Daze wrote:

BobE wrote:

If you want performance to equal that of your 289 Mustang, I’d suggest getting the power to weight ratio about the same.  I’d use 3000 lbs for the Mustang and 4000 lbs for the Galaxie.  Although this isn’t an exact science, you’ll be close.  
 

Bob you hit the nail on the head!!  The whole purpose of my question was to get feedback from others that had swapped out a 302 for a 351 and to see if those swaps showed good improvement.  I was after real world experience as to weather or not that 50 extra HP would translate to noticeable power improvement in the car.  I didn't really get the type of answer that I was looking for (actual results from a similar swap) but your idea gave me some numbers I can use to help with my decision (I love match and numbers!!)

Assuming what ever engine built will get 1 HP per cubic inch AND be built to maximize low end torque:

Mustang weight to HP with 289
2500/289=  8.65:1 #/HP

Galaxie weight to HP with 302
3500/302=  11.59:1 #/HP

Galaxie weight to HP with 351
3500/351=  9.97:1 #/HP

The 351 will not get me to the same ratio I have with the Mustang, in fact it only gets me about half way there, but there is a big enough difference between the two cars so I know there will be a noticeable improvement with (half way)


Then If I do the math in reverse (galaxie weight / Mustang ratio) I can get the actual engine size I would need to have the same performance level (roughly)

3500/8.65 = 404.62 CI

To get over 400 CI I have to go with a big block or a stroker and I don't want to do either of those things so now I just need to decide if the $ to improvement ratio is worth it for the 351.







 

You can easily get 408ci from a 351w block.  Lots of aftermarket kits are out there that are not too expensive.  Basically, they give a 4.00" stroke.  Originally, one re-machined a 400M crank and used Plymouth rods.

50vert wrote:

Michael H. wrote:

Hmmm... wonder if that explains these numbers from the bash this year???

My 289, T-5 with 500cfm 4v carb and 3.25:1 rear gears got 18mpg
CoupeDaddy's 5.0, T5 with 725cfm 4v carb and 3.73 rear gears got 21mpg

Nahh .... thats because of your tilt column chewing up all the air .... send it to me and you'll get 50 mpg. 
 

It's funny you should mention that.  For the longest time I kept feeling air blow on my legs while driving as if the driver side fresh air vent was open.  It turns out that it was blowing in through the steering column and coming out of the column at a hole where some of the wiring comes out of the column.  There is supposed to be a seal on the end of the column to prevent this, but no one seemed to reproduce the seal for the '67 tilt column.  I ordered a reproduction seal for a later year tilt column ('69 I think) to see if I could make it work... I couldn't, but I noticed that the material it was made from was very similar to pipe insulation available at any hardware store for cheap.  So, I went and bought a few different sizes of pipe insulation and was able to fashion a '67 tilt steering column seal.

So, it shouldn't be chewing up all the air anymore. 
 

lowercasesteve wrote:

You can easily get 408ci from a 351w block.  Lots of aftermarket kits are out there that are not too expensive.  Basically, they give a 4.00" stroke.  Originally, one re-machined a 400M crank and used Plymouth rods.

The problem with a stroker is I will need to use different heads.  If I build a 351 I will use the aluminum heads that are currently on the 302.  With a 58cc chamber and smaller valves they will get me great compression and low end torque on the 351 BUT if I go any bigger than a 351 I will be forced to buy different heads with bigger valves and a larger combustion chamber.  the kits may be cheep but this project would get really expensive really fast.  
 

Nice score!  Any chance it's a roller cam engine?... I know my friend has a '94 F150 with a 302 that came with a roller cam.

you cant argue the added displacement of a 351w, more torque, more horse power = a happy galaxy 

DC wrote:

The Galaxie I had (1966) was powered by a Big block and it was just right!

​Like I said, there is no replacement for displacement! The 66 Galaxie we had with the big block was fun to drive, it worked very well. I still run across old cars for a few hundred dollars with and FE big block which would be quite nice in your car since you are taking it apart anyway.  Just consider all the options before you decide.
 

DC wrote:

DC wrote:

The Galaxie I had (1966) was powered by a Big block and it was just right!

​Like I said, there is no replacement for displacement! The 66 Galaxie we had with the big block was fun to drive, it worked very well. I still run across old cars for a few hundred dollars with and FE big block which would be quite nice in your car since you are taking it apart anyway.  Just consider all the options before you decide.
 

I don't want to go away from the windsor family.  The T5 I have will not easily bolt up to an FE or 460 type big block, my headers and exhaust are set up for a windsor, the rack and pinion I put in was designed and built around a windsor and may not clear a different engine family, the coil over front suspension I built and installed was set up with a spring rate specific to a small block with an entirely aluminum top end, AND I already have all the "go fast" parts for a 351.  There is no contest here, the amount of money and work required to drop in a big block into the car would be significantly more than what the 351 is going to take.  I bet it would still be cheeper and 10X easier even if I bought a stroker kit and a new set of aluminum heads for the 351 to make it a "big block".  Also like I said above everyone around here thinks their junk is gold plated so finding a big block at a good price is not likely to happen.
 

Wow, note to self: load up my junk and travel to Montana for a month to sell it for 5x what its worth on Craigslist.  Crazy how much stuff like that varies by location.  A typical running SBF 5.0 or 5.8 here goes for $200-$250.  Most junkyards are happy to be rid of them because they are considered outdated and hard to sell. 

I love the FE engine, but in your case having already invested considerable money into the Windsor setup the 351 is the way to go.  FEs were torque monsters for sure, but heavy in stock form.  With aluminum heads and intake they are only marginally heavier than a Windsor, but now the costs really start to add up because no Ford is cheaper to build than a Windsor.  Yep, one day I'll build that 445 FE stroker I really want, but for now its a stroked 5.0 for me. 

The weight difference between a 302 vs 351 is approx. 65 lbs. Without doing any "figger'in" that makes the swap even less "noticeable" when comparing torque between the 2. Still a good swap IMO butt........a swap to a 408 is EVEN BETTER for the bux!

True......the Alum heads from the 302 to a 408 is not "ideal" as far as total performance yada-yada-yada butt....since you're not racing the old gal...........who keerz?!  Cam and carb accordingly and it will be a Monster from 1000-5000rpm!!  Right where you drive it 99% of the time.

FYI.......from what "I've-heard/read"......10:1 CR & up with a camshaft of wide LSA and decent duration.......equals  pinging problems/timing issues  at lower RPM's!  Your 3.25:1 gear will help a lot butt....I would  look close and talk with a few cam grinders. (You do know you can get a custom grind from some grinders cheaper than some "off-the-shelf" sticks from other grinders)  Same quality just the size of the company differs. Check Delta Cams........Howard Cams... and others for advice/prices/etc.     Jus say'in.

Anxious to here if its a roller of FT.!!!!!!
6sal6

Last edited by 6sally6 (2/09/2018 10:44 AM)

 

I picked up a 1995 Roller Truck 5.8 last fall for $500.  Got the whole truck and have been parting it out most of the winter.  Mine was a roller too.  Kind of going the same route with the engine as you.  Just debating on what cam and heads to go with.