)
ford did this a lot.check out the 300/6.iirc,that's a 302! but you could imagine the confusion had ford called it that, since they had the 302 v8 of course.
i think the old 400 was a 402 too (not sure why they didn't just call it so.)
if you want to have some fun.all you need to do is find the bore and stroke of an engine and convert here to see what it really is:
Engine Design Equations Formulas Calculator Cubic Inch Displacement Bore Stroke
you cant convert liters to cubic inches and find the true values,because they round up the liters.start with bore/stroke and you'll find the true cubes.
(example; the 7.3l diesel = 444 cubic inches [rounded up] using it's bore/stroke.445ci when converting from liters to cubes due to 7.3 liters already being rounded up.)
the 302 8 cyl is 302.48 which equals 5.0
a 7.3 is 443.65 CID
I dont round on anything.
If I get 14.8 MPG I get 14.8 NOT 15
If I pay 1800 for a truck, I pay 1800 NOT 2000
#10
04-01-2012, 05:50 PM
Elder User
#11
04-01-2012, 06:53 PM
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wabanaki Indian Territory
Posts: 18,724
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
31 Posts
hmmm.yup.i remembered it wrong.4.00 x 3.98 for the 300/6.they did do that one correct.i guess it was just the 400 they left the 2 cubes off (or exactly 402.1248 for Brad. ) well,this was going off many years ago,so it doesn't surprise me lol.
my current lifetime average MPG is 14.58 (over the course of 95 recorded fill ups) but if someone claims i get 14.6 id probably let it slide.it they rounded to 15,id have to slap 'em though.
Bankrupter, your screen name sure is fitting based on that comment.
) well,this was going off many years ago,so it doesn't surprise me lol.my current lifetime average MPG is 14.58 (over the course of 95 recorded fill ups) but if someone claims i get 14.6 id probably let it slide.it they rounded to 15,id have to slap 'em though.
Bankrupter, your screen name sure is fitting based on that comment.
#12
04-01-2012, 08:44 PM
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conway, South Carolina
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#14
04-01-2012, 10:31 PM
#15
04-01-2012, 11:37 PM
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conway, South Carolina
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
