Introducing my Mustang and me

[gxr02190]

It ran 12.90's all day, revved to 7,000 no sweat and would have revved higher if the valves didn't float? Sorry, I think I'm gonna wave the B.S. flag on that.

[gxr02190]

In all fairness and respect to JTS, he is correct about being able to coax RESPECTABLE horsepower and torque out of the 351-M and 400 engines. The '72-up versions of the 400 had dished pistons, not flat tops. The '71 was the only 400 to have flat tops that yielded 9.1 to 1 from the factory. I am familiar with the "engine challenge" article that JTS referred to. If you read the article carefully, you will note that the power gains achieved were not realized by simply bolting on aftermarket parts. the engine received a major re-do. Why not just cut to the chase and swap out the 400 for a 429 or 460? It's the sensible solution. It is not my intention to slam contributors to this forum. I believe we all contribute in different ways. Although JTS may believe he is our resident "back in the day" expert, as he claims to "set me straight" regarding the 400 engine, it should be noted that we are almost the same age, and I have extensive experience in engine and transmission rebuilding, primarily with fords. I know what holds up and what doesn't. I have also been drag racing for the past 35 years. I will also venture to say that not all our readers understand the stresses a V-8 engine endures while turning 7,000 R.P.M. Without balancing and material engineering to critical standards, they won't live long. I think our readers and posters enjoy a mutual respect. Let's not bastardize this website by posting B.S. as fact just to drive your opinion home. We are a very congenial group here - non-confrontational and well mannered. Don't post B.S. and not expect to get "called out" on it. GXR

[Steven Harris]

Welcome Masol,

Your Mach 1 looks really good all ready.

Did the previous owner do the engine work? A 400 would require 429 (460) motor mounts and the 429 (460) C-6 bell housing.

I too believe that the 400 is perhaps an unsung possibility but will also agree that the more common 460 would make more sense as the buildable power plant.

I would someday like to find an early 400 with the dual pattern bellhousing to build - just because.

By the way, someone remind me. Did that early 400 with dual pattern have 351C or 429 motor mount casting?

[jrpav]

Let's not bastardize this website by posting B.S. as fact just to drive your opinion home. We are a very congenial group here - non-confrontational and well mannered. Don't post B.S. and not expect to get "called out" on it. GXR

I guess there's only one way to settle this: Like we used to say "When the green flag drops, the B.S. STOPS!"

FYI - I wasn't trying to start a debate, I just wanted Masol to know that his motor setup would probably work just fine for him on the street. No doubt there are much better engines out there but what he has is fine for what he's doing and he shouldn't feel that he needs to get rid of the 400 just because it was a "smog" motor.

[gxr02190]

I agree.

[JTS71 Mach1]

In all fairness and respect to JTS, he is correct about being able to coax RESPECTABLE horsepower and torque out of the 351-M and 400 engines. The '72-up versions of the 400 had dished pistons, not flat tops. The '71 was the only 400 to have flat tops that yielded 9.1 to 1 from the factory. I am familiar with the "engine challenge" article that JTS referred to. If you read the article carefully, you will note that the power gains achieved were not realized by simply bolting on aftermarket parts. the engine received a major re-do. Why not just cut to the chase and swap out the 400 for a 429 or 460? It's the sensible solution. It is not my intention to slam contributors to this forum. I believe we all contribute in different ways. Although JTS may believe he is our resident "back in the day" expert, as he claims to "set me straight" regarding the 400 engine, it should be noted that we are almost the same age, and I have extensive experience in engine and transmission rebuilding, primarily with fords. I know what holds up and what doesn't. I have also been drag racing for the past 35 years. I will also venture to say that not all our readers understand the stresses a V-8 engine endures while turning 7,000 R.P.M. Without balancing and material engineering to critical standards, they won't live long. I think our readers and posters enjoy a mutual respect. Let's not bastardize this website by posting B.S. as fact just to drive your opinion home. We are a very congenial group here - non-confrontational and well mannered. Don't post B.S. and not expect to get "called out" on it. GXR

Never did I claim to be the resident "back in the day expert" Although I do have 40+ years learning, building, racing, not professoionally but I have worked on several pit crews for local friends as well as several, Technical schools and classes through various employers, and from a Master mechanic (my father), who did race professionally. So I have a very extensive background in all kinds of mechanics, from motorcycles to hot rods, muscle cars, to over the road semi's, school buses, and just about everything in between.

As for the 400 Cleveland. I have looked and looked for the Chilton manual or other publication, that showed the 400 as having 10 to 1 compression. My 1971 Chiltons lists it as 9.5 to 1. I know I have seen something somewhere that denoted it as 10 to 1 compression, but i Can't find it, But I'am sure I had read this, as I immediately ran out and found a 1971 LTD to get the 400 out of it. I had a 1973 400 installed in my 67 Ranchero. My buddy overheated it and cracked a head. So I needed a head. When I pulled both heads off the 73, I was surprised to find that the 73 400 had flat tops. That's why I went looking for a 71 LTD! I knew it would raise the compression from the 73's 8.5 to 1 compression. I've also seen several other 400's with flat tops but never one newer then 73. I also Know Ford made changes in 1975 when they destroked it to 351 and created the 351M. Maybe they used dished pistons after that point. I have no Idea. But I do know what I had.
As for the turning seven grand. Why is that such a stretch in your mind. The only thing holding it back was the cast Iron 2 barrell intake. The 2v head has proven more then capable for performance. Hell the 2v head had bigger valves 2.038 intake and 1.67 exhaust, and flowed better then Chevy's famed and worshipped 2.02 head. The only problem it had was it didn't have the 4v heads dual springs. So if a small block Chevy can turn 7000 why can't a Ford?
This truck was put together back in the day, about 1980 and was a conglomeration of various parts. A 67 Ranchero, which had roughly 4 ft + of body behind the rear wheels. The tailgate was extremely heavy, all of which put lots of weight way behind the rear tires, greatly improving traction. A 73 400 with 71 heads, A Edelbrock single plane intake with a 650 AFB, a C6, and a 9" with 3.25 gears, (not stock).I was told it came out of a 75 Ltd when I got the chunk at the Junkyard. I have realized over the years why, It was so fast. Back then it was just luck that it all came together as it did. But it sure was a lot of fun.
As for the 12.90's I wish I could say they were on a drag strip and I had time slips, Unfortunately not. The closest dragstrip, was US 30 Dragstrip in Valparaiso Indiana about 2 hours away, so my buddies and I had a 2 lane road with a 1/4 marked out. We had guys at both ends and did our best at being accurate. To further back up the times. A friend had a KZ650 Kawasaki, it was a 12.90 factory stock motorcycle, (I worked for Kawasaki) and I didn't have any problem beating a 12.90 Motorcycle, so I felt pretty safe in claiming 12.90's. Which was pretty close to the times we were getting running the 1/4. so we figured we were fairly close anyway.
As far as the BS goes? I was there we're you?
I knew when I wrote the post I was going to get called out on it, as most people still believe, that if it ain't a Chevy it can't be fast. I just didn't expect it would be you GXR. There were a bunch of Chevy boys that walked away saying, that truck can't be that fast. but it was. JTS 71 Mach1

[gxr02190]

I guess I'm still trying to figure out how you got a stock 400 with a hydraulic cam to rev "way past" 7,000. My '71 351-4v with Crane dual springs, lightweight valves, and rhoades anti-pump lifters, floats at 5,900. Were you using a mechanical or electronic tach?

I guess I'm still trying to figure out how you launched a 3,450 lb. car with 3.25 gears ( locked or open ?) successfully without hook-up issues. (the heavy tailgate won't solve traction issues you'll encounter with the tires you claim to have used) My 3,561 lb. mustang (approximately the same weight) has to struggle to get a 1.8 second 60 ft. time - and that's with 26" BFG drag radials, 3.25 traction-lok, and a launch pad covered with traction compound. I have to slip the clutch (top loader) to avoid excessive wheel spin.

I guess I'm still trying to figure out what your 1/4 mile top speed would have been, assuming of course, that your 12.9 estimate is even close to correct. My car's average is 14.4 @ 104 MPH. A chassis dyno put my rear wheel horsepower at 290, so I'm estimating my brake horsepower at around 350. My calculations tell me your trap speed would be approximately 120-125 m.p.h. With 3.25 gears, and a 3,450 lb. car, your motor would have to produce 450-475 brake horsepower. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I factored your horsepower at 325, but found your car would have to weigh 2,000 lbs. to attain the 12.9 time. I'm baffled. Maybe your marked-off 1/4
mile has a 9% grade - downhill - I can't figure it out. As far as the 400's ability to rev at 7,000, theoretically it's possible, but realistically it's almost impossible. A lot of chevy enthusiasts claim that a stock small block chevy lower end with two-bolt main bearings is capable of 7,000 rpm. That's maximum. Those same small block chevies don't have a 4" stroke. I'm not a chevy guy. I have no doubts that 7,000 rpm are possible - for short blasts- not for extended operation, not stock.

Perhaps your calculations are not accurate or your motorcycle rider stopped for coffee. I don't want to argue the point - Let's move on. GXR

[jrpav]

OK, Masal it's up to you to settle this since you're the only person we know with a 400 in a Mustang. Now get to work and show us some time slips! LOL

[JTS71 Mach1]

OK, Masal it's up to you to settle this since you're the only person we know with a 400 in a Mustang. Now get to work and show us some time slips!

LOL It'll be a lot of fun, without a doubt. I mean it's simple It's a 351 Cleveland with more cubes! And there is no substitute for Cubic Inches! JTS 71 Mach1

[Masol]

Well, long story short, previous owner told me that he modified the original motor, he said that was a 351, but changed parts like pistons and other stuff (I am not an expert) to handle more C inches and also he said that it is ready for nitro, he call motor "400 Cleveland".
I do not know for real what it is or how to know it.