460 or 351
#1
#5
A 460 will hold together at high rpms just fine if the same precautions are used in building it that are used in building a high reving small block. It's a myth that small blocks rev higher.
The reason a 460 has the rep of low rpms is because you don't normally need high revs to make power with one (you can make over 400hp at under 5000rpm typical 351 will be forced to spin it 6500+ to make the same power) it just means if you cam it, and do the head or use the heads that will flow enough to spin the rpms you will just make that much MORE power.
528cid A heads 900+hp at 7400rpm 5yrs and still running.
You might also want to check out some of the offshore race boats running big blocks (most of them run big blocks) hours on end spinning 6000+rpms in one of hte most extreme forms of abuse you can put an engine through.
#6
Cool I think I have decided on the 351 then. Any thing to look for? the guy I was buying the 460 from said he also has a 351. How do I know what 351 it is and which is better to start with? Also he says the c6 trans he has will bolt up to both motors is that true. I always thought there was a big block C6 and a small block C6?
#7
if the trans he has will bolt to both motors the 351 he has is the 351M and is NOT the one you want at all. Best case scenerio with that is to change it to a 400 spend a lot of money and maybe get something that will work almost as well as a stock 460. Even the guys that like the 400s will tell you the 351m isn't worth much except as a core block to put a 400 crank and pistons into.
If that is your only two choices you really don't have a choice you have a 460 and some scrape iron.
If that is your only two choices you really don't have a choice you have a 460 and some scrape iron.
Trending Topics
#8
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Justin Braun
1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
3
03-14-2017 03:53 PM
ryanparhaniemi
1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
5
11-30-2016 11:07 AM
NitrousAl
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
4
01-16-2003 09:00 PM