Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 04-28-2013, 08:13 PM
resto-mod resto-mod is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 133
resto-mod is starting off with a positive reputation.
351w torque build opinions please

I'm debating between a 351w and a 300i6 for my truck. If I go Windsor what kind of torque can I achieve low in the power band? like 2000 rpm. I'm talking fully rebuilt roller motor with
Performer rpm intake, 650 carb, Long tube headers, rv cam, aftermarket heads, ect. Im wanting a daily driver engine that runs on 87 octane and gets decent mpg. Is 18mpg highway doable? How much torque can I get? Id love 250-300hp as well.
Opinions please!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-28-2013, 09:05 PM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,243
Conanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud of
With EFI you can have 400tq from just off idle and 300hp with a pretty much stock build(GT40 heads + RV cam), a carbed version won't make quite a much TQ at 1000rpm but by 2k it will, good luck getting anywhere close to those numbers with a "stock" I6.
__________________
Paul (Conan) O'Brien

1990 5.0HO AOD XLT X-Cab F150 3.55LS, 1994 3.0L 5-sp x-cab Ranger 3.45, 2004 3.0L 5-sp X-cab Ranger Edge 4.10, 2004 2.5L 5-spd Subaru Legacy
1996 Kawasaki ZX11D, 2004 Honda 599, 2008 Kawasaki KLR650
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-29-2013, 07:55 AM
resto-mod resto-mod is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 133
resto-mod is starting off with a positive reputation.
It would be carbed definately what kind of static compression ratio are we talking about for these numbers? Would a cheaper set of aluminum heads be better then gt40s? Say edelbrock performer rpms? I'd really love to run it on 87 octane.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-29-2013, 09:02 AM
UNTAMND's Avatar
UNTAMND UNTAMND is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lansdale, PA
Posts: 3,026
UNTAMND has a great reputation on FTE.UNTAMND has a great reputation on FTE.UNTAMND has a great reputation on FTE.UNTAMND has a great reputation on FTE.
The gt40 heads are a great low rpm head. You'll get the desired torque down low, but you'll use up the capacity of them early on.
If you had the money aluminum heads will benefit you because of the heat dissipation. You'll be able to run 9.5 compression easily on 87 octane. Iron heads I'd stick to low 9s with a lower total timing advance. The ethanol in the fuel is helpful in being able to run more compression. But I'd aim for 9-9.2 if going with gt40. Being carb you have a huge selection of cams.
If your truck is already a v8 I wouldn't even consider the 300-6. They have some support for go fast parts, but if you're going to spend money on it (there are no aftermarket heads I can think of) you'll get more hp increase for your money with a 351.
__________________
JR Strout..aim UNTAMND..00psd4x4ccsbLariet37sTwinTurbo
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=untamnd#g/u
90 F150 xlt lariat supercab 4x4 long bed 5.8 auto red interior (stock for now) 61000miles
67 Mustang GTA Fastback 390 UNTAMND.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-29-2013, 09:53 AM
IntheTrees's Avatar
IntheTrees IntheTrees is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 146
IntheTrees is starting off with a positive reputation.
Stock vs. stock, I might choose the I6 but if your doing a full rebuild with aftermarket parts the 351w will be way better.
What truck is the motor going in?
__________________
1980 F-100 2wd Shortbox
351w - QFT Slayer 600cfm, Weiand Stealth, home ported E7's, Comp 262/270 cam, DS2
, long tube headers, C6, 9" posi 3.55

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-29-2013, 09:59 AM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,243
Conanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud of
Yeah that was with something around 9-9.3:1 compression ratio so it will be very pump gas friendly. Aftermarket heads will greatly increase HP potential making a 350hp/400tq build quite achievable but if you go beyond that in search of bigger horsepower low rpm torque begins to fall unless compression is raised
__________________
Paul (Conan) O'Brien

1990 5.0HO AOD XLT X-Cab F150 3.55LS, 1994 3.0L 5-sp x-cab Ranger 3.45, 2004 3.0L 5-sp X-cab Ranger Edge 4.10, 2004 2.5L 5-spd Subaru Legacy
1996 Kawasaki ZX11D, 2004 Honda 599, 2008 Kawasaki KLR650
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-29-2013, 10:52 AM
resto-mod resto-mod is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 133
resto-mod is starting off with a positive reputation.
The truck is a 78 half ton shortbed 4x4. I think the drivetrain will consist of a ranger torque splitter, np 435, and np 205. 9 in and Dana 44 3.73 gears and a tire somewhere in the 31- 33" range. The goal is a reliable truck that can be a daily driver, do some mild offroading, and pull a pop up camper. Reliability, longevity, and fun to drive. 17ish mpg is what I'm Hopin for as well. You guys have me sold on the Windsor. I'm hoping to keep the cost of engine, rebuild, and performance parts around $4k. So what's the best aftermarket head on a budget for low end to midrange?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-30-2013, 06:04 PM
jimbbski jimbbski is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 455
jimbbski is starting off with a positive reputation.
Since any aluminum head is going to be better then a pair of cast iron GT40's you only need to look for ones with smaller port volume and smaller valves then some other aftermarket head. A set of AL heads with 2.02 intakes and 205CC port volume will produce less torque at low RPM's then a head with 1.9 intake and a 185CC port volume all else being equal. That's not to say that you can't build an engine with the big valves and not make the same or more torque then the smaller valve head you just would use a different cam, compression, or intake.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:12 AM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,243
Conanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud of
Here's a graphic representation of what you can expect, low rpm torque can be boosted even more if you're willing to sacrifice a little o that top end horsepower.. maybe use the 35-234-3 instead.

Click the image to open in full size.
__________________
Paul (Conan) O'Brien

1990 5.0HO AOD XLT X-Cab F150 3.55LS, 1994 3.0L 5-sp x-cab Ranger 3.45, 2004 3.0L 5-sp X-cab Ranger Edge 4.10, 2004 2.5L 5-spd Subaru Legacy
1996 Kawasaki ZX11D, 2004 Honda 599, 2008 Kawasaki KLR650
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-02-2013, 12:11 PM
resto-mod resto-mod is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 133
resto-mod is starting off with a positive reputation.
So this is b asic ally what I can. Expect from a stock shortblock with the edelbrock top end kit?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-02-2013, 03:41 PM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,243
Conanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud of
Yep.. only additional thing would be pistons with valve eyebrows to clear those big intake valves.
__________________
Paul (Conan) O'Brien

1990 5.0HO AOD XLT X-Cab F150 3.55LS, 1994 3.0L 5-sp x-cab Ranger 3.45, 2004 3.0L 5-sp X-cab Ranger Edge 4.10, 2004 2.5L 5-spd Subaru Legacy
1996 Kawasaki ZX11D, 2004 Honda 599, 2008 Kawasaki KLR650
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-29-2013, 10:05 PM
resto-mod resto-mod is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 133
resto-mod is starting off with a positive reputation.
I've got a buddy with a stroker mustang. He told me a stroker lower end is close to the same money aw a stock one. If this is true how would that graph look with a 393 stroker with a lower duration more torque oriented camshaft? How long lasting and reliable is a stroker compared to a stock displacement engine? Mpg is pretty much gunna suck with 393 co I suppose
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-29-2013, 10:34 PM
Conanski's Avatar
Conanski Conanski is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 20,243
Conanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud ofConanski has much to be proud of
A 393 with the Edelbrock topend will make 450+ ft/lbs across the board, and for truck uses there's no need for anything but a basic nodular iron kit so it's relatively cheap.. but there's often no need to replace the crank and rods on a stock rebuild so I don't see it costing the same. There's also no reason a stroker motor should have any shorter life than as a stock motor.
__________________
Paul (Conan) O'Brien

1990 5.0HO AOD XLT X-Cab F150 3.55LS, 1994 3.0L 5-sp x-cab Ranger 3.45, 2004 3.0L 5-sp X-cab Ranger Edge 4.10, 2004 2.5L 5-spd Subaru Legacy
1996 Kawasaki ZX11D, 2004 Honda 599, 2008 Kawasaki KLR650
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-03-2013, 07:17 AM
resto-mod resto-mod is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 133
resto-mod is starting off with a positive reputation.
Can you show me the graph for a 393 shortblock with the performer rpm top end? Say 9.5-1 cr and a Holley 650 carb, smaller diameter long tube headers. Maybe try a few different cam profiles for me too if its not too much trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:52 AM
resto-mod resto-mod is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 133
resto-mod is starting off with a positive reputation.
I've also heared that a "long rod" 351w makes more torque and let's you run higher cr. Is this true?
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 11:52 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1977 351w Headers Submarriner Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W) 14 02-13-2014 07:31 AM
Motor Choices For A 1962 F100 Flareside. 1962F100dude 1961 - 1966 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 7 10-13-2013 02:21 PM
351 Windsor swap from 351M questions defiantoutlaw 1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 3 05-10-2013 05:58 PM
89 F350 Crew Cab + 351W + EFI and the dreaded "valve tap" fordbozo 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 32 02-09-2013 07:19 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup