 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / May 2007Subject : Pictures Please - Ford 351 - Ford351C - Ford351W - Repost
Repost: Hi, I am working on a new website www.Ford351.com and need pictures of Ford 351 engines. I had a '72 Ford Torino with a 351C engine but no good engine pictures before restoration. Specifically, I am looking for 351 C or 351 W engines. Pictures of a "Boss 351" or 351 engines factory installed in non-Ford cars (Pantera, Ski Nautique, Jeep) will be interesting. Please help me find Ford 351 engine pictures. They must be your pictures; please do not mail me links or search suggestions. No pictures of your cars, boats or trucks. Images to pics@Ford351.com . Thanks > Repost: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > pictures; please do not mail me links or search suggestions. No > pictures of your cars, boats or trucks. Most of us will have the engine bolted up to a car, truck, or boat. Getting a shot of the engine standing alone is going to be very difficult. I could lift the hood and send a shot of the air cleaner, but somehow I think you've already got that shot. try typing into Google 351 windsor and I get 7600 pics. >> Repost: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I could lift the hood and send a shot of the air cleaner, but somehow I > think you've already got that shot. Why should I do that? Maybe the OP ought to give it a whirl ... > try typing into Google 351 windsor and I get 7600 pics. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> I could lift the hood and send a shot of the air cleaner, but somehow I >> think you've already got that shot. > try typing into Google 351 windsor and I get 7600 pics. Just because you can view that many doesnt mean you can copy and use them as you see fit. Copyright comes into play here. Sounds like the OP is asking for donations of images he can use on his web royalty free ie for free, rather than stealing someone elses images. Whitelightning this guy is an idiot, and the web site sucks > Repost: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Thanks On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:31:41 -0700, flrealbot rearranged some electrons to form: > lame website stuff snipped Your web site is not only lame, but has incorrect information on it. 351C and 351W are completely different engines.  SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 7 days 13:52 > On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:31:41 -0700, flrealbot rearranged some electrons to > form: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 351C and 351W are completely different engines. I haven't been to the website, but everybody knows that the 351 Cleveland and the 351 Windsor are as different as night and day. They are completely different. That's C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E-L-Y. Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely page) that says these two engines share anything beyond displacement. I forget which is which, but I recall that one is loosely based on the 289 -- its a small block motor -- and the other is based on the 429 -- which is a large block (I think the Cleveland is the small block and the Windsor is the large block). Obviously one would have to have a longer stroke as compared to the other, causing the long stroke motor to run at lower RPMs. The long stroke will produce more torque at the low end, but will top out much sooner. I gotta take a look at the website now ... > Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely page) > that says these two engines share anything beyond displacement. They have the same motor mounts, bellhousing pattern, starters, distributor cap, balancers, flywheels, and lifters. However, the dickhead with the website is still a lazy, stupid, freeloading bastard. SignatureCobraJet >> Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely >> page) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, the dickhead with the website is still a lazy, stupid, > freeloading bastard. I guess I'll take your word for it. I thought the Cleveland and Windsor power plants were completely different in each of the areas you just said they are common. I remember as a kid (with my father in car business) that when a car was listed with a Ford 351, the first question was, Cleveland or Windsor? The performance specs were different, and the physical size was different. Or that's what I remember thinking at the time. >>> Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely >>> page) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > performance specs were different, and the physical size was different. Or > that's what I remember thinking at the time. As different as they are there are many similarities, same cylinder size and spacing, the heads from one will bolt directly on the other, and actually work with some water jacket modifications. They are BOTH small block engines if Ford has small block engines... >>> Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely >>> page) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >performance specs were different, and the physical size was different. Or >that's what I remember thinking at the time. You're right Jeff. 351 C's and W's are totally different blocks. The W is more or less a 302 with 351 heads. The C is a big block. This dude it an idiot. -- Old Crow "Yol Bolsun!" '82 FLTC-P "Miss Pearl" '95 YJ Rio Grande BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, MAMBM SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > You're right Jeff. 351 C's and W's are totally different blocks. The > W is more or less a 302 with 351 heads. The C is a big block. Christ! The original 351 Cleveland (from 1970~1974 Only) was absolutely NOT a BIG BLOCK!!! Small block transmission bolt pattern, identical to the 302, and identical motor mounts. Besides the 351 Windsor is not more or less a 302 with 351 heads. It is a taller (hence wider) block, with basically 302 heads. This whole 351 Windsor head myth is just that a myth, unless you are talking about a 1 year only 1969 351 Windsor 4-bbl head. > This dude it an idiot. > -- > Old Crow "Yol Bolsun!" > '82 FLTC-P "Miss Pearl" > '95 YJ Rio Grande > BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, MAMBM >>> Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely >>> page) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > performance specs were different, and the physical size was different. Or > that's what I remember thinking at the time. No, they are externally similar (so that they can be used in the same cars). However they are completely different inside. The 351W is based on the small-block. The 351C is not. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 7 days 23:07 >>>> Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely >>>> page) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > However they are completely different inside. The 351W is based on the > small-block. The 351C is not. My hazy memory might be bad but I seem to recall that the "C" was desirable to build up because it could be bored. The "W" was bored as much as it could be .... in fact I think I remember there were some problems with it due to "thin walls". Also ... one (forget which) had a version setup for truck use, IIRC. RCE >>>>> Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely >>>>> page) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > RCE Actually the C was the one that had the thinner cylinder walls, as compared to the older W blocks anyway. This is according to the old Ford Performance book I have here. I'm not so sure if Ford lightened their castings for the Windsor in the later years or not. The Cleveland was a nice engine to build for drag racing because of the huge intake ports in the 4V heads. Too bad they messed up the exhaust ports by dog legging them down at a relatively sharp angle. Before the days of aftermarket heads for the Cleveland, people used to mill about 1.25" of the port away and install what was called a high port plate. This basically removed the dogleg in the port and significantly increased the exhaust flow for these heads. The Boss 302 head had basically the same problem. Chris > >> Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely > >> page) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I guess I'll take your word for it. I do own several of both engines. However, the easy way to check is to run those parts through eBay, and notice that they will cross over. > I thought the Cleveland and Windsor > power plants were completely different in each of the areas you just said > they are common. Historically, one of the most common Windsor-to-Cleveland swaps was in the '69 Mach I. It would bolt to the trans and mounts, and you just had to work the exhaust and do something about the driver's side water pump inlet ('69' W's were pass side). This was done so often that many "experts" claim the Cleveland was introduced in '69, which of course is BS. > I remember as a kid (with my father in car business) that when a car was > listed with a Ford 351, the first question was, Cleveland or Windsor? The > performance specs were different, and the physical size was different. Or > that's what I remember thinking at the time. Performance ratings those days were arbitrary at best. However, either Cleveland could, in most cases, outrun either Windsor. The Windsor actually has a higher deck height than the C by .3", but the C is overall wider, I'd say due to the canted-valve heads. The C is about 50 pounds heavier. Aside from the Bricklin that Stu mentioned, the 351W was used in the DeTomaso Longchamps. Ski Supreme used it as well as Ski Nautique, but I'm sure there were many more marine applications. SignatureCobraJet Many used to bolt the better breathing Cleveland heads onto the Windsor block: http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/30220_clevor_engine/ God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:LWHughes3rd@aol.com http://www.billhughes.com/ > I remember as a kid (with my father in car business) that when a car was > listed with a Ford 351, the first question was, Cleveland or Windsor? The > performance specs were different, and the physical size was different. Or > that's what I remember thinking at the time. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:31:41 -0700, flrealbot rearranged some electrons >> to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > lower RPMs. The long stroke will produce more torque at the low end, but > will top out much sooner. Close but no cigar. The 351W is based on the original "Challenger V8" aka small block Ford that was originally 221 CID then was released as a 260 289 302 in various states of tune. The 351W is a higher decked version of this design. The 351C is not based on the 429 but was developed at a similar time and share similar design traits and share somethings like the distributor. The 351C is also referred to as a 335 series engine family. The 429/460 is called the 385 series engine family. The 429/460 was also called the "Lima" following the engine plant city name tradition. It uses a canted valve head design not unlike a BB Chevy head. The Cleveland was produced for the model years '70 to '73. The 400 was based on the same design but had a higher deck height ( akin to the 302 to 351W relationship) after '73 only the high deck 400 block was produced. A destroked version of this motor was released as the 351M (some say Modified others say Midland?) Just to really confuse things the BOSS 302 was a 4 bolt Windsor block ( a leftover from the tunnelport 302 from the ill fated 1968 Trans Am season) It used a 351C STYLE head that was a unique BOSS 302 part. Confused??? Why do you think so many people play it safe and stick with SBC's! StuK > I gotta take a look at the website now ... >>> On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:31:41 -0700, flrealbot rearranged some electrons >>> to [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > leftover from the tunnelport 302 from the ill fated 1968 Trans Am season) It > used a 351C STYLE head that was a unique BOSS 302 part. The BOSS 302.... it was basically a factory canted-valve "Clevor" 302 that revved to 7000+ and was designed for TA racing... mofos are quick little bastards and handled well, for their time >>> On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:31:41 -0700, flrealbot rearranged some electrons >>> to [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >Confused??? Why do you think so many people play it safe and stick with >SBC's! Cuz it cost about twice as much to hot rod a "C" motor? We got a '72 Mustang at work that we're building for a guy. He wanted the original 302 gone and a 351 C in it's place. Intake, exhaust, water pump, valve covers and distributer were all way more expensive than comparable SBC(or even SBF) pieces. But then, he had to have all polished aluminum stuff and although the motor is a sight to behold, I don't really know that it was worth it. But, being the guy that puts all this stuff together and tests it out, I guess I'll find out sonner or later<g>. -- Old Crow "Yol Bolsun!" '82 FLTC-P "Miss Pearl" '95 YJ Rio Grande BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, MAMBM SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>Confused??? Why do you think so many people play it safe and stick with >>SBC's! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But, being the guy that puts all this stuff together and tests it out, > I guess I'll find out sonner or later<g>. This being the case, you would think you would know that the 302 and the 351 Cleveland share the exact same transmission bolt pattern and engine mounts and spacing, and that you could bolt either's heads onto the others block, these indicators would generally be enough for the average Joe to realize that the 351 Cleveland IS NOT A BIG BLOCK. > -- > Old Crow "Yol Bolsun!" > '82 FLTC-P "Miss Pearl" > '95 YJ Rio Grande > BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, MAMBM > The 351C is also referred to as a 335 series engine family. > The 429/460 is called the 385 series engine family. Ever wonder what the "335" and "385" meant? It's the distance between the centerlines of the camshaft bore and the crankshaft bore. 351C, 351M and 400: 3,35 inches. 371 (truck), 429 and 460: 3.85 inches. A little trivia from the past. >> The 351C is also referred to as a 335 series engine family. >> The 429/460 is called the 385 series engine family. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A little trivia from the past. Interesting. I learned something new today. Never would have guessed that's where the numbers came from. Chris <copied from www.ford351.com> Ford 351 - Ford 351C - Ford 351W Also known as "351 Cleveland", and "351 Windsor". Ford 351 Produced by Ford Motor Company from 1969 through 1997, the Ford 351 cubic inch engine, also known as the "Ford 351W" or "Ford 351C" was a favorite V8 engine of the GM line. Appearing in such models as the Ford Mustang, Ford full size cars and trucks, Jeep-brand Wagoneer, and Ski Nautique ski boats, the Ford 351 also was the engine of choice for the mid-engine Pantera sports car in the 1970s. Introduced in 1969, the 351 c.i. "Windsor" (351W) was rated between 250 and 290 stock horsepower with a 3.5 inch stroke in a 335 small block. In 1970, the 351 "Cleveland" (351C) was introduced primarily for the Ford Mustang. The majority of 351 Cleveland engines are 2 barrel carburetor versions with low compression, although the rare "Boss 351C", produced only in 1971, was rated at 330 base horsepower. At the end of the 1974 model year, Ford ceased production of the 351C "Cleveland" design at the Cleveland, Ohio plant. Production of the immensely popular 351W "Windsor" continued until 1997 when the Windsor, Ontario plant was closed. <end copy and paste> These motors are not, and never have been, known as "or." They are completely different designs, differing in many ways, most notably the physical size differences. Except for the displacement -- 351 cubic inches -- there is nothing similar about them. They are not interchangable in most applications, however I'd be teh first to admit that with enough fabrication skills one could interchange anything. I was not aware the the Ford 351C was a favorite of the GM line. Could you provide any citation where GM used Ford power plants? Good luck with your Website. > Repost: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Thanks > <copied from www.ford351.com> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the Ford 351 also was the engine of choice for the mid-engine Pantera sports > car in the 1970s. This paragraph smacks of Bill Hughes. > Introduced in 1969, the 351 c.i. "Windsor" (351W) was rated between 250 and > 290 stock horsepower with a 3.5 inch stroke in a 335 small block. In 1970, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > > > Thanks SignatureCobraJet They closed the Windsor engine plant in 1997????? hmmmm I guess my 2003 Windstar motor was made in the Windsor "England" engine plant then? He missed the Bricklin for the 351 too. I guess he can't be bothered with the 351M or 400? Too much thinking for someone who only understands SB and BB. ;^) StuK >> <copied from www.ford351.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >> > >> > Thanks Ford engines of any displacement were *never* used from the factory in Jeep Wagoneers. Originally they used Willys "Tornado" sixes and in 1966 used AMC's 232 sixes. The Super Wagoneers used Buick V8's and from 1971-on all Wagoneers used AMC engines. > <copied from www.ford351.com> > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> >> Thanks And here I thought Ford made more Jeeps than Willys, during the war, and again the independent wheel thing for the Army during the sixties. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:LWHughes3rd@aol.com http://www.billhughes.com/ > Ford engines of any displacement were *never* used from the factory in Jeep > Wagoneers. Originally they used Willys "Tornado" sixes and in 1966 used [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >> > >> Thanks SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
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.