need to know how to get 400hp out of 351w?

Discussion in '1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-' started by 70stanger, Jul 15, 2006.

  1. Too bad you can't answer the questions I asked; like I said, I knew you'd never admit you were wrong for even suggesting/defending the heads. No good answer after you backed yourself into a corner, in fact no answer whatsever.

    I like how you say I recmnd a .700 lift cam and 7500rpm motors... please show me where I mentioned that? My original combo I recmnd would blow anything you could put together w/165's. Talk about reading comprehension!

    I also like how you mention jr high insult and then call me flybait and also talk about bruised ego and not being able to stop and yet you keep on... like I said you're prolly just some punk kid who works at an auto parts store.
  2. Good grief, where did all this animosity come from? Comparing flow specs and (I have to say, weak) insults just 'cause somebody wants to put 165's on a Windsor? BTW, if you wanna build streetable guns in a 67-70 Stang (and you got the cash to play hard); kiss off the Windsor and find a good solid-walled FE block. Take out a second mortgage on your grand-kids and start the part$ $earch. Gas is still below $3/gallon around my neighborhood; and it's only money anyway. Oh yeah, I don't believe that AFR supports the original BBF; but feel free to find a correction for that.

    BTW Dylan, if you feel the need to direct your flames my way knock yourself out; but prepare to be disappointed:
    1)Tempe flames can be moderately hot; but Wildcat Alumni (like me) are pretty much comprised of asbestos. I won't even discuss you guys cryin' and dyin' in cooler, drier weather than that in which I toil daily down here in the real desert.
    2) Your "expert" attitude sounds too much like a guy named Korvacs over on F150online.
    He tried.
    He failed.
    Go back to school.
    Enough said.
  3. I think its time for a group hug. Join with me in singing "Cum Ba Ya" :D
  4. I disagree w/the head choice, plain and simple. I'm sure you read why, but if you agree w/'sunshine' then go ahead, knock yourself out... I don't care. I do have a solid motor: 351 dart block, stroked to 377, fox lake stg 3 ported can's, probe shaft rockers, cam motion custom grind solid, fully ported vic jr intake, pro flow/holley 850 dp, blahl, blah. Should be good for mid 10's on motor... I know prolly too slow or the 165's are a better choice :D .

    1) yeah... don't care about the kitty/devil thing. Sounds more like you just want to argue. You graduated where you did & I somewhere else, who cares? BTW, where is down here?
    2) Attitude is cause I've been there and done that, doesn't make me an expert tho. Just stating the facts. In fact, called AFR today and they said the 165 is a bad choice, 185 min for a street machine; they said it could be done, but why. But what do they know, they only design them :shrug:
  5. 1. Nobody suggested on this thread that you should put 165s on your motor, which is NOT a 351, by the way. Find it and show me.

    2. Nobody actually "recomended" or "suggested" that they would be the best choice for a 400hp 351w build. Find it and show me.
  6. I agree with you on the 165 thing (they'd be my 3rd or maybe 5th choice as well - just like Max Power said); just think you need to back off on the attitude. You may know your stuff motor-wise; but you do NOT know everybody else's; assumptions and attitudes don't fly well. Just a word to the wise.
    No, I'm not being argumentative. If I was, I'd probably have gone off for a page or two on the whole "Bachelor of Science-Science" thing.
    Regarding "...where is down here?"
    <----Check my sig. A little background in AZ history and geography (Jr High stuff) should make it fairly clear.

    The rest was just for attitude's sake. Sometimes it's just good to see how you come off towards others.
  7. Just curious....where did max say it was his 3rd or 5th choice.... for 165's that is, or am I reading it wrong (I hear I have a reading comprehension problem :D ). IMO they'd be WAY lower than that, but that's just me.

    Yeah, I remeber the Gadsden purchase and think it's Yuma you're talking about, but as you stated I don't want to make any assumptions. Should I take your advice or listen to sarcastic remarks?

    BTW, what's wrong w/a BS degree? I don't get it... :shrug:
  8. Okay, I stand corrected, Max did not assign a ranking to use of the 165's on a Windsor. He merely stated that it was a choice, albeit not a good one.

    Yes, it's Yuma. Good comprehension there (no sarcasm intended).

    As for the BS degree; I believe you had typed (wait a minute, I'll look it up to get my thoughts straight)
    Okay, I was right. For me, college was a couple decades+ ago; I have never heard of a BS in such a generalized subject as "Science". Some of the applied sciences, yes; Physics, Chemistry, Biology, (my personal) Electrical Engineering, etc. But not the generalization. Perhaps curriculae have changed since the early 80's :shrug:
  9. I think StangDreamin has a really good handle on what I was saying previously.

    Just for the record, the flow numbers on AFR 165s, as per their website, look amazingly similar to Edelbrock Performers RPMs. Nobody refers to RPM heads as specific to 302 applications, and they sell a ton of em for 351 and 351 based strokers. I have RPMs on a 395 stroker, and they make gobs of torque. Not necessarily the best choice for everybody, but the numbers are interesting.

    Also, both the 165s and the 185s reach their maximum flow at about .500 lift, where they plateau. Whether your build falls on it's face at that point would depend on a variety of things, not just port flow. The 185s have the advantage of the number at .500 lift that is much bigger, of course.

    While most people would choose a 185 (or a 205) over a 165 AFR for a fresh street build on a 351 or a stroker, many choose 165s and Performer RPMs as bolt on performance items for 351s, mostly because they are available with 1.90 intakes that will not interfere with factory pistons, something the 185s cannot say. 9 times out of 10 you have to do a fresh build to get the 185s to fit because of the larger intakes.

    AFRs are flat out kickass heads. That their bottom of the line model puts out flow numbers equal to a lot of other brands mid-line model is pretty amazing.
  10. Thank you. It seemed pretty straightforward to me.... :shrug:

    'Course, if I were going for a purpose-built, gas-money-is-no-object street toy, I'd still lean towards a 67-70 with some kind of FE under the hood. Previous junkyard forays have allowed me to stumble across several 63-65 Lincolns. Hmmmmm... a real 406 (not the punched and stroked 360 original-to-the-truck block like I had) would make a great "stoplight gunslinger" - if you could keep the rear end hooked up! I know even the over-stressed 360 was great once I found the LSD chunk to go in my F100; and it could flat tow anything. Running empty? Well, I remember several guys with their little turbo T/A's and IROC Z's that wouldn't look at me the second time. :D

    So, does AFR make anything for FE's? I usually see nearly nothing from anybody except CSE and maybe Genesis as far as aluminum heads (and intakes). Am I just looking in the wrong places? :scratch:
  11. OK... so maybe it was me that flew off the handle a bit :nono: Apologies to Max. I guess we all agree it is not the best head choice, but some may want to go that route; for nearly the same cost (of the 165 & 185) a little piston notching isn't nothing for the extra 20CFM of flow IMO :D .
  12. Fair enough Dylan. When it comes to piston notching, I would rather just pull and build anyway.

    Stangdreamin, Edelbrock makes an aluminum FE RPM head that I believe is a derivative of the factory medium riser castings, but I could be mistaken. They come with 2.09 intakes and can be modified to accept 2.19s. They come with either 72cc or 76cc chambers.

    They don't give em away, that's for sure. I think they are $1500 to $1600 a set.

    I'm with ya on FE motors, I love em. I used to hace a 66 Comet Cyclone with the 390-335hp, a 69 Cougar Eliminator with the same, and a Q code 69 Mach 1. Great motors, but the engine bay space is a deal killer for me. Stroker small blocks are now capable of the displacement without the space issues. Headers on those old FEs were a nightmare.

    Still would like an FE powered Galaxie in my garage some day.....
  13. well one thing i did not see anyone mention in respect to the afr 165 vs 185 debate was port velocity, which is very important on a low rpm street motor. you guys did finally mention the piston notching argument though. my personal choice for a mild street 351w would be the "competition ported" AFR 165's, at least fo the motor i intend to build and that is in fact the particular head i plan on using. not as much for all out performance as for good performance, streetability, mileage, etc. of course the engine i plan on building will be about 375-400hp at most but still be capable of 25 mpg on the highway with an aod trans. here is the way my plan specs out

    late model roller 351w block
    cam is as yet undecided
    long rod engine using 400m rods
    AFR "competition ported" 165 heads
    as many coatings as i can afford, IE: coated piston skirts and domes, coated combustion chambers, coated bearings, headers, etc.
    holley commander 950 pro-jection 700cfm with engine timing control using TFI distributor
    MSD pro billet TFI distributor and MSD 6a ignition

    the idea is to build something comparable in performance, mileage, durability and longevity of a first gen GM LS1 but in an early mustang/cougar.

    basically i want an engine that gets excellent mileage, has good power, will last for well over 100,000 miles and can perform as well as a stock 98 or so camaro which we all know could stomp the living crap out of a stock 98 or so GT with the weak knee 4.6 sohc in stock form or even pretty much any 5.0 fox or fox-3 mustang again in stock form.

    for the engine i'm planning the 165 is actually the better choice and it should make somewhere close to 400 FWHP.

    i still need to play around with what gear ratio i want to use and match the cam with the cruise rpm of the combo but i haven't got access to any of the dyno programs at the moment to figure out what the torque curve is going to look like.
  14. Yeah, couple grand in aluminum. Lots of aluminum, to be sure, but still.... My FE's heads (and "sorta headers" exhaust manifolds) were plain old cast iron from a '68 T-Bird 390-345 horse; played he** finding brass 7/16 fine-thread pipe plugs for the thermactor ports. Don't remember what was the source for the aluminum intake; but remember the Ford logo on it and the C7xx desig - somewhat of a medium-riser. Weighed considerably less than the original C9xx 2bbl truck intake (no, I can't remember the last two letters from 24 years ago). :nonono: I thought about long-tubes for the pickup, but just never got around to spending the cash - engine bay space was definitely not a problem in the 67-72 vintage F100's, especially with manual steering :nice: Only problem was locating a drop air cleaner so the square-bore AFB I started with would clear the stock hood. Seemed a bit better clearance with the Holley 4160 when I switched.

    I'm getting this fun dream: A '62 Galaxie 2-door. Since dreams are free, let's consider an alum Genesis block, alum medium-riser heads and intake. Gas is free when dreaming, so maybe a 4150 under the teardrop hood. Or maybe a functional long scoop covering a tripower. Long tubes? Or get some clearance with long tri-y's snugged up to the prepped C6? :drool:

    Back here on earth with my {limited} disposable income and time, the planned 67-68 Pony will probably have a Windsor - love to get a FRPP 393 shortblock and "TrickFlow TW/EFI" the top-end. :D
  15. Good call, this is the exact setup I'll be building next year for my '68 hardtop :D Haven't decided yet on EEC-IV EFI or MegaSquirt though :nice:
  16. bnickel... sounds like a custom cam is in order (?). How much more flow out of the 'competition port job' do you get?
    I have a friend running stock (ported) E7's, stock 'looking' intake (shortened runners), 65 t-body, LT's, & 73 C&L, along w/a Buddy Rawls custom cam making 290/320 w/a tune. All that in a full weight, stock 93 coupe complete w/AC & PS. Nice sleeper.
    Good luck w/your combo, should be a fun car.
  17. There's a guy in Florida that will take stock E7s and do a valve/port job on them and drill steam holes so the will sit on an old (read 60's) block. He guarantees 12-sec 1/4 mile on a fox mustang with his reworked heads. He's big on the 5.0 tech forum. I'll be using his heads on my '88 when I rebuild the engine this fall.

    His heads just won on Pinks last week (yellow fox body "Tricky Ricky").
  18. For myself, I'd go with the EEC-IV. Maybe a custom tune module (troyer?) to feed the 393 properly. Try to keep the exhaust on the quiet side, so that it appears like a nice old resto-stock cruiser - with a little kick to its heels.

    If I want to experience terror in motion; I'll just climb on Tink's horse and spur the crap out of him. 25-35 mph can be pretty exciting when you're jumping bushes, ditches and fences; with the bugs smacking you in the face and the horse decides he has no brakes. And he can do that all day if you want him to - or even if you don't want him to. My hay-burner will do that, too; but you (or at least I) can stop him. With ol' Chance horse, well........

  19. I believe those are the heads. I'm thinking he's gonna hit 11's... he has one of the nicest dyno graphs. VERY little bumps, if any.
  20. A friend of mine built a low buck 393 stroker with some of the old (original) Trick Flow 5.0 heads on it. The intake was mild, like a GT40 or something, I don't recall. It made 350 HP to the wheels and had a torque curve that was more like a plateau. His full weight, full interior 91 hatch (w/ stereo) ran mid 11s with that engine and was flat out scary to ride in. So yeah, there can be benefits to running "too small" of a head.

    Actually, it helps to think about it the other way around - you're basically taking a 302 combo that makes X horsepower at Y RPM, then adding a whole bunch of cubic inches. The end result? It makes the same power as the 302, but at a lower (more streetable) RPM. The cam is also tamer due to the extra cubic inches. It takes less converter and less gear to do the same job. The engine tends to last longer due to the lower RPMs involved. It's an all around win.