What stangs came with the 351's

[7DMACH1]

My 70 Mach1 has a 351C which is stroked to 408. But the 351c was used until 1973 in Mustangs. In 74 they became 351M. The BOSS 351 was a 4 bolt main block but the heads were the same and had a different cam.

[Unit 5302]

Dude, I'm tired of this. You obviously have very little knowledge of the subject. I just pointed out the differences. Take a look a couple posts up. There ARE differences in the head. There are NO differences in the block, except the Boss 351 was selected from the stock of blocks with the highest nickel content. The 351C 4v's were sometimes 2 bolt, sometimes 4 bolt. The Boss was just almost always 4 bolt, but not always.

Like I said, the heads are different, the cam is different, the intake is different, the distributor is different, the rods are different, the pistons are different. You calling the Boss 351 a normal 351C 4v is just plain ignorant, and after my posts, stupid.

Just because you have an old car, doesn't mean you know jack about the rest of the old cars. Quite frankly, I'm feeling insulted that you keep babbling on misinformation. READ my post. There ARE differences in the heads, and the Boss 351 is as different from the 351C 4v as the 1993 5.0 Cobra is from the 5.0 GT.

1974 had NO V-8 option. The top option was the 2.8L V-6 Mach 1 package. 1975 saw the return of the 302, then in 139hp form.

PKRWUD I would agree with the heads being too much for the Boss 302. It's just technically, they do flow better. I know the differences in appearance between the open and closed chamber cylinder heads. My sources just indicate that all Austrailian 4v's had quench chamber heads, but not all American 4v's did. That's besides the point, as the heads are still technically different because of the machining between the 4v and the Boss. Which is all my original post was made to say.

[Unit 5302]

Oh, the reason the C's were installed in 1969 was because they ran outta windsor's. LOL.

[70_Nitrous_Eate]

Originally posted by Unit 5302
Dude, I'm tired of this. You obviously have very little knowledge of the subject. I just pointed out the differences. Take a look a couple posts up. There ARE differences in the head. There are NO differences in the block, except the Boss 351 was selected from the stock of blocks with the highest nickel content. The 351C 4v's were sometimes 2 bolt, sometimes 4 bolt. The Boss was just almost always 4 bolt, but not always.

Guy, you're getting me and another member mixed up re-read our posts. Your knowledge on the subject doesn't seem to be perfect either BTW.

I stated the blocks are the the same. I didn't realize the boss 302 blocks had 4 bolt mains. That's a new one on me as I've never seen/heard of a classic 4bolt windsor block.

I'm not argueing the point of the internal components. It's a given that they're going to be different. The BOSS 302 was designed for sustained high RPM use. Thus the soild lifters, etc.

I still stick by my statement that the BOSS 302 heads are the same as the early 351C-4V heads. Or "Virtually Identical" as PKRWUD has stated. And thanks, I've done some research on the subject as I was seriously considering using 351C-4V heads on my 351W. (determined it wasn't worth it).

You're right, what I said about the BOSS 351 being a regular 351C-4V was missleading. I was speaking from a strictly heads & block perspective. Of course there's differences in the engine, otherwise ford would have called all 351C-4V's a BOSS 351. You did catch me on the "not all 351C-4V's have 4bolt mains" point tho.

P.S. Do me a favour and don't be so quick to offend when someone else doesn't agree with you.

[6T9PONY]

hmmm.....i sense some tension.....

[70_Nitrous_Eate]

Originally posted by 6T9PONY
hmmm.....i sense some tension.....

heh heh ...

I've got no problem with the big unit, I just get testy when people call me dumb.

[6T9PONY]

I've got no problem with the big unit, I just get testy when people call me dumb.

Well, hehe, I suppose that's natural....

I really don't know about the Boss engines, or even a whole lot about a Cleveland. I have pulled one out of a car and torn it apart and put it back together, but as for all the really technical crap about valve sizes and cc's and all that other techy stuff...I have no clue... My fastback had a Cleveland in it when I bought it, but I pulled it out and put my Windsor in it from my other Stang...I don't really like Clevelands for some reason. Don't really know why...and I'm a really big fan of smallblocks...I like to be the underdog I suppose...

[70_Nitrous_Eate]

I like Clevelands! Stock 351W vs Stock 351C (even just the 2V) I'd take the 351C any day.

The problem with Clevelands nowadays is that they're getting expensive to modify. And with the availability of aftermarket heads, the 351C loose their biggest advantage (awesome heads). A built 351W will put out pretty much the same as a build 351C, but can usually be built for cheaper (and 50-100Lbs less weight). Machine your block for 4 bolt mains (or buy a main girdle) and you have almost the same strength in the bottem end also (as long as your Rods,pistons,and crank are up to the task).

[7DMACH1]

Unit 5302. Seems to me that nobody is as perfect as you. You could use some manners and not call people names on here. I'm new here and now I see why I won't be staying around. It's people like you that ruin these forumns. Weather people are right or wrong doesn't geive YOU the right to flame them and call them names. I will go back to the forums that I came from where people treat each other with respect and if you are wrong we tell you in a nice way and help each other learn. RAY

[6T9PONY]

The '70-73 Code M 351C-4V made 300 bhp and 380 lbs./ft or torque stock, the '69 Code M 351W-4V made 290 bhp and 385 lbs./ft of torque stock. The Windsor also weighed 15 pounds less than a Cleveland, both minus alternator, starter, fan, belts, and air cleaner.

The big difference is in the heads of course. 1.85/1.55 valves for the Windsor compared to 2.19/1.71 on the Cleveland.

The reason I beleive Windsors have a little more potential is because of the heads...The only thing really you can do to Cleveland heads to make them better is to get a set of aluminum ones.

But with Windsors having the size of heads they do, you can get a set of aluminum heads with some big valves that will make a lot more difference than aluminum Cleveland heads will. Speaking of which, I've never heard of aluminum heads for Clevelands...is there such a thing? I'm sure there is....

But I know Clevelands are great engines, and Windsors are also, and both have a ton of potential. It's just a matter of preferance...

[70_Nitrous_Eate]

Someone over at stangnet posted a pic of some aluminum cleaveland heads that were true 4V - heads (4 Valves per cyln). If I remember correctly, they were also extreemly expensive!

Could you even get a 351W-4V engine in a classic stang? Another thing I've never seen. And how come they have the same engine code if they're different engines? Are you sure you're not just compareing the different M code 351C-4V engines?

And only 15Lbs lighter? I though for sure there'd be more of a difference than that! I figured the Cleveland heads themselves outweighed the Windsor heads by about 15Lbs.

True about the heads.. there is alot of potential still left in the windsor heads. But you can't fit nearly as large of valves in the windsor head. I had my heads machined for oversized chebby valves and (1.94 / 1.60) was the biggest they could fit. I wanted 2.02 intake. While I was at it, I also did a port and polish job (damn thermactor bumps took a long time to grind out!) as well as a gasket match. I was really impressed to read over at fordmuscle.com that when they tested a 351W head prepped almost exactly the same as mine, it outflowed the Edelbrock Performer Aluminum heads! Here's a link to their article:
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...ds/index.shtml

[6T9PONY]

351W-4Vs are VERY common in classic Mustangs, mainly '69s. The 351W was standard on the '69 Mach 1. But Windsor heads only have 2 valves per cylinder....the 351W-4V is just a 4-barrel carbureted 351 Windsor. The 4V stands for 4-Venturi. Meaning 4-barrel.

I didn't know Clevelands had 4 valves per cylinder...never heard of that....learn something new everyday...I just thought that 351C-4V meant a Cleveland with a 4-barrel...and that the 4Vs just had a little better heads than a 2V....new to me....

[70_Nitrous_Eate]

Nonono... I'm confuseing you.

I realize that in the classic stangs the 4V stood for 4 Venturi (or 4 barrel carb as I usually say it).

Clevelands only had 2V per cyln. These were just some really cool heads that had 4V per cyln and looked nothing like a stock steup. I'd be interesting to see how they setup the valvetrain.

Someone once told me you couldn't get a 4Barrel 351W in a classic stang. And I've never seen a stock one, so I assumed it to be true. Do you know what the differences were in the engines besides the carb and intake manifold? I'd assume a little higher compression and a slightly bigger cam.

[Unit 5302]

70_Nitrous_Eate I was not referring to you, I was referring to 7DMACH1, who didn't read my post and continued on his "misinformation" kick.

He came on here starting off brashly trumping the misinformation card, then after I listed the differences he didn't listen and continued his incorrect information.

I very much dislike it when people continue to spread misinformation after they've been called on it, and informed what they were saying was wrong, and why. I can admit I'm wrong, just like the brainfart I had on the 68 Mustang not being a Mach 1. What doesn't bother me is when somebody can try to correct misinformation, listing other significant misinformation, and when they get called on it, threaten to leave because their ego has been damaged.

If you can't handle being wrong, so be it. I'm still here, I've been wrong many times. It sucks to be wrong, but running away with your tail between your legs? Your call, 7DMACH!.

[70_Nitrous_Eate]

Originally posted by Unit 5302
70_Nitrous_Eate I was not referring to you, I was referring to 7DMACH1, who didn't read my post and continued on his "misinformation" kick.

Oh, OK Sorry. You posted something like this

You calling the Boss 351 a normal 351C 4v is just plain ignorant, and after my posts, stupid.

And I thought you were adressing me as I had said something similar earlier in the thread.

Edit: Are you sure you wern't confuseing the 2 of us as one user? 7DMACH1 only had 1 post in this enitre thread before you laid into him. And it was also I that started in about the missinformation, cept I was talking about the BOSS 302 heads and 68 Mach1.

[7DMACH1]

unit 5302. You seem to have a lot of knowledge about this subject but when someone makes a mistake you want to pounce on them for that. Shows me the small mind you really have. In your reply to me you mention some things I've said and done. I would like you to explain them to me. You say I continued on his "misinformation kick" and that you dislike when people continue to spread misinformation. I made ONE reply to this and you say I continue and I'm ignorant. It's not my ego that you damaged but your ego to think you are MR. Perfect. I can take it if you tell me I am wrong but to say I continue to be ignorant and that I keep babbling misinformation. You say I came on her bashly trumping the misinformation car. I've made ONE reply!!! I don't care that I WAS wrong about this, I'm not perfect, but you could tell people in a nice way that they are wrong and maybe we can all learn from each other. As far as a 351M they did start in 1974 even though thay weren't in a Stang I just thought I would mention that. RAY

[7DMACH1]

70 nitrous, I don't know for sure who he was talking to but I can see the reason he did because he got mad because you told him he was wrong about the 681/2 428 , was not a Mach. He obviously can't stand being corrected and this is why I say I see how little his brain really is that he didn't even realize who said what but was furious that someone corrected him. Just for the RECORD the 681/2 428 GT was not the fastest it WAS the 69 MACH1 428SCJ!!! Ball in your court UNIT, RAY

[70_Nitrous_Eate]

Originally posted by 7DMACH1
70 nitrous, I don't know for sure who he was talking to but I can see the reason he did because he got mad because you told him he was wrong about the 681/2 428 , was not a Mach. He obviously can't stand being corrected and this is why I say I see how little his brain really is that he didn't even realize who said what but was furious that someone corrected him.

I'm not sure, I think it was mostly a big mixup with a little bit of over-reaction on Unit's part.

I have no idea what was the fastest production Mustang. I used to think it was either the 69/70 BOSS 429, or one of the GT500's. Not too long ago someone was telling me that it was actually one of the 351C cars that had the fastest 1/4 time. There's no way to really know for sure: Mag testing back then was inconsistant and often inaccurate as well as biased. And you can't trust any of the factory Ford rateings...

[7DMACH1]

Even if he was talking to you, what gives him the right to talk down to everyone. I have been a long time member of other sites such as VMF and M&M and they would not put up with this stuff. This is what is nice about those sites you got there for a good time and to recieve knowledge. Here it seems if someone doesn't agree it's time to get out the boxing gloves. I'm 50 yrs old and have been a Ford parts Mgr and counterman for 32 years. I know a good deal about parts and have helped many people on other sites find things and not for business. I just give information on where to find them and take nothing for doing it. It makes me feel good to help others. I thought I could have the same kind of relationship here but it looks like I better just stay with the sites I know. Do a search for 7DMACH1 and see my rides. Stop at these other sites and say Hi. You WILL be welcome. RAY

[Mr 5 0]

O.K. people, enough of this.

I'm closing the thread - for obvious reasons.

Let me suggest that before anyone posts a message they think about what they typed and maybe try calming down first. It saves a lot of hassles.

Using words like 'ignorant', 'stupid' and 'dumb' is totally confrontational and guaranteed to start an argument no matter how correct you are with your information.

If someone you didn't know - never met before - had a technical car discussion with you and halfway through it called you 'stupid' you would, at best, end the conversation and at worst, punch him in the nose.

Being online, behind a computer and a User Name doesn't give anyone the license to name-call over some technical disagreement. Simply saying 'I think you're wrong' works too. Saves a lot of typing and being annoyed with unseen, unknown strangers on the net. Life is too short.

No one has a corner on truth when it comes to automotive facts, especially in minutia about 30-year-old engine combinations and engineering details.

State your facts, back them up if you can and let it go. Stand by your facts. If someone doesn't agree, let them prove it. If they can't, hold your position. If they can, admit you could be wrong. Nobody knows it all. Not Dan McClain, not Chris Bowers, not me; no one.

We can't monitor and edit every post. We depend on our members to use mature judgement and not flame or get obscene on Mustang Works. Don't let us down. We can get the crappy, flame-heavy messageboards anywhere on the web. Mustang Works is different. We have some class and intelligence. let's keep it that way.

Thanks.