JBA 351W headers on a 289 - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > Vintage Mustang Forum
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-30-2002, 06:24 PM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,565
Send a message via ICQ to Axnjxn
Default

Does anyone know if the JBA headers for a 351W swap (pt # 1653) will fit in a '65 with a 289/302? I NEED to get headers now since my old ones are shot, but I'd rather get the 351W set in case I decide to go ahead with that swap down the road.

I suspect that the 1653's are designed the hug the 351 block, which since it's taller would push the collector INTO a small block, and thus not fit. Though, it might alleviate the gear box clearance issue.

Also, any info/stories on the motor mount swap (read: fiasco) would be appreciated.
Axnjxn is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-30-2002, 06:36 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 313
Default

I had a similar situation where I used '70-351C headers on the Boss 302 in my '65. The shorter block deck made them hit the tie rod ends when the wheel was turned almost to lock. Nothing critical, but very annoying. I ended up shimming the block up on the motor mounts about 3/8" to stop the rub. They cleared everything else okay.
__________________
Dave J

Vintage Mustangs never die, they're just put out to pasture.
http://1trick.stangnet.com
onetrickpony is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-31-2002, 12:02 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central California
Posts: 10,514
Send a message via ICQ to camachinist Send a message via AIM to camachinist Send a message via Yahoo to camachinist
Default

I can scrutinize the JBA's on my D-coder and see if anything pops to mind as a clearance issue...

As the W's deck is merely 1" taller, one problem I could see is a possible interference with the engine mount on a 289/302. The W's crankcase is wider so the headers can't suck back against the block too much... and, since both engines utilize the same bank angle and have the same bore and bore spacing, the headers will mount in the same plane on both.
Another possibility might be idler arm or starter clearance problems...hmmm

Interesting question....

I think it would be worthwhile contacting JBA on this one....they'll know best.
__________________
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/signaturepics/xsigpic18756_2.gif.pagespeed.ic.3vzsIY6Mah.jpg
Visit my VMF lingo page
Visit the Ford engine torque specs page
Visit my MySpace Blog
camachinist is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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:

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

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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.