

© Copyright 1995 thru 2008 - The Mustang Works™. All Rights Reserved.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
|
![]() |
#1 |
Registered Member
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
|
![]() A Windsor block stronger than the 351C. Oh man, you kill me!
Now first of all the Cleveland's that have the problems with block cracking were the later variety. The mid 70's and later, not the early 70's blocks. The blocks, as you have addressed had an oiling problem, which amounted to Ford being overly concerned with everything up top getting the crap oiled out of it. To be better with the oil dispersion they use a oil passage restrictor to keep the oil pressure up and good for the low end too. That eliminates the oiling problems. The 351C does sacrifice low end for high end power. With 2.19" intake valves, and 4v heads that flow almost 300cfm, even the stock Cleveland heads provide the same flow or greater than a pro ported 351W set. The Cleveland's block was meant to take the abuse of higher revving power too. All in all I'd say the 351W and the 351C are more like a 5.0 and a 4.6 DOHC motor. The 351W has parts readily availible, makes better low end power, can be turned into a real street machine, but it can't match the potential of the 351C, and stock for stock, 351W's need some mods to compete on equal ground. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
351C vs 351W | stvneil | Windsor Power | 3 | 02-29-2004 10:25 AM |
351W heads on 289 stock engine | sleeperstang | Classic Mustangs | 5 | 11-21-2002 08:35 PM |
NEED HELP ASAP !351W to 351C Swap | IeatZ28 | Classic Mustangs | 2 | 11-06-2001 12:45 AM |
351W or 351C? | A Wild Neg | Windsor Power | 3 | 04-26-2001 03:35 PM |
HP #'s from a built 351W versus FMS 351 versus stroker | stroker393 | Windsor Power | 0 | 03-09-2001 10:24 AM |