|
Author
|
Topic: 351C versus 351W
|
46and2
Gearhead Posts: 218
From: Kentucky
Registered: Nov 99
|
posted 01-17-2001 09:37 AM
  
Here is the deal. My uncle is tired of the 351 4v in his 86 f-150 and is looking for a 302 2v. It just so happens I am looking for a 351 4v to swap out my 302 2v.  So as you already know we are probably going to swap motors. HOWEVER, my father who works on the Mustang with me since it is a father son thing, wnats a 351C since he thinks they are better motors than the 351W. So...that leads me to my two questions:
#1 which is the better motor 351W or 351C and why...i already know about the parts being readily available for the Windsor and not the Clevland. I also heard something about oiling problems in the Cleveland. #2 the motor in my uncles truck is a 351W right? I know they made some 351M motors for a while and I have forgotten the years on production. I heard the 351Ms are crap. So if they did make a 351M in 1986 how do I go about figuring out whether my uncle has the windsor or the M. Thanks ------------------
'73 drop top Stang - '90 Ford F-150 4x4 - '78 Ford F-150
'95 Mercury Cougar V8 -'83 Mercury Marquis
'89 JEEP Cherokee - '79 JEEP Wagoneer
'71 Scout 4x4
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/convertiblesclub
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/jeepshotspot
IP: Logged |
Clark
Gearhead Posts: 489
From: Rowlett,Texas
Registered: Aug 99
|
posted 01-17-2001 09:47 AM
Even though I have the 351W, the cleveland is a better performance motor. That being said the windsor can be a great performer with the right parts added to it. It depends on what you are looking for and the windsor your dad has will need some performance help when you do the rebuild (new heads, intake, cam, etc..)
I am almost positive it has to be a windsor, the 351M was a 70's engine. ------------------
69 351W Sportsroof Deluxe
IP: Logged |
sigtauenus
Gearhead Posts: 1413
From: Beaufort, SC
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 01-17-2001 01:59 PM
the 351M is similar to the 351C for easy identification purposes...it has a really wide intake, the timing cover is cast into the block with a flat front plate that goes over the chain, the thermostat goes into the top of the block instead of the front of the intake, just to name a few. As far as I know, the 351M production ended in like 79-81 time-frame, so I'll agree you are probably looking at a 351W.
IP: Logged |
SteveLaRiviere
Administrator Posts: 20706
From: Saco, Maine USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-17-2001 02:30 PM
No probably about it, if it's original it a 351W. If you are unsure, 351W have six bolts per valve cover, 351C/351M/400 engines have eight.I've never had a problem finding high performance parts for the 351C, and it will make more power than the 351W, part for part. That said, the 351W will be a more streetable engine. ------------------
'72 Mustang Sprint Coupe 351C 4V/FMX/4.30 Trac Loc
'94 F-150 XL 5.8L/E4OD/3.55 Limited Slip
'97 Probe GTS 2.5L Disposable Commuter
IP: Logged |
FloJoe
Gearhead Posts: 317
From: Port Orange, FL, USA
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 01-17-2001 03:19 PM
Man I wish someone in my family that has a 351 would just offer it to me in exchange  ------------------
Joe Fields
68 Fastback 289ci bored .030 over
C-4
IP: Logged |
SteveLaRiviere
Administrator Posts: 20706
From: Saco, Maine USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-17-2001 03:29 PM
Don't feel bad about the 289, Joe. You can make that motor really crank. Just ask Alex.Plus, I bet there's a lot of satisfaction in blowing someone's door off and then being able to say "Oh, it's only a lil' 289..." ------------------
'72 Mustang Sprint Coupe 351C 4V/FMX/4.30 Trac Loc
'94 F-150 XL 5.8L/E4OD/3.55 Limited Slip
'97 Probe GTS 2.5L Disposable Commuter
IP: Logged |
46and2
Gearhead Posts: 218
From: Kentucky
Registered: Nov 99
|
posted 01-17-2001 03:38 PM
I have been looking for a 351 to replace my 302 and it was right under my nose the whole time! BUT, if my Dad doesn't get out of the mode of "351C or bust" then we won't do the swap and my uncle will probably end up paying a lot of money to buy a 302 and trade in his 351 which is robbery. Then later my Dad will tell me how we should have done the swap! UGH...I have seen it happen so many times before I can predict the future. :lol: ------------------
'73 drop top Stang - '90 Ford F-150 4x4 - '78 Ford F-150
'95 Mercury Cougar V8 -'83 Mercury Marquis
'89 JEEP Cherokee - '79 JEEP Wagoneer
'71 Scout 4x4
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/convertiblesclub
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/jeepshotspot [This message has been edited by 46and2 (edited 01-17-2001).]
IP: Logged |
rcutshaver
Journeyman Posts: 41
From: Bryan, Texas USA
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 01-19-2001 10:37 AM
Your dad's right about the 351C being a good performance motor, but I don't know that it's so much better as to break the deal. My dad had an early 70's Ranchero w/ a 351C years ago and that thing screamed and it was bone-stock, but I've also ridden in some 351W's that had no problem getting on down the road. The problem w/ all SB fords (except Boss 302 and 351C) is that the heads don't breathe very well. The big advantage over getting a 351C vs a 351W is that w/ the Cleveland 2bbl heads, you don't have to do much in the way of head work. (The 4bbl heads are too much for a street engine). With the 351W, to really open it up, it either needs a lot of headwork or aftermarket heads. It's true, though, that parts are cheaper for the 351W (usually), more plentiful, and there are a lot of thiings that can be done w/ it (stroker, for instance). My personal opinion is that except for the heads, it's pretty much a wash. A lot of the guys in here have a lot more experience than me, but that's my 2 cents.------------------
Rhett Cutshaver
'67 289 Coupe
(soon to be) Candyapple Red, Black interior, PS, air. I've previously owned:
'96 convertible
'86 GT
'67 289 Coupe
'66 289 Coupe
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 1802
From: between the end of the road, and the middleof no-where
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 01-19-2001 11:13 AM
My opinion, bang for the buck, the cleveland is a better engine. The oiling problem can be fixed, and you can buy stroker kits for them too. However, there is a bigger parts inventory for the Windsor, everybody makes them.
IP: Logged |
bossman
Gearhead Posts: 117
From: Moreno Valley, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 01-19-2001 02:32 PM
As the owner of a Boss 302 and MANY Cleveland powered Mustangs, it is obvious I am very partial to the Cleveland engine and the performance that has been built-in from the factory. Besides, I personally think the Cleveland is one of the greatest looking powerplants (visually) ever produced by ANY manufacturer. However, with the explosion of the 5.0 and ALL the aftermarket speed parts produced for it at extremely reasonable prices, it is definitely easier to build more power in the Windsor these days. If you are looking to build LOTS of power at a reasonable price, the Windsor is the way to go. My 65 X-tremestang's powerplant is based on a 1995 351W Lightning short block assembly which comes roller configured from the factory. Using TFS Twisted Wedge heads (with mild bowel porting and smoothing of the intake/exhaust ports and combustion chambers), a TFS roller cam, Coast High Performance is projecting between 450 and 500 flywheel horsepower (won't know for sure until its strapped to the dyno) and that's all motor, no juice or turbo/supercharging. I have the know how to build power into the Cleveland, its just getting harder and harder to find "true" Cleveland stuff (not the later 351M or 400 junk). With the Windsor, just about anything intended for the 5.0 can be used (except for intakes and such) which keeps costs in line when looking for that extra horsepower/torque. Still, a fully built Cleveland with the 48 IDA Weber setup would be nice.......randy
www.bossman-motorsports.com
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Moderator Posts: 10921
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-23-2001 05:04 PM
Dollar for dollar, the 351W is a better choice for primary street use. It will take twice the money to get the 351C parts together to make the same power as a 351W.  No brag, just fact!  ------------------
Alex Denysenko Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member
Fleet of FoMoCo products
Moneymaker Bio
US Class Nationals link
IP: Logged |
46and2
Gearhead Posts: 218
From: Kentucky
Registered: Nov 99
|
posted 01-23-2001 10:18 PM
SEE! that is what I need to hear!! hehe Have to sway pops into going along with it though. thanks MM! ------------------
'73 drop top Stang - '90 Ford F-150 4x4 - '78 Ford F-150
'95 Mercury Cougar V8 -'83 Mercury Marquis
'89 JEEP Cherokee - '79 JEEP Wagoneer
'71 Scout 4x4
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/convertiblesclub
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/jeepshotspot
IP: Logged |
67coupe
Gearhead Posts: 160
From: dallas NC usa
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-24-2001 12:02 AM
i an building a cleavland right now and love them but i would have to say go for the winsdor. it is cheaper to build up. good luck convincing your dad. ------------------
67 coupe soon to have 351c
87 bronco II on 33's
30 model A currently rustbucket
IP: Logged |
pthornton
Gearhead Posts: 485
From: Austin, TX USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-24-2001 12:26 AM
A 351W will be easier to swap for a 351C than a 302. Do the swap then swap again if the situation presents itself.------------------
Randy Thornton
1970 302 BOSS
1996 Saleen S281
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
