Brought to you in part by:

M&M Restoration & Tool Supply Store

Great deals on auto restoration supplies!

.


NOTICE! The old Mustangsandmore.com is a read-only archive.
Currently the Search function is inoperative, but we are working on the problem.

Please join us at our NEW Mustangsandmore.com forums located at this location.
Please notice this is a brand new message board, and you must re-register to gain access.

  Mustangsandmore Forum Archive
  '69 to '73 -- The Musclecar Mustang
  1972 351 HO vs. 351 CJ - which one is better?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   1972 351 HO vs. 351 CJ - which one is better?
cobravenom71
Gearhead

Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-06-2002 04:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cobravenom71        Reply w/Quote
It is commonly thought that the 1972 351 HIGH OUTPUT is the last real high performance engine from Ford, and that the 351 'Cobra-Jet' is considerably 'tamer'.
After looking at the specs for these two engines, I was wondering why.
consider this:351 HO-275 H.P.@ 6000 RPM
vs. 351 CJ-266 H.P.@ 5400 RPM (only 9 H.P. less at 600 rpm lower!What would the CJ be rated at 6000 RPM?)
H.O. torque is 286 @ 3800(kinda' high!)
C.J. torque is 301 @ 3600( more torque at a lower RPM?)
It seems to me that if both vehicles were set-up the same(Trans and axle ratios, etc...)the two cars would be pretty equal, with maybe, just maybe the CJ having a slight edge.
Anybodt have any thoughts on this?

------------------

Rory McNeil
Gearhead

Posts: 1889
From: Surrey, B.C. Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10-07-2002 01:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rory McNeil        Reply w/Quote
From what I recall, the 72 351HO was pretty much a Boss 351 with lowered compression. It still had the solid lifter cam. The 351 CJ was basically a low compression 351C 4V with a better hyd. cam. Although I have never seen a real351 HO 72 Mustang (suposedly very low production), I HAVE seen and driven several 351CJ`s, & to be honest, they were pretty weak. In the mid 70`s I had a bone stock 70 Mustang with a 351C 4V, FMX& 3.25 non posi, that ran 14.7@96 mph, unmodified at all. It ran 14.2 @ 99 mph with just headers, hooked into the original pipes & mufflers. There were a few 73 Mach 1`s at the track in those days with the 351CJ, and they were all in the 16.2-15.9 ET range, stock. I know, the 71-73`s were a bit heavier, but the low compression really seemed to kill the 351C. Another friend had a 73 Gran Torino Sport, with a 351CJ, & 4 speed, granted it was quite a bit heavier than a Mustang, but it was so gutless it was pathetic. I doubt it would have run better than a low 17 second ET. I imagine that it was fairly rare with the 4 speed, though. It was yellow with black bucket seat interior, with tach & the gauge package, & had power windows. Nice car, but sooooo slow.

------------------
78 Fairmont 428 4 speed 10.20@130mph
80 Fairmont 302 5 speed 12.8@105mph
85 Mustang NHRA Stocker under construction, 302 5 speed
59 Meteor (Canadian Ford) 2 dr sedan 332, auto
74 F350 ramp truck 390 4spd

71RESTO
Gearhead

Posts: 1655
From: Oregon, USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 10-07-2002 09:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 71RESTO        Reply w/Quote
What Rory said!! The HO is a detuned Boss 351 (with 4 bolt mains), while the CJ is nothing more than a souped up 351C 4V. I have a '73 with the CJ in it and it runs awesome, but then I've had a bunch of work done to it to get to that performance.

------------------
Duane
71 Fastback (his) under resto (351C-4V C6 auto)
73 Mach 1 (hers) (351CJ 4 speed)
66 289/2V coupe (daughter Ashley's)
89 LX 2.3 convertible (daughter Amanda's)
M & M Member #730

SteveLaRiviere
Administrator

Posts: 48752
From: Saco, Maine
Registered: May 99

posted 10-07-2002 09:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SteveLaRiviere        Reply w/Quote
My '72 CJ has 4 bolt mains also. {D2AE-CA}

------------------
'70 Mustang Mach 1 - '72 Mustang Sprint - '94 F-150

Moneymaker
Administrator

Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10-07-2002 09:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moneymaker        Reply w/Quote
Uh, guys....you did forget one little item, like the 780 CFM 4150 series Holley carb and nice aluminum high rise intake manifold as opposed to the 750 4350 Autolite.

------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator

NHRA/IHRA/SRA/MCA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl

Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"

cobravenom71
Gearhead

Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-08-2002 07:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cobravenom71        Reply w/Quote
Thanks for your input, but no one has actually considered the facts. ( I think) I know that the HO is basically a BOSS 351 w/ lowered compression, but it is still just a 'beefed' Cleveland. The Cobra-Jet is also a 'beefed' Cleveland. By the way, ALL 4-V Clevelands are 4-bolt mains, regardless of year.
I have a couple different pieces of factory lterature that lists a 750-CFM 4-V carb for the HO, but only a 470-CFM(!)4-V carb for the 72 HO. That alone would make a significant difference.Also, only the HO was availible with the 3.91-1 rear. All other models were limited to 3.50-1 rears at the most. That ALSO would make a difference.
My question is based on this: Why does the HO enjoy such a 'high-performance' reputation when it appears that all of it's advantages have very little to do with the engine itself? I know the carb is part of the engine, but that is a simple bolt-on.
Regardless, the specs are extremely similar. If a CJ-equipped Mach 1 were to have a 3.91 rear, better carb, 'pop-off' valve on the air-cleaner(RAM-AIR not availible)and all the other stuff that would make the drivetrain the same, doesn't it stand to reason that the CJ would turn similar times to the HO?
I have had an HO in the past, and several 351 CJ's, and the CJ's did not run very hard.THe HO ran great.BUT....When I 'fixed-up' my current 351 CJ car with a better rear gear, new carb and alum. intake, some fresh air and a little more advance, that son-of-a-gun turned into a real screamer! I also have a 71 429 CJ Mustang, and of course the 351 CJ cant keep up, but its a lot closer than You would think. And yes, the 429 is running correctly.
Oh well, just more food for thought.

fordnmerc
Gearhead

Posts: 1001
From: Watkins Glen NY USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 10-08-2002 09:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for fordnmerc        Reply w/Quote
Production for the R code 351 HO in 1972 totalled 398, with breakdown as follows:

Hardtop (including Grande): 19

Fastback (including Mach 1): 366

Convertible: 13

------------------
David

Spread Joy. Less cholesterol than butter!

1978 LTD II 2 Door
1979 Ranchero GT

kwazykat
Moderator

Posts: 8279
From: ...a wonderful place to be.... orange county... NC!!!! M&M member #92 .... a blue-oval GRRL-deluxe.....
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-08-2002 10:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kwazykat        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cobravenom71:
By the way, ALL 4-V Clevelands are 4-bolt mains, regardless of year.


No they were not. I have bought 5 all original (stock) 4v motors and only one of them was a 4 bolt main. Even Ford said that other than the Boss, it was a crap shoot as to which motors got the 4 bolt blocks.

Moneymaker
Administrator

Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10-08-2002 11:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moneymaker        Reply w/Quote
Ditto on the 4 bolt mains.

------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator

NHRA/IHRA/SRA/MCA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl

Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"

kid vishus
Gearhead

Posts: 7251
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 10-08-2002 11:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kid vishus        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kwazykat:

No they were not. I have bought 5 all original (stock) 4v motors and only one of them was a 4 bolt main. Even Ford said that other than the Boss, it was a crap shoot as to which motors got the 4 bolt blocks.

Oops

Forgot to change usernames.

Rory McNeil
Gearhead

Posts: 1889
From: Surrey, B.C. Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10-08-2002 11:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rory McNeil        Reply w/Quote
I used to own 2 70 Mustangs with factory 351C 4V`s, neither had 4 bolt mains. All the 72-73 4V engines I looked at were 4 bolt, but none of the 70`s, & most, but not all of the 71`s. I`m not saying this is absolute, rather based on my own experiances.Considering that the 4 bolt main caps were narrow at the ends, & only used 3/8`s" bolts, I don`t really know how much better, if any, they actually were.

------------------
78 Fairmont 428 4 speed 10.20@130mph
80 Fairmont 302 5 speed 12.8@105mph
85 Mustang NHRA Stocker under construction, 302 5 speed
59 Meteor (Canadian Ford) 2 dr sedan 332, auto
74 F350 ramp truck 390 4spd

cobravenom71
Gearhead

Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-08-2002 12:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cobravenom71        Reply w/Quote
That's very interesting. I have several FORD sources that claim that all '72 351 4V were 4-bolt mains.
However, if there are recorded and well known instances of 2-bolt blocks sold with 4-V carbs, then it must be true. I stand corrected!
Anyway, does anybody have a reasonable explanation about the original post: If the specs on both motors are almost the same, why is one engine supposedly so much better than the other?

Moneymaker
Administrator

Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10-08-2002 12:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moneymaker        Reply w/Quote
It is very simple.
The HP rating system used by the manufacturers was changed to an SAE net in mid 1972 for a multitude of reasons. Therefore in reality the HO engine produced more HP then it was rated at.

------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator

NHRA/IHRA/SRA/MCA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl

Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 972
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 10-08-2002 05:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones        Reply w/Quote
>Uh, guys....you did forget one little item, like the 780 CFM 4150
>series Holley carb and nice aluminum high rise intake manifold as
>opposed to the 750 4350 Autolite.

Did the 351 H.O. have a Holley? I thought it had a 4300D Motorcraft
spread-bore like the Boss 351. The only Boss 351 and H.O.'s that
I've seen that were stock restorations were all 4300D's. Wasn't the
Ford dual plane aluminum 4V intake with Holley bolt pattern strictly
an over-the-counter item?

Dan Jones

Moneymaker
Administrator

Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10-08-2002 05:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moneymaker        Reply w/Quote
No Dan, they had a running change at mid year and went to they different cam, intake and Holley carb.
Here is a list of intake casting and carb list numbers http://nhra.com/tech_specs/engine/blueprints/FORD-72.rtf

------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator

NHRA/IHRA/SRA/MCA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl

Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 972
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 10-08-2002 07:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones        Reply w/Quote
Interesting. I'd never heard that before. Your link shows 0.515" lift as well. Pretty sporty for a stocker in those days.

Thanks,
Dan Jones

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 972
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 10-08-2002 08:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones        Reply w/Quote
I just noticed something else at that site. They show the H.O. as having a 10.3:1 compression ratio and 65.9 cc heads. That's a closed chamber head value but the H.O. was open chamber. Were the heads also a running change?

Dan Jones

denny
Journeyman

Posts: 95
From: Northfield NH USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 10-08-2002 10:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for denny        Reply w/Quote
Keep looking the the NHRA guide Dan you will find alot of "interesting" stock specs. Not just from Ford either. Biggest controversey lately is the CJ heab on a 67 Shelby. Have fun looking for the other differances

------------------
D French
67 427 Fairlane(A/SA) 73 Mustang 351c

Moneymaker
Administrator

Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10-08-2002 11:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moneymaker        Reply w/Quote
Don't get me started on that bogus 67 Shelby deal!!!!!!

------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator

NHRA/IHRA/SRA/MCA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl

Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"

Rory McNeil
Gearhead

Posts: 1889
From: Surrey, B.C. Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10-09-2002 03:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rory McNeil        Reply w/Quote
In Stock eliminator, NHRA allows all sorts of unique or "superceded" parts, for all the manufacturers. I`ll bet very few of you guys knew that some 92+ newer Camaro`s used Pinto manual rack & pinion steering, or that 2000 Corvettes were available with conventional trans layouts, with 12 bolt diffs, Pinto racks, smaller brakes, hand built suspension components. Makes some of the strange Ford goings ons seem down right mild.

------------------
78 Fairmont 428 4 speed 10.20@130mph
80 Fairmont 302 5 speed 12.8@105mph
85 Mustang NHRA Stocker under construction, 302 5 speed
59 Meteor (Canadian Ford) 2 dr sedan 332, auto
74 F350 ramp truck 390 4spd

cobravenom71
Gearhead

Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-09-2002 08:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cobravenom71        Reply w/Quote
All 1972 FORD engines were rated at S.A.E. net horsepower ratings, which includes both the HO and the CJ. 71's of course, were rated gross H.P.
Fords' spec's show the HO compression the same as the CJ's...8.8-1. However, a couple of other places list the HO at 9.2-1. Not much of a difference in the real world, but significant.
Also, the quote"The HO was putting out more horsepower than it was rated at' may be incorrect. Several magazines of the day dyno-tested the car/motor and found the rating to be accurate.Maybe the CJ engine was drastically overrated? That would be a shame.
My only logical guess as to why the engines may have had different performance was the cam. Was the HO cam significantly better than the CJ cam? I don't just mean a juice-cam vs. a solid-cam either. Would the specs of these two cams give them a big difference in performance? What about the heads? Weren't they the same?

Moneymaker
Administrator

Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10-09-2002 02:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moneymaker        Reply w/Quote
OK, let's just get this one over with. What exactly is it that you want to know or confirm? As probably one of the very few on this forum or website for that matter that actually had the privilage of driving them all when new maybe I can give you some insight from a seat of the pants stand point.
I have driven or owned every 351 4v ever put in a Mustang at one time or another. Coupes, Fastbacks, stick and auto. Mostly stock when new or a few years old and a few with minor period HP mods.
I will say that the absolute best running pure stocker of them all was a 70 351C 300 HP 4 speed ram air beer can sportsroof.

------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator

NHRA/IHRA/SRA/MCA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl

Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"

cobravenom71
Gearhead

Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-09-2002 08:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cobravenom71        Reply w/Quote
I would like to put this 'to rest' also, but I can't seem to get anyone to answer the original question: Once again, if both engines have almost identical specs', why is the HO considered vastly superior to the CJ.
As a side note, I also have had the privelage of owning and driving several nice Fords( and other brands, as well) when they were either brand new or relatively new. And yes, I will absolutely agree that a 72' equipped with the HO motor is a much stronger runner than a CJ. I had a 72 HO Mach 1 new, and it was fairly strong. I have had 2 72's with the CJ, and a 73 with a CJ and they were all pretty 'soft'. Is the difference in the MOTOR or is it in the rest of the DRIVETRAIN? If it is indeed in the drivetrain, then maybe the CJ's are being unfairly maligned. My 73' convertible came with the CJ,4-speed and 3.00 gears,with an open diff. I put a new intake and carb on it, and a 9" 3.50 locking rear, and this car really came to life. Nothing else was changed on the engine, but it seems like a totally different animal than when stock. Anyway, I wasn't really trying to start a marathon posting session, I just like to get a lot of opinions on things, then I can act like I know everything.
I also have in my 'collection':
71 Mach 1, 429 Cobra Jet, automatic
73 convertible, 351 CJ, 4-speed( above)
73 Grande, 351 CJ, automatic
72 Sprint Fastback,351-2V automatic
72 Gran Torino Sport, 351 CJ,automatic (a real slug!)
76 Gran Torino, 460, automatic. heavily modified, and pretty quick/fast ( for a big-*** Torino, that is.)
79 Z-28, 4-speed, ZZ4+ crate-motor.Real fast!
81 Trans-Am,301 4-bbl, automatic. Real slow!(waiting on motor transplant)
79 Lincoln MK-V, 'Bill Blass', 400-2V. certainly not a hot-rod, but what a great cruiser!
and some others not worth mentioning.
Thanks from everyone for thier input.
Kit Sullivan.

Moneymaker
Administrator

Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10-09-2002 11:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moneymaker        Reply w/Quote
Kit, with the drive train options being absolutley identical on both engines, I can't see that being the difference. Both had the same 4-speed options and both were offered with C-6 automatics. The CJ did have a high stall 8 bolt converter as standard equipment, but that wouldn't make any difference with the stick. The Holley carb motors did have more zip, but not much. Both cars would run mid to high 14 second ET's stock. The HO I had was equipped with 3.91 gears that seemed well suited to it. Still neither 72 or even a 71 Boss could run with that 70.

------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator

NHRA/IHRA/SRA/MCA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl

Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 972
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 10-10-2002 01:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones        Reply w/Quote
The 351C CJ got hit hard with emissions changes. My CJ had the cam retarded
by 4 degrees, cast dished pistons and open chamber heads (very low compression
ratio), along with a poor curve in the dual vacuum distributor. Big ports, no
compression, and poor timing will kill power, fuel economy, and throttle
response. The HO had flat top pistons so the compression was better, a better
cam, and probably a better spark curve. The H.O. also got forged pistons and
adjustable valve train so was easier to modify and more durable.

You can't really believe the Ford advertised specs on the engines, because
they had various specs they could use. Remember it was Ford that rated the
428CJ at 335 HP, 30 HP less than a police interceptor 428 which had inferior
heads and only 15 HP more than a 390GT which was lame compared to a 428CJ.
Ford would usually advertise the 'Engineering A-curve' power. That was the
maximum output you could get of an older engine with looser clearances with
dynamometer headers. There was also a B-Curve, which was the engine with
no accessories and C-curve which included installation backpressure and all
the accesories. With the 428CJ, they advertied the B-Curve. The 428CJ was
capable of approximately 400 hp (A-Curve), 325-335 hp (B-Curve) and 310-320
(C-Curve).

Dan Jones

cobravenom71
Gearhead

Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-10-2002 10:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cobravenom71        Reply w/Quote
Dan, that is some very interesting information. What was the reason for Ford to use A,B, or C-curve horsepower ratings? I know they played around with the advertised ratings for insurance reasons,and to possibly appease the 'safety nazis' in the government. Also, I certainly understand that dished pistons are lower compression than flat-tops, but if both engines were rated at 8.8-1, would the fact that the compression ratio was arrived at with a different assortment of parts account for the difference? Also, I did not consider the retarded cam-timing or distributor curve. That I can readily understand would make a big difference.
I appreciate everybodys input. Its not really important in the whole scheme of things, but I like to hear several peoples opinions. Thanx to all. Kit Sullivan.

351CJPAST
Journeyman

Posts: 1
From: DENVER COLORADO USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-24-2004 01:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for 351CJPAST        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Jones:
The 351C CJ got hit hard with emissions changes. My CJ had the cam retarded
by 4 degrees, cast dished pistons and open chamber heads (very low compression
ratio), along with a poor curve in the dual vacuum distributor. Big ports, no
compression, and poor timing will kill power, fuel economy, and throttle
response. The HO had flat top pistons so the compression was better, a better
cam, and probably a better spark curve. The H.O. also got forged pistons and
adjustable valve train so was easier to modify and more durable.

You can't really believe the Ford advertised specs on the engines, because
they had various specs they could use. Remember it was Ford that rated the
428CJ at 335 HP, 30 HP less than a police interceptor 428 which had inferior
heads and only 15 HP more than a 390GT which was lame compared to a 428CJ.
Ford would usually advertise the 'Engineering A-curve' power. That was the
maximum output you could get of an older engine with looser clearances with
dynamometer headers. There was also a B-Curve, which was the engine with
no accessories and C-curve which included installation backpressure and all
the accesories. With the 428CJ, they advertied the B-Curve. The 428CJ was
capable of approximately 400 hp (A-Curve), 325-335 hp (B-Curve) and 310-320
(C-Curve).

Dan Jones



I OWNED A 72 GRAN TORINO W/ A 351-CJ. ALOT OF ITS IN THE TUNE AND CARB. MINE HAD C-6,3:25,AND 68,000 WHEN I BOUGHT IT.RE-DID TOP END.NOS CJ CAM NO 4 DEGREE RETARD RUN STRAIGHT UP, NOS FORD HP DUAL-POINT,PLUG RETARD,1 INCH OPEN SPACER ON FACTORY SPREADBORE DUAL PLANE TO ACCOMODATE A SQUARE FLANGE 750 CFM HOLLY VAC SECONDARIES ELECT CHOKE HOLLY.THAT MADE HER FLY. I RAN THAT SET UP FROM 83-96 198,000 MILES ON ORIGINAL MOTOR NO HEAD OR BOTTOM END { IT HAD 4 BOLT MAINS } AND THE DAY I SOLD HER SHE COULD LAY RUBBER FOR EVER. {96 FEET} IT ALSO HAD THE SPECIAL CONVERTER.WHEN I MOVED TO COLORADO I CHANGED THE 750 CFM TO A 600. BECAUSE OF THE THIN AIR.

Tom G
Gearhead

Posts: 1069
From: Bethlehem, Pa USA
Registered: Nov 2001

posted 01-24-2004 11:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tom G        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
OK, let's just get this one over with. What exactly is it that you want to know or confirm? As probably one of the very few on this forum or website for that matter that actually had the privilage of driving them all when new maybe I can give you some insight from a seat of the pants stand point.
I have driven or owned every 351 4v ever put in a Mustang at one time or another. Coupes, Fastbacks, stick and auto. Mostly stock when new or a few years old and a few with minor period HP mods.
I will say that the absolute best running pure stocker of them all was a 70 351C 300 HP 4 speed ram air beer can sportsroof.


Amen to that!

------------------
67 Mustang Shelby clone F/B 302 GT-40X FMS Crate engine 5 spd cable clutch 13.39 on 205/70/14 BFG @104 mph Flowmasters X Pipe 4.11 9". BIG Body shop NOW! 03 Focus ZX3 BORLA exhaust Wings West spoiler (Arrest ME RED)

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Mustangsandmore Front Page

Copyright 2006, Steve LaRiviere. All Rights Reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

[Build a free Mustangsandmore.ws Home Page!]

[Posting Pictures]

[About M&M][Members' Pics]

[M&M Conventions] [M&M Mug Shots] [Tech Articles]

[M&M Bookstore] [M&M Restoration & Tool Supply Store]