O.K. guys, you may not have heard this one before. I have an '83 F- 150 4x4 and it has an anemic 302. This must be rectified. I have a '76 351W I'm going to build. I want to build this engine for maximum torque and don't plan on it ever seein the high-side of 4500rpm. I am after 1. TORQUE 2. DURABILITY 3.ECONOMY. Now, my question to you Fordophiles is this: Any suggestions as to cam, modifications to oiling system, compression ratio, exhaust, carb, ignition, or such? This is not just a mind exercise, I will build this motor. And yes, the 460 suggestion has already been nixed.(too expensive). Any help would be appreciated. By the way, I like the later model heads pedestal type rockers better than the rail type. Any drawbacks to those? I can hold my own when it comes to wrench-turning so tech stuff is o.k. If you have a suggestion, drop a line. Thanks, guys.
Oh, dumb question of the day. What does lol mean.

 

The drawback to late-model heads if flow, valve size, and compression ratio, pollution control provisions. All of which are not really very impressive. If you really want nice stock heads, look for some 1970-1974 D0OE casting heads and have the press-in studs pulled out and replaced with screw-in ones. (There is really no need to do this because they shouldnt give you any problems under 4500 rpm). Get the edelbrock performer package. The cam is 204/214 and should do just fine. Summit racing has a copy of it for 73.95 with the lifters (part number SUM-4400). If you are wanting to build your power in the lower rpm band, you wont need a cam with enought lift to press out your studs so they shouldnt be a problem. With the 351w, you will need a new distributor, intake, and oil pan. Be sure that your oil pan has the rear sump if that is what your truck needs. The 76 351w has a front sump and you might have clearance problems. The oil pans are not interchangable.
I would suggest headers and dual exhaust to help economy.
Edelbrock/Carter is about the best trouble-free carb for street use.
All of that should make enough power to keep you happy.
dave

 

And I can help with the easy part. lol means laughs out loud. Means somebody read something and laughed out loud.

Daywalker
92' F-250
78' Lincoln

 

For headers, use the Doug Thorley tri-y's..There built to add torque..use one of the torque carb spacers (1") under that Edelbrock 600..put an open element K&N or Holley filter on the top of your carb (4" X 14") and when you put in the distributor, buy an MSD where you can easily adjust the advance curve for the power curve that you want..if you throw in an MSD 6A ignition module and MSD timing controller, you can adjust the timing from your cab...I retard my timing to about 6 degrees for towing and bump it to 13-14 for fuel economy..port match your heads and intake

 

Ok so the 460 is out the window. How about a 390!!! or a 427 or a 428!!!!! Those will give you the torque that you want!

 

Special thanks to Dave: you're not the only one who told me that the Edelbrock is a good carb. And noted about the press-in studs. You're right.I was wondering about the cam kit. sounds like the way to go. I like the package engineering concept. I was told relatively high lift, short duration for torque. Thanks, man.
Special thanks to daywalker: 'preciate you giving a straight answer. I had to get up nerve to ask.Thanks.
Special thanks to slikness: been readin' your posts for quite awhile and I like the idea of the changeable timing from the cab. I have mine so high now she doesn't want to crank while hot.(only way it has any power otherwise though.)msd was definetly in the works, used 'em before. Thanks, man.
Special thanks to brett d: 460 just to much work and to expensive when I already have a 351w. I also have a very nice 390 out of '66 t-bird that has GOBS of torque, (you're right) but again too much money and work. besides they may institute emissions tests again in my state so better go with what was available in '83. nice daydream though.

 

Chuck,
OK, not sure if this suggestion is too late or not, but here goes: You have a 351W to rebuild. My suggestion would be to use a stroker crankshaft. Specifically one with a 3.85-inch stroke, usually about $350 (tops) from Scat. This will give you a 393 on a .030-overbore. Now, before you say things about budget, think about this- This crank is designed to be used with stock 351W connecting rods (free, you already have them in the engine) and 302 pistons (you need pistons for a proper, bored rebuild anyway). Speed Pro 302 flat top hypereuctectics can be had for only $95 a set. Now then, rebuilding an engine properly means machining the stock 351W crank, which may set you back about $125-$150, depending on your machine shop. So, essentially, a stock rebuild plus an additional $200 will get you a stroker 351W/393. The best reason for this is the Torque output. Obtaining 400+ Ft/Lbs of torque is quite easy with a setup like this. The factory heads could be used with a step up in valve sizing (1.90/1.60), bowl clean-up and port matching. And you won't need to spin the engine to the moon to achieve this. Now you can get crazy with heads and cams and such, but for budget reasons, this may be just what you are looking for in an engine.
That's my suggestion for the day. By the way, I run one of these myself, but with the Aussie 2v, closed-chamber heads. It's quite an engine, I am sure you won't be disappointed. Good luck! - Don

 

Don, That was a VERY interesting concept you had there, so I ran it past my machine shop and a trusted mechanic friend. While I liked the idea, they seemed to think that I may get into balancing problems and expense for a truck engine. I don't mind the expense if the payoff is there. Did you have to have the engine balanced? BTW both told me that I didn't need 1.- gear drive for cam, nixed that 2.-Fluidamper, 'cause I wasn't goin' to spin her past 4500 intentionally.so mucho dinero saved there. Plus according to Tom Monroe's book "How to rebuild your small-block Ford" the heads I have(D5TE) are the same port size, chamber size, and valve size as the "good" 69-70 heads. Only differnce is the big lump filling up the exhaust port (Air injection) (grind those babies out.)Well, anyway the vat work is done, find out Mon. how far it'll have to be bored.I hope all this will give me more than the 302 I have. (this thing wouldn't pull a greasy string out of a cat's behind).Will keep you guys posted.

 

Your mechanic seems to be right that you don't need a Fluidamper, but his reasoning seemed to be contrary to what I've learned. In your case you are still turning rpms too high to benefit from a Fluidamper.
It's been my finding that Fluidamper's are actually a risk, rather than insurance on any motor that does not run at steady low rpms. In fact fluidamper concept was invented for diesel motors. It's simply a bleed over product, and snake oil by the opinion of pro engine builders that we polled on the subject.
I don't mean to create contraversy, but I hope that anyone passing by this posting will considor researching the value of a $350 damper for themselves. Incidentally, Fluidampers are worse yet if you are in a colder climate.

hope I don't make anyone mad

 

For torque you can't beat a stroker.If you go with your original rods and the stroker crank Mrmotorsport is talking about I would think only the crank would need balancing,not the whole rotating assembly.But even that is not a big expense.I have a buddy who just stroked a 351 to 427 in a 69 FB mustang.That was somewhat more expensive because the skirt had to be notched for the rod bolts to clear.But you wanna talk bout a head snapper!A 390 stroker would make an awesome truck motor.You would need to spend a lot of cheese on heads etc to get the power of a stroker.There is no replacement for displacement.

CB

 

Chuck 6083,
Greetings again. I understand your concern on balancing, but think about it this way: If using a crank, whether a stroker or not, and you are attaching the same rods but lighter pistons (302 versus 351), you will actually need to REMOVE (via simple drilling of the counterweights) material from the crankshaft in order to balance. That is the cheap aspect of balancing. The expensive balance would require ADDING material, like mallory metal, very expensive if you were to need a lot. In other words, the 302 pistons will be dimensionally lighter than comparable 351W pistons, however, you should use a lighter cast aluminum or hypereuctectic. If you use a forged piston, it MIGHT get on the heavy side, but for a solid, everyday truck motor, forged would be overkill. The balancing shoul dbe for the entire rotating assembly, a very straight forward practice performed by almost every machine shop these days.
As for the dampner, use a steel unit, the Fluid-type piece would also be overkill and unnecessary expense. Leave it to the racers. - Don

 

I have a good bit of experience with the 351w strokers, I have a 408w almost complete and ready to dyno for a street strip car, and all pieces for a 393 sitting in my shed. Hopefully that qualifies me to speak about the stroker.

I absolutely recommend the 3.85" crank. As mentioned, by the time you clean up a stock crank, the stroker crank is only about $200 more. I got my SCAT crank off ebay, $380 to my door. The rods from any 351w will work fine. Regarding pistons, you have to be careful. I saw the $91 Sterling/Speed Pros as well, but the lowest compression they have is around 8.5:1. That's fine, but the extra swept volume of the stroker crank will give roughly 10.5:1, not the best for a truck motor with small cam and iron heads. I don't have the part number offhand, but Keith Black does make a 22cc dished piston to create roughly 9.5:1 compression in a 393 with 60cc heads. Obviously larger chamber heads will lower that, which will make it work well for towing. Balancing is not an issue with these cranks, they take a standard amount of work to balance, never seen one that requires Mallory metal to get to 28oz imbalance. One thing you'll have to look at when going to ANY 351, your 302 may have a 50oz imbalance, so you'll have to change flexplate and balancer to work with the 28oz balance on a 351.

As far as the rest of the combo, I run a '69 351w in a '66 Bronco. Absolutely a torque monster. 600cfm Edelbrock, Performer intake, 9.5:1 compression using small port, small valve 302 heads. Crane 260HMV cam specs are 204/216 .456/.484 lift. 1 5/8" headers into 2.5" duals. It's very powerful idle to 4000rpm where the heads start to choke it. Going to the early 351 heads would help greatly.

The stroker will easily produce 450ftlbs of torque with the right parts. 351 should make 400flbs with the right parts as well, not bad but you did say you wanted the ultimate torque monster Run the stroker with well ported early 351 heads and you'll have a motor that can yank a trailer off the line, as well as easily pulling hills at 2500-3000rpm.

 

Well, guys bad news. My 351 block has 6 cylinders that will clean up at .030 over. One that will clean up at .040 over and one that is gonna have to be sleeved due to rust pitting in cylinder wall. So, after buying the engine and having it vatted, I'm out 245.00 and I'm still at square one. Bummer. This bites. Suddenly, that old 300 I-6 in my other truck (ol' reliable) doesn't look so bad after all. My 302 is a lame duck, my ultimate small-block torque monster dreams have been quashed for now, and I've got this rash...lol. Just kidding.Guess I'll see what I can do about band-aiding this 302 untill I find another 351. I can get the block fixed but by the time I've bought pistons, sleeved one cylinder, and had the others bored, counting my original purchase price (still can't sit down after that one) I'm out 750.00 JUST FOR THE BLOCK! Now where is that little mad guy icon...

 

Hmmm, that sucks. I don't understand why the block was vatted first, but oh well. I wouldn't give up yet at all, 351 blocks are $50. I have two that I got for free, not like they're rare. It costs the same to rebuild a 302 or 351 block, so you may as well go big from the beginning.