350hp 351 Budget Build - FSB Forums
Register Home Forums Active Topics Photo Gallery All Albums Mark Forums Read Auto EscrowInsurance FSB Store
FullsizeBronco.com is the premier Ford Bronco Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2013, 12:46 AM   #1
Diabolic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 215
iTrader: (0)
350hp 351 Budget Build

At the request of JLRobbins. I had this combo in my 93 Lightning and it worked very well.

Stock 351 shortblock/ 8.9:1 Comp ratio with 60cc heads
AFR 165 Heads
1.7 Roller Rockers
97-93 Mustang HO Roller Cam
FMS Adjustable Timing Gear advanced 4 degrees
Bassani Shorty headers, but the MAC 1-3/4 shorties would be even better
GT40 U/L intake
70mm tb
Mark VIII Electric Fan
UD crank pulley

This combo is enough top get 350 flywheel hp. Peak tq occurs at 3800 and peak hp at 4850. This combo is good for over 400 ftlbs and 350hp. What makes it a budget is that the stock Bronco short block can be used, and the factory 5.0 cams can be had for next to free. A used set of AFR 165's or TW170's can be picked up for $850 with RR's. The tricky part is the GT40 intake. You can substitute an Eddelbrock Performer for the 351 in its place and they can be had for $250-$300 used. I hope this helps some of you guys.
__________________
1995 Bronco, OJ Edition, 5.8/E4OD, Towing Package, LS 3.55's, 32/11.50/15's, 15x10 wheels, Warn Manual Premium Hubs, Panel K&N, Moates QH. Stock as a rock.
Diabolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-11-2013, 01:39 AM   #2
Seattle FSB
Fullsize Member
 
Seattle FSB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,466
iTrader: (4)
Bronco Info: 1990 EB FSB, MAF, 6.7L, E4OD, 4" Rancho, 4.56, 33" on 15x10 Alcoa's
Just to clarify, why would you recommend an AFR 165 over the AFR 185 that sports a 37 cfm increase? Price is the same, but are you refering specifically to Speed Density limitations?

The main considerations when choosing between the AFR 165 and AFR 185 are engine displacement and rpm range. The AFR 185 stays even with the supposedly torquier AFR 165 head within the low end, and then has a distinct advantage throughout the mid and high end even with a 5.0L EFI Cam. After all, we are talking about a larger displacement EFI 5.8L.

Just don't want the MAF 5.8L guys to be confused.
__________________
1990 Bronco, MAF, 408 Stroker, Level 10 E4OD, Currie F9+, Electric Boost Brakes, lots more...
Seattle FSB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 02:00 AM   #3
sr71mopar
Registered User
 
sr71mopar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Santa Rosa
Posts: 813
iTrader: (0)
Bronco Info: Replaced by an F100
I can't decide between the AFR's or the iron jr's.
sr71mopar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 09:28 AM   #4
Diabolic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 215
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle FSB View Post
Just to clarify, why would you recommend an AFR 165 over the AFR 185 that sports a 37 cfm increase? Price is the same, but are you refering specifically to Speed Density limitations?

I said 165's for 2 reasons. the first reason is that is what I ran so i know the results. The second reason is to cover my butt because the 185's have 2.02 intake valves and that opens up the potential for PTV clearance issues if the lift and or timing event's on the camshaft are too much or too soon. Yes, the 185's do flow more than the 165's but really a mute point until over .500 lift. The differnce in hp of the 185 vs 165 for a mild SD cam is going to be minimal al best. The HO stocker is only .444 lift with 1.6's and .477 with 1.7's. At that point the 165's and 185's are equal. This is somewhat of a budget build and 165's can be had for less $$$.The main considerations when choosing between the AFR 165 and AFR 185 are engine displacement and rpm range. The AFR 185 stays even with the supposedly torquier AFR 165 head within the low end, and then has a distinct advantage throughout the mid and high end even with a 5.0L EFI Cam. After all, we are talking about a larger displacement EFI 5.8L.

Just don't want the MAF 5.8L guys to be confused.
I've seen several Lightning dyno sheets where guys with the HO cam and 185's just barely make it to 300 at the wheels. My 165's did the same. I still don't see an advantage to the 185's with lift below .500.
__________________
1995 Bronco, OJ Edition, 5.8/E4OD, Towing Package, LS 3.55's, 32/11.50/15's, 15x10 wheels, Warn Manual Premium Hubs, Panel K&N, Moates QH. Stock as a rock.
Diabolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 09:29 AM   #5
Diabolic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 215
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr71mopar View Post
I can't decide between the AFR's or the iron jr's.
Well i'd say the AFR's make about 30=40% more hp, so maybe that will help you decide. The Jr's are a decent upgrade to stock with some mild porting. They seem to make the same hp as GT40P's out of the box.
__________________
1995 Bronco, OJ Edition, 5.8/E4OD, Towing Package, LS 3.55's, 32/11.50/15's, 15x10 wheels, Warn Manual Premium Hubs, Panel K&N, Moates QH. Stock as a rock.
Diabolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 10:16 AM   #6
CJREX
Registered User
 
CJREX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,560
iTrader: (2)
Bronco Info: 1990, 351W, E4OD, 4" lift, extended radius arms, 35x12.50s, 4.56 gears, Detroit rear, Truetrac front
Thanks for posting this build combo.

I think I will try this combo with one change (TW 170s) and one question...

I have the Edelbrock truck 351 intake. The surface area of the stock twin 51mm TB is greater than the single 70mm TB.

If I am planning to remain SD, is there any reason to change my TB? Would the BBK dual 56mm be worthwhile?

Thanks.
__________________
It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

Thomas Sowell
CJREX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 10:28 AM   #7
jowens1126
Fullsize Member
 
jowens1126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 5,153
iTrader: (2)
Bronco Info: 1994 Bronco Eddie Bauer edition, 302 MAF, E4OD
Just go ahead and Do a MAF Conversion, it will make life so much easier.
__________________
1994 EB Bronco, 302 MAF, E4OD, BW1356, Slightly Customized Interior
"Demanding something free on top of a discount is just being a Democrat. - Steve83"

My Build Thread - http://www.fullsizebronco.com/forum/...d.php?t=191067
jowens1126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 10:39 AM   #8
Diabolic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 215
iTrader: (0)
See in red.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJREX View Post
Thanks for posting this build combo.

I think I will try this combo with one change (TW 170s) and one question...

Those are great heads as well. They actually mimic the flow capability of the AFR 185 best.

I have the Edelbrock truck 351 intake. The surface area of the stock twin 51mm TB is greater than the single 70mm TB.
Correct the twin 51's have 7.46" vs the 70mm at 5.85".
If I am planning to remain SD, is there any reason to change my TB? Would the BBK dual 56mm be worthwhile? Honestly if you keep the revs below 6000 I don't think you would see much gain. Maybe a hp or 2 at the most.Thanks.
__________________
1995 Bronco, OJ Edition, 5.8/E4OD, Towing Package, LS 3.55's, 32/11.50/15's, 15x10 wheels, Warn Manual Premium Hubs, Panel K&N, Moates QH. Stock as a rock.
Diabolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 10:45 AM   #9
Diabolic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 215
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jowens1126 View Post
Just go ahead and Do a MAF Conversion, it will make life so much easier.
I think anyone wanting more than 375 hp in NA form or more than 475 supercharged will benefit from MAF. The biggest complaint I had with SD was the lack of a Low Slope for the injectors. The perfect injector for many applications is a 42, but the flow rate is so non linear down low that without a low slope the SD struggles with it. It can be tuned with enough time and patience, but I was never able to tune mine back to 100% stock like driveability with the 42's. I actually think the Siemens 60's would be far easier to tune than the fat body green 42's. I never actually tried it, but the Hi and Low slopes are very similar to one another unlike the 42's.

A 12.1 FMU and stock 19's can carry a supercharged combo to 500hp provided the fuel flow is adequate. In the Lightning world that means 3 fuel pumps running at the same time, 2 120's, and 1 255.
__________________
1995 Bronco, OJ Edition, 5.8/E4OD, Towing Package, LS 3.55's, 32/11.50/15's, 15x10 wheels, Warn Manual Premium Hubs, Panel K&N, Moates QH. Stock as a rock.
Diabolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 10:46 AM   #10
gadawgz71
Fullsize Member
 
gadawgz71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Macon, Ga.
Posts: 2,097
iTrader: (68)
Bronco Info: 96 White Sport EFI 466 MAF/OBD-II, 95 Black XLT 351w
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJREX View Post
Thanks for posting this build combo.

I think I will try this combo with one change (TW 170s) and one question...

I have the Edelbrock truck 351 intake. The surface area of the stock twin 51mm TB is greater than the single 70mm TB.

If I am planning to remain SD, is there any reason to change my TB? Would the BBK dual 56mm be worthwhile?

Thanks.
NO

Quote:
Originally Posted by jowens1126 View Post
Just go ahead and Do a MAF Conversion, it will make life so much easier.
This^^^. I made the mistake a long time ago to build a 357w for my 93 w/ TW heads, custom cam, Eddie Truck Intake, etc.






Upgrading to MAF is worth its weight in gold. Ask anyone w/ an engine over stock. I'd even suggest picking up a 96 so you dont have to convert. Easier in my opinion. I'll sell you a 96....
__________________
1996 White Sport EFI 466 MAF/OBD-II-1995 Black XLT 351
SOLD
1996 PG EB 351w-1996 Wht EB 351w-1996 Wht Sport 351w-1994 Wht Sport 351
1996 MB EB, KR Interior 302w-1996 White EB 351w, 3" BL, 33's-1996 PG EB 351w
1996 Wht/Tan XLT 351w-1996 PG EB 351w-1996 Black Sport 408w, tons, 40's
1996 MB EB 351w, 6", 35's-1996 White Sport 351w-1996 PG EB 351w
1996 M EB, 302, SAS D44-1995 Black Sport-1990 302w, M5OD, 3" BL, 33s
1996 White EB 351w-1993 G EB 357w-1978 XLT 351m-1971 Sport, 331w, 4.5", 35's
gadawgz71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 11:19 AM   #11
Diabolic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 215
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gadawgz71 View Post
NO



This^^^. I made the mistake a long time ago to build a 357w for my 93 w/ TW heads, custom cam, Eddie Truck Intake, etc.






Upgrading to MAF is worth its weight in gold. Ask anyone w/ an engine over stock. I'd even suggest picking up a 96 so you dont have to convert. Easier in my opinion. I'll sell you a 96....
That is a very nice looking engine you have there. Could you explain why your conversion to MAF made the experience easier for you? What are the specs on the camshaft you used? I really like the way that intake looks black. Clean setup!
__________________
1995 Bronco, OJ Edition, 5.8/E4OD, Towing Package, LS 3.55's, 32/11.50/15's, 15x10 wheels, Warn Manual Premium Hubs, Panel K&N, Moates QH. Stock as a rock.
Diabolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 02:22 PM   #12
Jlrobbins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Somerset, KY
Posts: 94
iTrader: (0)
Bronco Info: 1992 Chassis/1996 Engine, Trans, Wiring, etc.
Thanks Diabolic. Im trying to locate all of the parts I need to begin the build...any odd ball things common to the 351s i should be aware of during disassembly?
Jlrobbins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 02:28 PM   #13
gadawgz71
Fullsize Member
 
gadawgz71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Macon, Ga.
Posts: 2,097
iTrader: (68)
Bronco Info: 96 White Sport EFI 466 MAF/OBD-II, 95 Black XLT 351w
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diabolic View Post
That is a very nice looking engine you have there. Could you explain why your conversion to MAF made the experience easier for you? What are the specs on the camshaft you used? I really like the way that intake looks black. Clean setup!
Diabolic,

Let me be completely fair. That was not the first 357w I built for my 93. I first built one w/ just GT40'S, truck intake, BBK TB, headers w/ stock cam. It ran fine until I turned on the a/c then it would shudder. I also didn't get the expected outcome I had read about here. It was no where near as powerful as I was lead to believe.

So that lead me to want to change the cam, do some porting, roller conversion, injectors, and re-tuned. Problem was, tuning for the SD proved to be beyond my skill level and frankly...desire. I then sought out to find a professional do it. After 3-4months of searching and at least 4-5 shops flat out saying it wasn't worth their time, I gave up.

After wanting more power, I decided to sell my 93 and move onto a 96 that had MAF so I could build an engine and reap all the rewards of running a more efficient a/f system.

In conclusion, I'm not saying someone can't be happy w/ SD...they most certainly can. In fact, the majority of the guys on here run a SD system but in-turn, just run a stock configuration engine aside from simple bolt ons. The ones who build aftermarket engines always gravitate towards MAF for simply the aftermarket support, "tunablity", driveability, reliability, and the cool factor of course. But, I dont have to tell you that if you were in the L scene. I also feel that most gear heads tend to want more and more as they go. Often times here you'll read someone who started w/ a 2.5" lift that now wants to know should he go w/ a 4" or 6" lift. 10 out of 10 responses are 6". After a couple years of wheeling that, then comes the SAS and...so on and so on if wheeling is what they're into. You may be the exception to the rule. I however, am not.

After building the first 357w, I've learned that I only want to build it once and build it right the first time. I never want to have any "I should have done this or that" after a build. I think most guys here that have built higher HP engines w/ SD trucks would agree that they should have started w/ a truck w/ MAF or at the very least converted. I get ADD w/ wiring so its easier for me to just buy a 96 and sell the SD truck than it is to convert. I know that may not be a luxury for most. I dont have any sentimental value to any specific Bronco so I dont have that little voice that says "this was your first Bronco" or "you told yourself you were always going to build this one" or "you love the color, interior, etc". Like I said, I dont have that feeling with one particular Bronco....just Broncos in general. If that makes sense....

Thanks for the compliments on the engine. I have since sold that one as well so I gave the cam sheet to the buyer. (Although I wish I wouldn't have sold it.) The main reason I painted the intake was not for looks but that I hated the way it was subject to dirt and grime with its textured finish. It was very difficult to clean. Especially after installing it. After deciding to paint it, I wanted it to match my VC's. So I stripped it, taped it up and painted it. I used rustoleoum black and el cheapo red rattle can. I was happy with the finished product but I must give credit to my wife for taping everything off precisely w/ an exacto knife. I'm very impatient and have been told that I was "perhaps, easily distracted." Remember my ADD/frustration w/ wiring..?...well, that essentially cascades onto other tedious endeavors so I dont do well on projects that require patience and finesse. She however, was a brilliant architecture graduate so needless to say, if its time-consuming, delicate, or painstaking, she is assigned the job. I get by with her talents.







__________________
1996 White Sport EFI 466 MAF/OBD-II-1995 Black XLT 351
SOLD
1996 PG EB 351w-1996 Wht EB 351w-1996 Wht Sport 351w-1994 Wht Sport 351
1996 MB EB, KR Interior 302w-1996 White EB 351w, 3" BL, 33's-1996 PG EB 351w
1996 Wht/Tan XLT 351w-1996 PG EB 351w-1996 Black Sport 408w, tons, 40's
1996 MB EB 351w, 6", 35's-1996 White Sport 351w-1996 PG EB 351w
1996 M EB, 302, SAS D44-1995 Black Sport-1990 302w, M5OD, 3" BL, 33s
1996 White EB 351w-1993 G EB 357w-1978 XLT 351m-1971 Sport, 331w, 4.5", 35's
gadawgz71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 02:48 PM   #14
Jlrobbins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Somerset, KY
Posts: 94
iTrader: (0)
Bronco Info: 1992 Chassis/1996 Engine, Trans, Wiring, etc.
what does the MAF conversion consist of?
Jlrobbins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 02:55 PM   #15
Diabolic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 215
iTrader: (0)
It would be ideal for the owner of a SD vehicle to purchase a Moates Quarter Horse or Tweecer RT. I personally use the QH along with Binary Editor 2012, and a Licensed strategy file from Pops Racing. I also reccomend an Innovate MTXL wideband before doing any serious mods. The challenge with a SD setup is that when airflow is increased,the wot AFR becomes leaner. The part throttle isn't an issue because of the adaptive leaning process of the ECM. During wot, thefuel is supplied based off a factory set formula. For instance:
Stock the factory tune nets a wot AFR of 12.5. Now that's on the safe side of rich for an NA engine. Now lets add an exhaust and CAI. We have more air in and more air out. The ECM sees the air fuel mix is leaner at part throttle from the target of 14.67 so it starts to add feul in order to obtain the target of 14.67. It uses the oxygen sensors to keep this in check at part throttle and idle. Now we decide to go wot, and the oxygen sensors are no longer part of the equation. The ECM begins to add fuel based off the stabilized or bse fuel tables thinking it's going to get a 12.5 AFR. The challenge is that now we have more airflow so the end result is a leaner 13.5 AFR. Still considered safe, but on the lean edge.

In the quest for more power we add UD pulleys, MSD ignition, and an electric fan. Those just improve efficiency and reduce parasitic loss so no additional fuel is required. Now we are getting somewhere.......15hp from the exhaust, 5hp for the CAI, 5hp for the MSD, 10hp for the electric fan, and 5hp for the UD crank pulley. We have stepped up the game by almost 40hp from stock and improved gas meilage too! We have reached the maximum safe limit for a SD ECM without a tune. Now the speed bug has hit, and why shouldn't it it because everything we have done so far has added hp! We buy ourselves some nice ported GT40's or even better, a set of TW aluminum heads! Some of us might even be tempted to swap intakes and the cam at this time too. I'm going to leave the cam out of this scenario because it's a whole bag of worms unto itself.

Now we are ready to fire it up after spending $1000 on heads, $200 on Roller Rockers, headbolts, $100 on gaskets, $650 on a GT40 intake, and another $150 on Misc crap. She fires right up, and idles to a smooth sounding 750 RPM. You take her out for the maiden wot pull and then................she's weak as a wet noodle. Dissapointed we bring her home and curse the SD ECM. That's all it can be, because this should have added another 65hp! If you had installed a wb in the beginning you would have realized the lack of hp is due to the AFR going to 16.1 at wot. Not only is it dangerous, but also kills the powa! Maybe then you get a chip that allows for 30# injectors thinking that will fix it. The truth is that it won't because it's not the limit of the injectors, but rather the limit of Volumetric Efficiency table to add more fuel. You have exceeded what the ECM knows to add fuel for, and no injector swap, fuel pump upgrade, or timing advance is going to fix that. This is when you use you MOates QH, Laptop, and Wideband to rescale the VE tables, adjust the wot fuel multipliers, rescale the injectors, and get that AFR back in the high 12's where it should be.
__________________
1995 Bronco, OJ Edition, 5.8/E4OD, Towing Package, LS 3.55's, 32/11.50/15's, 15x10 wheels, Warn Manual Premium Hubs, Panel K&N, Moates QH. Stock as a rock.
Diabolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 12:52 AM   #16
Jlrobbins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Somerset, KY
Posts: 94
iTrader: (0)
Bronco Info: 1992 Chassis/1996 Engine, Trans, Wiring, etc.
Bump
Jlrobbins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 01:38 AM   #17
Rustholio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 32
iTrader: (0)
How far will an increase in fuel pressure take you with SD? At less than WOT in closed loop, the system should decrease pulse width based on the O2 readings, but at WOT possibly the A/F would be improved. Does that work to an extent or does it apply the long term learned correction when in WOT?

What about a small increase in injector size, and possibly a decrease in fuel pressure for the same effect? Assuming that a bump from 19lb to say 24lb injectors would be outside of what the system can correct for.

I've used SCT software to tune my '03 Mach 1, both NA and supercharged, so I have some familiarity. Never tried to tune earlier EEC-IV mass air or SD systems though.
__________________
'91 EB FSB, 5.8/E4OD, 4" Lift (start date Feb 2012)
'98 Mustang GT, 408w/C4
'03 Mach 1
'08 F150 FX2
Rustholio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 08:36 AM   #18
Diabolic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 215
iTrader: (0)
The only way 24's with less fp would work is if you are running out of injector. The adaptive leaning is also applied to the wot fuel trims. The only way around it would be a KAM clearing switch or disabling adaptives in the tune. 19's are good to about 315-325hp.
__________________
1995 Bronco, OJ Edition, 5.8/E4OD, Towing Package, LS 3.55's, 32/11.50/15's, 15x10 wheels, Warn Manual Premium Hubs, Panel K&N, Moates QH. Stock as a rock.
Diabolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 09:41 AM   #19
Alvin in AZ
AKA: Butthead
 
Alvin in AZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Gadsden Purchase
Posts: 2,880
iTrader: (0)
Bronco Info: '91 RoadQueen 351w-2wd-ZF camtiming+4* 265/75-16E's dual Ranchos F&R, SuperCab bench seat EEC=F250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diabolic View Post
...now we have more airflow so the end result is a leaner 13.5 AFR.
Still considered safe, but on the lean edge.
Would that be good for high altitude tho? :)
Or would the MAP sensor lean it out even more, too much even?

Quote:
15hp from the exhaust,
5hp for the CAI,
5hp for the MSD,
10hp for the electric fan,
5hp for the UD crank pulley.
Next question, what about 1.7 rockers? :)
Have any idea what 1.7's would do when matched with only the
"open exhaust" from that list?

Alvin in AZ
Alvin in AZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 09:57 AM   #20
Diabolic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 215
iTrader: (0)
The factory ECM has fuel and spark tables specifically for higher altitude. I never need to worry about those or what factors cause the ECM to switch to those tables, but they are there.
__________________
1995 Bronco, OJ Edition, 5.8/E4OD, Towing Package, LS 3.55's, 32/11.50/15's, 15x10 wheels, Warn Manual Premium Hubs, Panel K&N, Moates QH. Stock as a rock.
Diabolic is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  FSB Forums > Bronco Discussions > 1980-'96 Bronco Tech


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:51 PM.


2003-2009 FullSizeBronco.com. All rights reserved