351w

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Apr 3, 2006 | 07:49 PM

uncle junk

Thread Starter

Senior User

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 111

Likes: 0

351w

what is the horse power on a stock 351w 1986 ho it has no emissions if that makes a diff.

Apr 4, 2006 | 06:40 AM

cjben

Lead Driver

Joined: Apr 2001

Posts: 6,335

Likes: 6

From: Midwest

205-210 if I remember correctly

Apr 4, 2006 | 08:28 AM

Kemicalburns

Hotshot

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 14,285

Likes: 12

From: Bend,OR

hp means nothing its torque you want. which that motor should be in the 300 range at least

Apr 4, 2006 | 08:50 AM

uncle junk

Thread Starter

Senior User

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 111

Likes: 0

thank you kemical burns we were having a big shop war over this i said well over 300 on the torque as well and no one here is on my side but what is the hoarse power of the motor engine power ?that hsent been settled in here today

Apr 4, 2006 | 08:52 AM

Kemicalburns

Hotshot

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 14,285

Likes: 12

From: Bend,OR

210 is correct for a 351w. the 302 made 180-190hp. remember this is at the flywheel not to the rear wheels of course.

do a search on the web you will find the numbers in print. maybe that would help

Apr 4, 2006 | 09:32 AM

derherr65

Elder User

Joined: Jul 2005

Posts: 969

Likes: 1

From: North Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kemicalburns

hp means nothing its torque you want.

What? I'm going to have to disagree with the HP means nothing part. I've seen 10.1 sec 1/4ET Hondas with nothing but HP. HP will do work just as well as torque, since HP is derived from torque.

That being said, a low rpm truck engine has much better street and towing manners than something that doesn't make power until 4000rpm. That's why we all like big slow truck engines. Like my 400, or kemical's ... 460 was it?

Apr 4, 2006 | 09:53 AM

Kemicalburns

Hotshot

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 14,285

Likes: 12

From: Bend,OR

im running a 95 5.8 in my bronco. originally had a 302. it was a night/day difference to say the least.

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

Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026

Brett Foote

5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time

Joe Kucinski

Apr 4, 2006 | 11:12 AM

Kemicalburns

Hotshot

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 14,285

Likes: 12

From: Bend,OR

easy as pie. but i bought a complete motor to. less stuff to track down.

Apr 4, 2006 | 02:47 PM

#10

78ltd

Senior User

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 146

Likes: 2

From: Wichita Falls TX

I know that Four Wheel Drive magazine use to
give rear wheel horsepower figures whenever they tested
a new vehicle. In 1985 that 302 in a Bronco was
listed at 185 Hp and they got 103 at the rear wheels.
That should give you a idea of drivetrain losses.

Apr 5, 2006 | 09:30 AM

#11

derherr65

Elder User

Joined: Jul 2005

Posts: 969

Likes: 1

From: North Texas

Don't forget that advertising claims often don't match real world numbers. I seem to remember someone doing the math and finding that an 80 HP loss into the drivetrain would boil all the fluids, if not make it glow red hot.