Projects 302 vs 351W 1950 Custom

Crazy Steve gave you the best skinny, and let me chime in with some more having done this swap. While I think keeping the flattie would be cool, 350 HP requires upgrade. The 302 will fit easier because of the oil pan. The 351 rear sump pan will hit the drag link unless you shift the engine back by modifying the firewall or dropping the link. A fox body pan on a 302 clears fine. I used a motor mount kit from Butch's Cool Stuff, but you could make your own. You can use the factory Z-bar, but it does not mate up with the block pivot, so I would try to find a later 302 with the dipstick hole in the block and fab your own pivot or use an aftermarket one. An oil filter adapter will not work, but using a shorter filter such as a Fram PH16 or equivalent clears well. Either motor will require a rear axle upgrade. Search for this topic thread and you will get the best options. Should you want any pictures, PM me.

 

A 351 is a little taller and one inch wider. In 69 a 2 barrel 351 was rated 40 horse more than a 2 barrel 302

 

....and if you do get an early-mid 80s 351 with a dipstick that attaches to the oil pan I've been only able to find one that fits and it's like $90 and braided stainless.

 

350 horsepower from 302 cubic inches? That's surely possible, but remember that 1 hp per cu inch was the magic number up until 1957 or so, and is still a milestone that marks a serious performance engine vs a nice runner. Pushing that up to 1.16 hp per cu in is pretty significant. Certainly possible, but that's a pretty hot engine. Getting 350 hp out of a 351 should be significantly easier.

I saw this article online on building a 302 for that kind of power, this may help:
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/1807-budget-350-horse-302-part-2-speed-parts-for-power

Or you could buy a crate motor ready to run, but that's some serious coinage:
https://enginefactory.com/ford-performance-engines/302-ford-350-hp/

 

It may just be me but nothing sounds as good as a well built flathead.

 

Thunder road ford had a olds . Watch the movie, you'll be hooked.lol

 

Pretend you're robert Mitchem!!!

 

If we are talking '50 Ford here the SBC looks like it was meant to be in there. I am not saying this from a Chevy guy point of view, it is just the truth.

My personal preference for the the SBF is the 302, but I am an odd duck when it comes to engine choice as a rule. The 351 is the most obvious choice when it comes to grunt, if you are shooting at 350 HP, one horse per cube is easy. I would have to agree with @Crazy Steve when it comes to Ford engine options. if you don't have a mill and are looking look for the bigger motor.

I would loose the front sump pan before making the swap and find a rear sump truck pan. They are not hard to come by and you can buy them new cheap enough.

None of the above engine options are going to be a bolt in all take fabrication.

 

Yep!!!!
The SBF is long. Heck with all the spacers and junk off the front a SBF is about the same length as a 300 Six! A 80s + 5.0 with all the serpentine stuff may actually be longer the a 60s and 70s 300 with V belts.
You know, the 300 Six is a mid sump engine and it may actually fit very well in a Shoebox with the least modification.

 

It seems the 351W just doesn't get the respect it deserves... Introduced in '69 in both 2V and 4V versions, when the Cleveland came out in '70 it got pushed aside and became a mid-sized lo-po option and was pretty much forgotten by the aftermarket; it didn't have a factory 4V carb again until the late '70s. The Cleveland madness ensued for years, even though in several ways it was an inferior design. The Cleveland low-deck version was only produced for 5 years, disappearing out of cars but living on in trucks in the high-deck 351M/400. It should be noted that when Ford updated their NASCAR block design, they switched to the Windsor architecture with it's superior oiling and cooling systems. The only Cleveland-only design bits that made it through the redesign was the main bearing size and the deck height, and those became optional.

And the guys advocating building a stroker 302 over a 351... I just don't get that. Spend more money to get the same thing? I suppose if you're really space-limited that's viable, but swapping into a '40s or '50s-era car isn't the case. There's actually more options for the 351; if you really want to lo-buck it and aren't planning on spinning the motor at race speeds, a $300 3.85" stroker crank with OEM 351 rods and off-t******lf 302 pistons will get you 392 inches and a great mid-range, all the way up to a crate 460" monster. All the other bits that fit a 302 will work just fine on a 351...

If the 351W has a current flaw, it's the limited availability of intake manifolds, particularly if you want multiple carbs. And if in the market for one, look at trucks/vans/Broncos; the 351 was discontinued in cars in '81 (except for not-available-to-the-general-public Crown Vic cop cars) but stayed in the trucks etc until '96. Nearly all will have the rear-sump pans by the way, not just the 4WD versions.

 

Also if you do go with a 351 check the 83-86 broncos and trucks some came with the a 351W HO, bigger cam and a holley 4bbl, only down side is getting rid of all the smog ****

Sent from my moto z4 using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

Decisions decisions For a fact the 351 will fit the engine cavity easily The fifty mercury I drove for years fit will along with the SBF C-6. For now I'm working on putting a Cad 390 together for the Mercury I'm driving now (Old School). If the Ford is your way to go? 1969-72 351 Windsor with the SBF C-6 would be my choice. My $0.02

 

My avatar came with a 351W. No complaints although it’s not too fuel efficient. Running a C4 with 3:00 rear. Would like an AOD but they are really big.

 

When I changed my 3w over to an AOD and removed the C4, I didn't have to modify the floor at all. I did build a new rear mount though. That 3:00 will not be good with an AOD though, I have a 3:50 rear and its still too high. I'm turning 1700 RPM's at 70 MPH and I do get good gas mileage.

 

I had an O/T Crown Vic Police Interceptor. 351W/AOD/3.08 Posi. If it was good enough for the Cops, figured it would be good enough for me.

 

The 300 6 is a damned good engine. I have seen them pulling stumps or scary fast. Very versatile. I never considered trying to stuff one in a shoe box. You may have to m***age the firewall a little bit but that is what a 36 ounce ball peen was made for.

Here is a side trip from the original question but you stirred a memory that I need to get out to make room for more stuff to think about. The 300 has factory 6" rods and with just minor machine work they work real well in an SBC. Obviously it takes more then one junked out motor but it is an option.

 

Wow, that car must have been idling at 70 mph.