I am building a 65' with a 351C. I have done the Mustang II front end and am at a point to buy some headers. Anybody here ever gone this route and have some insight on which set I should get? I have been looking at either the Hooker Headers 6921 or the Hooker Headers 6913. Pretty sure anything would fit with all that room I made. Any advise or wisdom is appreciated. Sorry the pics of the car are so dusty,. I have a small wood shop in my garage.
Didn't you think about this before installing the MII? I would have left the stock suspension and notched the shock towers and use off the shelf headers. Plus your engine would have been back a good 6 inches for better weight distribution.
I had it in with the stock shock towers. Had crossover headers in my coupe. Now going with a fastback body I decided to change out the suspension,. at first youre right,. the weight distribution was a consideration. But the photo must be deceiving,. it was only two inches of a modified tranny mount,. and I want to say less., I know but look at mine! you can see how close mine is to the firewall,. So yeah moving the big guy forward is going to mess with my cooling a bit., thats next after I figure out the header situation. but yeah look at all that room I made with a 351! geez spark plug changes are gonna be a breeze!
Thanks @Chrisss31 for the link! @Grabber70Mach the Sanderson headers look like a good straight shot! but $999 is twice what I was wanting to spend., but man I bet they would look nice!
@Grabber70Mach the Sanderson headers look like a good straight shot! but $999 is twice what I was wanting to spend., but man I bet they would look nice!
If I was you I would stay with a header that fits a Foxbody Mustang. After screwing around with a lot of headers for MII setups the Foxbody headers usually fit the best as they are designed to clear the rack and the steering shaft.
@Grabber70Mach I talked with Sanderson and they only offer shorty headers aside from their full open chassis set. And I got a quote on custom headers for $1300. Thinking maybe just buy the Hookers 6913 set from Summit and cross my fingers,. worst case would be I pay to ship them back.
I was going to recommend S&S headers but apparently they went out of business. My 351C 4v has a set of them in my 37 Ford. They might have worked they're kind of a mid length and made to clear a MII setup plus hugged in close to clear narrow frame rails.
If you want to move the engine back you can get a rear sump pan, I've seen an aftermarket option in Jegs, I bought a rear sump 400 4wd pan and pick up to get pan clearance.
Best of luck finding something, although I have to say its wrong to build a 351C with out 4v heads, jk.
Spend some time reading about the difference power wise between shorties and long tubes. Its practically insignificant, 4hp or so unless you are running a high rpm engine and looking for microseconds. Dropping long tubes in a custom application like yours will be either a crap shoot or expensive custom headers. I exchanged a beautiful and expensive set of JBAs for Shorties 12 years ago and have never regretted that decision.
I always thought long tubes helped power at RPM ranges much less than peak and length actually hurt top end (unless they are large enough to not result in pumping losses at higher RPMs/flow rates). In other words, the headers get shorter as the peak RPM goes up. So if comparing long tubes to short tubes with the same diameter, the entire curve should be used and not just a look at peak. To me it seems like, for cars more concerned with lower RPM, the longer tube would be an advantage.
not sure what to think of that mustang and fords article with a test on an anemic, 302 with soda straw exhaust ports? possible 2-3% increase in power with a longer tube? with that low power motor, a 2-3% increase in power does not result in much. Could a Cleveland with much more capable ports and a few mods yield significantly better results? Maybe.
I'm sure there are others that show a variety of results. What details are missing, are they truly tuned the same, etc, make them all questionable.
I'm not seeing anything on the Sanderson site about Long Tubes versus Short tubes. I did see short tube versus equal length (but then the graphs just below reference long?) which there were a few suppliers especially in the 90's advertising equal length shorties. Equal length does not imply long tube. I would think a header shop would be more accurate or consistent with their terminology.
my belief is that with a tube long enough and you get opportunities to yield possible benefits of other significant harmonics that can help provide a bump (how much, I don't know) at various RPM bands, whereas the short tubes can be so short that any of the pressure waves are way beyond the usable RPM band (or you would need a really high order harmonic that won't have a lot of energy left in it).
@cj428mach I do have a rear sump,. but the small front sump that encases the oil pump still needed to be moved forward to clear the rack. And,. my 2V's alright lol @c6fastback I know @buckeyedemon I bought a pair of Hookers 6913. They come in on Thursday and I'll give it a go on Saturday. It's gonna be close. I post pics if they work.
Here is the photo from my attempt with Hookers. The steering linkage can't make.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Vintage Mustang Forums
4M posts
89.2K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to vintage Ford Mustang owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about restoration, modifications, NOS parts, troubleshooting, VIN codes, and more!