 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / May 2007Subject : Pictures Please - Ford 351 - Ford351C - Ford351W
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 do not mail me pictures of your cars. I am looking for Ford 351 engine pictures. Images to pics@Ford351.com . Thanks, GCA@Ford351.com > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > GCA@Ford351.com The internet has many pictures of all sorts of engines. Use Google "images" as a search tool, and just Google "web" to research the engines. Jason I wonder if you know the Cleveland and the Windsor are not related. Except that they were both in Ford cars and they sound alike because of the 351. Some parts can be made to swap with a lot of machine work. The Cleveland had a much shorter run and is more interesting in other ways. Try to hang onto it. If you wanted to do something really interesting get into the FE big blocks. disston > I wonder if you know the Cleveland and the Windsor are not related. They had the same block and crank, didn't they? (As if that makes a difference.) > Except that they were both in Ford cars and they sound alike because > of the 351. Some parts can be made to swap with a lot of machine work. > The Cleveland had a much shorter run and is more interesting in other > ways. Try to hang onto it. And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than to the W IIRC.  SignatureMusic hath charms to soothe the savage breast. That's why stereo has two channels. >> I wonder if you know the Cleveland and the Windsor are not related. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than > to the W IIRC. The W and C blocks weren't even close, although IIRC, Cleveland heads could be made to fit on a Windsor with some modifications and a special intake manifold. I don't remember the particulars though, that was a looong time ago. The 351C and 351M are 'similar' but there is very little interchange between the two. For all intents and purposes, they are all three distinctly different engines. >> I wonder if you know the Cleveland and the Windsor are not related. > > They had the same block and crank, didn't they? (As if that makes a > difference.) Oh heaven's no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_335_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Windsor_engine#351W are correct on some days. Read up. Rob >> Except that they were both in Ford cars and they sound alike because >> of the 351. Some parts can be made to swap with a lot of machine work. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than > to the W IIRC. the only thing the Cleveland and Windsor share in common is the bell housing bolt pattern. other than that, they are 2 completely different engines. >> I wonder if you know the Cleveland and the Windsor are not related. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than > to the W IIRC. > the only thing the Cleveland and Windsor share in common is the bell housing > bolt pattern. And iron blocks / iron heads. And bore spacing. And bore size(4.00" - also shared with the 352 FE engine). And stroke(3.5" - also shared with the 352 FE engine). And displacement(352 cid - also shared with the 352 FE engine). And head bolt pattern. And 3.00" main bearings(on some). Rob other than that, they are 2 completely different engines. >>> I wonder if you know the Cleveland and the Windsor are not related. >> They had the same block and crank, didn't they? (As if that makes a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than >> to the W IIRC. blah blah blah. go ahead and get technical on me. ;-) >> the only thing the Cleveland and Windsor share in common is the bell >> housing bolt pattern. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>> And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than >>> to the W IIRC. > blah blah blah. go ahead and get technical on me. ;-) Yeah, sorry about that. Most folks interested in Fords & Mustangs know all that stuff already, & that the Cleveland engine was developed to use a set of heads that were originally designed for & bolted to a Windsor engine. Rob >>> the only thing the Cleveland and Windsor share in common is the bell >>> housing bolt pattern. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>>> And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than >>>> to the W IIRC. > Yeah, sorry about that. Most folks interested in Fords & Mustangs know > all that stuff already, & that the Cleveland engine was developed to use a > set of heads that were originally designed for & bolted to a Windsor > engine. That's a new one. As far as I'm aware, the Cleveland was designed completely independently of the Windsor to eventually be used as a Windsor replacement, and the 4V heads only ever saw use on the Windsor based Boss 302 (which required an inlet manifold unique to that particular engine). The problem with the Cleveland was that it was a horrible engine as far as emissions go, and had a very short run in the US because it couldn't meet the emissions requirements without being strangled to death. It ran for quite some time here in Australia, but our emissions laws weren't so stringent. -- Regards, Noddy. >> Yeah, sorry about that. Most folks interested in Fords & Mustangs know >> all that stuff already, & that the Cleveland engine was developed to use a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. Technical question: Same bore, same stroke, semi-interchangeable heads... why is one more polluting than the other? > Technical question: Same bore, same stroke, semi-interchangeable heads... > why is one more polluting than the other? The Cleveland heads. While they'll bolt onto a Windsor block with little trouble, they're completely different to a Windsor in that the Cleveland's flow characteristics promotes poor atomization at low to mid rpm, and plenty of incomplete combustion. -- Regards, Noddy. >> Technical question: Same bore, same stroke, semi-interchangeable heads... >> why is one more polluting than the other? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > characteristics promotes poor atomization at low to mid rpm, and plenty of > incomplete combustion. So would running them on LPG solve that problem? I mean atomization isn't going to be an issue with gas is it? And I assume the poor atomization at low rpm is associated with better flow at high rpm? > So would running them on LPG solve that problem? I mean atomization isn't > going to be an issue with gas is it? They work well on lpg, provided you run a good valve seat insert, as Cleveland heads are made from a very soft grade of cast iron, and will suffer from massive valve seat recession in a big huury. > And I assume the poor atomization at low rpm is associated with better > flow at high rpm? It is. Anyone who owned a 4V Cleveland will tell you that the things do next to nothing under 4000rpm other than suck massive amounts of fuel. Once they hit that rpm band, they really take off and become a bit of a fire breather. It used to be quite a task to get any performance from the things back in the GTHO Falcon days if you ran the standard 6150rpm rev limiter, as you'd only have a couple of seconds of "play time" in the lower gears between getting on the cam and needing to change gear before the rev limiter would try to blow the mufflers off the car :) The 2V's weren't anywhere near as bad, but still suffered from a horrible exhaust port. -- Regards, Noddy. >>> Yeah, sorry about that. Most folks interested in Fords & Mustangs >>> know all that stuff already, & that the Cleveland engine was [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Technical question: Same bore, same stroke, semi-interchangeable > heads... why is one more polluting than the other? The canted valves & semi-hemi chambers, while great for moving a lot of air & making high rpm power, were especially bad at passing unburned hydrocarbons & high oxides of nitrogen. Rob >> Yeah, sorry about that. Most folks interested in Fords & Mustangs know >> all that stuff already, & that the Cleveland engine was developed to use a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > only ever saw use on the Windsor based Boss 302 (which required an inlet > manifold unique to that particular engine). The heads were designed for the Boss 302, production of which pre-dates any Cleveland/335 engine. The cooling arrangement was slightly modified for the 335 family block. Rob > The problem with the Cleveland > was that it was a horrible engine as far as emissions go, and had a very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. > The heads were designed for the Boss 302, production of which pre-dates > any Cleveland/335 engine. Any production Cleveland engine anyway. The Cleveland is known to have existed in pre production form before the Boss 302 ever went into production, and the popular theory is that Ford made the two engines share a lot of physical dimensions, like cylinder head bolt spacings for example, to reduce machine tool production costs. The failure of the Tunnel Port Windsor head lead a couple of engineers to experiement with the new Cleveland head on the Windsor short motor, and the outcome of that experiment was the Boss 302 we know today. > The cooling arrangement was slightly modified for the 335 family block. As far as I can tell, the only difference between Boss 302 cylinder heads and early production 4v cylinder heads is the screw in studs, and slightly bigger valves of the Boss head. Laid side by side on a bench, the gasket faces look identical. -- Regards, Noddy. >> The heads were designed for the Boss 302, production of which pre-dates >> any Cleveland/335 engine. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with the new Cleveland head on the Windsor short motor, and the outcome of > that experiment was the Boss 302 we know today. I'll buy that. >> The cooling arrangement was slightly modified for the 335 family block. > > As far as I can tell, the only difference between Boss 302 cylinder heads > and early production 4v cylinder heads is the screw in studs, and slightly > bigger valves of the Boss head. Laid side by side on a bench, the gasket > faces look identical. There is a minor difference in the water jacket openings not reflected in the gaskets. Rob > And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than > to the W IIRC. http://www.projectbronco.com/History/history_of_the_ford_351m.htm 'The "M", by the way, does not stand for anything. Ford only used the "M" designation to distinguish it from the 351 W (Windsor) and the now discontinued 351C (Cleveland). The "M" designation has now become know to mean "modified" or "Michigan", even though the 351M was produced at both the Cleveland foundry and Michigan casting center.' I had one once. I did everything to that truck. It sure hurt when I sent it to the crusher. -- (||) Nehmo (||) Nehmo <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1177999305.814966.242940 @n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than >> to the W IIRC. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > (||) Nehmo (||) the M desigination always stood for a Modified 400. It is the same motor other than crank and pistons. KB SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. > Nehmo <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1177999305.814966.242940 > @n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the M desigination always stood for a Modified 400. It is the same > motor other than crank and pistons. KB There would be no need to ever refer to the 400 as an "M". It was an engine unto itself. The 351M followed the 400 form. "M" is an easy way to differentiate the last pushrod V-8 designed by Ford displacing 352 ci. from the 3 previous versions, & especially from the 351W that was in concurrent production. If you tell me your '76 Marquis has a 400M, I'll know exactly what you have and I won't correct you. Rob >> Nehmo <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1177999305.814966.242940 >> @n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> the M desigination always stood for a Modified 400. It is the same >> motor other than crank and pistons. KB You missunderstood. the "351M" stood for a modified 400 to get the 351ci. yes the 400 was all by itself no M. KB > There would be no need to ever refer to the 400 as an "M". It was an > engine unto itself. The 351M followed the 400 form. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rob SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. >>I wonder if you know the Cleveland and the Windsor are not related. > > They had the same block and crank, didn't they? No! > And then there was the 351M (modified), which was closer to the C than > to the W IIRC. The 351M and 400 are both related to the 351C. The 351W is related to the 302. |
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
|
©2010 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.