 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / September 2007302 Clevland????
I've never heard of such. Am I out of the loop or is this a typo?? http://www.austousa.com/4sale/forsale-1580.html  Signature“I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement.” – Seth Breidbart As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland 351 was superior to the Windsor one. > I've never heard of such. Am I out of the loop or is this a typo?? > http://www.austousa.com/4sale/forsale-1580.html > As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland 351 was > superior to the Windsor one. as for the 351c being superior 351c, produced 5 years, 70-74 351w, produced 30 years, 69-98 >> As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland 351 >> was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 351w, produced 30 years, 69-98 I though Ford NASCAR still uses Clevelands to this day. FYI: The Yates heads used by Ford NASCAR today are derived from the 351C. Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 featuring a 351C 4V M-code @ http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt >>> As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland 351 >>> was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I though Ford NASCAR still uses Clevelands to this day. > FYI: The Yates heads used by Ford NASCAR today are derived from the 351C. > > Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 > featuring > a 351C 4V M-code @ http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt Good pics. That is a Cleveland by the high valve covers, canted distributor and dry intake manifold. Same here in a '71 Grande 351C 4V M code. > >> As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland 351 > >> was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I though Ford NASCAR still uses Clevelands to this day. I believe nascar 351's are hybrid 351w style block with 351c crank journals > >> As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland 351 > >> was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I though Ford NASCAR still uses Clevelands to this day. I believe nascar 351's are hybrid 351w style block with 351c crank journals >> As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland 351 >> was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 351w, produced 30 years, 69-98 I think the Cleveland was curtailed because the EPA determined we were having too much fun. It has huge ports and valves and a high compression ratio. >> As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland 351 >> was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 351w, produced 30 years, 69-98 That illustrates what as to which engine is superior? The 351C/429/BOSS 302 canted valve style heads were the best pushrod head design Ford ever sold, far superior to any factory Ford Windsor head. That is fact, not opinion. > >> As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland 351 > >> was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > design Ford ever sold, far superior to any factory Ford Windsor head. That > is fact, not opinion. the 351c heads may be "superior" but the 351c engine as a total package is not really superior, the 351c had better heads but had poor oilling system,shorter deck height. FWIW the boss 302 was a "windsor" with 351c style heads and the 95 cobra R was all 351 windsor. nascar engines are hybrids utilizing the best of both designs,also the original 351w 4 barrel engine was rated at 290 hp while most 351c 4 barrel engines hovered around 300 hp +/- >> >> As far as I know the Cleveland Plant never made a 302. The Cleveland >> >> 351 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > best of both designs,also the original 351w 4 barrel engine was rated > at 290 hp while most 351c 4 barrel engines hovered around 300 hp +/- The Cleveland "Poor Oiling" issues were never as serious of a problem as some people like to infer. There are many high performance Cleveland engines running many thousands of HARD miles on unaltered factory original oiling systems with ZERO problems. The pinnacle of 351 Windsor head carbureted performance, should be compared to the pinnacle of the Cleveland's factory carbureted performance which is 330 horsepower. That 40 horsepower just reaffirms the original statement, the 351 Cleveland was superior to the 351 Windsor. Factory or modified, dollar for dollar, a whole lot more horsepower is available from a 351 Cleveland than a 351 Windsor. As for the 351C being superior, Yep, That's fact. > the 351c heads may be "superior" but the 351c engine as a total package > is not really superior, the 351c had better heads but had poor oilling > system,shorter deck height. What is this about an oil problem? Had my oil changed about 4 months ago. Have since put on ~3500 miles mixed driving and the oil is still the color of honey at the full mark. Does this mean the oil is sitting in the pan and not being used? My Cleveland has an Edelbrock manifold stamped LB for lowdeck. > FWIW the boss 302 was a "windsor" with 351c style heads and the 95 > cobra R was all 351 windsor. nascar engines are hybrids utilizing the > best of both designs,also the original 351w 4 barrel engine was rated > at 290 hp while most 351c 4 barrel engines hovered around 300 hp +/- Sometimes Ford would use whatever was on the shelf at the time. You could find cars following down the assembly line, one with a Borg-Warner and the next with a toploader. Toploader is the best......... "DRAGNET" <jackweb@usa.com> wrote in news:1167652229.120291.95970 @s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > as for the 351c being superior > > 351c, produced 5 years, 70-74 > > 351w, produced 30 years, 69-98 The 351C WAS superior. It was a victim of both smog laws, and the corporation being in major financial trouble. The decision was made to continue producing the small block 351W, and to replace the 351C with a stroked down 400 called the 351M, because Ford couldn't keep up with the demand for that size engine using the 351W only. Using a 400 block meant that Ford now only needed to build 2 blocks rather than 3. The 351C block is very similar to the 400, but had enough minor differences to require it to be built on a different assembly line. A very popular mod to the 351W is called the "Clevor," which entails modifying the superior 351C heads to fit on a 351W block. 351M was destroked 400 lo-po truck engine never installed in a car, the majority of "ford" car people wouldn't even consider using 400/351m although they are tall deck cleveland design. "superior" means better in every way, it's just not the case when comparing 351w to 351c stroked 351w's are popular today, maybe ford should have built a 400'ish windsor, they already had the 302 pistons & the crank from the 400 that would fit with some minor mods. > 351M was destroked 400 lo-po truck engine never installed in a car, > the majority of "ford" car people wouldn't even consider using 400/351m > although they are tall deck cleveland design. > > "superior" means better in every way, it's just not the case when > comparing 351w to 351c Hum, Bullshit, superior simply means better, by any degree. superior noun: 1 One that surpasses another in rank or quality. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition The 351 Cleveland was simply superior to the 351 Windsor, no matter what silliness you toss out. PERFORMANCE: 1970 Mach 1 Engine: 300hp 351C V-8 Transmission: Three speed automatic Axle Ratio: 3.00:1 Weight N/A Acceleration Sec. 0-30 mph 3.5 0-60 mph 8.2 0-100 mph 21.4 Standing 1/4 mi 16.0 @ 86.2 mph Top speed 120* mph Source: Motor Trend, 4/70 PERFORMANCE: 1969 Mustang Grande Engine: 290hp 351W V-8 Transmission: Three speed automatic Axle Ratio: 2.75:1 Weight 3420 Acceleration Sec. 0-30 mph 3.4 0-60 mph 8.0 0-100 mph 21.6 Standing 1/4 mi 15.59 @ 89.09 mph Top speed 119 mph Source: Car Life 2/69 just the facts Fact: Dragnet is a few cans short a six-pack. You are looking at the wrong 351 Cleveland. Try the 330 horse version. Hint, look for the 1971 "Boss" 351 Cleveland... Wait, that wasn't the engine in the mustang that is often said to be in the quickest (and heaviest bodied) production mustang ever is it? The '71 Boss 351 is generally regarded as the quickest production Mustang. Car and Driver lists performance figures of 14.1 seconds at 100.6 mph in the quarter mile. Zero to sixty is reported as 5.8 seconds. A Motor Trend review of the '71 Boss reveals a quarter mile time of 13.8 at 104 mph on a test car outfitted with headers. With traction bars, a new clutch, and open headers, a February '71 "Hot Rod Magazine" article lists a time of 13.58 at 107+ MPH in the quarter mile. http://www.boss351.org/HO.htm The Ford Boss 351 (5.8 L) 335 "Cleveland" V8. Created in 1970, it uses the basic four-bolt Cleveland block and crankshaft but both are constructed from high-strength nodular iron. The cylinder head is modified for better airflow and solid lifters. Aluminum valve covers added to the look. The forged connecting rods were shot-peened and magnafluxed for strength, and forged domed pistons gave an 11.3:1 nominal (11.1:1 advertised) compression ratio. Configuration: 90° V8, overhead valve Engine displacement: 351 in³ (5.8 L) Bore and stroke: 4.00 in (101.6 mm) by 3.5 in (88.9 mm) Bore/stroke ratio: 1.14:1 Bore spacing: 4.38 in (111.3 mm) Connecting rod length: 5.78 in (146.8 mm) Maximum power: 330 hp (246 kW) at 5,400 rpm Maximum torque: 370 ft·lbf (501 N·m) at 4,000 rpm Compression ratio: 11.3:1 (64.6-67.6 cc quench type chambers) Piston compression height: 1.631 in (41.4 mm) Carburetor: Autolite 4V, spread bore, 750 ft³/min Fuel: Premium leaded Valve train: Mechanical Valve lash cold: .022 in (0.6 mm) intake and exhaust, .025 hot Get back to us when you net a clue. > PERFORMANCE: > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > just the facts and everybody owns a boss 351, I'd love to see a race inspired 330 hp 351 boss vs smog legal 300hp 351w 95 cobra R. legend & lore, great for bench racing. > and everybody owns a boss 351, I'd love to see a race inspired 330 hp > 351 boss vs smog legal 300hp 351w 95 cobra R. > > legend & lore, great for bench racing. Everybody owns a ONE YEAR only 1969 351 Windsor four barrel??? You are an IDIOT! >> and everybody owns a boss 351, I'd love to see a race inspired 330 hp >> 351 boss vs smog legal 300hp 351w 95 cobra R. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are an IDIOT! As you must know, the 351W was offered in 4bbl trim for many years beyond 1969. It was NOT a one year only engine - that is an erroneous assertion. Rob 1972 Mustang had a Boss 351W version. >>> and everybody owns a boss 351, I'd love to see a race inspired 330 hp >>> 351 boss vs smog legal 300hp 351w 95 cobra R. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Rob Christ, you top posting Idiots, the one year only Ford "Boss 351" was a 1971, not a 1972, and it was most definitely a solid lifter Cleveland, not a Windsor... The 1972 Mustang Boss you are referencing must be this, and is a non factory race car, again with a Cleveland, not a Windsor. http://www.race-cars.com/carsales/ford/1076639389/1076639389lg.htm > 1972 Mustang had a Boss 351W version. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >>Rob Not in a car, and certainly not in the Mustang, only a couple of odd creations after early the 80's, (one or two years pre-EFI ford trucks and one year for the EFI Cobra Mustang) boats don't count, Ford does not make or sell boats... By all means show the ford listings from 1968~1980 for any car made by Ford in the USA with a factory four barrel Windsor other than 1969. Prove your assertion, which Ford cars offered the 351 Windsor with factory 4bbl and which years were they offered, besides 1969??? I won't hold my breath, the only factory cars you will find will be two barrel Windsor's or four barrel Cleveland's... Go ahead smart a.s... Show us all how smart you are. >Christ, you top posting Idiots, the one year only Ford "Boss 351" was a >1971, not a 1972, and it was most definitely a solid lifter Cleveland, not a [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Go ahead smart a.s... Show us all how smart you are. While I may be in error as to W vs C, although I don't believe I am, my 1972 came with a 351 4v ( code R) coupled to an FMX. Near as I can recall (it was 35 years ago) the engine was much like my 289 4v A Code 65 FB, except it had about a ton of smog crap on it.... even though I bought it in the east and drove it to California when I returned from overseas. Considering that the 1971 and 1972 model years were nearly identical, and knowing that it was not uncommon for Ford to use up last years parts and equipment in building new cars, let alone the possibility that someone may have special ordered a car such as this, I would not be so hasty in judging what was or was not possible. How many "unique" Mustangs which were not supposed to exist have turned up over the years? While you may be correct regarding W vs C, I see no need to be insulting. It's not a life or death issue. If, at the scene of an accident, you observed someone with a sucking chest wound and the person tending to them was trying to bandage a toe, an insult might be called for, but not over an issue such as this. >> Christ, you top posting Idiots, the one year only Ford "Boss 351" was a >> 1971, not a 1972, and it was most definitely a solid lifter Cleveland, not a [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Mustangs which were not supposed to exist have turned up over the > years? An 88 5.0 with T-tops. Saw it, touched it, sat in it. Signature"....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose >>> Christ, you top posting Idiots, the one year only Ford "Boss 351" was a >>> 1971, not a 1972, and it was most definitely a solid lifter Cleveland, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> While I may be in error as to W vs C, although I don't believe I am, >> my 1972 came with a 351 4v ( code R) coupled to an FMX. Near as I can The whole argument is about specific details, 35 year old specific details, they kinda do make a some difference. The only early 70's BOSS 351's were 1971 only solid lifter Cleveland's. 1971 was also the last year for the FACTORY 429 in the Mustang, even though 71, 72 & 73 look nearly the same, 71 was the last year with the "really good" engines.... >> recall (it was 35 years ago) the engine was much like my 289 4v A Code >> 65 FB, except it had about a ton of smog crap on it.... even though I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > An 88 5.0 with T-tops. Saw it, touched it, sat in it. Fer cryin out loud, Earth to WindsorFox, we are talking 351 Windsor factory four barrel here, not 302/5.0, 351 Windsor... Sheehs >>Christ, you top posting Idiots, the one year only Ford "Boss 351" was a >>1971, not a 1972, and it was most definitely a solid lifter Cleveland, not [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > person tending to them was trying to bandage a toe, an insult might be > called for, but not over an issue such as this. Sorry, but dredging up this very old post was a somewhat feeble attempt by Rob to "insult" or otherwise impugn my position that Ford only ever made and sold the 351 Windsor Four Barrel engine in cars for one model year, 1969. That is a fact, deal with it. You jumped in to the middle of it with more erroneous information. Generally people who don't want to get shot at, don't jump into the line of fire... >>>Christ, you top posting Idiots, the one year only Ford "Boss 351" was a >>>1971, not a 1972, and it was most definitely a solid lifter Cleveland, not [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >Generally people who don't want to get shot at, don't jump into the line of >fire... In other words, never enter into a thread I didn't start in order not to get caught by a stray round? As my posts indicated, I am willing to concede the possibility of error on my part after 35 odd years, between the W and the C. I am not in error concerning what year I owned and that it had a 351 4v, or that it had not been altered. And while it may be true regarding getting shot (although I didn't raise up to try to read the VC bullets to see if my name was on one), it is also true that people who want to teach others do not act like an Alpha Hotel with rude and disparaging comments. >>>>Christ, you top posting Idiots, the one year only Ford "Boss 351" was a >>>>1971, not a 1972, and it was most definitely a solid lifter Cleveland, [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > teach others do not act like an Alpha Hotel with rude and disparaging > comments. Spike, This thread has gone way beyond the "teaching others" point. You (along with a few other misguided "me too'ers) jumped into the middle of Rob's ridiculously insisting that an off topic boat part somehow has some relevance in a discussion about which years Ford offered manufactured and sold CARS with the four barrel 351 Windsor engine. Christ, if you can't follow along, or even recall what type of engine you owned, what purpose does your input actually serve? If you don't like my response, that's too bad. I didn't like your half cocked erroneous "rebuttal" to my position. Rob's Idiocy on this topic is bad enough all by itself. Ford only manufactured and sold the 351 4bbl Windsor engine in any automobile for one model year, 1969. If you have some actual proof that this is not so, present it, otherwise, DEAL WITH IT! Rob attempted (trying to be funny or just ignorant, I don't know) to appear smug in disproving my statement of documented fact about Fords production of a certain AUTOMOBILE engine, the ONE YEAR ONLY 1969 4bbl 351 Windsor, by dredging up "DRAGNET" jack...@usa.com 's stupid post from nine months ago then injected his IDIOCY into it. "As you must know, the 351W was offered in 4bbl trim for many years beyond 1969. It was NOT a one year only engine - that is an erroneous assertion." Then you, WindsorFox & elaich all jump in with your erroneous Me Too input, and wonder why I think your input is idiotic? I've spent many hours over many years searching for, buying, using and selling specifically these 1968~1974 "rare" Ford engine parts. I am quite certain which years Ford made and sold which parts. Rob, I'd like to see you try and pass your boat engine parts off on a non 1969 351 4bbl Windsor engine concourse restoration project. Here is an EBay link about the engine in question... THE 1969 351 WINDSOR IS A HIGH NICKEL CONTENT BLOCK AND IS THE ONLY WINDSOR WITH FOUR BARREL HEADS http://ebay.com Item number: 220151392530 SNIP >> As my posts indicated, I am willing to concede the possibility of >> error on my part after 35 odd years, between the W and the C. I am not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >relevance in a discussion about which years Ford offered manufactured and >sold CARS with the four barrel 351 Windsor engine. I guess I am misguided. I thought this newsgroup a place for me to learn. Not a place for me to be insulted for being in error. It would appear that I am not alone in such thinking. >Christ, if you can't follow along, or even recall what type of engine you >owned, what purpose does your input actually serve? If you don't like my >response, that's too bad. I didn't like your half cocked erroneous >"rebuttal" to my position. Rob's Idiocy on this topic is bad enough all by >itself. Thanks, but I thought I did know what I had. It was a 351, and the one I am most familiar with is the Windsor. My intent was not to rebut your position, but to point out what I drove and see if I was correct, or if you could steer me right. I didn't expect to be insulted. >Ford only manufactured and sold the 351 4bbl Windsor engine in any >automobile for one model year, 1969. If you have some actual proof that >this is not so, present it, otherwise, DEAL WITH IT! I don't plan to "DEAL WITH IT". I plan to accept it and forget it. It puts no gas in the tank of my 65 Fastback A Code, so it really doesn't impact my life as it clearly does yours. >Rob attempted (trying to be funny or just ignorant, I don't know) to appear >smug in disproving my statement of documented fact about Fords production of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Then you, WindsorFox & elaich all jump in with your erroneous Me Too input, >and wonder why I think your input is idiotic? Apparently you think anyone who isn't up to your level of knowledge is an idiot. Guess you were born with all that knowledge that so many of us learn by trial and error. It also appears that you have a conflict with Rob and took it out on the rest of us "idiots". >I've spent many hours over many years searching for, buying, using and >selling specifically these 1968~1974 "rare" Ford engine parts. I am quite [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >WITH FOUR BARREL HEADS >http://ebay.com Item number: 220151392530 Thanks for clearing that up. Where all the rest of the thread went before I joined in, I do not know. The vast majority of the information you just provided never arrived on my pc. I do thank you for the continued insults and know it all attitude. Cars used to be just forms of transport. Enjoyable, but just that. I'm relatively new to which cars are which in the Mustang world. I have concentrated on my 65 FB, although I have owned a previous 65 FB, 66 FB, 72 whatever, 74 Mustang II with a 302 4v (that I am positive of because I had to rebuild the carb). Fortunately, few others insult me for not knowing every possible detail and statistic available. Those are the people who help me learn. My input may have seemed idiotic to you, but then you probably think that I have memorized every thread and every post for the past couple of years, and therefore felt that I was intentionally questioning your voracity. Such was never the intent of my idiotic input. But I'll "deal with it". Clearly, you have never been a novice, and never been wrong about anything. Thanks for the lesson. I suppose a warning should be in order. Something along the line that anyone new to Mustangs should just shut up and never voice a thought of their own if you are involved. > SNIP >>>> [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > just shut up and never voice a thought of their own if you are > involved. Spike, you don't make it easy... First of all there was never a factory 1974 V-8 4bbl Mustang made or sold by Ford. 1974 -2.3L i4 -2.8L v6- 105hp (No v8 option!) 1975-1978 -2.3L i4 -2.8L v6- 105hp -302ci v8- (4.9L)- 140hp; 122hp in CA 2-barrel carburetor http://www.moddedmustangs.com/mustang-ii-history.html 1974 Ford Mustang Engines and Options Ford President Lee Iacocca masterminded the Mustang II, creating a smaller, more fuel-efficient car to compete with sporty imports. Iacocca had eliminated the straight-line six-cylinder engine in favor of a more compact V-6, and per his edict, engineers gave no thought to providing a V-8 engine, a break with Mustang tradition -- and something Ford would soon regret. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1974-1975-1976-1977-1978-ford-mustang5.htm If you had simply asked a question rather than throwing your misremembered two cents worth in supporting Rob's silly sh.t, you wouldn't be sitting there trying to figure out why you got some too. I don't suffer fools. If you want to learn, you ask questions, you don't jump into the wrong side of a dispute spouting what you might know and correcting others with misremembered information. Here is a really easy rule to keep you out of trouble, don't argue about things you are not positive about. It works well for me. What you did was offensive, I jumped on you about it and you can't handle it. If you want to make something bigger than it already is out of this, have at it. But I'm through explaining these simple things to you. Clearly this has to do more with you putting your foot in your mouth than my level of expertise. You are welcome. Finally Your warning would be better stated like this: Don't state as fact that which you do NOT know to be fact. >> SNIP >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] >Your warning would be better stated like this: >Don't state as fact that which you do NOT know to be fact. Clearly, I shall never have to worry about another piece of inane trivia, and certainly will never have to buy an encyclopedia... I'll just ask you. Say, God, what day does the world end? SNIP >Spike, you don't make it easy... >First of all there was never a factory 1974 V-8 4bbl Mustang made or sold by [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >Your warning would be better stated like this: >Don't state as fact that which you do NOT know to be fact. For the record "Mr Perfect", I NEVER said the 74 Mustang II was a factory original or even that it was sold by Ford.... just that it had a 302 4v. It seems you were in such a rush to prove me wrong that you failed to notice. It is not I who "can't handle it". I've been honest enough to admit I could be in error, and that after 35 years my memory may be faulty. You, sir,are the one who found it necessary to make insulting and disparaging remarks against the rest of us. Apparently, it is you who can not handle anyone questioning your encyclopedic memory. > I do thank you for the continued insults and know it all attitude. Just killfile the idiot and be done with it, as I have. SignatureA: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? > The '71 Boss 351 is generally regarded as the quickest production Mustang. Obviously this is no longer true... and hasn't been for 20 years. Patrick > Car and Driver lists performance figures of 14.1 seconds at 100.6 mph in the > quarter mile. Zero to sixty is reported as 5.8 seconds. > A Motor Trend review of the '71 Boss reveals a quarter mile time of 13.8 at > 104 mph on a test car outfitted with headers. With traction bars, a new > clutch, and open headers, a February '71 "Hot Rod Magazine" article lists a > time of 13.58 at 107+ MPH in the quarter mile. http://www.boss351.org/HO.htm >> The '71 Boss 351 is generally regarded as the quickest production Mustang. > > Obviously this is no longer true... and hasn't been for 20 years. > > Patrick Also whether you consider a Shelby to be "production" or not. Signature"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett "Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck > NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: > >> The '71 Boss 351 is generally regarded as the quickest production Mustang. > > Obviously this is no longer true... and hasn't been for 20 years. > Also whether you consider a Shelby to be "production" or not. The new Shelbys (GT500 and Shelby GT) would be two of many to beat a 14.1 & 0-60 in 5.8. Patrick > Generally people who don't want to get shot at, don't jump into the line of > fire... And others such as yourself keep changing the parameters. You said 351 w a 4V, when shown one you added in a car. You said for any car made by Ford and then you added 351. You sir are playing Calvin ball. Signature"....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose >> Generally people who don't want to get shot at, don't jump into the >> line of fire... > > And others such as yourself keep changing the parameters. You said > 351 w a 4V, when shown one you added in a car. You said for any car made > by Ford and then you added 351. You sir are playing Calvin ball. Bingo. Rob > Christ, you top posting Idiots, the one year only Ford "Boss 351" was a > 1971, not a 1972, and it was most definitely a solid lifter Cleveland, not a [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > By all means show the ford listings from 1968~1980 for any car made by Ford > in the USA with a factory four barrel Windsor other than 1969. 1984-1985 Mustang/Capri 5.0. >Prove your > assertion, which Ford cars offered the 351 Windsor with factory 4bbl and > which years were they offered, besides 1969??? I never said that. Chapter & verse, please... I won't hold my breath, the > only factory cars you will find will be two barrel Windsor's or four barrel > Cleveland's... > > Go ahead smart a.s... Show us all how smart you are. You don't have to be snide... or rude... I just know where to get those elusive parts when they're needed... from recently produced Ford engines... Castings/Parts -D(x)J -E(x)J -F(x)J will all fill the bill. 302, 351, 429/460 engines as you need. Rob >> By all means show the ford listings from 1968~1980 for any car made by >> Ford in the USA with a factory four barrel Windsor other than 1969. > > 1984-1985 Mustang/Capri 5.0. Yep. Again I saw it, touched it, sat in AND drove it. Considered buying it. >> Prove your assertion, which Ford cars offered the 351 Windsor with >> factory 4bbl and which years were they offered, besides 1969??? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Rob Signature"....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose >> By all means show the ford listings from 1968~1980 for any car made >> by Ford in the USA with a factory four barrel Windsor other than >> 1969. > > 1984-1985 Mustang/Capri 5.0. You forgot 1983. My '83 GT has a factory Holley 4 barrel. SignatureA: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? >>> By all means show the ford listings from 1968~1980 for any car made >>> by Ford in the USA with a factory four barrel Windsor other than >>> 1969. >> 1984-1985 Mustang/Capri 5.0. > > You forgot 1983. My '83 GT has a factory Holley 4 barrel. I couldn't recall if the 83 still had the big 2 bbl or not. I should have looked it up. Rob >>> By all means show the ford listings from 1968~1980 for any car made >>> by Ford in the USA with a factory four barrel Windsor other than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You forgot 1983. My '83 GT has a factory Holley 4 barrel. Earth to elaich, we are talking 351 Windsor here, not 302/5.0... >>>> By all means show the ford listings from 1968~1980 for any car made >>>> by Ford in the USA with a factory four barrel Windsor other than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Earth to elaich, we are talking 351 Windsor here, not 302/5.0... "...for any car made by Ford..." And you have the nerve to make comments on *my* reading retention. Signature"....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose >>> and everybody owns a boss 351, I'd love to see a race inspired 330 hp >>> 351 boss vs smog legal 300hp 351w 95 cobra R. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Rob ROFL! Did you dredge this up on purpose to put an exclamation point on his inaccuracy of the SHO posts or was it fate?? Also, tell me the significance of your screen name there. Signature"....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose >>>> and everybody owns a boss 351, I'd love to see a race inspired 330 hp >>>> 351 boss vs smog legal 300hp 351w 95 cobra R. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ROFL! Did you dredge this up on purpose to put an exclamation point > on his inaccuracy of the SHO posts or was it fate?? I missed the SHO posts, it was actually due to your pointing out his Hippocratic stance on OT subjects. I just sorted the NG by sender & found this little tidbit of misinformation from the same guy that was so certain Ford never made a factory cast iron intake 4bbl 302 in 1973. > Also, tell me the significance of your screen name there. Railfanning the Adirondack Scenic RR, LA&L RR, & Finger Lakes RR, & dabbling in Lionel trains. I'll check in on the SHO issue. Rob >> ROFL! Did you dredge this up on purpose to put an exclamation point >> on his inaccuracy of the SHO posts or was it fate?? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rob I don't get it, but I know someone else who is a big rail fan. One of his pics... http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=202290 Signature"....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose "DRAGNET" <jackweb@usa.com> wrote in news:1167720341.698263.170660 @k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > 351M was destroked 400 lo-po truck engine never installed in a car, > the majority of "ford" car people wouldn't even consider using 400/351m > although they are tall deck cleveland design. Now you just showed exactly how much you know, which is zero. There were millions of 351M's installed in passenger cars. And the 400 Ford engine is one of the easiest engines to mod that Ford ever made. Car and Driver built a 385 HP version for less than $2,000. All it takes to wake up a 400 is a decent cam, especially the '71, which had 9.0 - 0 compression. show me a 351m in a car, trucks had 400 and 351m, cars only got the 400 looks like cars DID get the 351m from 75-79 along with the 400 still doesn't make a cleveland supeior > looks like cars DID get the 351m from 75-79 along with the 400 > > still doesn't make a cleveland supeior Yet your response again illustrates that you are an IDIOT who loves to spew your idiocy in public. You just continue arguing your ill advised positions, even when everyone else knows you are WRONG... > show me a 351m in a car, trucks had 400 and 351m, cars only got the 400 Dude, your making a fool out of yourself. How old are you? Signature“I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement.” – Seth Breidbart "DRAGNET" <jackweb@usa.com> wrote in news:1167756062.565996.22460 @i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > show me a 351m in a car, trucks had 400 and 351m, cars only got the 400 How about 75% or so of the Granadas? > "DRAGNET" <jackweb@usa.com> wrote in news:1167756062.565996.22460 > @i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > >> show me a 351m in a car, trucks had 400 and 351m, cars only got the 400 > > How about 75% or so of the Granadas? 75% of Granandas had the 200 CID or 250 CID 6 cylinder. The 351W was available to 1977. 302 or 250 after that. No "M" at all. Rob trainfan1 <lmsearing@usdatanet.net> wrote in news:6- SdnREBj98RZGfbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@usadatanet.net: > No "M" at all. And you are full of it. I personally took a 351M out of a '77 Granada to convert it into a 400. And why the hell are you digging up months old posts to comment on? That is very much frowned upon on Usenet. SignatureA: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? > trainfan1 <lmsearing@usdatanet.net> wrote in news:6- > SdnREBj98RZGfbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@usadatanet.net: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And why the hell are you digging up months old posts to comment on? That is > very much frowned upon on Usenet. It looks recent in Thunderbird. The "M" wont fit in an unmodified(shock towers too close) Maverick nee Falcon based Granada. A 351W is an awful tight fit in it's own right. The narrower(than 351M) 351C wouldn't even fit without a torch & a sledgehammer. Rob I want to buy a 71 400 to go along with my 73 400 that has a 302 bellhousing bolt pattern. > 351M was destroked 400 lo-po truck engine never installed in a car, > the majority of "ford" car people wouldn't even consider using 400/351m Where did you get this piece of information? Did you get it from a Chevy guy or did you just pull it straight out of your a.s? Signature“I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement.” – Seth Breidbart WindsorFox <windsorfoxNO@SPAMcox.net> wrote in news:Owxmh.28927$_44.26468 @newsfe23.lga: > Where did you get this piece of information? Did you > get it from a Chevy guy or did you just pull it straight out > of your a.s? I suspect this guy is one of those old wives tale collectors who only knows what he's been told by equally ignorant people. Next thing, he'll be telling us to take out our thermostat, and never use Quaker State. LMAO. > 351M was destroked 400 lo-po truck engine never installed in a car, Millions of LTDs, Marquis', Torinos, Montegos, Cougars & Thunderbirds, Rancheros, LTD IIs, & the like had 351M/400 engines. Are you nuts? > the majority of "ford" car people wouldn't even consider using 400/351m > although they are tall deck cleveland design. Nice sleeper mods are available for these good breathing, smog-era large bell housing engines. Nice try. > "superior" means better in every way, it's just not the case when > comparing 351w to 351c Each has it's advantages. Lots more parts for the W. More marine support for the W. Better oiling in the W. Better heads on the C/M. Rob My father in law had an old 76 LTD wagon with a 351M in it. > 351M was destroked 400 lo-po truck engine never installed in a car, > the majority of "ford" car people wouldn't even consider using 400/351m > although they are tall deck cleveland design. > > "superior" means better in every way, it's just not the case when > comparing 351w to 351c > I've never heard of such. Am I out of the loop or is this a typo?? > http://www.austousa.com/4sale/forsale-1580.html Yes there is a 302 Cleveland. Basically they were made in Australia out of the 351 Cleveland to offer an alternative 8 cylinder engine. What they did was take the 351 and reduce the stroke from 3.5 inches to 3 inches. Nick >> I've never heard of such. Am I out of the loop or is this a typo?? >> http://www.austousa.com/4sale/forsale-1580.html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nick Well there you go. The more cars I looked at the more they mentioned the 302 Cleavland, so I began to figure it wasn't a typo. On one of the sites they talk about the histories of the cars and companies and while talking about Holden's history they showed a picture of an 05 or 06 Commodore. Under the picture he says "and NO you can not import one!" I want to know why. I also know if I ever do this I do NOT want to move the controls. Signature“I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement.” – Seth Breidbart > On one of the sites they talk about the histories of the > cars and companies and while talking about Holden's history > they showed a picture of an 05 or 06 Commodore. Under the > picture he says "and NO you can not import one!" I want to > know why. I also know if I ever do this I do NOT want to > move the controls. Ford and GM have insisted on and the government has routinely supported them that US regulations be different (and usually no better or worse) that regulations everywhere else in the world for the express purpose of preventing cars for sale in other markets to be sold in the USA. Often, these vehicles are products they make elsewhere but do not sell in the USA. Back in 1980 or so there was truth to the US regs being superior for crash protection and emissions. Now it's not so much as being superior, but just different. Lighting regs in the USA are outdated and inferior to those (ECE) used throughout the rest of the world. The result of this is that if the car isn't 25 years old or older, you can't bring it in to the USA legally. (well there is a very expensive and long involved process, but even if you've got the money of Bill Gates it's a pain in the a.s, just google about his porsche) In the globalism of "free-trade" companies can relocate their manufacturing overseas to undercut the US worker. But the US worker can't buy products of his choice from overseas to undercut or get a better product. From australia though there are some other technical complications regarding the right hand drive, but there are no laws preventing RHD cars from being on the road in the USA. >> On one of the sites they talk about the histories of the >> cars and companies and while talking about Holden's history [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Often, these vehicles are products they make elsewhere but do not sell in > the USA. Yeah like the sleek 4 door Dodge Charger they have. I'd love to have an 03 5.0 Falcon. Signature“I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement.” – Seth Breidbart >>> I've never heard of such. Am I out of the loop or is this a typo?? >>> http://www.austousa.com/4sale/forsale-1580.html [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > import one!" I want to know why. I also know if I ever do this I do NOT > want to move the controls. You can get one, it's called Pontiac GTO here in the US. Rob >>>> I've never heard of such. Am I out of the loop or is this a typo?? >>>> http://www.austousa.com/4sale/forsale-1580.html [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Rob I was told by an importer that it has to be (IIRC) 12 years or older to import. Signature"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett "Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck "Too bad it wasn't "personality theft"...you'd be immune." - Herb Tarlek FYI: From Wikipedia "This engine was built only in Australia, and was intended to give their consumers a five liter alternative to the 351 Cleveland as the Ford "Windsor" series of engines was not commonly available there. Utilizing a locally produced 351 Cleveland block, 302 in³ (4.9 L) was attained by reducing the stroke of the 351C from 3.5 to 3 inches (89 to 76 mm). Additionally, the 302C cylinder heads were designed locally, with smaller combustion chamber to compensate for the reduced stroke of the engine. This combination of closed combustion chambered quench heads with smaller 2 barrel style ports made a more powerful setup known in the USA as "Australian heads". These heads interchange directly onto 351C engines, and are highly sought outside of Australia as a low-cost method to increase compression ratio. They are a good street alternative to the over ported 4 barrel heads. Using the 302C cylinder heads on an otherwise unmodified 351C will increase the compression ratio beyond a safe level for regular pump fuel. Using the small chamber 302C cylinder heads properly requires engine design changes (deck clearance, piston design, cam shaft specifications) optimized for the intended use." Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 featuring a 351C 4V M-code @ http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt > I've never heard of such. Am I out of the loop or is this a typo?? > http://www.austousa.com/4sale/forsale-1580.html > I've never heard of such. Am I out of the loop or is this a typo?? > http://www.austousa.com/4sale/forsale-1580.html Australia and New Zealand SignatureJason 351w vs 351c 351w, longer rods -winner 351w taller deck height -winner 351w block strength -winner 351w beefier crank -winner 351w years produced- winner 351w oiling- winner 351w availability -winner 351w aftermarket support -winner 351w stroker cubic inch -winner 351w low end torque -winner 351w narrower engine -winner 351w factory roller lifter block -winner 351c 4v heads, ports, valves to big for anything short of pro stock- loser 351c 2v heads- good ports,valves but open chambers- loser 351m 400 to wide for mid sized cars- loser 351m 400 must use fmx or c6 trans -loser 351m 400 no intake made to install 4v heads- loser DRAGNET, Idiot -LOSER > 351w vs 351c > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > 351m 400 no intake made to install 4v heads- loser Well the 351 Cleveland came in several models there were 2 barrel version with 2 bolt mains. The best versions were Q and R code 351s with 4 bolt mains. the Cleveland version had a totally different design from the Windsor model. The Cleveland was put in the real high performance Mustangs of the early 70s. The 302 Cleveland was never made in Cleveland but it uses the Cleveland design and was built in OZ. As you all know performance of an engine is based upon how well it breathes. the Cleveland heads had bigger valves and you different design than the Windsor head. The Cleveland engine was also lighter than the Windsor. When I talked to the guys at the Cleveland plant back in the early 70s they were proud of the fact that their engine was considered the best that Ford offered. I wonder if the OZ engine could still accept the old 351C heads and still has the capability to have 4 bolt mains? It sure would be nice to take an old 70s mustang around here and put a killer engine in it like the 351C. Any ozzies in the group know if you can buy a bare 302C block? > DRAGNET, Idiot -LOSER > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >> 351m 400 no intake made to install 4v heads- loser To rephrase what Les stated, the only similarity between the Cleveland and the Windsor was 351. > Well the 351 Cleveland came in several models there were 2 barrel version > with 2 bolt mains. The best versions were Q and R code 351s with 4 bolt [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>> >>> 351m 400 no intake made to install 4v heads- loser > To rephrase what Les stated, the only similarity between the Cleveland and > the Windsor was 351. BUT, they were both actually 352ci, and they did share bore spacing, bore, & stroke dimensions. Rob >> To rephrase what Les stated, the only similarity between the Cleveland >> and the Windsor was 351. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rob And they both burned a mixture of gasoline and air. Just kidding. mike >> To rephrase what Les stated, the only similarity between the >> Cleveland and >> the Windsor was 351. > > BUT, they were both actually 352ci, and they did share bore spacing, > bore, & stroke dimensions. Actually, there is enough similarity between the blocks that Cleveland heads can be put on Windsor blocks with a little modification. > Actually, there is enough similarity between the blocks that Cleveland > heads can be put on Windsor blocks with a little modification. sure the C heads can be "put" on a windsor block but not so simple the easiest would be a 4V C heads on a 302 but still requires all boss 302 parts from the pushrods up and a boss 302 intake & boss type custom pistons, to use 2v heads requires a piston change & special non production intake to put C heads on a 351w requires a special non production intake & pistons, etc. simple? no! expensive? yes Yes, you can still buy a bare 302C block, I've seen them on ebay when I bought the Aussie 351C 2 barrel closed chamber heads for my '72 mach 1. The aussie metal has a higher nickel content, so it's supposed to be harder. > Well the 351 Cleveland came in several models there were 2 barrel version > with 2 bolt mains. The best versions were Q and R code 351s with 4 bolt [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>> >>> 351m 400 no intake made to install 4v heads- loser Wow cool, now you really have me thinking about building a hot 70s mustang. There are tons of them here in the desert. I better start planning lol, and figure out how to tell the wife we might have a new baby. > Yes, you can still buy a bare 302C block, I've seen them on ebay when I > bought the Aussie 351C 2 barrel closed chamber heads for my '72 mach 1. [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >>>> >>>> 351m 400 no intake made to install 4v heads- loser > 351w vs 351c Bullshit. DRAGNET, clueless boob - Loooooooooo-hoo-hoo-hoo-ser! Signature“I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement.” – Seth Breidbart >> 351w vs 351c > > Bullshit. > > DRAGNET, clueless boob - Loooooooooo-hoo-hoo-hoo-ser! Let me put this in a different perspective. Until I bought my first Mustang (my current car) I never even heard of a Windsor. In college, everybody wanted a Cleveland. Even today, go to a tire store and tell them it is Cleveland, and it is "Oh Wow! So that car is stoked huh?". "Everybody wants a Cleveland", I have heard countless times. well the windors motor was definitely good as a back up to your brakes so when the bottom blew out of it the parts would drag you to a stop. Just kidding!! The Windsor motor was ok it just wasn't as good if you wanted a high performance engine. according to wikipedia [edit] 302 Cleveland Note that there was also a 302 "Windsor" This engine was built only in Australia, and was intended to give their consumers a five liter alternative to the 351 Cleveland as the Ford "Windsor" series of engines was not commonly available there. Utilizing a locally produced 351 Cleveland block, 302 in³ (4.9 L) was attained by reducing the stroke of the 351C from 3.5 to 3 inches (89 to 76 mm). Additionally, the 302C cylinder heads were designed locally, with smaller combustion chamber to compensate for the reduced stroke of the engine. This combination of closed combustion chambered quench heads with smaller 2 barrel style ports made a more powerful setup known in the USA as "Australian heads". These heads interchange directly onto 351C engines, and are highly sought outside of Australia as a low-cost method to increase compression ratio. They are a good street alternative to the over ported 4 barrel heads. Using the 302C cylinder heads on an otherwise unmodified 351C will increase the compression ratio beyond a safe level for regular pump fuel. Using the small chamber 302C cylinder heads properly requires engine design changes (deck clearance, piston design, cam shaft specifications) optimized for the intended use. >>> 351w vs 351c >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and it is "Oh Wow! So that car is stoked huh?". "Everybody > wants a Cleveland", I have heard countless times.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.