Subject : Pictures Please - Ford 351 - Ford351C - Ford351W - Repost

"Old Crow" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 02:15:19 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> > wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

"Old Crow" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:20:02 -0400, "STUK" >
> wrote:
>
>>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>.

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
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

Many used to bolt the better breathing Cleveland heads onto the Windsor
block: http://www.mustangandfords.com/techa...clevor_engine/
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/


"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
news:Xq91i.3318$NY3.1344@trnddc03
>
> 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.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"David M" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 02:15:19 +0000, Jeff Strickland rearranged some
> electrons to form:
>
>>
>> "CobraJet" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article <3Y81i.427$b67.111@trnddc06>, Jeff Strickland
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 *******.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> --
> David M (dmacchiarolo)
> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
> T/S 53
> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 7 days 23:07
>

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

RCE wrote:
> "David M" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 02:15:19 +0000, Jeff Strickland rearranged some
>> electrons to form:
>>
>>> "CobraJet" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article <3Y81i.427$b67.111@trnddc06>, Jeff Strickland
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 *******.
>>>>
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> David M (dmacchiarolo)
>> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
>> T/S 53
>> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 7 days 23:07
>>
>
> 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
>
>

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

You're an idiot, who said anything about a 351 being a big
block!!!!!!!!!
Yes.
Now coward, crawl back under a rock!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/


"CobraJet" > wrote in message

>
> You chased me? How can you do that in your poopy diapers?
>
> 351's are not Big Blocks, hence your stupidity, hence the stupid
> paragraph sounding like you.
>
> If that's a 400 Chevy, it's a small block. Dip****. Somehow I don't
> think it's a 400 Ford.
>
> You have a Lincoln engine in your T-Bird?
>
> I woulda thought somebody carted you off to a nuthouse by now.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.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
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>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> 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 .
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>

In article >, Bill\
> wrote:

> You're an idiot, who said anything about a 351 being a big
> block!!!!!!!!!
> Yes.
> Now coward, crawl back under a rock!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/

I see your psychosis is progressing. They should be taking you away
any day now.

>
>
> "CobraJet" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > You chased me? How can you do that in your poopy diapers?
> >
> > 351's are not Big Blocks, hence your stupidity, hence the stupid
> > paragraph sounding like you.
> >
> > If that's a 400 Chevy, it's a small block. Dip****. Somehow I don't
> > think it's a 400 Ford.
> >
> > You have a Lincoln engine in your T-Bird?
> >
> > I woulda thought somebody carted you off to a nuthouse by now.

--
CobraJet

On May 11, 10:20 pm, "STUK" > wrote:

> 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.

JohnJohnsn wrote:
> On May 11, 10:20 pm, "STUK" > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>


Interesting. I learned something new today. Never would have guessed
that's where the numbers came from.

Chris