1965 Mustang/351C/Mustang II/ <--Which Headers?! - Vintage Mustang Forums

 4Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-14-2017, 02:24 PM Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 22
1965 Mustang/351C/Mustang II/ <--Which Headers?!

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.

Tom



Tom Waggoner is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-14-2017, 05:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Chrisss31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Woodstock, CT
Posts: 130
Take a look at these

Ford Powertrain Applications
Chrisss31 is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-14-2017, 06:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 15,730
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.
rpm likes this.

Tom

I'm not a complete idiot, pieces are missing.
Huskinhano is online now  
 
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-15-2017, 10:14 AM Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 22
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!

Tom

66/93project likes this.
Tom Waggoner is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-15-2017, 10:42 AM
Senior Member
 
Grabber70Mach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 1,403
Look at Sanderson headers.
Grabber70Mach is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-15-2017, 11:04 AM Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 22
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!
Tom Waggoner is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-15-2017, 02:20 PM Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 22
@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.

Last edited by Tom Waggoner; 03-15-2017 at 02:26 PM.
Tom Waggoner is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-15-2017, 07:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Grabber70Mach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 1,403
I was thinking more along the line of there shorties, that's what I'm running on my 70Mach.
Grabber70Mach is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-18-2017, 09:44 PM
Senior Member
 
c6fastback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: washington, GraniteFalls
Posts: 3,087
Send a message via AIM to c6fastback
Motor still looks too far forward

68 302-4V w/1.84",1.54" ported , Comp XE268H , 2200 rpm Hughes converter, 3.25 9" w/10x2.5" shoes , MSD box/distrib , RPM intake , 670 Holley , cross flow aluminum radiator , Granada discs......


Michael S.


c6fastback is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-18-2017, 11:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: newton, ks
Posts: 158
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.

69 mach 1 428 CJ.
cj428mach is offline  
post #11 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 09:32 AM
Senior Member
 
cmefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Waggoner View Post
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!
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.
cmefly is offline  
post #12 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 09:55 AM
Senior Member
 
dobrostang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,936
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.
c6fastback and Grabber70Mach like this.

Heavy Metal Thunder Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW3L_O7N_xs
dobrostang is offline  
post #13 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 12:22 PM
Senior Member
 
buckeyedemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobrostang View Post
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.
buckeyedemon is offline  
post #14 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 05:46 AM
Senior Member
 
dobrostang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,936
There are several good shootouts on dynos as well as a good article on the Sanderson web site. Here is a classic result

http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-t...-headers-test/
dobrostang is offline  
post #15 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-20-2017, 09:49 PM
Senior Member
 
buckeyedemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobrostang View Post
There are several good shootouts on dynos as well as a good article on the Sanderson web site. Here is a classic result

Short & Long-Tube Headers Test - 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine
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.

Headers Dyno Test - Hot Rod Network

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).
buckeyedemon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome