I6 swapped b2

[PetroleumJunkie412]

In a ranger? As much as it pains me to say it, no, a 302 is a better option....however a 351W will always be king.

Now...in an F150...302 or 300....give me a 300 every single time. infact, the 300 is, in my opinion, one of the best engines ever. The only F series engine that, once again, my opinion even comes close is the 400.

This is a sincere question (I know Mopar V8, very little about ford V8), but was always told 351C was the better than the 351W and 351M.

Which one is the better of the three and why?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

This is a sincere question (I know Mopar V8, very little about ford V8), but was always told 351C was the better than the 351W and 351M.

Which one is the better of the three and why?

Everyone thinks the 351C is some mythical object from performance heaven. When in realty besides certain versions they were in use and as ho-hum as a windsor. The cleveland just came about because the windsor plant couldnt meet demand.

The 351M was born by "modifying" a 400 by shorting its stroke 1/2 inch, making it displace 351 CI. The 400 actually shares ALOT in common with the 351C. The 400 is basically a stroked 351C with a big block bellhousing (athough a very few were produced with the windsor pattern).

As for whats better.....myth chasers will say the 351C, builders love the W, and truck guys (and me) are most likely to be partial to the 351M/400.

None were bad persay....just the M's were always smogged so they got the "turd" wrap.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

This is a sincere question (I know Mopar V8, very little about ford V8), but was always told 351C was the better than the 351W and 351M.

Which one is the better of the three and why?

C FTW

Windsor isn't bad, M was a bandaid that really has no point in existing.

C was good, was going to replace the W. But for some reason they decided not to follow thru with that. So they grew block and stroked it half an inch for the 400. Then they decided they need another 351 because two wasn't enough, destroked the 400 and glued hockey pucks on top the pistons so it had something for compression. Also retained the 400's bellhousing bolt pattern (shared with the 460)

IMO they should have canned the idea of the M, retired the W and just ran the C (with modernizing/application tweaks like they did with the W and 302) But nope, we got all 3.

Between a 351 (pick one) and the 400, the 351M had no reason to exist. It had the same heads as a 2bbl C. So it was basically a bigger, heavier smogged up C with big clunky pistons.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

C FTW

Windsor isn't bad, M was a bandaid that really has no point in existing.

C was good, was going to replace the W. But for some reason they decided not to follow thru with that. So they grew block and stroked it half an inch for the 400. Then they decided they need another 351 because two wasn't enough, destroked the 400 and glued hockey pucks on top the pistons so it had something for compression. Also retained the 400's bellhousing bolt pattern (shared with the 460)

IMO they should have canned the idea of the M, retired the W and just ran the C (with modernizing/application tweaks like they did with the W and 302) But nope, we got all 3.

Between a 351 (pick one) and the 400, the 351M had no reason to exist. It had the same heads as a 2bbl C. So it was basically a bigger, heavier smogged up C with big clunky pistons.

Actually the M was tuned more for low end snort then the other two. Ford didnt consider the W or C stout enough to set a country squire with 6 people, all their shit, and an airstream in tow into motion. However they did trust the M.

The M actually replaced the C , they never co existed.

Actually i take that back...partially. The C was in wagons. But the M replaced it in 75, and im guessing becuse it was cheaper to build the M then the C.

 

[Snoranger]

The Cleveland was a factory performance engine (at least the 4v version was), but it had oiling issues. The W is the engine of choice now... performance parts are readily available everywhere.

 

[MikeG]

What are the differences in external dimensions?

I read that the "M" engines had timing retarded for emissions. My dad had one in a pickup and it was a DOG..... but I don't remember what the displacement was. Mid 70's, single cab, half ton.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

What are the differences in external dimensions?

I read that the "M" engines had timing retarded for emissions. My dad had one in a pickup and it was a DOG..... but I don't remember what the displacement was. Mid 70's, single cab, half ton.

So did the windsor.

Slow maybe...but the 400 was a torquey SOB. I got one in my 77 F250 and even saddled with a C6 and a 3.07 (yeah great idea ford) rear it could still get off a redlight pretty decent towing my 30ft 7000lb camper.

Once you were up rolling though...it didnt take much of a hill to kick it into 2nd and be screaming...which was pointless as once you got over about 3000 or so RPM they were done.

I think peak tq was around 1600rpm.

That being said i had a 78 F350 with a massaged 400, T18 4speed and a 430 rear, and that thing would pull like a damn freight train regardless.

 

[8thTon]

The Cleveland had slightly angled valves that were not all in a line like the Windsor. I believe most of the timing cover cast on as an extension of the block. The 400 and 351M had taller decks and bigger diameter bearings more suitable for low rpm use (can't remember if that was rods, mains or both). The 351C had bigger, straighter ports too.

 

[racsan]

we had 2 ‘70’s farm trucks, both reg cab longbeds, both had the “ranger “ trim level and two-tone green paint. The ‘74 was a 2wd 300 I-6, creeper 1st 4-speed with 3.73’s.
the ‘77 was a 4wd 400, C-6, 4.10’s,
the 74 got 16 mpg at best, the 77 9mpg
Had a plow for the 77, it was a beast . Both were very good pullers, the 74 had enough weight that being a 2wd didnt seem to matter. The 77 had full-time 4wd, with the 4.10 rear end it barely was in 1st gear, by 15 mph it was in 3rd (when empty or not towing)
The next “farm truck” was a 94 F250 with a 351 & 355’s, E4OD. total dog. after that was dads first super duty. 5.4/auto/3.73/4wd. not bad but a total nightmare when we put new plugs in. The super duty he has now is a 2013, ugly. gas engine, most likely another 5.4 I dont know much about it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Actually i take that back...partially. The C was in wagons. But the M replaced it in 75, and im guessing becuse it was cheaper to build the M then the C.

It wouldnt have been hard, lower the deck height back to C dimensions, put the Windsor bell housing pattern back on it can the W and the M need not exist. How many different 302 blocks are there? They even raised the 302 deck height for a couple years to lower compression.

Only reason the M’s would have been cheaper was sharing parts with the 400... vs everything 351 pulling off the same line like GM did with the 350. The M is almost as heavy and almost as big as a 460 despite having almost 100 less cubes.

Meanwhile across the fence a Camaro, land yacht, a K30 and a Massey Ferguson combine all basically have the same ol’ 350.

The Cleveland was a factory performance engine (at least the 4v version was), but it had oiling issues. The W is the engine of choice now... performance parts are readily available everywhere.

Ford never really nailed down the oiling issues. I don’t know how much they really tried either. Dads ‘80 400 liked to bend pushrods as it aged.

Ford also never really gave the W the time of day, it was cursed with heads slightly better than those of a 302 since day 1.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

It wouldnt have been hard, lower the deck height back to C dimensions, put the Windsor bell housing pattern back on it can the W and the M need not exist. How many different 302 blocks are there? They even raised the 302 deck height for a couple years to lower compression.

Only reason the M’s would have been cheaper was sharing parts with the 400... vs everything 351 pulling off the same line like GM did with the 350. The M is almost as heavy and almost as big as a 460 despite having almost 100 less cubes.

Meanwhile across the fence a Camaro, land yacht, a K30 and a Massey Ferguson combine all basically have the same ol’ 350.



Ford never really nailed down the oiling issues. I don’t know how much they really tried either. Dads ‘80 400 liked to bend pushrods as it aged.

Ford also never really gave the W the time of day, it was cursed with heads slightly better than those of a 302 since day 1.

The 400 also made 80% of the 460s torque at less RPM. The 400 is in my opinion the engine ford should have stuck with instead of the 460. IMO.

Interesting thing i read once i never thought of about the oiling issue though...heavy loads at high RPM (no O/D and 4.11 or deeper gears) which many of thesr engines got saddled with could be the reason for their bad rep...whats your thoughts on that?

Of all the 351M/400s ive had i never had oil pressure issues. The couple 460s ive had have been subpar for reliabilty at best, which is why i lean toward the 400 over the 460 unless ones going for nothing but power.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The 400 also made 80% of the 460s torque at less RPM. The 400 is in my opinion the engine ford should have stuck with instead of the 460. IMO.

Interesting thing i read once i never thought of about the oiling issue though...heavy loads at high RPM (no O/D and 4.11 or deeper gears) which many of thesr engines got saddled with could be the reason for their bad rep...whats your thoughts on that?

Of all the 351M/400s ive had i never had oil pressure issues. The couple 460s ive had have been subpar for reliabilty at best, which is why i lean toward the 400 over the 460 unless ones going for nothing but power.

With a T18 and 4.10’s dads did sound like it was beating itself to death running empty. Loaded especially when the glass packs were blown out... angels were singing.

The 460 that kinda replaced it has been pretty good.

 

[franklin2]

Ford also never really gave the W the time of day, it was cursed with heads slightly better than those of a 302 since day 1.

After 1977, the 351w and the 302's used the exact same heads, except for the head bolt diameter. You can use 302 heads on a 351w, just drill the holes out. They make special washers to use the 351w heads on a 302. Besides, that, they are the exact same heads around that year and afterward.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

After 1977, the 351w and the 302's used the exact same heads, except for the head bolt diameter. You can use 302 heads on a 351w, just drill the holes out. They make special washers to use the 351w heads on a 302. Besides, that, they are the exact same heads around that year and afterward.

You sure it was only 77+?

Cause i know some guys have to do that with 289 heads when they run them on a 351....or did the 289 and 302 share different bolt diameters?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

After 1977, the 351w and the 302's used the exact same heads, except for the head bolt diameter. You can use 302 heads on a 351w, just drill the holes out. They make special washers to use the 351w heads on a 302. Besides, that, they are the exact same heads around that year and afterward.

And they were so awesome on a 302...

I think the head bolt holes were always different, just before 77 the castings were different too.