351 4V?

IIRC, there's no difference between 4v and 2v Windsor heads, no matter the year. The '69-'70 351 Windsor heads got slightly bigger valves, but otherwise ain't much better than any other Windsor head. I think the E7 heads actually flow better. However, there is a significant difference between 4v and 2v Cleveland heads, both of which are different that the popular old school swap Aussie Cleveland 2v heads.

In any case, 351W or 351C, both are good solid motors to build. The ones to avoid (in stock formation anyway) is the damned 351M (Modified), which was Ford's mid-70s horror of a truck motor that ended up in some full sized cars.

novaderrik wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: Aussie made Clevelands were in Falcons and from 1970 until around 1984 IIRC. I had a couple of 351 and 302 Clevelands back in the day. All GT versions were 4V 351s and were considered the better performance choice.

302 Cleveland? is that the same as what we called the Boss 302 in the states?

Pretty sure that the 302 cube Cleveland was an Aussie-only engine.

In reply to Nitroracer:

You're correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_335_engine#302_Cleveland

Which is somewhat like the Boss 302 of the same era;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Boss_302_engine

darkbuddha wrote: I think the E7 heads actually flow better.

That's a frightening thought considering that E7s flow like utter crap (or so sayeth the Mustang boards).

darkbuddha wrote: The ones to avoid (in stock formation anyway) is the damned 351M (Modified), which was Ford's mid-70s horror of a truck motor that ended up in some full sized cars.

Everyone talks crap about the 351M. Really, they're not that bad. It's just a destroked 400. You want to talk about crap motors, lets talk about the 352.

Once the aftermarket embraced the 351W, most of the advantages of the Cleveland engine were negated. Nothing wrong with a Cleveland but if you were starting from scratch, it is probably best to build a Windsor.

I am not planning on building a wild engine at all. Probably an aftermarket intake manifold, headers, maybe a mild cam. Although if it already has a 4 barrel probably just exhaust.

93EXCivic wrote: I am not planning on building a wild engine at all. Probably an aftermarket intake manifold, headers, maybe a mild cam. Although if it already has a 4 barrel probably just exhaust.

In that case, I think either engine would be fine. I'm mostly partial to the Windsors because of my familiarity with them. I certainly wouldn't pass up a good car, regardless of the engine.

93EXCivic wrote: I am not planning on building a wild engine at all. Probably an aftermarket intake manifold, headers, maybe a mild cam. Although if it already has a 4 barrel probably just exhaust.

Then you should probably change your plans!

tuna55 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I am not planning on building a wild engine at all. Probably an aftermarket intake manifold, headers, maybe a mild cam. Although if it already has a 4 barrel probably just exhaust.

Then you should probably change your plans!

But it is going to be my truck and not a project (at least that is the idea. Let's see how well that goes)

93EXCivic wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I am not planning on building a wild engine at all. Probably an aftermarket intake manifold, headers, maybe a mild cam. Although if it already has a 4 barrel probably just exhaust.

Then you should probably change your plans!

But it is going to be my truck and not a project (at least that is the idea. Let's see how well that goes)

Remember what I told you in the last post you made about something like this? Keep your projects your projects and your DDs your DDs, trust me. If you want a truck for near DD use, forget the el camino/ranchero dream and get a Ford 300 I6 with a four speed and don't ever do anything to it other than oil and gas and brakes.

You would not have started a thread talking about cylinder head flows on a ranchero for a DD unless you meant it to be a DD/project. Remmeber that any DD/project is going to be less reliable than a basic appliance at our (I am guessing) budget constraints, and every DD/project will be not running at some point. Make sure you have a car to get you back and forth to work. That's exactly why I sold the turbobrick. DD/Project as reliable everyday transportation does not work in the real world with regular jobs and real responsibilities.

tuna55 wrote: You would not have started a thread talking about cylinder head flows on a ranchero for a DD unless you meant it to be a DD/project.

I wasn't actually asking about flow rates I really just wanted to find out the reliability of the engine. Somewhere along the line it became that. My Civic is going to remain my DD. This is just a backup and truck and will do some autoXs until the Spitfire is done.

darkbuddha wrote: In any case, 351W or 351C, both are good solid motors to build. The ones to avoid (in stock formation anyway) is the damned 351M (Modified), which was Ford's mid-70s horror of a truck motor that ended up in some full sized cars.

The "M" stands for "Midland." Another example of Ford naming the motor for the location of the factory.

All the engines mentioned above benefit from widely available aftermarket heads so there's really no reason to hunt around for the old-school stuff unless you're building a numbers-matching car.

I don't think any of the engines talked about here flow as badly as the 5.0 E7 heads. They'll all work fine for street use, a 4V Cleveland being possibly the worst out of all of this since the ports are large by huge and for something to crawl around town or maybe do 70 mph tops there's advantages to corked up heads.

Not that I would for a second turn away a 351 Ford V8 of any variant.

Jerry From LA wrote:

darkbuddha wrote: In any case, 351W or 351C, both are good solid motors to build. The ones to avoid (in stock formation anyway) is the damned 351M (Modified), which was Ford's mid-70s horror of a truck motor that ended up in some full sized cars.

The "M" stands for "Midland." Another example of Ford naming the motor for the location of the factory.

Unless I am seriously mistaken the M doesn't actually stand for anything and Ford never had a plant in Midland.

Remember what I told you in the last post you made about something like this? Keep your projects your projects and your DDs your DDs, trust me. If you want a truck for near DD use, forget the el camino/ranchero dream and get a Ford 300 I6 with a four speed and don't ever do anything to it other than oil and gas and brakes.

300 I6 was one of the best light truck engines ever built. I often think about picking up a 300-powered F-series just for trips to Home Depot, and occasional light towing duty.

To quote the MG Midget poster I have, "One Day You Will Settle Down With a Nice Sensible Car and a Nice Sensible Girl. One Day."

PS122 wrote: Once the aftermarket embraced the 351W, most of the advantages of the Cleveland engine were negated. Nothing wrong with a Cleveland but if you were starting from scratch, it is probably best to build a Windsor.

they still used Cleveland based heads on Windsor blocks in the NASCAR Cup series engines until a couple of years ago.

In reply to novaderrik:

I think the canted valve heads have room for the extremely large ports used in Cup cars. In most applications the aftermarket Windsor heads have more than enough flow capabilities, however.

Cleveland breathe better in stock form, Windsors rev higher and have stronger bottom ends, the end result of the Cleveland 302 matched with the Windsor 302 heads was the Boss as designed originally by Aussie racer Mick Webb, or so I was informed many years ago by said Mick.

http://www.svomotorsport.com/

I have been hearing, for over 30 years, how the 4 barrel cleveland heads were too big for the street, and the two barrel ones were the way to go. While my experience is limited, I can assure you, and would be quite willing to undergo a polygraph test, a 351C 4 bbl Mustang will murder a 2bbl car in every possible way. Really. Even after you put an aftermarket 4 bbl manifold on the 2 bbl heads.

RPM X Torque = more damn speed, no matter how you do the math.

darkbuddha wrote: IIRC, there's no difference between 4v and 2v Windsor heads, no matter the year. The '69-'70 351 Windsor heads got slightly bigger valves, but otherwise ain't much better than any other Windsor head. I think the E7 heads actually flow better.

The E7 heads didn't exist yet...

/old

Streetwiseguy wrote: I have been hearing, for over 30 years, how the 4 barrel cleveland heads were too big for the street, and the two barrel ones were the way to go. While my experience is limited, I can assure you, and would be quite willing to undergo a polygraph test, a 351C 4 bbl Mustang will murder a 2bbl car in every possible way. Really. Even after you put an aftermarket 4 bbl manifold on the 2 bbl heads. RPM X Torque = more damn speed, no matter how you do the math.

X2 I agree completely there is a reason all Cleveland GT Falcons were 4V

PS122 wrote: In reply to novaderrik: I think the canted valve heads have room for the extremely large ports used in Cup cars. In most applications the aftermarket Windsor heads have more than enough flow capabilities, however.

yeah.. but my point was that the Cleveland head design was still the way to go for all out naturally aspirated power and reliability on a WIndsor engine. i'm a Chevy guy, but Ford did something right when they designed those Cleveland heads in the 60's. they kept using them competitively in race car engines even after everyone else (Dodge, GM, Toyota) designed complete engines from the ground up just for those race series.

novaderrik wrote the following;

"they [Ford] kept using them [Cleveland heads] competitively in race car engines even after everyone else (Dodge, GM, Toyota) designed complete engines from the ground up just for those race series."

And really, when I think about streetable powerplants that are economical and nicely mannered, I think of NASCAR motors for my Rachero project.

with big cams and stiff valvesprings, clevelands wipe cam lobes at the back of the block unless the oil passages are opened up. not a big deal if you've already got one apart, but something to consider.