View Poll Results: Which one is faster?
1985 T-Bird 31W HO 265hp 305ftlbs@ 4000, with open exhaust and locked rear end, and a hot cam
33.33%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll
Which one is faster?
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Which one is faster?
Im in the process of putting a 351 4V HO into my 1985 T-Bird. It has les than 40k on it, and has aroung 265hp and 305ftlbs of torque at 4000rpm!! Would it keep up with a 5.0HO or a newer 4.6 Mustang u think?
Last edited by pedal2themedal; Mar 1, 2005 at 10:32 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Now that i think about it, you're right the 351HO did only make 210hp, but the 305 ftlbs of torque should help quite a bit dont you think,,, especially with my light T-Bird.
I bet with no smog bs, and an open exhaust it should atleast be up around 235 right?
What kind of a cam did they put in those 351W HO's anyways?
I bet with no smog bs, and an open exhaust it should atleast be up around 235 right?
What kind of a cam did they put in those 351W HO's anyways?
Postmaster
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,758
Likes: 7
From: colorado
if the '85 351 still uses a carb then you have a chance( i know the '85 5.0 was the last year for a carb) but if you are going to do it you should also do new heads, a hipo intake manifold and a bigger carb. if it is an FI motor then its going to be hard because those early FI motors where "speed density" controlled (as opposed to "mass air") , and dont take well to mods
Lead Driver
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,140
Likes: 4
From: Oak Harbor, OH
It's basically an RV cam. The 351HO was the economicla 460 (even tho they got the same exact fuel economy). The smog pump is the worst of it, and it takes less than 1 hp to run that, if you run true dual make sure you use an h or x pipe to keep the low end torque. AT best expect 225 hp...
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Trending Topics
Senior User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
There are a LOT of variables here. If all the above mentioned have stock gears, and are 5speeds, you'd probably lose to both.
Here's why I think so:
With your setup, you will lose power with open exhaust, especially low-end, which is especially important because the T-Birds were so heavy...
....which is another drawback you'll have; weight.
The 351HO was 210hp and we'll say 305ft/lbs torque.
A 1994 Mustang is 215hp, and about 285ft/lbs torque.
The 1998 4.6 Mustang was 225hp and about 285ft/lbs torque.
So on paper, peak numbers are close, but the 302 is MUCH less peaky than the 4.6. So I'd give the 5 liter the nod between those two.
Also, you have to figure the T-Bird SC's had 230hp and 330ft/lbs of torque, and they only ran middle-low 15's.
You'd need another, say, 20-30 horsepower to get into the high 14's-15.0's, which is what you'll need to outrun either of those Mustangs if they are 5 speeds.
And unfortunatly, if you added a cam to your stock heads, which are probably E5's, you're not going to get those kinds of gains.
Good luck though!
Here's why I think so:
With your setup, you will lose power with open exhaust, especially low-end, which is especially important because the T-Birds were so heavy...
....which is another drawback you'll have; weight.
The 351HO was 210hp and we'll say 305ft/lbs torque.
A 1994 Mustang is 215hp, and about 285ft/lbs torque.
The 1998 4.6 Mustang was 225hp and about 285ft/lbs torque.
So on paper, peak numbers are close, but the 302 is MUCH less peaky than the 4.6. So I'd give the 5 liter the nod between those two.
Also, you have to figure the T-Bird SC's had 230hp and 330ft/lbs of torque, and they only ran middle-low 15's.
You'd need another, say, 20-30 horsepower to get into the high 14's-15.0's, which is what you'll need to outrun either of those Mustangs if they are 5 speeds.
And unfortunatly, if you added a cam to your stock heads, which are probably E5's, you're not going to get those kinds of gains.
Good luck though!
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Senior User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
i dont know where you got those numbers, but they are incorrect. Early Fox bodies go low 3000's, 87-93's can go anywhere from 3200-3400, depending on trim level, sn95 mustangs go 3400-3600, and the t-bird hes talking about will go 3600-3800.
Of course these are all rough estimates, but are definatly in the ballpark as I have had '79, '82, '83, '87, and '94 Mustangs, and had them all weighed except the '83.
Of course these are all rough estimates, but are definatly in the ballpark as I have had '79, '82, '83, '87, and '94 Mustangs, and had them all weighed except the '83.
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
It is the fox body bird. I read an article somewhere that the T-Bird is the exact same car, except for the body, as an 80's Fox Body Mustang. Also, i plan on putting some lower gears in the rear end as well, because it is way high geared.