302 vs 351W

[85_Ranger4x4]

I know the 351W is wider and taller. Anyone know how much taller it is at the exhaust? Any deeper between the oil pan and the engine mounts? The exhaust is tight to the floor now on the PS side and the oil pan is tight to the crossmember... I don't have a ton of wiggle room there.

Any 351W header pics (especially Hedman 88400's) would be much appreciated too.

 

[faststang90]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ford_ranger12]

I think it's 1" up and out but I could be wrong. If you look at the water pumps water ports on a 302 they're flush with the head mounting surface and on the 351 they're about an inch higher pushing the heads out wider. And I think the oil pan is about 3/4" deeper than the 302. But really I've had a 302 in my ranger and a 351, with the 351 being spaced up 1" from the engine mounts for oil pan clearance it seems like any header I tried on the 302 would still work on the 351. I've never had the 88400's but if I wasn't so determined to get longtubes on my setup I think they would fit no problem. My $.02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bobbywalter]

iirc, with cobra r headers it was close to one and a three quarter wider from 302 to 351 best i could measure, one measurement figured over 2 inches with a different style header.... i was able to use the same flex crossover i had once loosened and repositioned 302-351 in my particular chassis..

i roll the engine up on the drivers side and er notch/scallop the frame rail on the drivers side compared to 302..

passenger rail gets rolled down and has adequate clearance with the r headers or log headers combined with fox/351 pan.


i have seen many solid mount setups with the 351 and the mn12 longtubes with notching of rails on drag trucks in 2wd in recent years...but thats hard core shit that really dont apply to typical swaps.


depending on your hp goals, using and modding the the sn95 or mn12 style manifolds can get ya by

both are restrictive for a good breathing 351 though.

do you have a 351 already or just thinking about it?

 

[bobbywalter]

forgot about mounts...mount wise your indexing the same...timing cover ect depending on years and fead you want to use.

 

[Grunizzle]

I have a 351w and 88400 headers in mine, I'll get some pictures for you. I have zero modifications to the frame rails just a small dent on the passenger side floor pan

 

[Grunizzle]

Kind of hard to capture everything in pics
Passenger side

Driver

 

[Grunizzle]

I made my own motor mounts, its as low as possible without the oil pan hitting the k member and as far back as possible. I had to clearance the driver side firewall slightly for the head

 

[bobbywalter]

when running minimal or no bodylift like you guys, thats the one place the early mustang/comet type headers can get ya. my floors were HOT. run long enough in a oem floors condition it cracks the floor and or burns up the sound proofer in a nasty way depending on power and tune...


one thing i have learned over the years, most of the underslung headers (#1 and #4 tucked) will accommodate this swap though.


but, for me......the dump on the sn95 and mn12 style manifolds on the passenger side is worth the frame mods from a workable exhaust perspective. its a preference thing so no rules here to be sure.

obviously with the previous clearancing from the mid/long tubes from years prior are skewing things a bit, but it puts the dump in the exhaust in a much better position to keep the floors cooler....a simple zip cut to an existing hole and a few minutes with a 15 in crescent wrench to roll the rail down slightly makes for all the clearance necessary.


the drivers side is only done for frame flex compensation...and i regularly destroyed the engine mounts so the more room the better. fawking thing twists up like a slinky. or at least back then it did...i have custom supports and the flat bed now that stabilized the frame a bit. but most of the early swaps i worked on in the late 80's early 90's had lots of issues with rub and leaky flat gasket headers....often times it was from the amount of flex that flat plate style mounting on stock 2.9 mounts....lot of years to learn the little things overall.

the early mustang/comet style 88400 dumps i would wager are far and away the easiest most cost effective setup at this time. really they have been all along.

flowtech makes some with larger primaries amongst others so you can put out a 400 hp 351 pretty painlessly if you want to. just depends on how you choose to mount the engine as to what you can get away with...of course stock ttb frame can cause other issues for ttb/tib guys but those with custom a arm or sas front suspension, things are opened up and much better for choices.




in your case with a classic style setup....the 88400 may be the best solution.

 

[Grunizzle]

Good point with the floor heat bobby. I have removed all the sound deadner and put monstaliner on the floor. The passenger foot well would still get very hot. I put some adhesive heat shield in that areas and also wrapped the exhaust on the passenger side, as you can kind of see in the picture. That helped a lot with the heat control. Floor still gets warm but not too bad

 

[bobbywalter]

oh, its definitely livable and mitigated to tolerable with the heat wrap....but here in the rust belt its going to murder the head pipe with wrap...but even that is tolerable as most dont drive the miles i do....should get a good 5 years out of that, a well built bolt in replacement piece makes it a non issue.


just look at your frame from where the cat was with the v6....



overall, you like em better then the log style for availability, and i do think they are the best option going for cost and ease of use. with a 2-3 in body lift its a no brainer.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Just spitballing ideas.

This is what my 88400's look like with my '87 302.

I know the exhaust is tight on the passenger side. The heat shield is dented up so it doesn't rattle on the downpipe. Down pipe could probably be shaped differently and we won't have the huge C5 bellhousing to worry about much longer. Oil pan is tight on the pivot brackets and the crossmember.

Thanks for the posts so far, I was surprised to check back and see it had two pages.

For power really I can't say my 302 is that underpowered, while it does run great it does use some oil so I was thinking if I am going to find another engine to rebuild I oughtta check into a 351 while I was at it. Aiming for more low end torque (especially since I am losing my torque converter) than high end for racing. It will take more work in that the balance will be different and I will need a different intake and dizzy.