Discussion in 'General Ranchero Help' started by C_garabedian89, Jul 18, 2016.
Just curious what engine is the most popular.
I've been very happy with my 351 C 4V engines over all these years as the best overall "compromise" across the range of HOW I USE the vehicles - which means that those have reasonable power and okay fuel economy in comparison to the other choices. BUT... I could make an argument for any of the others depending on specific criteria such as towing, or commuting, or cruising - so the answer is really how the owner uses the vehicle. I really like my 429 Ranchero but I don't like the 9 MPG it seems to get no matter what I am doing with it. I've found the 302 from the 60s and 70s to be underpowered and don't seem to offer any tremendous improvement in fuel economy over a properly tuned 351 (either W or C). Only had one 460 and in general couldn't really tell much difference between it and the 429. I drove my '72 351 4V 4 Speed car as my primary car for over 30 years and was content with the about 15 MPG commuting and a little over 20 MPG highway, good gitty-up when I needed it, and reliability over the many years very, very good. That written there is no comparison with those engines from back then to engines of today for power and economy.
just considering the bulk of the later models involved, bigger is better. Need the torque to get it moving.
You didn't list my favorite;
The 500+ cuin stroker.
Didn't include the fe motors either they were and will be the ones I liked. They made decent power with some work. 390 was a work horse.
a lot of options for Windsors. next up would be the 460.
Even in neutered, 2-barrel, saddled to a slushbox and high rear gearing form, with the timing not optimized, my '79 351W does quite well. Imagine what it will do when I do get to the point of being able to optimize it? Someone once coined the phrase "there's no replacement for displacement." I completely disagree. With the coming of age of feedback fuel injection, OHC heads, etc., you can get one thing displacement is limited on: the power-to-weight ratio. There are small block engines in the late Sixties and early Seventies that beat some big-block cars in heads-up racing, then saved the driver gas on the streets and roads. So, with that I put my dos Centavos on the 351W. House of Windsor forever!
Might be fun to plumb them in but those new generation engines used in Mustangs sure looks interesting. Jury is still deliberating on exactly what will end up in As Is 66's 71 Ranchero. Just watching to see how those new engines work out with hours on them.
Another issue is the aftermarket.
You will still be able to get parts for a 385 or an FE 50 years from now.
With the short production runs being done these days I bet most of these newer engines will be orphans in 15 years or less.
Very true on parts availability if you can get it will be stock only little if no hi-pro fun stuff.
Not so for the 4.6s. They have cams, heads (stock 2V/4V and hi-po 2V), intakes, power adders and so e other goodies. You can thank the Mustang guys for this. What I'd like to see are improvement kits specifically for 5.4s in trucks. Take care of the old cam phaser issues once and for all, better intake, etc.
351C for no other reason than for thats what mine has! ...but ask me again when i try to buy parts to give it an overhaul.
I'll go with the 351C 4V. It was as about the best performance engine Ford built in the Muscle era besides the Boss 302, but then the "No substitute for Cubic Inches" rule comes in.
I was always a Chevy guy and I'm glad I never ran against a 351C back in the day or they might have had my Camaro's doors in their trunk. I'm putting together my first 351C 4V now and the availability of parts is slim and the prices overwhelming, but it's going to be awesome having that Cleveland power in my vintage Mustang.
Very happy with my last Ranchero 351C the power to $$$ to fuel and run was about right for me
I've brought another which is a 351C 4V with a mild cam not sure how mild, I understand its over carbureted with a 750 double pumper on it according to the gentleman
that checked it out for me, he did say it got up and went well though ...........
Its still in the process of being shipped so wont know for a while bit like waiting for Xmas to arrive .............
Yeah, I would think that a double pumper would be overkill on a mild cam. I would recommend degreeing the cam with the heads on, which will give you a baseline of whether you can step down from 750 CFM or not. Then it becomes a matter of the intake, exhaust and whether you want to keep the quench heads or not.
Mechanical secondaries are not real street friendly.
A 750 is not too big for a mild 350, but you really want a vacuum secondary.
Hi thanks for the comments
I have purchased a Holley 0-80457SA 600CFM 4bbl Factory Refurbished ALUMINUM Carb Electric Choke
Which Im thinking will be a better choice than the 750 the previous owner installed
I'll find out when it arrives ...................
Separate names with a comma.