Mustang Forums   Mustang Classifieds   Photo Gallery   Calendars   Search   Live Chat   Contact MF   Sponsors
  Mustang Recalls   Mustang TSB's   News   Timeslips   Timeline   Wallpaper   Member List   Register   Login

RE: 351W vs 390

  Printable Version
Mustang >> Ford Mustang Tech >> Classic Mustangs >> RE: 351W vs 390 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
[Poll]

351W vs 390


351 W
  48% (27)
390
  51% (29)


Total Votes : 56


(last vote on : 10/3/2007 8:40:03 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/25/2005 2:16:08 PM   
fordfe428c

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/25/2005
From: springfield,mo
Status: offline
390s are not slow just put in a good gear and and 390 4v intake and you will see that is not a dog.give me that 390 and i can give a 351 w a hell of time.

_____________________________

david hoyt

(in reply to 67coupe)
Post #: 41
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/25/2005 2:36:41 PM   
fordfe428c

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/25/2005
From: springfield,mo
Status: offline
ok if a 390 is a dog how about this 390 stock hp at 315 to 345 in a 66 to 67 thundrbrid no100 shot of nos does a 7 flat in the 1/8 mile over 100 mph.and that thundrid wt is 4700 bl car lets see a stock 351 w do that,, i have a 72 torino 4dr with mild 351 4v with a street master intake ported heads heades cam can only do 1368 1000 ft with the 2.75 gears i jut put in the 3.91.. and i have a 3700lb 68 galaixe xl with a very mild 422 fe dose 13.33 @111 mph 1/4 mile on street tires no nos the 422 is a 390 60 over 428 crank stock rods pistions heads intke 390 performer.c6 thans. shorty header 750 holley 3.91s now you tell if fes are god you need to go to the super stock races.

_____________________________

david hoyt

(in reply to 67coupe)
Post #: 42
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/25/2005 2:42:11 PM   
fordfe428c

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/25/2005
From: springfield,mo
Status: offline
your right about that . when people say that 390s are dog

_____________________________

david hoyt

(in reply to 69FECoupe)
Post #: 43
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/26/2005 1:35:36 AM   
fordfe428c

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/25/2005
From: springfield,mo
Status: offline
here some info on 351 w the 69 2v was 250 hp the 4v 290 hp, the 70 351 w 250 hp 2v the 4v 300 hp. the 71 351w 2v 240 hp.the 72 351w 153 hp,
the 390 2v 265 hp-4v320hp.69. 70 390 2v 265. 71 390 2v 255 hp..the 61 390 4v 300hp-375-6v 3 /2bbl 401hp .the 62 390 was 300-375.the 63 390 300-330-340hp.64 390 300hp.65 390 300-330hp the 66 390 2v 265,4v 315-335-the 67 390 2v 270-4v 315-320hp 68 390 2v 265hp 4v 335hp..the 406 fe 300-425hp
the 410 fe 330-425hp the 42fe 335-over 400hp the 427fe 390hp-500 hp the 427 sohc over 675 hp 8v 625 4v..the max hp on a stock 351 w 300 hp.the
the stock 390 max hp over 400hp.stock.so if you say the 390 is a dog take a look at this now the 360 is kind of a dog with 250 2v 8.1 comp.the 351 w is dog to with the 2v 153 to 250 hp.you got to do a lot of work to a 351 w heads suck small valves small exh ports the fe heads are better big valves 1.57 int 2.04 exh this is the small valve for the 390 the 351 w is 1.54 exh -int 1.84 stock the port size 1.76w/h 1.94 int/exh w .96/1.24.the 390 port size w 1.34/h1.93 int
exh w 1.28 h 1.84 is the smallest port heads.for the fe 390 the 427 medium riser valves 1.733.exh/int 2.195.. the port w 1.34 h 2.34 int exh 1.28 w/h 1.84.

_____________________________

david hoyt

(in reply to Sprint 200)
Post #: 44
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/26/2005 1:46:13 AM   
fordfe428c

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/25/2005
From: springfield,mo
Status: offline
i think your talking about the 360 or 352 and the 390 2v i think you need to look deeper in to the 390 befor you call it a dog i know that that a 390 will give the 351 w a all of a run in the stock trim .

_____________________________

david hoyt

(in reply to horseshoeing)
Post #: 45
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/26/2005 11:27:17 AM   
uwti

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 6/29/2005
Status: offline
uwti's photo gallery
A big block adds more value to your car! even if it's not original! Although a 351 is easier to find parts for and maintain (and can be built to be as powerful), A 390 or even a 428 would add thousands of dollars when you go to sell the car! Many people want Big Block cars!

_____________________________


1967 GT500, 428 Engine, 4 speed, Indigo Blue! Gallery Here
http://www.mustangforums.com/albumphoto.asp?albumid=344&asortType=6&apage=1

(in reply to Sprint 200)
Post #: 46
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/28/2005 10:48:39 AM   
horseshoeing


Posts: 590
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline
You guys can have the 390. No thanks! I would not have one in a Mustang. Give me a 302 boss. I did't mean to make anyone mad, but 390s in my book are great truck motors. They are to heavy and you got to do to much to them to make them a hotrod motor. The heads just suck on them. If I was going to put a big block in a carit would be a 429SCJ. Now that was a fast motor. Anything else would be a small block.

_____________________________

1966 Ford Mustang 289 hopped-up, ford 9" , 4 wheel disk brakes , HD T5 and BANNED from XOC.(Xterra Owners Club)

(in reply to uwti)
Post #: 47
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/28/2005 3:15:13 PM   
eZ


Posts: 1210
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: So. California
Status: offline
how well would a mustang handle with a 390 vs a mustang with a 302?

(in reply to horseshoeing)
Post #: 48
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/28/2005 5:17:07 PM   
dodgestang

 

Posts: 1480
Joined: 11/23/2004
Status: offline
dodgestang's photo gallery

quote:

ORIGINAL: eZ

how well would a mustang handle with a 390 vs a mustang with a 302?


They both handle terribly.

And since this is my first post in this thread I will comment that I don't talk horsepower without a real world dyno sheet to back up my claims ;) Cleveland Rocks , but a 390 can be fun too, so can a 351w. In direct comparisons, the same exact car will have better handling charateristics with the lighter motor, but it can be compesated for with carefully selected front and rear shocks and springs and some tasteful, lost cost mods (unless you want to go full bore aftermarket and put on a tip top Griggs Racing Setup ;) )


_____________________________

Nick
65FB 408c AOD D.T.


11.99 Goal achieved!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGc8Wr9HvfA

(in reply to eZ)
Post #: 49
Compare your apples and your oranges - 7/9/2006 9:50:52 PM   
GunMuse

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 7/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

It might interest you to know that the 390 was not designed as a truck motor and in fact it was modified strengthen it for truck use.


Actually the 2V heads and 2 Barrel carb became the "Truck" motors as trucks don't need to turn quick RPM nor breath easily.

For all the number quoters out there Please keep in mind that it was very common to UNDERRATE performance of an engine.

HP HP HP the only people who talk HP is Drag racers and small block owners.

HP=TORQUE * RPM / 5252

Torque is the ability to do work. The reason we measure HP at the rear wheels these days is because Rice burners and small block guys were quoting these HUGE HP numbers by simply increasing Red line and shifting the peak point up the curve a bit. When in reality FINAL DRIVE will dictate how much HP is actually on the ground.

So

390 producing 400lb of torque at 3300 = 251HP at the crank
351C producing 400lb of torque at 5500 = 418 hp at the crank (Most of us have seen enough crates to know this is about right)

Now take that both vehicles weight the same and have the same tire size.

If you have small block on your brain when you build your car and put a 4.11 gear ratio in the rear end to (hmmph apply more torque to the road) Your 390 is going to be a tire smoking no speed having dog. One that will make you look years younger on launch but not have an end of the track pull.

Take my 66Gt came from the factory with a 9inch 2.65:1 rear end. 3300 in fictional tall gear of 1:1 My rear end's rpm is 1245RPM
A 351C with a 4.11 at 5500 is 1338.00 RPM

If both cars are at Peek powr output of their engines 400lb of torque and the drive line lets say eats up 70lbs of torque on each.

390 High gear peak power output applied to road = 78 HP

351C High gear peak power output applied to road = 84 hp

So on paper the 351C becomes the victor but we don't live in a paper world.

My 352 I produces 550lb of torque at 4800 rpm and is a pump gas daily driver of an engine.

That's 502HP at the crank.
Thats 102HP to the road in high gear 20% more than a very well built small block.

The 351C can match this with only 480ftlbs of torque @5500 rpm This is EXPENSIVE HP so we start talking about $10,000 engines versus $3500 engines.

Here is the kicker UNDER LOAD a big block can achieve rpm Faster than a small block with equal load because of the big blocks higher rolling mass and heavier flywheel allows for a better shift on a manual tranmission.

Thus you will see Big block cars (Like my fairlane) giving up 800lbs to smaller cars and still being competitive.

Also remember that suped up 351C won't be using pump gas and damn sure won't be getting groceries on saturday afternoon. Thus is why big blocks bring more money and are more desirable. Its solid power, lower cost to achieve, easier to Add torque to the engine through out the rpm range, and when all is said and done its streetable.

Lets not forget longevity of our investment. The number of passes a big blck can make on the strip versus a small block is usually 4 to 6 times as many before needing to rebuild.




_____________________________

Donny Lairson

1966 Fairlane GT with a 352I and MPFI

(in reply to 69FECoupe)
Post #: 50
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/9/2006 10:28:33 PM   
rigwelder

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 7/5/2006
Status: offline
if your building a race car get the 390, if your not buy what you can afford. the 351w has plenty of power,parts are easier to get and cheaper. in other words if the 351w pleases you. dont worry about the other guy might think.

(in reply to Sprint 200)
Post #: 51
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/9/2006 10:29:52 PM   
EmperorOfChicken


Posts: 2091
Joined: 5/16/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
I said 390 cuz its bigger

_____________________________



(in reply to rigwelder)
Post #: 52
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/10/2006 12:02:34 AM   
GunMuse

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 7/9/2006
Status: offline
Just trying to break down that bigger=better thinking. A bigger HP number doesn't equal a faster car.

I compared a Stock 390 to a to a very nice crate motor in my example.

It would interest most people to know that Mr. Shelby had a falling out with ford over the use of the 429 in the Cobra. He wanted the 352 I with better flowing heads.

While on paper the 352 gave up some HP to the 429 yet it reved much quicker as well as higher and the loss of HP on paper would of been made up by the faster pull through the gears in the super light car.

It was after this suggested design that I built this 352 for my 390GT The bonus comes in moderizing the fuel system

16 MPG city and 27 MPG highway on a 12.4 second car

I have seen a california write up where the guys Mustang was at 600hp and 31 MPG by using the new triton motor's coil over plug ignition system for individual cylinder tuning.

It would also surprise most people to find that the 352 I heads had BIGGER ports than the 390GT's Stock head did.

In fact on this build I wound up using 360 pistons (.50 over) this gave me an "over square" build which is excellent reving engine so much so that I have am looking for a rev limiter now to prevent "mistakes".

My machinist did a through bore of my oil galley as the FE blocks were drilled from both sides and all blocks oil galleys had the holes offset. We also drilled the heads and plugged the oil getting to valves and reduce that monstor oil port down to .080 to prevent hydralic lock during long upper rpm runs.

My toss up came at the point of whether to keep the 3 speed that came with the GT or move to a 4 speed transmission. On paper its looking like the 4 speed winds up being a "small block think" item as well. So on this build I am thinking of sticking with the 3 speed that was orginal equipment and let the fast RPM's and big torque pull me through the gears

_____________________________

Donny Lairson

1966 Fairlane GT with a 352I and MPFI

(in reply to EmperorOfChicken)
Post #: 53
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/10/2006 12:15:58 AM   
fast66


Posts: 499
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline
I just wanted to make a small point. When talking about a long stroke motor. It is usually defined as a long stroke, if the stroke is longer than the bore diameter. Ie the motor is over or under square. Its not the length of the stroke in isolation that determines a long or short stroke.
Thats all.

(in reply to GunMuse)
Post #: 54
RE: 351W vs 390 - 7/10/2006 9:43:40 AM   
JBradley500

 

Posts: 613
Joined: 2/5/2005
From: UPSTATE NEW YORK
Status: offline
The windsor wasn't initally intended to be a race engine. The one you would have bought would probably of had 200 hp and 225 ft lbs. More than likely the 390 will be 275-300 hp and 350-375 ft. lbs. If you arent going to mod and race the engine, you made a good choice. That 390 will get you in motion alot quicker than a stock-truck windsor.

FE for life yo (besides a 408 cleavor)

_____________________________



(in reply to fast66)
Post #: 55
RE: 351W vs 390 - 12/7/2006 1:44:22 PM   
68XR7


Posts: 444
Joined: 11/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69FECoupe

I see the rocket scientists have spoken. What's interesting is that I don't disagree with them with regard to a 351w. However, anyone who calls a 390 a "dog" or a "boat anchor" knows nothing about them. And BTW, stroking is nothing new, people were dropping 428 cranks in 390's 35 years ago. You get a 410. And for all intents and purposes, a 390 IS a 427, but then I'm sure you knew that. Anyhow thanks for the education and enlightenment.


Amen brother! Back in the day, when there were still a ton of 390s (as well as Clevelands) you would never have called one a boat anchor! They were big, I'll give ya that, but they would go! A friend had one in a '66 'Stang that was WICKED! Also, I don't know if historical correctness means anything here, but whenever I see a car that is using a motor that was not originally offered for it, I think EEW...That ones been F*ck*d with.

(in reply to 69FECoupe)
Post #: 56
RE: 351W vs 390 - 12/7/2006 1:51:52 PM   
eZ


Posts: 1210
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: So. California
Status: offline
why not get a 351 stroked to a 396?

(in reply to horseshoeing)
Post #: 57
RE: 351W vs 390 - 12/7/2006 1:53:24 PM   
rwh129


Posts: 825
Joined: 3/6/2006
Status: offline
Go with the Big Block 390.
Everyone seems to own a 351W
Be different


_____________________________

In my stable:
1972 Grande 302
1972 Convertible 351C
1992 GT Convertible
2001 GT Convertible

(in reply to horseshoeing)
Post #: 58
Login OR Register now to post a reply to this forum topic.
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

 

 
Mustang Forum >> Ford Mustang Tech >> Classic Mustangs
Jump to:
Forum Rules & FAQ
Today's Posts
Most Active Topics
RSS Feeds
Make A Donation

Mustangs:
Classic Mustang
Mustang II
Fox Body Mustang
sn95 Mustang
New Edge Mustang
s197 Mustang
Mustang Clubs
2007 GT500 Mustang
2009 Mustang
Ford Mustang Prices


Featured Sponsors
Advertising Info

Top 10 Posters
pro50sc17932
nanaki14694
88bluegt14536
dan04cobra14535
addermk214016
ride of the 13720
hotrods_n_bo13332
2000gt4.612516
mustangman0211995
1slo8511780

New Vendors
Extreme Dimension
BMR Fabrication
Year One
Auto Badges
Trickflow
Speedware Motorsports
LTM Global
Late Model Restoration
Southern Mustang Parts
BrandMotion

MustangForums.com is not affiliated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.