Author
|
Topic: Cleaveland/Windsor difference
|
adragon8u Gearhead Posts: 4857 From: Oceano, Ca. member# 2895 Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 08-16-2003 11:00 AM
Hi all, I was talking to my neighbor last night and the subject came up as to the difference between a Cleaveland and a Windsor engine. I didn't know but I told him that I'll bet I can find out quick from you guys/and gals. is it the Cleaveland that's the one to have? and why is it the better of the two? Thanks for your time.------------------ 66 coupe 289 C4 auto "someone who knows how will always have a job working for someone who knows why" http://webpages.charter.net/adragon8u/mystang
IP: Logged |
kid vishus Gearhead Posts: 6060 From: middle of NC Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 08-16-2003 11:35 AM
In stock form, the cleveland will run circles around a windsor. Howeever, the avialability of aftermarket parts for a windsor has evened out the playing field, if not tipping it in favor of the widsor. But, the differences are, the cleveland has superior heads from the factory. They are quite possibly the best factory small block head ever produced by anybody. They have smaller main journals which reduces friction and helps promote higher rpm (which the heads love). They have strong connecting rods. However, they have a poor oiling system from the factory that likes to pump all the oil to the top of the motor under sustained hi rpm use. It can be fixed though. And, they have notoriously thin cylinder walls. Once you get over 500-550 hp, they become a problem. Parts are becoming harder to find (especailly good standard bore blocks.) Clevelands are easy to make a lot of power with without buying a lot of aftermarket parts. My motor is a prime example. It uses factory heads I ported, stock rods that have the normal prep work done to them, a cast crank, a catalog roller cam, off the shelf pistons, and it should be making somewhere around 600 hp at the flywheel (based on the et it runs to weight). Windsors: supported by the aftermarket manufacturers much more than clevelands are now. They have a taller deck height allowing a longer rod/stroke combo for stroker motors. They have a better oiling system. The bigger main journals aren't good for hi performance though. The factory heads on a windsor are terrible. Nowadays, it is much smarter to build a windsor simply due to the parts availability. I don't know if one is really better than the other now. But from the factory, the Boss 351 (cleveland) was the king of smallblocks. Whew, I got long winded.
IP: Logged |
adragon8u Gearhead Posts: 4857 From: Oceano, Ca. member# 2895 Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 08-16-2003 11:42 AM
Thanks kid vishus. I'm going to print that out and give a copy to my neighbor. I'm also going to read it several times myself so that it sinks in and hopefully stays there. (age does a rotten trick on memory,btw, what's the difference between a cleaveland and a windsor? )------------------ 66 coupe 289 C4 auto "someone who knows how will always have a job working for someone who knows why" http://webpages.charter.net/adragon8u/mystang
IP: Logged |
kid vishus Gearhead Posts: 6060 From: middle of NC Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 08-16-2003 11:43 AM
I'm sure if I forgot anything, someone will come along and correct me.
IP: Logged |
grandestang Gearhead Posts: 374 From: Lake Bluff, Illinois USA Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 08-16-2003 11:45 AM
quote: Originally posted by adragon8u: Hi all, I was talking to my neighbor last night and the subject came up as to the difference between a Cleaveland and a Windsor engine. I didn't know but I told him that I'll bet I can find out quick from you guys/and gals. is it the Cleaveland that's the one to have? and why is it the better of the two? Thanks for your time.
The two engines are really quite different. Basically they share the same displacement and bellhousing, and I think thats about it. I guess back in the early 70's the Cleveland "was the one to have" because of the enormous heads giving it high potential for power in the upper revs. There were two versions of the Cleveland heads though, the 2v and the 4v versions. The 2v heads have smaller ports and work much better at the lower RPM to make good torque. But I think it is the 4v version that you are refering to, these are what made the Cleveland the legend that it is. This was the only way to go back then for a potent small block as there really were no aftermarket heads like there are today. The windsors were never destined to be a performance motor from ford. Smaller ports and small valves left much to be desired in the factory Windsor heads. However the Windsor block has a much better oiling system, making it more desireable- so what you started seeing were "Clevors" which was a Windsor block retrofitted with Cleveland heads- now you got the best of both worlds. Now days however, the aftermarket really caught on to the Windsor engine. The parts are easy to come by and performance parts are many. Now you can buy a set of aftermarket heads for your a Windsor that will outflow the Clevelands and make better lowend torque at the same time. So in the present I would say the Windsor would be the better engine IMHO simply because of the aftermarket for the engine and the ease to make big HP numbers from it. But straight from the factory, give me a Cleveland any day. Paul
------------------ 1970 Grande H code 351W FMX
IP: Logged |
grandestang Gearhead Posts: 374 From: Lake Bluff, Illinois USA Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 08-16-2003 12:05 PM
Sorry KV, didn't see you already had this one. Don't mean to but in by any means Paul ------------------ 1970 Grande H code 351W FMX
IP: Logged |
kid vishus Gearhead Posts: 6060 From: middle of NC Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 08-16-2003 12:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by grandestang: Sorry KV, didn't see you already had this one. Don't mean to but in by any means Paul
No problem. You covered some things I forgot, which I knew I would.
IP: Logged |
adragon8u Gearhead Posts: 4857 From: Oceano, Ca. member# 2895 Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 08-16-2003 04:03 PM
Thanks guys!
IP: Logged |
66 Racer Journeyman Posts: 77 From: West Covina, California Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 09-01-2003 10:16 PM
Dont forget that the clevlands had 4 bolt main caps, well not all of em, but they are out there. Which ford never did with the windsor or 289/302. Except for the boss 302, but those are rare, and they are not the 351windsor block (shorter deck height, by an inch i think)l8er ------------------ Under Construction 66 Coupe - - - 306, 10.2:1, 66 289 heads 1.84/1.50, mild port work, comp cams 270H cam, Performer manifold, Holley 700cfm double pumper, tri-y headers, 2.5 dual exaust w/flows, centerforce dual friction, 8" 2.79 gears, w/mini spool 1/8th mile - 8.6 @ 83mph
IP: Logged |
Scott (69Mach) Gearhead Posts: 727 From: Walnut Creek, CA USA Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-03-2003 11:01 AM
There's also the nostalgia value of having a Cleveland under the hood. It is a good looking motor when it has the correct valve covers.
IP: Logged |
69_sportsroof Gearhead Posts: 221 From: Camino Calif (yeah, it does snow here) Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-03-2003 01:02 PM
those "small" 2v ports are pretty dam big especially next to a small block ...even aftermarket ...the big ones look like a tennis ball would fit ...ask kid how his itty bitty heads flow...pretty impressive.......Jay------------------ ALL THROTTLE NO BOTTLE ! .....proudly keeping the neighbors mad for over 30 years Run what ya brung, and hope like hell ya brung enough 69 sportsroof(351 C) 65 Ranchero(200)now 351W 72 Ln 700 (361)
IP: Logged |
grandestang Gearhead Posts: 374 From: Lake Bluff, Illinois USA Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 09-03-2003 02:46 PM
quote: Originally posted by 69_sportsroof: those "small" 2v ports are pretty dam big especially next to a small block ...even aftermarket ...the big ones look like a tennis ball would fit ...ask kid how his itty bitty heads flow...pretty impressive.......Jay
I never said the ports were "small" and certainly never said they were itty bitty. What I did say was they were smallER than the 4V which they are. I'm not sure if your refferig this to me but if you are just know that I had no intention of saying anything against the 2V. Paul
IP: Logged |
rm302 boss Gearhead Posts: 680 From: Austin Texas Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 09-03-2003 04:22 PM
I have one of both so i may be of a little help here.. I have a 4v 351c in a 1970 ( 4 bolt main) and 69 351w 4v in a 1985 ( trans plant). I 351c i a very large and heavy motor by comparison parts a very $$ and hard to find. The heads are huge and a 4v does not like to run below 3k rpm... above 4500 rpm the engine will come to life and the horizon will disappear over the hood...It likes higher RPM so the air can flow through those dinner plate sized intake valves. This one is a full roller motor cam,( hyd roller) and nice light roller valve train the cam is not real big or running a long duration ( any more).The 351w comes to life at 2500 and is a torque monster and will out pull the 351c ( at least mine). Parts are cheep and there is the option of increasing cid up 400 cid which will produce a very high rpm, high torque and high hp motor. Between the 351's i would have to say for performance the 351w will win it much lighter and there are just so many more options for it than the 351c. I love both and do not wish to get rid of either so i guess this is just a comparison on where just their $$ cost and weight will decide for your self which one works better for you.. But when you open the hood with a 351c most think you have a big block in there because it is quite large.... Rene
------------------ 1970 Boss 302 1990 Taurus SHO 1985 Mustang GT 351W 1995 Land rover Disco 1980 Triumph Spitfire (auto-X car) http://mustangsandmore.50megs.com/MembersPics/rm302boss.html
IP: Logged |