 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / February 2005Newby 351 W question
I just bought a 351 Windsor engine out of a 1978 LTD and I would like to know what the stock horsepower of this thing is before I go to a lot of trouble rebuilding it. It came with a rebuilt C4. Is this a good combination for an install into a hot rod. >I just bought a 351 Windsor engine out of a 1978 LTD and I would like to >know what the stock horsepower of this thing is before I go to a lot of >trouble rebuilding it. It came with a rebuilt C4. You have a core to build upon, but in stock form the hp rating is dismal. Can't quote a #. The heads have to go. They are the same as the the smog dog 302 heads of that era. Not to be considered for any kind of performance build up on a 351. If you do "trouble" yourself rebuilding it, don't restore it to stock form. You can easily get 350 hp with the right parts. The C4 is not my favorite, but with a shift kit it should be durable enough. This engine and tranny will fit into about anything. DC > You have a core to build upon, but in stock form the hp rating is dismal. So what is the horespower of a stock 351? Pardon my ignorance. I'm not into race cars, but I'm intrigued. What's the significance of a "Windsor" engine? Is that made in Windsor, Canada? You do mention below that the engine can fit in just about any other car. Sorry to sound cynical, but weren't engines from the 1970s rather inefficient, considering the recent onset of half-effective anti-pollution measures? I thought they gas guzzlers with low compression ratios, for example. So wouldn't it be better to rebuild an engine from some other era? Wouldn't the metallurgy of a later engine be better? > The heads have to go. They are the same as the the smog dog 302 heads of that > era. Not to be considered for any kind of performance build up on a 351. Does this imply that the cavities inside the stock heads are so great, as to never allow high compression? i.e., >8:1? So other heads are available? > If you do "trouble" yourself rebuilding it, don't restore it to stock form. You > can easily get 350 hp with the right parts. And what fuel would one need? What octane rating? > The C4 is not my favorite, but with a shift kit it should be durable enough. What's a "C4"? Grandmother's automatic 4 speed tranny? > This engine and tranny will fit into about anything. I knew a guy who once put a Ford V8 into an old Fiat. He sat in the back seat when driving it. Generally speaking, I would agree, however, there are very good reasons to keep an original engine. For example a classic model with all original equipment (depending upon condition, of course) would be very desirable to a collector, while a driver might be far more interested in performance, and an enviro-terrorist might be more interested in pollution control and saving resources. >> You have a core to build upon, but in stock form the hp rating is dismal. >So what is the horespower of a stock 351? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >I knew a guy who once put a Ford V8 into an old Fiat. He sat in the back >seat when driving it. Hey! Spikey Likes IT! 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 >Pardon my ignorance. I'm not into race cars, but I'm intrigued. >What's the significance of a "Windsor" engine? Is that made in Windsor, >Canada? The Ford company has 2 engine plants that made a 351cu.in engine. One is in Windsor, Canada. The other is in Cleveland, Ohio. They are different in heads and some other ways. > You do mention below that the engine can fit in just about any >other car. Introduced in about 1969, It will fit most any car that can hold a small block v-8. The Windsor was used in cars and trucks of various models till very recently. >Sorry to sound cynical, but weren't engines from the 1970s rather >inefficient, considering the recent onset of half effective anti-pollution [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If you compare them to a hopped up Honda of today, your right. But, more displacement makes up for the lack of bells & whistles needed get that Honda to the same power level. Is it a gas guzzler? By today's standards, yes. Back in the pre '73 world though, gas was dirt cheap. With after market parts and tuning it can produce over 300 hp. > The Ford company has 2 engine plants that made a 351cu.in engine. One is > in Windsor, Canada. The other is in Cleveland, Ohio. They are different > in heads and some other ways. FYI: The Windsor, Ontario Ford plant is right across the Detroit River from Detroit, MI The most significant difference between the 351W and the 351C is the heads. The Cleveland heads are what make this engine. Cleveland 4V heads feature HUGE canted valves - intake head diameter ~2.19, exhaust head diameter ~1.71. Valves this large are only possible via a canted valve arrangement, forming what Ford referred to as a "poly-angle" combustion chamber. A comparable 351W head features ~1.8" intake and ~1.5" exhaust valve head diameters. Other differences are as follows: Intake manifolds, camshafts and crankshafts are not interchangable between 351W and 351C. 351W 6-bolt valve covers Thermostat housing bolted to the front of the intake manifold (coolant passes through the intake manifold) 5/8" spark plugs Bolts securing fuel pump to block are horizontal in relationship to each other 351C 8 bolt valve covers Thermostat housing is on the block extension which contains the timing chain 14mm spark plugs Bolts securing fuel pump to block are vertical in relationship to each other >> Sorry to sound cynical, but weren't engines from the 1970s rather >> inefficient, considering the recent onset of half effective >> anti-pollution >> measures? I thought they gas guzzlers with low compression ratios, for >> example. In 1970, Congress adopts the first major Clean Air Act, establishes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and gives the new Agency broad responsibility for regulating motor vehicle pollution. The clean air law calls for 90 percent reductions in automotive emissions. Therefore, Ford engines were not significantly affected until the 1972 model year when Ford concentrated more on meeting emission regulations. Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C 4V @ http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt > > The Ford company has 2 engine plants that made a 351cu.in engine. One is > > in Windsor, Canada. The other is in Cleveland, Ohio. They are different [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > chamber. A comparable 351W head features ~1.8" intake and ~1.5" exhaust > valve head diameters. OK, I suppose the axes of such valves are significantly tipped, realative to the axis of the associated piston, so as to allow more surface area; but that would increase the cylinder head cavity and decrease compression, wouldn't it? It seems obvious the 351C is more performance-oriented than the 351W. Now since there must be a tradeoff, then the 351W would seem to be either less expensive, or more reliable; I suspect the latter. If the valves are small, then that implies more "meat" in the cylinder head, at the all-important valve-seat locations. I've seen cracked heads, and the trouble started at valve seats. So I suppose that if a vehicle owner is inclined to ignore maintenance, and just wants to run around town in traffic, then the 351W is probably a better choice. You, however, are an obvious candidate for the 351C. > Other differences are as follows: > Intake manifolds, camshafts and crankshafts are not interchangable [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 14mm spark plugs > Bolts securing fuel pump to block are vertical in relationship to each other Thanks for these details. I think that the thermostat belongs on the block; but it would be difficult to replace, there. > Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C 4V @ > http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt Gorgeous automobile! >Sorry to sound cynical, but weren't engines from the 1970s rather >inefficient, considering the recent onset of half-effective anti-pollution >measures? I thought they gas guzzlers with low compression ratios, for >example. So wouldn't it be better to rebuild an engine from some other era? This is why I call them smog dogs. Due to the "cavities" being large, cam timing being late, etc. I can't speak for the original poster. But any engine of any era can be enhanced to run better than in stock form. When restoring an engine like a 351W, nobody uses a Ford replacement plastic timing gear set, or factory dished pistons. (almost nobody) In the mid nineties the 351 was offered with a hydraulic roller cam. So yes, there is an era to choose a better core. DC > When restoring an engine like a 351W, nobody uses a Ford replacement plastic > timing gear set, or factory dished pistons. > (almost nobody) "Dished" piston? As in concave piston tops? Though I doubt I would ever build up a car engine, I like to ponder the prospects. I don't know the ropes, only to "stay within designers' specifications." I picture any automobile engine being carefully designed, and tested during its development stage, before hundreds of thousands of such engines are produced. The testing methodologies could be awfully elaborate and expensive, justified only by a tremendous economy of scale...;i.e., cost of development spread out over lots of engines. So I am skeptical about changing piston shapes or head cavities, etc. Who's to say that all the fuel will burn at XYZ rpm? Maybe, then, a newbie like myself would be the one who would use factory dished pistons. More likely, I'd stay away from smog dogs! > I just bought a 351 Windsor engine out of a 1978 LTD and I would like to > know what the stock horsepower of this thing is before I go to a lot of > trouble rebuilding it. It came with a rebuilt C4. Is this a good > combination for an install into a hot rod. A quick primer... w/ links and some easy power tips/hints and outlining the Windsor v Cleveland differences/similarities: http://www.classictrucksweb.com/tech/0212ct_alternative/ Rob >> I just bought a 351 Windsor engine out of a 1978 LTD and I would like to >> know what the stock horsepower of this thing is before I go to a lot of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rob I'll be darned, I learn something every day. I didn't know about the difference in deck height between the 351C and 351M.(Anyone who doesn't know about the 302\351W deck height should work on Chevys)I always thought the difference was just crank journal size and trans bolt pattern. (Maybe "I" should have been working on Chevys all these years. :).......naaaaaaah. Tom I remember back in about 1985 a fellow asked for my help changing the motor in his ~74 E-van. He pulled out the 302 and couldn't figure out how to make the new motor fit. It was a 351C 4-V. He didn't have any of the accessory mounting brackets, exhaust manifolds, etc. I kindly sold him a low miles 351W complete with brackets and Y pipe for $75 and the Cleveland. The motor slid right in whth slight exhaust mods. Now 20 years later I wish I hadn't put off picking up that Cleveland motor, I never went and got it. If anyone has a supply of "round tuits" I could use a few. :) > If anyone has a supply of "round tuits" I could use a few. :) Are "round tuits" similar in size to baseballs? I like those kinds. DC >>If anyone has a supply of "round tuits" I could use a few. :) > > Are "round tuits" similar in size to baseballs? > I like those kinds. > > DC I don't remember bacause it's been so long. That's why I have so many projects that I will do when I get "a round tuit". Tom My '73 Torino had the 351 Windsor, and it was more of a utilitarian V8 than was the 351 Cleveland. However, by today's standards, I would note that that 351W will still roast the tires, anywhere, anyhow and the tendency to fishtail was very pronounced. It would top-out speed-wise at about 103 MPH and took a VERY long time to get there, but was geared very low and great on city streets. Had a better AC system than the VFW hall too. : I just bought a 351 Windsor engine out of a 1978 LTD and I would like to : know what the stock horsepower of this thing is before I go to a lot of : trouble rebuilding it. It came with a rebuilt C4. Is this a good : combination for an install into a hot rod.  SignatureTom Line tlineN0_SPAM@iglou.com >My '73 Torino had the 351 Windsor, and it was more of a utilitarian V8 >than was the 351 Cleveland. However, by today's standards, I would note [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >: trouble rebuilding it. It came with a rebuilt C4. Is this a good >: combination for an install into a hot rod. My 76 Torino had the 351M. It was fast. Really fast. Had the low rear end though. 0-100 was damn quick, but after that it kinda petered out. I topped it at like 140 or something once racing a Trans-Am on I-77. He just kept on going. Here I was topped out and that other car just slowly pulled away. He was probably doing about 10mph more than me and he was topped out too. What a rush. That Torino was sweet. I made it from Badin Lake to Mint Hill in about 20 minutes one July 4th. I sold that car when second gear died. It had a habit of losing traction when it hit second and I loved to hear those tires squeal at 50mph. Slowly it started slipping until finally one day it would go into second no more. I sold it and bought a 1980 Volkswagen Dasher. I went from 0-60 in about 6 seconds to 0-60 in about 30 seconds. I sold the Torino so I would not have to change the tranny. 3 Weeks after buying the VW I ended up changing the tranny on it. I hated that car. Still do. I quit paying on it and when the repo guy came I helped him load it up with a smile on my face. Thanked him for getting it out of my driveway. Still miss the Torino though. That 351M rocked. |
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.