What stangs came with the 351's
 

I need some info on which stang's came with what engine's during the Mach and Boss year's. We are having a little conflicted disscusion about where the 351's lay. And I thought who better to ask? thank's

351 Windsors were first offerend on '69 Mustangs...standard on Machs....351 Clevelands first appeared in '70 Stangs...I'm not sure how long each of these engines kept making appearances...but I do know that's when they were first offered...hope this can help a little....

Thanks for the info. The real question on the board is, did the 351 ever come in the Boss. I say no, to my knowledge the Boss Mustangs came with the 302, 429, and for some reason I am questioning myself about the 427 ( I have a feeling that this is a typo in my brain). But never the less I feel the need to mention it. Strange how that works.

Well first thing there was no BOSS 427

Now for the bad news. There WAS a BOSS 351. It was produced in 1971 and if I remember correctly it was the fastest factory Mustang until the 2000 Cobra R came out.

Here's a link with all the informantion you should need.
http://www.boss351.org/main.htm

That is what I meant by typo
 

I thought that there was somthing strang about that 427 number. This is alright because I didn't think that was right anyway.

Where can I find this info writen down at? No offense to any one but I am one of those people who doesn't except defeat after the first blow.



(Nevermind I just noticed the link. And with the gloom of defeat standing over my shoulder I'll check it out. Thank's a lot burner!) ha.

Yep, I agree with tireburner. There definitely was a Boss 351, and it was in '71. In fact, I have a very nice poster of a bright yellow Boss 351 that had California plates "RARE 351".

The 1968 Mach 1 428CJ was the quickest production Ford Mustang. The 1968 Shelby GT500 was available with the legendary 427FE.

The 1971 Boss 351 was a 351C with Boss 302 heads.

I'm sorry Unit, but your wrong the fastest mustang ever was the 1992 Mustang LX 2.3:D

I believe a certain John Force drives a white and green Mustang that runs about a 4 second quarter mile.....hmmm......:D :D :p

Oh damn....Unit said production Mustang....I lose.....:(

How dare you question the uncontestable word of Unit 5302?????

LOL. I also said "was." The '00 Cobra R would kill it. Actually the 1999,2001+ Cobra has posted stock times quicker than any of the old Musclecar Mustangs.

Dang I'm racking up the posts on this thread....

I did just notice ANOTHER thing that Unit said though....

I thought that the "Mach 1" package was not offered until 1969?:confused: Are you thinking the fastback GT? They made hardtop Gts also with the GT package.

I know the 428CJ was offered.....rated at 335 hp....0-60 in 5.9 (would have been way better without their crappy polyglas tires)...13.56@106.6....horsepower had to be 400....These hp ratings are all break horsepower though....not net like is used on new cars....

Steve McQueen used a '68 GT390 in the movie Bullitt. 4-spd.....mmm....sweet car.....

Yea, but put the 428CJ on a decent set a modern tires. Then lets see what it will run.

Forget even modern radials...slap some modern SLICKS on there....I'd bet you'd get a 12.6-12.8 out of it.....???? And take out some stuff like spare/jack, floor mats, any other excess weight, then what?

Hmmm, some misinformation here...

The first year for the Mach1 was 69'

And I love this:While technically correct (I 'spose)... the key fact that's missing here is the fact that "The boss 302 heads are in fact normal 351C 4V cyln heads".

It'd make better sence to say "The 1971 Boss 351 was a 351C with 351C-4V cyln heads". Or in other words "The 1971 Boss 351 is just a regular 351C-4V motor".

Here's some facts for ya:
1) The 351W was only available in a mustang from the years of 69-73
2) The 351C was only available in a mustang from the years of 70-73.
3) A Boss 302 engine is basically a regular 302 block with 351C-4V cyln heads(and required hardware).
4) A Boss 351 engine is a regular 351C-4V engine.
5) In '73 the biggest engine you could get in your mustang was a 351C.

Don't know much about the Boss 429's, cept it's my dream mustang.

I believe that in '74, you couldn't buy a mustang with a V8 (I think the Cobra II's came out in '75)

Here's a pic of my '70 Grande with 351W
http://a3.cpimg.com/image/69/C1/6751...-0200011D-.jpg

Sorry I did have a brain fart on the Mach 1. The 1968 Fastback 428CJ was the quickest.

The Boss 302 is most definately not a standard 302 windsor. It's a different block with 4 bolt mains at 2-3-4, and screw in freeze plugs.

The 351C 4V heads are NOT the same as the Boss 302 heads. The Boss 302 heads are more aggressive than the 4V heads. The Boss 302 got bigger valves than the 4V heads in 1969 (which doesn't really matter for 1971), and they flow better. So quite frankly, I love your comment. Show a little respect and research the subject before jumping in tearing it up. The Boss heads also featured closed chamber head design, single groove valves, larger valve spring seats, milling for guide plates and rocker studs. While SOME of the 351C heads had SOME of the upgrades like the Boss heads, most did not, and it's doubtful they had them all.

The Boss 351 was rated at 330hp vs the 351C-4v's 290hp. Not that the ratings really meant anything back then anyway.

I would also be more inclined to say the 351 C is a Cleveland block with Boss 302 heads by your logic, since the Boss 302 debuted before the 351C, but since the heads are not the same, it doesn't matter.

Also, you better check your specs sheets again. The Boss 351 also came with different rods, pistons, camshaft, distributor, and intake manifold from the standard 351C 4V.

The 1970 Boss 302 heads and the 1970 351C 4V are virtually identical. The biggest difference is in the water passages. The valves are the same size, the ports are the same, and both are closed chamber. The '70 351C 4V and the '69 Boss heads have the same size combustion chambers, while the '70 Boss heads chamber is slightly smaller. The differences on top weren't common until 1971. Nit picking aside, the only point I argue with Unit is which heads flowed better. The 1970 Boss heads, which were virtually identical to the 1970 351C 4V heads, were much better suited for the engine. The '70 Boss heads worked better than the '69 Boss heads.

I completely agree with Unit on everything else. As far as the bottom end is concerned, the Boss short block was completely different than the windsor 302 short block. Even the rods were different lengths.

The Boss 351 was very different from the 351C 4V as well.

Take care,
-Chris

Are you saying the 1969 Boss 302 heads do not flow better? According to the information I have MOST 351C 4V's had open head chambers. Ford made so many little changes here and there between years, in years that some got 1 type, another got a different type.

On that engine, the 1970 heads worked better. The valves in the '69 heads were too big. That's why they reduced their sizes for 1970.

All 351C 2V heads were open chamber, but the '70 & '71 4V heads were closed chamber. They called them "quench chamber" heads, but they are closed chamber. Try and find some pictures in your reference material, and you'll see what I mean. The Boss heads and the 4V heads have identical combustion chambers.

Take care,
-Chris

P.S. If you really want to throw a monkey wrench into the works, consider this: The 351C (casting numbers D0AE-J & DOAE-G) was installed at the factory in a few 1969 Fords.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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).

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

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...

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

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....

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.

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!.

Oh, OK Sorry. You posted something like this 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.

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

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

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...

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