Messages

I don't know much about the chevy dimensions but I have done this swap with Fords. I used an 81 Ford F150 frame complete and installed a 48 F5 cab and front clip.  The 81 bed was much to wide so I built a flatbed for it.

The step in the late frame might cause some trouble lining up the old cab with the new bed (also solved with the flatbed).

I made no changes to the track width of the late(?) model frame.  I used the standard wheels that came with the truck, and it is all under the fenders. Possibly the F5 is wider than an F1?

Some build pictures and the finished product is on my website www.JDRSVP.com

Hope this helps.

Jon

I wish I found cars like that in my driveway.  I get late model crap (96 Kia) that doesn't run with a note asking me to fix it.

Jon

Looks great!! Can't wait to see it in person at Tulsa.

Jon

Looks great!! Can't wait to see it in person at Tulsa.

Jon

On a standard three phase system the three current carrying wires can be hooked up in any configuration.  In the case of the lathe I would check to be sure the grn/yel is connected to the frame of the lathe and if this is the case the other 3 wires can be connected however you like.  The only difference the connection makes is in the direction of rotation of the motor.  Since the lathe is designed to turn in both directions you can hook it up, turn it on, and check rotation.  Generally most people like the motor switch on the lathe to move up for standard cutting (ie: couter-clockwise looking at the 3-jaw), swapping any two of the current carrying wires will reverse the rotation.

I hope this helps.  As always with electricity if in doubt get professional help.

Jon

I wish I had found this message earlier (Been working on my 29 instead of computing).

I know the owner well, and have seen the shop and several of his bodies.
The owner is honest and deals with customers well.  His shop is kept neat and the bodies are kept inside until shipment.  The bodies are hand laid with 1" square tube and plywood reinforcement in the hingepoint and floor areas.  He pulled the mold for the 32 from an original Ford.  I have seen one of his coupe bodies with approx. 550 hp in it, driven hard and put away wet, and the body is holding up fine.

Jon

I bought one of these from HF about 8 years ago when they were $70.  I have used and abused it ever since.  After several years of use the tire removal tool tended to dig into the rim instead of sliding around smoothly (especially on aluminum rims).  I tried rounding off the leading edge of the tool, grease, armour all, nothing helped, then I noticed the cast on ends of the tool were square where they joined the shaft.  I slipped on an adjustable wrench opposite the removal end and twist the leading edge up off the rim a little as I walk around the wheel.  works great with no gouging of the rim.  

jon

I look at MetalShapers regularly and saw the memorial page yesterday.  I am sorry to hear this.  He will be missed by many, such as I, that have never met him in person but have learned a great deal from his web-work.  He touched more people's lives than he knew.

Jon

I think its Great!  I like the new picture thumbs.  I have always liked the site and your work.  I actually found your site maybe 2 years ago or so, and did not bookmark it as I was at work at the time. While searching for it I found the RRT and bookmarked both.  Thanks for the great work and for leading a struggling rodder to the RRT.

Jon

I took the 48 to some parades on Saturday.  My day didn't go so well.  The ignition module went bad about 6 minutes into the first parade, so I pulled it off the road on the starter, and towed it home.  Kids were bummed because they were pumped about tossing out the candy.   I went to the other parade as a static display.  Kids got to ride with the mayor of that one so they got to throw candy after all.  I replaced the module and got it running in time for the next parade but it was postponed due to rain.

jon

Jon,

Thanks, that's exactly the information I was looking for. And now one last request; Do you know the valve diameters of a 351 head from a 75 LTD? The casting numbers on the head I'm looking at is D5AE but as I can't inspect the heads personally before committing to them would like to get an idea of the compression and valve sizes. I have been googling for 2 days and cant find that information...

Thanks one more time, I owe you a six pack now...

Dave R

Dave

The info I have says the valve sizes for 351W from 69-76 would be 1.84 intake and 1.54 exhaust. The basic 302(and non hi-po 289) sizes were 1.78 intake and 1.45 exhaust.

The combustion chamber sizes vary depending on year.  For 289/302 and 351W heads from 69 to 76 the size is listed as 58cc (approx. 61 with the head gasket). The chamber sizes get as high as 68 cc in some late 80's heads.

The chamber size information is good for comparison, but the sizes vary depending on the source of your information.  This may be due to some sources adding the gasket volume also.  

jon

What valve train and other modifications have to be done to mount 351 W heads on a 302? I think that the head bolts need to be changed becsuse of differing diameters, but what about pushrod length and rocker geometry. TRhe same exhaust manifolds should work, but how about my 302 intake manifold?

Thanks, again...

Dave

Dave
I ran stock valvetrain for a 351W.  Pushrod length is the same but you need ones for a stud type of rocker  302 or 351.  The pushrods run through a close tolerance slot in the head to keep the rockers in line and for this reason are harder steel than pedastal rocker pushrods which run through a large round hole in the head, with the pedastal keeping the alignment.

The rocker geometry is the same for both engines 1.54 to 1 ratio rockers.  You can go to a 1.6 to 1 rocker with no mods.

The intake manifold will work fine.  You do need to use 351 manifold gaskets because the port size is larger.  I ran a performer 302 manifold with the ports enlarged and matched to the gasket then blended about 1 inch into the port.

Exhaust headers or manifolds for a 302 will work fine with 351 heads.  You can gain alot of exhaust flow by removing the thermactor (sp?) port.
This is a large blob hanging in the middle of the exhaust port.  It can be completly ground away with a die grinder- I left a small bump where it was just to be sure I didn't get into the water passages.

jon

Thanks for the info. So how do you like the 351 heads? You have had alots of miles with them so maybe you had a chance to compare your car's performance vs. 302 heads.

Thanks,
Dave

This engine is in an 82 Mustang GT along with a toploader 4 speed and 9 inch ford rear end.   Story goes- hopped up engine, broke rearend (tiny 7.5 ring gear) replaced with 9 inch out of 70 cougar (oddly .25 inch narrower than 82 mustang), then SROD tranny breaks, replaced with toploader close ratio.  Life is good until I installed 8.5 x 26 ET-Drag slicks.

After slicks came new clutch, 11 inch set up out of Bronco to replace smaller stock item.  Then home fabricated lift bars, which twisted the unibody.  Then I took it to a frame shop to square it up then trailered it to my shop to install subframe connectors and 6 point cage.

Once again life is good.  Running mid to high 12s in the 1/4. Then we had kids and drag racing ended.

I never raced the original heads much so not much compareable data.  But they were open chamber heads (63 cc I think) and the 69 351W heads are small chamber (58 cc ).  With the increased compression you cant run low grade unleaded without some pinging.  Mid grade is ok.

Overall they are great in that they are mostly trouble free and do offer an increase in performance for very little effort or loot.

jon

I have been running 69 model 351W heads on my 82 5.0 block for 16 years now.  The 69 heads have smaller ports and slightly bigger valves than other years.  They do not have hardened valve seats and should have hardened seats installed to stop valve recession (sp?).

Having said that I did not install the hardened seats.  I  added 'instead-o-lead' for the first 50,000 miles or so but quit after that.  I have 51,000 more miles since then (engine was rebuilt at approx. 41,000 showing about 142000 now) still working.  I have had 4 valve springs fail over the last year or so, could be recession allowing spring bind or maybe just age.

I used original 351 rockers as my late model pedastal rockers would not work.  New valve springs at rebuild.  Back then you could buy special steped washers allowing use of 302 head bolts.  I dont know if these are still available or not.

hope this helps

jon

I built one from the plans on this site and was very pleased.  I was surprised how quickly this can smooth out hammer marks.  My first project to try this on was a fender for my wifes motorcycle worked so well I started building a large E-wheel for use on car panels.