The Ford Barn

38 Conv · 09-17-2016, 01:56 PM

Pictures or advice putting a 302 VS 351 W in a 1953-56 Ford F-100-- wanting to know which one looks best in big engine bay---Thanks

50fordcoupeman · 09-17-2016, 03:37 PM

Hi 38 conv..............I have a '77 302 in a '50 ford coupe. I know that has nothing to do with your application as far as fit and looks but just want to say that I am very pleased with the 302. It is stock but still has plenty of poop, dependable and doesn't run hot. Just a vote for the 302 in my opinion. Good luck!!

dmsfrr · 09-17-2016, 05:57 PM

IIRC, the 351-W is an inch or two wider and taller than the 302 and would fill the engine bay a bit more.

okiedokie · 09-17-2016, 08:07 PM

I have a 302 in my 53F100--. I would use a 351 if I were doing again.

Kahuna · 09-17-2016, 08:09 PM

Bigger is better

deucemac · 09-18-2016, 02:34 PM

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

The engine bay in one of those will easily accommodate a 392 hemi. There is plenty of room for either one. I did a 302 in a '54 pickup and it looked like there was a toy motor in there because of all the room. If I were to do it again I would use a 351W instead. More cubic inches and doesn't look quite so small.

raceron1120 · 09-18-2016, 05:15 PM

Any Ford V8 looks better in there than a 5-letter word engine. I recently got a '56 F100 shell/project pickup; I have a good '55 272 Yblock, a '72 351W and a newer 302. It's probably getting the 302/C4 driveline. Years ago I had a '53 F100 with a '57 223 cid 6 cylinder. Plenty of pep for what it was and it didn't look bad inside the engine compartment either.

bbrust · 09-24-2016, 05:41 AM

Here's a picture of my F-100 with a 302 and C-6. Looks like I need to cleanup the engine and bay soon. Been running this combo since 1998.

BW · 09-24-2016, 08:32 AM

I put a 351w in a 66 mustang so if it's bigger it's not much. They are both great motors, I would use the motor that is in better shape. BW.

scicala · 09-24-2016, 05:18 PM

Aww, what the heck. Might as well put in a 351 based 427 stroker.

Sal

Alaska Jim · 09-25-2016, 07:31 PM

Now that's what I am talking about !!

CarlG · 09-28-2016, 06:06 PM

Why not just go on up the ladder to a 429/460 with a C-6 ??

Alaska Jim · 09-28-2016, 07:34 PM

carl, weight .

CarlG · 10-09-2016, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alaska Jim

carl, weight .

What's 900 lbs among friends

JeffB2 · 10-11-2016, 03:15 AM

No this is not mine but it sure would be a head turner: https://offerupnow.com/item/detail/1...ford-coyote-50

willowbilly3 · 10-12-2016, 09:53 PM

To me, the dressing will make or break the look of a sbf. Most of the newer Ford racing ones and crate engines come with shit-ugly valve covers. The old finned Cobra valve covers, some vintage Cal-Custom, Edelbnrock or Offys are all my favorites.

40 Deluxe · 10-14-2016, 11:20 PM

If you want to fill that big engine bay, how a 427 Cammer (SOHC)? That should be wide enough!

09-17-2016, 01:56 PM	#1
38 Conv Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Allentown, PA Posts: 594	FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 Pictures or advice putting a 302 VS 351 W in a 1953-56 Ford F-100-- wanting to know which one looks best in big engine bay---Thanks

09-17-2016, 03:37 PM	#2
50fordcoupeman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: LaGrande Oregon Posts: 866	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 Hi 38 conv..............I have a '77 302 in a '50 ford coupe. I know that has nothing to do with your application as far as fit and looks but just want to say that I am very pleased with the 302. It is stock but still has plenty of poop, dependable and doesn't run hot. Just a vote for the 302 in my opinion. Good luck!!

09-17-2016, 05:57 PM	#3
dmsfrr Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Abq, NM Posts: 3,607	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 IIRC, the 351-W is an inch or two wider and taller than the 302 and would fill the engine bay a bit more.

09-17-2016, 08:07 PM	#4
okiedokie Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Tulsa Ok Posts: 519	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 I have a 302 in my 53F100--. I would use a 351 if I were doing again.

09-17-2016, 08:09 PM	#5
Kahuna Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: NorCal Posts: 2,617	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 Bigger is better

09-18-2016, 02:34 PM	#6
deucemac Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Tehachapi, Ca. Posts: 208	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) The engine bay in one of those will easily accommodate a 392 hemi. There is plenty of room for either one. I did a 302 in a '54 pickup and it looked like there was a toy motor in there because of all the room. If I were to do it again I would use a 351W instead. More cubic inches and doesn't look quite so small.

09-18-2016, 05:15 PM	#7
raceron1120 Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ellsworth Michigan Posts: 1,807	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 Any Ford V8 looks better in there than a 5-letter word engine. I recently got a '56 F100 shell/project pickup; I have a good '55 272 Yblock, a '72 351W and a newer 302. It's probably getting the 302/C4 driveline. Years ago I had a '53 F100 with a '57 223 cid 6 cylinder. Plenty of pep for what it was and it didn't look bad inside the engine compartment either.

09-24-2016, 05:41 AM	#8
bbrust Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Greencastle, PA Posts: 227	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 Here's a picture of my F-100 with a 302 and C-6. Looks like I need to cleanup the engine and bay soon. Been running this combo since 1998. __________________ Bob

09-24-2016, 08:32 AM	#9
BW Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 259	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 I put a 351w in a 66 mustang so if it's bigger it's not much. They are both great motors, I would use the motor that is in better shape. BW.

09-24-2016, 05:18 PM	#10
scicala Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Detroit suburb, MI Posts: 3,706	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 Aww, what the heck. Might as well put in a 351 based 427 stroker. Sal

09-25-2016, 07:31 PM	#11
Alaska Jim Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Palmer, Alaska Posts: 1,575	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 Now that's what I am talking about !!

09-28-2016, 06:06 PM	#12
CarlG Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 9,115	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 Why not just go on up the ladder to a 429/460 with a C-6 ?? __________________ Alaskan A's Antique Auto Mushers of Alaska Model A Ford Club of America Model A Restorers Club Antique Automobile Club of America Mullins Owner's Club

09-28-2016, 07:34 PM	#13
Alaska Jim Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Palmer, Alaska Posts: 1,575	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 carl, weight .

10-11-2016, 03:15 AM	#15
JeffB2 Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Phoenix,AZ Posts: 1,417	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 No this is not mine but it sure would be a head turner: https://offerupnow.com/item/detail/1...ford-coyote-50

10-12-2016, 09:53 PM	#16
willowbilly3 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Black Hills, SD Posts: 577	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 To me, the dressing will make or break the look of a sbf. Most of the newer Ford racing ones and crate engines come with shit-ugly valve covers. The old finned Cobra valve covers, some vintage Cal-Custom, Edelbnrock or Offys are all my favorites.

10-14-2016, 11:20 PM	#17
40 Deluxe Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: now Kuna, Idaho Posts: 3,779	Re: FORD 302 VS 351 W in 1953-56 F-100 If you want to fill that big engine bay, how a 427 Cammer (SOHC)? That should be wide enough!