irishblessing
Guest
which do you guys think is better and why my friend has both idk what years and i ws looking into buying an engine just to have fun with build up although i know chevy 350 are much eaiser to find parts for id like a 351
-
Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register
for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.
I agree, The w is no harder to get parts for than a sbc. And you will get more performance per dollar.
351c parts are rare and expensive. Ask me I know(see signature).
351c parts are rare and expensive. Ask me I know(see signature).
baddad457
Well-Known Member
Ummm, where ? Everywhere I see Cleveland parts they're dirt cheap. I've got a complete 72 motor that's never been rebuilt and cannot give it away. The parts are no harder to find than anything else. Until you bolt on a set of aftermarket heads on a Windsor, you don't have squat. Not so with the Cleveland. Even the 2bbl heads are far superior to SBF and SBC heads.
baddad457
Well-Known Member
No, but I've seen a few. I'd like to do a bogus boss one day when time and money permit.
I'm told 351c. because of the 4 bolt mains. Both are nice motors though.
fordmike1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 416
- Vehicle Year
- 1994 & 1983
- Transmission
- Automatic
351c's only have 4-bolt mains if its a CJ or Boss engine.315c's are heavy and just like dragogt said the 351w has a bigger aftermarket support making the 351w far superior. Dont get me wrong the 351c is a decent engine but its way easier to make power and get parts for a swap using a 351w.
351w>351c
Last edited:
RustedRanger
Well-Known Member
I had a 351 C 4V in a 72 Cougar XR7,I still miss it. The only bad things Ive heard about them are the need for high oil pressure to overcome poor oiling and poor low-end because of the huge ports. The one I had came with a small autolite carb that seemed to help the low end and mine came with 3.00 to 1 gears in the rear so take off wasn't that great anyway....but once it got moving it did very well 
It was also an early 72 model that had 10:7 to 1 compression and needed premium gas but it had 270 net HP. In the past Ive seen "torque plates" that fit between the intake and heads that has like a tounge that sticks down into the bottom of the port to increase the flow and Ive also heard that the Offenhauser duel flow intake helped,it split the ports in two top and bottom and the primaries in the carb used half and the secondaries the other half. Lighter vehicles can sometimes be faster with a "softer" low end so the tires dont get "blown off" when you take off. I'd sure like to have that motor in my Ranger.
It was also an early 72 model that had 10:7 to 1 compression and needed premium gas but it had 270 net HP. In the past Ive seen "torque plates" that fit between the intake and heads that has like a tounge that sticks down into the bottom of the port to increase the flow and Ive also heard that the Offenhauser duel flow intake helped,it split the ports in two top and bottom and the primaries in the carb used half and the secondaries the other half. Lighter vehicles can sometimes be faster with a "softer" low end so the tires dont get "blown off" when you take off. I'd sure like to have that motor in my Ranger.
You can restrict the oil to the top end by tapping the feed hole leaving a journal and installing a plug with a hole drilled though it. The top end doesn't need that much oil and it increases pressure in the bottom one.
The 2V heads are okay. I prefer the Pontiacs of the same generation though.
The 4V heads are great. But you can't try to disquise it with a smaller camshaft etc. I tried that--after I got married we hooked a U-Hual to my '64 Galaxie which had a '71 351C-4V. It had 9.8-1 TRW pistons to lower the compression ratio, I replaced the Erson cam with 245* duration @.050 with something like 204* and installed an Offy split plenum--hoping that would let me tow a trailer. No, it was really bad. We made it. But that old car was designed before freeways pushed the gas stations so far apart. We got 7mpg in some stretches and with a 15 gallon tank, or maybe 20, we had to sit waiting for rural gas stations to open out in Wyoming. In a light-weight '69 Cougar with 4.56 gears and a 3,500rpm converter, it's a dominating engine. Putting it in the Galaxie was a neccesity, but it wasn't better for the job than the 289 I pulled.
My replacement for the 351C-4V was a 472" motor I built from a '71 Lincoln. I didn't spare any expense in that one--also using TRW pistons to lower the compression, mirror polishing the chambers to eliminate hot spots, hammering rods in the air-pump ports and grinding out the lumps. I used a Ford Motorsports cam which was the same grind as the 429 Police. And I used a tiny 625cfm Carter AFB. That was a great motor--like a giant sewing machine. It was everything the 4V cleveland wasn't in that car--throttle response like a kick-drum, go around cars without needing the tranny to downshift. I got 16mpg on my commute--which was about 90mph up I5 in southern California. The 351C probably could make the same power and at a lot less weight, but drivability isn't the same. I like the giant sewing machine. Nobody can beat you off a light--that thing would leave the paint behind.
Get the 351W anyway. Aftermarket stuff--fuel injection--all of this can be put on it. It was made until very recently, 10 or 12 years. The 351C is about 35 years out of production. It's a cool motor, but you can buy better heads for a 351W. You can start cheap and you all already set-up to upgrade. I don't have any love for a stock 351W--a 351C will kick it's butt. The W has more potential with the aftermarket though.
The 2V heads are okay. I prefer the Pontiacs of the same generation though.
The 4V heads are great. But you can't try to disquise it with a smaller camshaft etc. I tried that--after I got married we hooked a U-Hual to my '64 Galaxie which had a '71 351C-4V. It had 9.8-1 TRW pistons to lower the compression ratio, I replaced the Erson cam with 245* duration @.050 with something like 204* and installed an Offy split plenum--hoping that would let me tow a trailer. No, it was really bad. We made it. But that old car was designed before freeways pushed the gas stations so far apart. We got 7mpg in some stretches and with a 15 gallon tank, or maybe 20, we had to sit waiting for rural gas stations to open out in Wyoming. In a light-weight '69 Cougar with 4.56 gears and a 3,500rpm converter, it's a dominating engine. Putting it in the Galaxie was a neccesity, but it wasn't better for the job than the 289 I pulled.
My replacement for the 351C-4V was a 472" motor I built from a '71 Lincoln. I didn't spare any expense in that one--also using TRW pistons to lower the compression, mirror polishing the chambers to eliminate hot spots, hammering rods in the air-pump ports and grinding out the lumps. I used a Ford Motorsports cam which was the same grind as the 429 Police. And I used a tiny 625cfm Carter AFB. That was a great motor--like a giant sewing machine. It was everything the 4V cleveland wasn't in that car--throttle response like a kick-drum, go around cars without needing the tranny to downshift. I got 16mpg on my commute--which was about 90mph up I5 in southern California. The 351C probably could make the same power and at a lot less weight, but drivability isn't the same. I like the giant sewing machine. Nobody can beat you off a light--that thing would leave the paint behind.
Get the 351W anyway. Aftermarket stuff--fuel injection--all of this can be put on it. It was made until very recently, 10 or 12 years. The 351C is about 35 years out of production. It's a cool motor, but you can buy better heads for a 351W. You can start cheap and you all already set-up to upgrade. I don't have any love for a stock 351W--a 351C will kick it's butt. The W has more potential with the aftermarket though.
My bad, I had thought that you had something to that fact on FTE a While back..
393, 408, 427 W strokers > 351C... Check out sbftech.com, they know there stuff when it comes to ford blocks.
irishblessing
Guest
i was thinking a 351w with 351c heads
DavidNJ
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 21
- Transmission
- Automatic
Unless you have stock Cleveland/Boss rules, CHI heads from Australia are three jumps ahead of anything else. They have won the engine builder's challenge, and just make more HP. Kaase had his own head sold through Summit Racing, but that is history and IMHO the ports were too big for something under 454.
First thing to decide is short deck (302s that bored/stroked to 347) or tall deck (can be over 400). Then decided intake...I am a big believer in fuel injection.
I don't think you are doing a high rpm motor, so valves, valve springs, lifters (which should still be roller), pistons, pins, rods, crank don't have to be exotic. However, you may still want to consider a shaft rocker system with a stiff pushrod. Makes for more accurate valve timing.
If you really want to go cheap, you will be in a Windsor, because that is a junkyard setup. If you are getting new heads/pistons...the CHI is hard to ignore.
Note: stock Cleveland 4V heads have ports that are too big and a bad shape. It is common to fill then and raise them.
http://www.chiheads.com.au/3v_185cc.php
First thing to decide is short deck (302s that bored/stroked to 347) or tall deck (can be over 400). Then decided intake...I am a big believer in fuel injection.
I don't think you are doing a high rpm motor, so valves, valve springs, lifters (which should still be roller), pistons, pins, rods, crank don't have to be exotic. However, you may still want to consider a shaft rocker system with a stiff pushrod. Makes for more accurate valve timing.
If you really want to go cheap, you will be in a Windsor, because that is a junkyard setup. If you are getting new heads/pistons...the CHI is hard to ignore.
Note: stock Cleveland 4V heads have ports that are too big and a bad shape. It is common to fill then and raise them.
http://www.chiheads.com.au/3v_185cc.php
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
- Messages
- 7,916
- Age
- 37
- City
- Terrace, BC, Canada
- Vehicle Year
- 1991
- Engine
- 4.0 V6
- Transmission
- Automatic
- Tire Size
- 40s
Cleavland heads don't fit on Windsors, they are of 2 different engine families.
Not stock. With a little machine work they will, thats how they make the clevor engine.
Sponsored Ad
Sponsored Ad
TRS Events
Member & Vendor Upgrades
For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.
Recently Featured
Ranger Adventure Video
TRS Merchandise
Follow TRS On Instagram
