MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

84LX89GT · 11-08-2002, 08:05 PM

This is what i've read:
Windsor engines, 302-351 windsor. made in windsor canada, 351W has a taller deck height than the 302, both are 4.00" bore, 302 has 3.0" stroke, 351 has 3.5" stroke.
the 302 has 2.25" main journals while the 351 has 3" main journals. bore spacing is the same.

W is Windsor
C is Cleveland
M is Modified Cleveland

351C, 351M, and 400M all have the same bore spacing as the windsor blocks (4.38"). the 351M engine has 2.988" main journal diameter while the 351 has 2.749 main diameter. the deck height of the "M' engines is taller than the 351C engine. The 302 Cleveland engine i've read has a Windsor style bottom end, with Cleveland canted valve cylinder heads. the reason the 302 boss had a windsor bottom end is because the oiling design of the Cleveland is ackward and it lubricates (this is what i've heard) the camshaft before the bottom end and i think there's alot of problems with the actual oiling of the camshaft as well. the windsor engine's bottom end was pretty stout so they used that for the trans am 302C engine.

I've heard people so you shouldn't use Cleveland engines in general for high performance use because of the oiling, but there are lots of publicized machining fixes for those problems. You don't want to use the M engines for high RPM use because of not only the oiling problem, but because the rod angle of the 400 is pretty bad (4.00" bore, 4.00" stroke...compramised deck height because of block design).
The Cylinder heads of the clevelands are all canted and promote lots of air flow, even the 2 barrel heads on the M engines. the intake valves are 2.1?" on the 2 barrel heads, and they have i believe 1.8" exhaust valves. The Cleveland design was flawed because they had the awesome heads, but poor bottom end, so you couldn't really utilize the RPM potential of the heads.

Properly built, a Cleveland or Modified engine would scream and little money would have to be put into the heads to flow ALOT of air, but you'd have to do something with the oiling system to handle any kind of high RPM use.

I believe this information is correct, alot of the block measurements i got out of a Ford Racing catalog,

11-08-2002, 08:05 PM	#8
84LX89GT Mustangs Join Date: Jul 2000 Posts: 1,938	This is what i've read: Windsor engines, 302-351 windsor. made in windsor canada, 351W has a taller deck height than the 302, both are 4.00" bore, 302 has 3.0" stroke, 351 has 3.5" stroke. the 302 has 2.25" main journals while the 351 has 3" main journals. bore spacing is the same. W is Windsor C is Cleveland M is Modified Cleveland 351C, 351M, and 400M all have the same bore spacing as the windsor blocks (4.38"). the 351M engine has 2.988" main journal diameter while the 351 has 2.749 main diameter. the deck height of the "M' engines is taller than the 351C engine. The 302 Cleveland engine i've read has a Windsor style bottom end, with Cleveland canted valve cylinder heads. the reason the 302 boss had a windsor bottom end is because the oiling design of the Cleveland is ackward and it lubricates (this is what i've heard) the camshaft before the bottom end and i think there's alot of problems with the actual oiling of the camshaft as well. the windsor engine's bottom end was pretty stout so they used that for the trans am 302C engine. I've heard people so you shouldn't use Cleveland engines in general for high performance use because of the oiling, but there are lots of publicized machining fixes for those problems. You don't want to use the M engines for high RPM use because of not only the oiling problem, but because the rod angle of the 400 is pretty bad (4.00" bore, 4.00" stroke...compramised deck height because of block design). The Cylinder heads of the clevelands are all canted and promote lots of air flow, even the 2 barrel heads on the M engines. the intake valves are 2.1?" on the 2 barrel heads, and they have i believe 1.8" exhaust valves. The Cleveland design was flawed because they had the awesome heads, but poor bottom end, so you couldn't really utilize the RPM potential of the heads. Properly built, a Cleveland or Modified engine would scream and little money would have to be put into the heads to flow ALOT of air, but you'd have to do something with the oiling system to handle any kind of high RPM use. I believe this information is correct, alot of the block measurements i got out of a Ford Racing catalog, __________________ 2005 Suzuki Hayabusa GSX1300-R 1980 Ford Thunderbird - 255 V8 ported heads, 5.0L ported stock headers, O.R. H-pipe and Flowmaster 2-chambers, dual roller timing chain hi-po Mack Truck hood emblem 1985 Mustang GT 5.0L T5, F-303, GT40p, headers, off-road h, flowmasters, MSD stuff, etc. Sold 02/06/04 1989 Mustang GT ET: 13.304@102.29 mph (5-24-03) Sold - 1998 Mustang Cobra coupe, 1/4 mile - street tires: 13.843@103.41 (bone stock)