Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

351C Vs 351W


shelbyeuropa
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was going to add this info to another topic but decided to just start a new one since this info was different.

 

http://www.teamshelb...rd-muscleparts/

 

This is from a May 1996 of “Mustang and Fords” magazine page 46-50. This is a real good article explaining why the 351W Block is the better chose. I also found this site describing 351C to 351W Block. This info can also be used to place a 351C head to a 289-302block.

 

http://www.themustan....com/clevor.cfm

 

I hope this works since the 500k max $@%! Nope Got to attach File!!!!!

post-36929-0-22711900-1367481975_thumb.jpg

post-36929-0-22711900-1367481975_thumb.jpg

Edited by shelbyeuropa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is old-school stuff- Not too much interest here on a Shelby site as none came with 351C's. But I'll bite- I favor the 351C as I have built many in the past for my '72 Sportsroof Mustang but the main complaint against them was the cylinder wall thickness (the lack of it) and the crank journals were too large. But, overall it was a robust package and it had high-horsepower potential. Mine ran on street gas but still made about 500HP with simple tricks and ford parts. If i remember correctly, one of them has a better rod length to crank throw ratio than the other. The W was smaller and the C had high-flow heads. I tried the American 2V (open chamber) and 4V open and closed chamber designs. The 2V's smaller ports had a bunch more torque at lower rpm's but the huge intake ports of the 4V (you can almost fit your fist in them!) would scream from 3500-7500 and keep pulling!! I'll post pics of them when I find them. Thanks for the trip down happy memory lane!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Windsor does have a great history. If you find time, take a look at Ford Windsor Engine on Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, the 351C was considered a big or mid size block, where the 351W was a sm block. This is why the 351W are used to stoke to a 42,7 for big block power, utilizing sm block weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a 351W in my ''73 Mach 1 and as we all know, 1973 was not a muscle car year. The cars were so detained, that to get any kind of HP, I had to basically take all the factory stuff off and build from there. If I recall, even the blackbird Trans Am in Smokie and the Bandit only had 80 some HP. I also miss that car as it was my first. You always miss the first of everything .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is old-school stuff- Not too much interest here on a Shelby site as none came with 351C's. But I'll bite- I favor the 351C as I have built many in the past for my '72 Sportsroof Mustang but the main complaint against them was the cylinder wall thickness (the lack of it) and the crank journals were too large. But, overall it was a robust package and it had high-horsepower potential. Mine ran on street gas but still made about 500HP with simple tricks and ford parts. If i remember correctly, one of them has a better rod length to crank throw ratio than the other. The W was smaller and the C had high-flow heads. I tried the American 2V (open chamber) and 4V open and closed chamber designs. The 2V's smaller ports had a bunch more torque at lower rpm's but the huge intake ports of the 4V (you can almost fit your fist in them!) would scream from 3500-7500 and keep pulling!! I'll post pics of them when I find them. Thanks for the trip down happy memory lane!!

 

Actually the 351W Crank has a larger main 3.00" and the 351C has a smaller Main 2.75" as mention in both articles. The 351M and 400M was redesign with the Crank same larger main 3.00" as the 351W. The 351C block is much weaker, heaver with poor oiling. That was fix with the Modifies but they are much heaver with low Compression and even the heads are poor. The 351W is a much better block and can be stroke to 427 and is cost effective compare to the 351C or M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a 351W in my ''73 Mach 1 and as we all know, 1973 was not a muscle car year. The cars were so detained, that to get any kind of HP, I had to basically take all the factory stuff off and build from there. If I recall, even the blackbird Trans Am in Smokie and the Bandit only had 80 some HP. I also miss that car as it was my first. You always miss the first of everything ��.

 

Had a 73 Chevelle with the 350. The compression was so low it had I think 90 hp. Couldn't get out of its own way

Edited by twobjshelbys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first car was a 71 Torino GT with a 351C. I remember that engine was pretty powerful, but "dull" on the bottom end. Of course, the massive weight of the car had nothing to do with that. Once it got rolling it seemed like it would never stop pulling. The heads weighed like a thousand pounds a piece, aftermarket parts were hard to come by (it was the early 80's when I bought it), but it looked and sounded great. Not a bad car for a high school kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 70 mustang should have had a 351 C unless it was a very early production model. both the C and W were good engines but had problems getting oil throughout the systems. Both the 351 W and C were small blocks or mid size. There was even a 400 cid that was derived from the 351. It was a smog motor.

 

the first small block ford was a 221, then 260, then 289, 302, 351 and finally 400. All were considered small block or mid size because they originated from the original 221.

 

There was an oil trick to the small block ford which required running a copper tubing from the rear of the heads to the front of the heads to increase oiling to the front of the engine. The heads had to be tapped to do this.

 

I believe there was also a strenghtened 351 W block for school buses which some race teams liked.

 

Thank you for the effort on the post and while it may be old school a lot of us still like the nostalgia and the retro. Thank you.

 

PS- the other trick for the 351 W was to take valves from a 327 fuel injected chevy (2.2 intake 1.6 exh) and mate them to the 351 W heads. Then it really breathed. But the 351 C heads were far superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a big Family first may mean more than one, My oldest brother Order/bought a New 1968.5 GT/CS with 390 4V that was handed down to my 2nd oldest brother when he started to drive. Well when My twin and I started to drive the 68.5 GT/CS was handed down to us to drive. When I enlisted in the USAF I gave the car to my twin and when I was in Chanute AFB, ILL in 1975 I bought my first Car a 1969 Torino Corba 428SCJ RamAir 4-Speed for $750. I love the 68.5 GT/CS bring back so much memory of High School but the 69 Cobra brings back so much memory of just cruising and burn outs couldn't keep them tires down. I was 17 and I saw the USA from coast to coast driving from ILL to Calif then driving to Lackland AFB then to Altus AFB, OK and between 1975-1977 I was everywhere with that Cobra.

post-36929-0-67559000-1367543558_thumb.jpg

post-36929-0-67559000-1367543558_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually the 351W Crank has a larger main 3.00" and the 351C has a smaller Main 2.75" as mention in both articles. The 351M and 400M was redesign with the Crank same larger main 3.00" as the 351W. The 351C block is much weaker, heaver with poor oiling. That was fix with the Modifies but they are much heaver with low Compression and even the heads are poor. The 351W is a much better block and can be stroke to 427 and is cost effective compare to the 351C or M.

 

I apologize, I meant the crank's rod journals were larger and less desirable.

 

The poor oiling fix I used were Moroso's oil flow restrictors in the cam oil journals which enabled more oil to flow to the crank vs. the cam.

 

Yes, there wasn't much in the '80's except Scott Main, owner of Cam Research / MPG Head Service, he sold some really cool oil windage trays, custom cams and port plates which really helped make the 351C-4V scream!! And the best customer service ever. He even sent out Christmas cards to his customers!

 

Thanks for posting the pic of your Torino!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first car was a 71 Torino GT with a 351C. I remember that engine was pretty powerful, but "dull" on the bottom end. Of course, the massive weight of the car had nothing to do with that. Once it got rolling it seemed like it would never stop pulling. The heads weighed like a thousand pounds a piece, aftermarket parts were hard to come by (it was the early 80's when I bought it), but it looked and sounded great. Not a bad car for a high school kid.

 

Not a bad high school car for sure! Sounds like you had the 4V version. Completely different animal from any other engine at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize, I meant the crank's rod journals were larger and less desirable.

 

The poor oiling fix I used were Moroso's oil flow restrictors in the cam oil journals which enabled more oil to flow to the crank vs. the cam.

 

Yes, there wasn't much in the '80's except Scott Main, owner of Cam Research / MPG Head Service, he sold some really cool oil windage trays, custom cams and port plates which really helped make the 351C-4V scream!! And the best customer service ever. He even sent out Christmas cards to his customers!

 

Thanks for posting the pic of your Torino!

 

Yes you are correct about the Crank Rod journals. I've attached a 27 page MS Word file of Ford Engines but if anyone would like the website.

 

http://raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod/engine.html

 

There is So........Much........Info...... on this site Just keep looking and you'll find something new.

Sorry but I thought this Forums was for all ages of Shelby's. When it comes to the new Gen of Shelby's (2006-Present) I don't have one and will continue to study the prices as the New 2015+ is release with the new concept design. I bought my first Shelby in 1978 when I was station in RAF Mildenhall, England it was a 1965 GT350 Raced from 1965-75 I saw it in a barn going to London. Paid £500. I’ll have to see if I still have any old Photo of it. Back in the old days Pictures were expensive and I just never that any of these cars meant anything important.

 

Damn, won't let me attached a MS Word file..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I raced cleveland and Cleavors. The mix if of the two was killa, if not a bit complicated. I used Australian heads as well but the 4v is mainly what I used. The cleveland was a much better power make than the windsor. Bone stock, the windsor would give the cleaveland a run for the money but start tinkering, forget about it. Not that long ago, the 400M built by Kaase won the engine competition for most HP against all makes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few problems with the 351Clevland and Modify:

 

1. The width is wider and Won't fit into the 1964-66 Mustang without major mod to the Tower Shower. (302=24”, 351W=25”, 351C=25.5, 351M/400M=26”)

 

2. The Height is 1" Taller between the C vs M (Deck Heights 302=8.209", 351W=9.504", 351C=9.206", 351M=10.297")

 

3. Adds an additional 115lbs. (302=460lb, 351W=525lbs, 351C=550lbs, 351M/400M=575lbs)

 

4. 351C has motormounts and bellhousing pattern like a 302, 351W. And the 351M-400 has motormounts and bellhousing pattern like a 429/460

 

5. The 351W has a best R/S of 1.701 while the 351C is 1.651

 

Website Info 351W into 1964.5-1966 Mustangs:

 

 

http://mustangsandmo...EngineSwap.html

 

TESTING:

 

http://s1077.photobu...

 

http://i1077.photobu...

 

<a href="http://s1077.photobu...arget="_blank"><img src="http://i1077.photobu...border="0" alt=" /></a>

 

SR71-3.jpg

 

REMOVED PICS

Edited by shelbyeuropa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

<br />

<strong><span style="font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">In a big Family first may mean more than one, My oldest brother Order/bought a New 1968.5 GT/CS with 390 4V that was handed down to my 2nd oldest brother when he started to drive. Well when My twin and I started to drive the 68.5 GT/CS was handed down to us to drive. When I enlisted in the USAF I gave the car to my twin and when I was in Chanute AFB, ILL in 1975 I bought my first Car a 1969 Torino Corba 428SCJ RamAir 4-Speed for $750. I love the 68.5 GT/CS bring back so much memory of High School but the 69 Cobra brings back so much memory of just cruising and burn outs couldn't keep them tires down. I was 17 and I saw the USA from coast to coast driving from ILL to Calif then driving to Lackland AFB then to Altus AFB, OK and between 1975-1977 I was everywhere with that Cobra.</span></span></strong><br />

 

 

Hey I was stationed at Altus back in 1977 going to C-141 Loadmaster TTU at the University of MAC. Jim Smart of Mustang Monthly Magazine was also stationed at Altus back in 1977 to 80, I think he was a FMS guy.

 

Oh to get back on subject I still have a 351C-4V in my 1970 Mach 1. Nice motor but about the time the heads start breathing good the cam runs out on the stock motor. If my Cleveland ever "blows" I'd may just replace it with a 351W stroked out to 427.

 

 

 

422283_178508032261322_640107967_n.jpg

Edited by Bill Hamilton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, SE, was there a point to the last post

 

 

Maybe I had poorly written the info #20

 

As from the meaning of this post the 351W block has many advantages over the 351C or M blocks For individuals that use these block may foresee failures. I listed just some of the reasons:

 

 

1.
The width of the 351W engine has been used in almost all mustangs and in the 1964.5-1966 mustangs the 351C or M is difficult and needs many modifications to work.

 

2.
The 351M or 400M is 1” taller that other small blocks which could be a major issue before starting the project. In 60’s Ford Vehicles means hood scoop.

 

3.
The 351C or M is about 115lbs heavier compare to the 351W and weight is important unless you don’t understand the danger in increase weight?

 

4.
Self Explanatory.

 

5.
The 351W has the best R/S ratio of 1.7. The engineer which developed the 289 (1.69) and 302 (1.69) realized that R/S ratio of 1.7 was best balance/performance.

 

The 351W and not the 351C or M was used in the 1999 Saleen S351.

 

Is there something you don’t understand maybe I can explain?

The other items was trying to TEST how I could add images. I Removed the Links and Pics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

 

Hey I was stationed at Altus back in 1977 going to C-141 Loadmaster TTU at the University of MAC. Jim Smart of Mustang Monthly Magazine was also stationed at Altus back in 1977 to 80, I think he was a FMS guy.

 

Oh to get back on subject I still have a 351C-4V in my 1970 Mach 1. Nice motor but about the time the heads start breathing good the cam runs out on the stock motor. If my Cleveland ever "blows" I'd may just replace it with a 351W stroked out to 427.

 

 

 

%20https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/422283_178508032261322_640107967_n.jpg

 

 

Bill, I was a 2nd LT at Altus AFB,OK from Dec 1975 to May 1977 I was one of 200 agents under AFOSI Command Sec 7 undercover part of 729th Tac. I really keep to myself and Lived off base Altus was my first assignment in the transportation department working on the flight line.

 

I agreed that the 351W motor is more accessible in parts, is the less cost effective and stronger engine with the 351C head combo.

 

LOVE your cars.

 

I found that everyone love this Pic of ...........AH.... both my vehicles.

 

 

 

1971ShelbyEuropa-4_zpsb47e733c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFOSI! Boooooo! :hysterical:

 

OK, Ill test my memory, I believe the 351 C has smaller crank journals, beter for performance. The windsor was lighter and could handle a bore better. Thats where the clevors came from. Now, we are talking about back in the day as, none of this is rellevent in this day and age. The 351 C was a much better engine when cams were added with much better power. None of them are close to the current stable of 4 valves.

 

PS, name a better engine than a Boss 351

Edited by svttim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFOSI! Boooooo! :hysterical:

 

OK, Ill test my memory, I believe the 351 C has smaller crank journals, beter for performance. The windsor was lighter and could handle a bore better. Thats where the clevors came from. Now, we are talking about back in the day as, none of this is rellevent in this day and age. The 351 C was a much better engine when cams were added with much better power. None of them are close to the current stable of 4 valves.

 

PS, name a better engine than a Boss 351

 

The smaller 2.75" main Crank Journals is Better for PERFORMACNE????? Where did you get your education of engine performance!!!!! One of the problem with the 351C was the Main Crank which was redesign on the M’s back to 3.00”s. Second problem was the oiling system…….

 

The Boss 351 is a good engine I don’t disagree not the best.

 

427Cobra, 427SOHC, Boss 429, 428SCJ…..etc......Only the SOHC had less than 2K produce.... ha..the BOSS351 is another…

 

All these engine ran in the 13’s I will also admit that each of these engines had it’s own problems but that I leave maybe in a different Topic.

 

The Boss 351 was never race in Nascar? Or NHRA? Or TransAm? What about SAAC?

 

REMOVED

 

As stated by Patton "....We can learn from the past to predict the present... " The computer CPU would not be what it is without the intro of the Transistor in 1947 and the 1971 Intel 4004. As an engineer developing new technology I have to know the past and strive for the future.

 

Same as back in 1980's I had argue with my Twin about TURBO's and that Turbo will be the way for power and saving Fuel consumption. The 4Valve DOHC 2000's engines is not new FORD (Like GM and Chrysler) is behind technology. Honda Develop the VTEC in 1983 and VVT-i/VVTL-i from Toyota in 1996. The present is Turbos and ECU Programing.

Edited by shelbyeuropa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a 1971 Boss with the 351 Cleveland engine . For it's day that car was fast as hell and would rev to 7000 rpm.Most mags had the 1/4 mile @ 13.8.That is Boss 429 territory. The 351 Cleveland had Boss 302 canted valve heads that made ton's of torque .

 

Here is my current Mach 1 with a 351 4v Cleveland . Restored to it's original condition except for the magnums 500 's. It's no match for my GT500 but it's great fun to work on these old cars .The Marti report shows BLACK ON BLACK with BLACK stripes with a cleveland 4v very hard to find.

post-9597-0-39518800-1368103765_thumb.jpg

post-9597-0-39518800-1368103765_thumb.jpg

Edited by mach 1 1970
Link to comment
Share on other sites

svttim,

 

I wanted to add ….. This site/forum is design for Ideas whether New vehicles or the Classics. The 4.6L and 5.4L is over 20yr old and with the 5.8L/5.0 being 3yrs old and new 2014 Shelby Focus 2.0L turbo Ecoboost Technology.

 

REMOVED

 

This “OLD SCHOOL” subject as everybody refer to is new to some that has recently grad from high school or college or maybe just started to learn about classic MUSTANG’s and the engines that once was the “TOTAL PERFORMANCE” of these classics. You may have your ideas or believes but if you open your mind I believe you will learn something new from old Collector/ enthusiast as myself. I do not have in my collection any mustang later than 20th Ann 1984.5 GT350 Turbo Convert and really don't plan on buying.

 

As stated in your post#19 Why did you built/use cleavers if you think that the Clevelands is a better engine?

Edited by shelbyeuropa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
...