351 Redline
Hotshot
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,285
Likes: 12
From: Bend,OR
69 cougar would have been a cleveland motor not a windsor. but yes that motor would rev that hi but was built for it as well.
now my 95 5.8 will touch 5500 no problem but it has a roller cam which helps alot as well.
now my 95 5.8 will touch 5500 no problem but it has a roller cam which helps alot as well.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,276
Likes: 7
From: NE Tennessee
I pulled a 351w 2bl from a '69 cougar. But not sure if it was original. We used '69 parts for the heads though. It had thrown a rod but fixed it and put it in my '87 mustang. Was a good motor.
Senior User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 353
Likes: 3
From: Mid-Missouri
With that engine tranny combo, you won't get much torque or usable HP past 4000K.
My truck (86 F-150 5.0 EFI) with the NP 435 4-SPD does about 100 MPH at 4K.
Much higher than 4K and the lifters come dangerously close to floating with the stock valvetrain and cam. (Approx 235K on the motor with no rebuild - running sythetic oil).
My truck (86 F-150 5.0 EFI) with the NP 435 4-SPD does about 100 MPH at 4K.
Much higher than 4K and the lifters come dangerously close to floating with the stock valvetrain and cam. (Approx 235K on the motor with no rebuild - running sythetic oil).
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14,947
Likes: 6
From: Topsfield, MA
Originally Posted by Kemicalburns
69 cougar would have been a cleveland motor not a windsor. but yes that motor would rev that hi but was built for it as well.
now my 95 5.8 will touch 5500 no problem but it has a roller cam which helps alot as well.
now my 95 5.8 will touch 5500 no problem but it has a roller cam which helps alot as well.
My 95 truck 302 shut the injectors off at 5500. I've had a 95 300 I-6 at 5500 rpm too (thats a low rpm engine!).
Although I've never ran a mustang 5.0 to 6200, i believe that is what they run to. The bottom end should be good to 6200, and I believe the injectors shut off at that RPM. I could be wrong but I'm 95% sure. A stock bottom end 302 with ARP rod bolts can run to 6500 if that means anything to ya.
That older 351 is definitely in at 5000 regardless of age, runs out of air around 4500 by design.
Last edited by MustangGT221; Oct 25, 2005 at 09:26 PM.
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 24,418
Likes: 3
From: San Francisco, Ca.
Originally Posted by Kemicalburns
69 cougar would have been a cleveland motor not a windsor. but yes that motor would rev that hi but was built for it as well.
now my 95 5.8 will touch 5500 no problem but it has a roller cam which helps alot as well.
now my 95 5.8 will touch 5500 no problem but it has a roller cam which helps alot as well.
The engine code for my 69 XR-7 was "M" (351w-4V)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_335_engine
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
...the mustang 302 is the same bottom end but since it's top end can flow more air it gets a higher redline.
i believe the crank main journals, rod journals and rod lengths are different between the 302 and the 351W...making the bottom ends quite different. the longer stroke of the 351W also relates to lower rpm's on stock engines.
mustang 5.0L computers quit @ 6250 no matter what the tach says...from what i've read factory 5.0 tachs are not the most accurate. cheers, garsten
i believe the crank main journals, rod journals and rod lengths are different between the 302 and the 351W...making the bottom ends quite different. the longer stroke of the 351W also relates to lower rpm's on stock engines.
mustang 5.0L computers quit @ 6250 no matter what the tach says...from what i've read factory 5.0 tachs are not the most accurate. cheers, garsten
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14,947
Likes: 6
From: Topsfield, MA
Originally Posted by garsten
...the mustang 302 is the same bottom end but since it's top end can flow more air it gets a higher redline.
i believe the crank main journals, rod journals and rod lengths are different between the 302 and the 351W...making the bottom ends quite different. the longer stroke of the 351W also relates to lower rpm's on stock engines.
mustang 5.0L computers quit @ 6250 no matter what the tach says...from what i've read factory 5.0 tachs are not the most accurate. cheers, garsten
i believe the crank main journals, rod journals and rod lengths are different between the 302 and the 351W...making the bottom ends quite different. the longer stroke of the 351W also relates to lower rpm's on stock engines.
mustang 5.0L computers quit @ 6250 no matter what the tach says...from what i've read factory 5.0 tachs are not the most accurate. cheers, garsten
You're correct in what you've said though...a 302/351 are pretty different.
The stock truck tachs arn't all that accurate either, they can be off a couple hundred RPM. I was getting slightly different numbers between the dyno RPM monitor and my dash tach.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
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
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
From: Griffin. GA
On the tach thing, i was sort of disappointed on it not having a factory tach, but seeing what you guys said about them, im glad its got an aftermarket. Thank god its a smaller one with no dummy light i hate those things 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
IcemanV8
1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
7
Dec 6, 2007 09:15 AM
chulsey12
Big Block V8 - 385 Series (6.1/370, 7.0/429, 7.5/460)
6
May 30, 2007 06:43 PM
rankhankyellow
Big Block V8 - 385 Series (6.1/370, 7.0/429, 7.5/460)
15
Mar 10, 2004 10:53 AM
