I'm on the fence......

Discussion in 'General Maverick/Comet' started by DarthMaverick, Mar 24, 2005.

  1. DarthMaverick

    DarthMaverick The Yang of Mavericks

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bakersfield
    Vehicle:
    1976 2 door Maverick
    If I'm going to put a V8 in my Maverick why would I go with a 302 when I can go bigger without much problems. A 351 seems like a good choice. They cost about the same as a 302. I can get to 400 hp without too much work. What do you guys think. And, no, I'm against strokers. Well, I wouldn't be against stroking a 302 to around 330 or so. My only deal is reinforcing the towers if I have to beat on them. I think that it is necessary since I would be putting a different angle in the metal. I still haven't figured out the big six issues if I wanted to go there. Any response would be appreciated.
     
  2. Jamie Miles

    Jamie Miles the road warrior

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    12,099
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    383
    Location:
    Alto, GA
    Vehicle:
    I've had a few
    The main problem would be the shock towers and headers I would think.

    If your good with metal, then it shouldn't be a problem at all.
     
  3. PINKY

    PINKY .....John Ford.....

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky.
    Vehicle:
    1970 Ford Maverick
    I have a stroked 302 and if I was to do it again, I would go with the 351...I would still stroke it though.
     
  4. 74merc

    74merc computer nerd

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Vehicle:
    1974 Comet
    I'm in the middle of that decision right now... I have a 302 in the car, and just scored a 1969 351 for free as far as anyone is concerned.

    351 torque looks just awesome, but it will be a tighter fit, even after cutting the shock towers back.

    302s are cheaper to build, not by much, can make just as much power per $$, and get better milage... but then there's torque that just brings this big ass silly grin to my face...

    Running through a few cams, I make the same low rpm power with a 302 and a 270 duration cam as I will with a 351 and a 292 duration cam, with the 351 making more peak horsepower at a lower rpm, without balancing past stock specifications. Bolt a really good set of heads on it and just have something nasty under the hood...

    and then comes my cousin's 289... that beautiful 7000rpm song it sings... who needs torque? this car will smoke'em through first gear...
     
  5. just1993

    just1993 Mike

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    60
    Location:
    Zionsville, PA
    Vehicle:
    70' & 71' 2 Door and 76 4 Door
    351 winsor

    The 351 winsor isn't much wider than a 302. The deck height of the block is higher to make more cubic inches. This is where we run into problems with headers. Just a thought I have seen a post on this forum about using mustang engine mounts. they said that the engine seemed to sit lower in the car. Maybe the combo of the mustang mounts and the 351 winsor would allow to use 302 headers and not have to do anything with the shock towers
    JUST A THOUGHT:2cents:
    Mike
     
  6. don graham

    don graham MCG State Rep

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,800
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Location:
    arizona city, az.
    Vehicle:
    70 mav, 71 grabber, 73 Comet, 2004 f-250 crew cab diesel, 2001 f-250, 2004 explorer, 2007 Gold Wing trike.
    i guess one of the things you need to do is figure out what it is you want to do with the car. if it is to be run at the strip is it going to be a bracket car? if o what class do you want to run. i run sportsman in the summit racing series and can't run any faster than 12.00. i asked my engine builder about building me a 347 that would run 12.0s. he said he couldn't make one run that slow so i've got a 302 that has run 11.96 at firebird. i know that bakersfield is a little quicker with it's altitude and air. but watch out for the NITRO FLIES.:)
     
  7. bmcdaniel

    bmcdaniel Senile Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    6,839
    Likes Received:
    688
    Trophy Points:
    318
    Location:
    York. PA
    Vehicle:
    '70 Maverick Grabber
    he said he couldn't make one run that slow...

    :clap: :rofl: :clap: :bouncy: :clap: .....
     
  8. PINKY

    PINKY .....John Ford.....

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky.
    Vehicle:
    1970 Ford Maverick
    :biglaugh:
    Wish/hope there was some BOW-TIES around when he made that comment :D
     

Share This Page