The 6.6L v8

[fastpakr]

It is a stroked 351C with a taller deck, it is legally a smallblock by the bore spacing. Same heads as a 2bbl 351C. Some early ones even had the SBF boltpattern but they are really rare. The 351M was just a 400 block/rods with a 351C crank and with really tall pistons.

They are VERY related to a Cleveland.

They were trying to replace the 460 family with them and needed the BBF bellhousing for the big torque converters and clutches to do so.

I've never really seen a definition of small vs big blocks in the Ford lineup, as it's more of a chevy concept. Given that, I've always applied it to the transmission bolt pattern and overall size. The 351M/400 is wider, taller, longer, and heavier than the 351C and 351W, and it usually uses the big block bolt pattern. After your post I've done some digging and there does seem to be some debate about what to really call the M family.

Here's one of the links I found where a discussion really got going on the subject.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I've never really seen a definition of small vs big blocks in the Ford lineup, as it's more of a chevy concept. Given that, I've always applied it to the transmission bolt pattern and overall size. The 351M/400 is wider, taller, longer, and heavier than the 351C and 351W, and it usually uses the big block bolt pattern. After your post I've done some digging and there does seem to be some debate about what to really call the M family.

Here's one of the links I found where a discussion really got going on the subject.

Post number 12 and 13 of the supplied link:

Some engine dimensions:
221thru302: 24"w,29"Ln, 27.5"ht, 460 wt;
351w: 25"w, 29"Ln, 28.5"ht, 525 wt;
351C: 25.5"w,29"Ln, 29"ht, 550 wt;
351M-400: 26"wi, 29"Ln, 29"ht, 575 wt;
332-428: 27"w, 32"Ln, 29"ht, 625 wt.
Forgot the other "big block", 429-460: 27"w, 34"Ln, 29"ht, 720 wt

Wider and taller is no shocker since it is just a 351C with a taller deck, which will increase both on a V style engine.

Length is the same as the measily 302 let alone 351W/C. Shorter than the "traditional" bigblocks by quite a bit too.

IMO it is hard to call something a big block when you can readily interchange heads and even crankshafts with something called a small block (as in the SBF)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_335_engine

 

[baddad457]

The 351M was just a 400 block/rods with a 351C crank and with really tall pistons.
.

Actually the 351M used a modified 351W crank, not a 351C crank. The 351C had smaller diameter main journals and will not work in a 400 block without bearing spacers.

 

[lairdt]

When I replaced the 351M in my '77 F250 I dropped in a 400 since it was a bolt on. On a rebuild you can make good power with them, but I wouldn't go through the trouble of using a 400 in a Ranger unless you really felt the need to be different. With the big block transmission bolt pattern your transmission options and fitment will probably be your deciding factor.

 

[Ranger Kip]

Ive been threadjacked o_o

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Ive been threadjacked o_o

Just do what we say and nobody will get hurt... and if you are lucky in a couple weeks the cops may find the burned out husk of your thread.

 

[skx762]

I tried to steer it back onto the road to no avail.

I have looked into the "400 into a Ranger swap" on paper and I just keep saying to myself that it's a lot of money and effort when a 302 probably creates more power than a Ranger can effeciently use for a DD.

If you dig around here on this part of the site you will even see header issues with the 351W.

 

[SAY789]

302 has proven to produce more power than you could use in a ranger. I have a 351W stuffed into mine and it has header issues that will decrease the potential for max power if you where to build it up huge.

The 400 is literally bigger than mine and i could not see where i could get the extra room unless i did a 6" BL and had no firewall.

 

[allnpt0]

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't there a 400 with the 302/351w bolt pattern available in '73-'74ish? Would have been in fullsize cars like the LTD and T-Bird.

Pete

 

[baddad457]

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't there a 400 with the 302/351w bolt pattern available in '73-'74ish? Would have been in fullsize cars like the LTD and T-Bird.

Pete

Yes, there was and they're "rare as hens teeth".

 

[baddad457]

Just do what we say and nobody will get hurt... and if you are lucky in a couple weeks the cops may find the burned out husk of your thread.

Good answer!

 

[Ranger Kip]

so what application would a 6.6 have in a ranger? (towing?)

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

so what application would a 6.6 have in a ranger? (towing?)

Yeah but I don't really know if you could really use it in a Ranger.

With two 4500lb tractors on a big triple axle gooseneck dad's used to sing... she would chug fuel like a freight train but it would pull like no tomorrow in it's heyday.

 

[baddad457]

so what application would a 6.6 have in a ranger? (towing?)

You know, I realize you've gotten more information in this thread than you asked for, but it seems to me that what information you DID get here that pertains to your questions, I really don't think you've either read it, and/or comprehended what's been offered here. The 400M is a great engine, it's just not suited to a Ranger swap. You can get power equal to the 400 in a 302 sized package and spend a whole lot less money doing it. And go thru a whole lot less trouble in doing it.

 

[Ranger Kip]

i only have access to a 6.6 though, remember this.... I dont have much money, nor to I wish to save up for anything but a 6.6