Hot Rod Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I rebuilt my 69 351C about 3000 miles ago and kind of expected more out of it. was wandering if any experts could give me any input as to what I might have mismatched as far as parts or decisions on the build that might have made it better. take it easy on me it was my first build other than stock and cam specs baffle me.

69 351C bored .030
10:1 flat top pistons
1969 2v heads rebuilt stock 78cc approx.
Crane cam sheet says ([email protected] [email protected] 484 / exhaust @cam [email protected] 510 advertised duration IN 262 / EX 272) its basiclly an rv cam according to summit I think.
Crane roller rockers (pedestal type not the full roller system)
edelbrock rpm manifold dual plane
edelbrock 650 mech secondaries
Hedmann headers with flowmasters dual full exhaust with crossover
C4 tranny with b&m shift kit street/strip version
stock converter
8" rear with 3.00 gears and no posi

all this is in a 70 montego that weighs 3620 with me and a full tank and 275/50/15's on the ground. best run was 15 flat. on the dyno it rated at 260 best HP / 330 best TQ at the wheels. do these numbers seem right for what I have or have I made a miscalculation on something? thanks for the input
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Questions?

I dont know if you will even bother reading this since its coming from a "kid"......but.....to my knowledge.......there were and are no 69 351C blocks.......the 351C was introduced in 1970 where as all 351's before that were 351W...or windsor.....as for the intake manifold your running......i have the edelbrock catalog in front of me as i type and there is no Performer RPM manifold available for the 351C.....perhaps you are running a windsor and not aware????........if you need any help identifying or comparing a 351C to a 351W just ask me.......I have a 1973 Mustang Mach 1 with a 351C so needless to say that i did all the research i could on that engine and i know it very thoroughly....like i said if you need any help.....just ask
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I'm absolutely positive its a cleveland. it also has a mallory unilite distributor in it. the intake is a performer model no. 2750 for the cleveland 2v heads to allow for a 4v carb. the only reason I say it is a 69 is because of the time stamps on the casts. they are dated in october of 69 if I remember correctly. they did however come out of a 70 Cyclone. so as far as the dates you may be correct. but it is defintely a cleveland no doubt. Thanks for the reply heres a pic
 

·
aka Duke of URL
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
I think you need a lower rear gear and more camshaft. Of course with the cam comes a new torque convertor and so on. How fast did you want it to go?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
Do you know your true static compression ratio? With those heads it's likely low . Even if you were at "0" deck clearance, the 78cc heads would give less than 9.0:1 cr.

What's the part # of the pistons?

Did you do any tuning while on the dyno?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
No, I didnt get to do any tuning while on the dyno. it was pretty much a free rush sort of thing. as far as the pistons they were the ones advertised in the summit rebuild kit as 10:1 the cheapest kit. I didnt want higher because of gas or lower because of performance. I believe they are stock replicas but stock was listed as 9:5 according to old brochures. I do know they were completely flat no dish or dome, just indents for the valves to clear. do you do a dry or wet compression check to find out? and as far as what I whant to do is to be able to break 100 in the 1/4. at maybe a 13.5 would make me happy. I was hoping that maybe a posi 3.73 or 3.80 ratio would get me there without tearing into the engine. my best run a stated was a 15 flat @ 93mph. but does my setup seem to match I dont have any conflicting parts? like carb or cam or something. does my performance numbers seem to go well with that build.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
You can't accurately determine static compression based on cranking pressure.

You've got to have some basic specs: piston compression height,
deck clearnace, compressed thickness of the head gasket.....

Most 351C from the factory had the piston down the bore. So as I said, even if you had a "0" deck clearance and a .042 gasket, the 78cc heads give you approx 8.8:1 static compression at best.

This link has a very basic static compression ratio calculator:

http://www.fordmuscle.com/calculators/compression.shtml

But, you need to know some basic specs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
aaahhhh, I gotcha. ya so its probably 8.8, as far as all the specs of gaskets and deck heighth. to be exact. I dont know. its all stock with a plain jane gasket set. stock deck heighth, stock crank, stock everything except the cam, rockers, dist, intake and carb. sorry about that.
 

·
brains
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
With that horsepower and 3.00 gears your lucky to be running 15's. I would try something in the 3.50 - 3.70 range.
Also those motors have ports big enough to drop golf balls through them, I would go with a bigger cam and put those large ports to some use.

Ben
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
brainsboy said:
........I would go with a bigger cam and put those large ports to some use.
He needs more compression before he thinks about more cam.

My guess is that the piston is in fact down the bore some so the 8.8:1 is generous.
 

·
I need a bucket of arc sparks
Joined
·
895 Posts
If you want to boost compression on your engine and not use the monster port 4v heads, look for some closed chamber 302 Australian Cleveland heads. They have the small combustion chambers and the 2v ports. I have seen them on Ebay go for as little as $50 a pair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
onebadmerc said:
If you want to boost compression on your engine and not use the monster port 4v heads, look for some closed chamber 302 Australian Cleveland heads. They have the small combustion chambers and the 2v ports. I have seen them on Ebay go for as little as $50 a pair.
This is probably what I'd do first........but $50 is a bit much to hope for these days. ;)

Here are a couple of examples:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33617&item=7920668150&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

These heads would of course need to have some money put in them. Add that to the core cost and you're talking some $$$.

Also:

http://www.powerheads.com/351c.html

These might be overkill, but if you look at what has gone into them and the flow numbers they advertise, it's a serious alternative.

There are also some aftermarket aluminum 351C available now. But they are very high dollar.

As the saying goes.....Performance costs money. How fast do you want to go? :thumbup:
 

·
brains
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
I would work with what you have. If your just looking for a little more power then your not going to need to change your compression ratio. Im not sure where joe got under 9:1 but your compression is probably going to be pretty close to 9.1:1 to 9.5:1. This already takes in account for a LOW deck height, larger 4.1" dia head gaskets and valve reliefs. With 9:1 you may not have the camshaft selection you would with 10:1 but there are still lots of cams that will suit your needs for what you have.

Where the obvious and quick answer for everyone to say is more compression, you still have a great motor to work with only 3000 miles on it. You have many other options to get you closer to where you want, that dont need you to dig into the heart of the motor. Unless your looking for 10's 11's 12's in the quarter you can work with what you have.

Ben
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Thanks, Im not looking for a 10-12 second car. this was my first car from 17 years ago and I have already rebuilt it and built the engine. just wanted to know if my setup seemed good as far as cam and such. also wanted to know if possibly a different rear would make that much difference to get me to possibly a 13.5. it is also something I take on small state trips so I built it for driving more than racing. I appreciate all the input. I figure when my sone becomes 16 then we will redo it for the track.
 

·
brains
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
One thing to mention other then gears and cam, is an exhaust plate. Looking at the cleveland heads you would never guess the exhaust ports had problems with flow, because they are so big, but infact the angle and curve of the exhaust ports causes some problems. One of the tricks with these heads is to use an exhaust plate. These actually block part of the lower port and will not only create more torque but increase horsepower. These plates are pretty cheap and just drop in between the headers and head.


Ben
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
even on the 2v heads? where or who sales these exhaust plates? does it effect the upper range of the engine as far as rpms?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
Do the math:

4.030 bore
3.50 stroke
78cc head
0 deck
.042 compressed gasket
-6cc flat top with valve reliefs

Approx 8.8:1 static compression

Throw in the fact that the piston is probably below the deck and you've got even less.

That's where I got my take on the cr.
 

·
brains
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
mstngjoe said:
Do the math:

4.030 bore
3.50 stroke
78cc head
0 deck
.042 compressed gasket
-6cc flat top with valve reliefs

Approx 8.8:1 static compression

Throw in the fact that the piston is probably below the deck and you've got even less.

That's where I got my take on the cr.
Looks like we were running different numbers. Most of the cheaper head gaskets are closer to .036-.038 compressed, except for the SVO or felpro #1013. Also I think you will find most of the Cleveland heads if you cc them are closer to 75-76cc's and if they have been milled are even less. The program I used also includes ring land height, piston top dia, head gasket dia, which all change the compression. Thats why I gave the range of 9.1 to 9.6... Imnot saying your wrong anything is possible I just think he can build up from where he is at with his motor.

Ben
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
You're correct about the current setup.

The stated rear wheel numbers are decent enough for the build. Especially if it wasn't actually tuned.

If higher performance isn't in the cards, the better gears will make a big difference on the "butt dyno" and at the track.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top