Windsor/Cleveland?

Nixon1 · 02-11-2003, 02:12 PM

Friend of mine insists that 351 Windsors were always the better motor and made more power, but I had always heard the opposite, that Clevelands were better. Anyone care to resolve this argument? I'm going for 2 and 0!

Dark Knight · 02-11-2003, 02:53 PM

well, the 351c used to be THE choice to build HP...can make killer HP with them.. thats why they were in pro stock and not the 351w. the heads were WAY better than the 351w..but since they stopped making them, there isnt alot of parts out there..

FWIW, the yates heads are basically a 351c head designed to work on a 351w block... which is what they run in NASCAR

BLACK85GT · 02-11-2003, 09:54 PM

The cleveland heads where much better flowing, but the windsor block is stronger(thicker walls I believe). The heads and blocks can be interchanged with some water passage modifications.

Mopar1 · 02-11-2003, 10:04 PM

Noooooooooooooo! Dont start this one here. I have been watching 2 threads on corral filled with imbicile/imature/jerk kids argue this. Dude who cares? The cleveland is prob not the choice if you dont have a good supply of parts. Yes the cleveland is probably easier to make more power with. Dont under estimate the 351W. This is not a flame. Please dont take it that way. Just dont want to see this good forum turned into corral.

GT prob summed it up pretty good.

NotchJohnson · 02-11-2003, 10:43 PM

Mopar, are you talking about that thread on stangnet where those morons were arguing about who could put lsi heads on a small block ford? I agree that thread got way out of hand.

Mopar1 · 02-11-2003, 10:50 PM

Naw my friend. The three threads Im talking about are on corral. Three pillars of stupidity. Everyone talking with no one listening to each other. I seriuosly have started to doubt some of those KIDS and their actual experiences/ knowledge.

Nixon1 · 02-12-2003, 07:30 AM

Ha ha...I wasn't trying to start any crap..believe me, I get tired of it too. I just wanted to know what the differences were and which one of us essentially had the right idea....because like I said, I had always heard that the 351C was better for making power and he told me that the 351W was always the more powerful motor...that's why I posted this, so I would know.

87BOSS351C · 02-12-2003, 08:39 AM

Strictly looking at the HP ratings and performance of the engines that came from the factory (not talking built up stuff) in the early '70s (really 70 to 72ish) the Cleveland was the higher performing one (ever see a factory Windsor in a 70-71 Torino Cobra? I didn't think so). In '72 the 4V Cleveland was the highest HP engine offered by Ford. However, with todays tech, they can be built to be pretty much equal. The C block is pretty well know to not be safe to bore over 0.030" without sonic checking, and blocks are getting pretty hard to find. Interesting note, all C blocks were cast to accept 4 bolts mains, the 2 bolt blocks just didn't have the outer bolt holes drilled. W's are usually easier to swap into most cars (costs about $1000 for the swap parts to put a C in a Fox) and are not as wide as the C. Also, there are a lot more choices on parts when building the W. Obviously I like the C but I also have a W in the shed. They are both good engines, I just like the mystique that seems to follow the Cleveland on the street. And NO, they are not big blocks!

God, I got long winded on that one

MEDIK418 · 02-12-2003, 09:58 AM

Hate to do this but. . .while it can cost close to a grand to put a C in a 82 Fox, I did it for the cost of a set of 5.0 motor mounts. Used the stock exh. manifolds and radiator. A little adjustment to the tranny crossmember because of the C-6 and I was in business. Tons of torque. 40-80 is in the 4 second range. . .in third gear no less. Would I do it again, yes but I'd probably spend the extra for headers.
BTW. .it's still out in the driveway awaiting a rebuild to freshen it up. I'm looking for a notch to put it in. And this time it's gonna get shiftered 5 ways instead of the C-6.

87BOSS351C · 02-12-2003, 10:26 AM

What did you use for an oil pan? That and the headers are the only real special parts needed (not headers as you point out). I have heard of people welding a dual sump 302 pan to a C pan rail. I've got $5800 into my engine, so I felt headers were quite important, but stock 4v manifolds would still flow good. I am also using a "stock" 3 core mustang rad and rad hoses. they both fit great.

Are you running 2v or 4v heads?

It can definitly be done cheap if you have some ingenuity and fab skills.

MEDIK418 · 02-12-2003, 04:24 PM

I had forgotten about the oil pan. It's a Moroso pan I got from Summit for about $270 with the pickup tube. Canton also makes one and the price is about the same so it's a toss up. Watch the thing though. It really sticks itself out on bottom. Mine now looks kinda like an upside down spoiler in front now.
I have the 4 bbl heads and don't let anyone tell you these things don't make bottom end power. This thing pulls like a bull from 1500 on up to 5800 for mine. The cam I have in it is pretty mild. .509-.512 lift at 226 deg. The next cam I'm going to go with will be a roller in the .560 range.
THe things do cost a little more to build but they're a lot of fun. Mine is pretty much stock, 10.5:1 forged pistons, and a good rebuild and it still cost me in the neighborhood of $3500. . and I did all the work! The heads cost the most to refurbish. New valves, springs, roller rockers, hardened seats, bronze guides, milling and a $475 bill when I picked them up.
Like I said it's still out in the driveway but it's real tired. At least two lobes flattened and it smokes a little now so it's time to do another one. My son drove it from the time he got his license till last year and he was a little rough on the poor old thing. 3 years of teenaged lead feet are hell on an engine.

87BOSS351C · 02-13-2003, 08:34 AM

Your build sounds pretty similar to mine. I've got the crane H-288-2 cam (226/230* at 0.050") with like .526" lift. Don't have the car done yet, but with a 3000Rpm converter and 4.30 gears, I don't think I'll have a "soggy bottom end." People always seem to think that a 4V C is worthless on the street, but they forget they came from the factory in cars heavier than a Fox.

I cost me almost $400 just for the port and polish job on my heads. The guy did a good job but he charged by the hour

Oh well, he was the only Ford racer in town(circle track) and his shop cam highly recommended. Counting the RR's and all the other head related parts and machine work I have $1500 into them. That counts the cost of buying the heads too.

I can't wait to test this thing out in the spring! It'll be fun picking on all the chevelles and camaros in town

02-11-2003, 02:12 PM	#1
Nixon1 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Palm Bay, FL Posts: 432	Windsor/Cleveland? Friend of mine insists that 351 Windsors were always the better motor and made more power, but I had always heard the opposite, that Clevelands were better. Anyone care to resolve this argument? I'm going for 2 and 0! __________________ '91 Mustang GT 5.0 AOD Daily Driver Current stats: NEW 302 short block, E-303 cam (@.050, 220/220, .498/.498, 110 degrees), 1.6 roller rockers, Performer RPM heads (aluminum, 1.9/1.6, 60cc chambers), Cobra intake, Granatelli 75mm MAF, Billet AFPR, Equal-Length Shorty Headers, Off-Road X Pipe, Flowmasters, 4.10 POSI 13.73 at 103.8, ~2.2 60'

02-11-2003, 02:53 PM	#2
Dark Knight Registered Member Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Az Posts: 854	well, the 351c used to be THE choice to build HP...can make killer HP with them.. thats why they were in pro stock and not the 351w. the heads were WAY better than the 351w..but since they stopped making them, there isnt alot of parts out there.. FWIW, the yates heads are basically a 351c head designed to work on a 351w block... which is what they run in NASCAR __________________ 84 convt,roller 302,AFR's, performer 3.55's, underdrives BBK shorties stock cam, 1.7's 13.58@102.84 and a '68 stang .. project 8 sec street car... 557 big block + N20 :-) http://members.cox.net/darkknight302/68nwrear.jpg

02-11-2003, 09:54 PM	#3
BLACK85GT Registered Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Tampa,FLORIDA Posts: 340	The cleveland heads where much better flowing, but the windsor block is stronger(thicker walls I believe). The heads and blocks can be interchanged with some water passage modifications. __________________ 5.0, Holley heads, 1.7 Scorp Rockers, Stealth intake, Holley 600 carb, Holley Mech. Fuel pump, MSD 6Digital, MSD distributor, Hotchkis upper/lower rear control arms, FMS B Springs, 3:73 (8.8) rear. Production # 9,377

02-11-2003, 10:04 PM	#4
Mopar1 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Lakewood, Wa Posts: 161	Noooooooooooooo! Dont start this one here. I have been watching 2 threads on corral filled with imbicile/imature/jerk kids argue this. Dude who cares? The cleveland is prob not the choice if you dont have a good supply of parts. Yes the cleveland is probably easier to make more power with. Dont under estimate the 351W. This is not a flame. Please dont take it that way. Just dont want to see this good forum turned into corral. GT prob summed it up pretty good. __________________ '77 Aspen R/T: 318 w/273 heads, 4spd, Hurst Shifter, 600 holley, edelbrock intake, 8 3/4 axle, 3.23 sure-grip, dual 3" exhaust, MP cam 276 / 276 duration 490 / 490 mech solid lifter, Super Stock Springs (15.65@88 3900lbs) '91 Mustang LX: .030 Bored, Typhoon Intake, 4.10's, Lentech VB, BBK 70mm TB, FMS A/C elim bracket, 19lbs inject, off road H-pipe, 75mm pro-m MAF, FRP unequal shorty, stormin normin hood. 3420 Lbs w/ 220 (me) and 13 gal gas. '02 SS Camaro

02-11-2003, 10:43 PM	#5
NotchJohnson Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Florida Keys Posts: 593	Mopar, are you talking about that thread on stangnet where those morons were arguing about who could put lsi heads on a small block ford? I agree that thread got way out of hand. __________________ 89 notch-finally not stock!! ported gt40's, ported cobra intake, 65mm tb, 75mm maf, mac cai, lt's,prochamber, fms 1.6 rr, 125 shot.

02-11-2003, 10:50 PM	#6
Mopar1 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Lakewood, Wa Posts: 161	Naw my friend. The three threads Im talking about are on corral. Three pillars of stupidity. Everyone talking with no one listening to each other. I seriuosly have started to doubt some of those KIDS and their actual experiences/ knowledge. __________________ '77 Aspen R/T: 318 w/273 heads, 4spd, Hurst Shifter, 600 holley, edelbrock intake, 8 3/4 axle, 3.23 sure-grip, dual 3" exhaust, MP cam 276 / 276 duration 490 / 490 mech solid lifter, Super Stock Springs (15.65@88 3900lbs) '91 Mustang LX: .030 Bored, Typhoon Intake, 4.10's, Lentech VB, BBK 70mm TB, FMS A/C elim bracket, 19lbs inject, off road H-pipe, 75mm pro-m MAF, FRP unequal shorty, stormin normin hood. 3420 Lbs w/ 220 (me) and 13 gal gas. '02 SS Camaro

02-12-2003, 07:30 AM	#7
Nixon1 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Palm Bay, FL Posts: 432	Ha ha...I wasn't trying to start any crap..believe me, I get tired of it too. I just wanted to know what the differences were and which one of us essentially had the right idea....because like I said, I had always heard that the 351C was better for making power and he told me that the 351W was always the more powerful motor...that's why I posted this, so I would know. __________________ '91 Mustang GT 5.0 AOD Daily Driver Current stats: NEW 302 short block, E-303 cam (@.050, 220/220, .498/.498, 110 degrees), 1.6 roller rockers, Performer RPM heads (aluminum, 1.9/1.6, 60cc chambers), Cobra intake, Granatelli 75mm MAF, Billet AFPR, Equal-Length Shorty Headers, Off-Road X Pipe, Flowmasters, 4.10 POSI 13.73 at 103.8, ~2.2 60'

02-12-2003, 08:39 AM	#8
87BOSS351C Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Midland, Michigan Posts: 92	Strictly looking at the HP ratings and performance of the engines that came from the factory (not talking built up stuff) in the early '70s (really 70 to 72ish) the Cleveland was the higher performing one (ever see a factory Windsor in a 70-71 Torino Cobra? I didn't think so). In '72 the 4V Cleveland was the highest HP engine offered by Ford. However, with todays tech, they can be built to be pretty much equal. The C block is pretty well know to not be safe to bore over 0.030" without sonic checking, and blocks are getting pretty hard to find. Interesting note, all C blocks were cast to accept 4 bolts mains, the 2 bolt blocks just didn't have the outer bolt holes drilled. W's are usually easier to swap into most cars (costs about $1000 for the swap parts to put a C in a Fox) and are not as wide as the C. Also, there are a lot more choices on parts when building the W. Obviously I like the C but I also have a W in the shed. They are both good engines, I just like the mystique that seems to follow the Cleveland on the street. And NO, they are not big blocks! God, I got long winded on that one __________________ Black '87 LX 5.0 5 spd T-top with 450hp '71 351 Cleveland 4V, C6 tranny, "and some other stuff" Rice Haters Club Member #124

02-12-2003, 09:58 AM	#9
MEDIK418 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Amarillo, Texas, USA Posts: 780	Hate to do this but. . .while it can cost close to a grand to put a C in a 82 Fox, I did it for the cost of a set of 5.0 motor mounts. Used the stock exh. manifolds and radiator. A little adjustment to the tranny crossmember because of the C-6 and I was in business. Tons of torque. 40-80 is in the 4 second range. . .in third gear no less. Would I do it again, yes but I'd probably spend the extra for headers. BTW. .it's still out in the driveway awaiting a rebuild to freshen it up. I'm looking for a notch to put it in. And this time it's gonna get shiftered 5 ways instead of the C-6. __________________ 1986 four-eyed LX coupe, 358 Cleveland, Tremec TKO600/centerforce clutch, dish cut Probe forged pistons, comp cams hyd.roller cam, .579/.588@224/230, Edel.performer, 670 holley street avenger, CPR custom built long tubes, ported and polished 4bbl heads, manley valves, beehive springs, MSD peo-billet dist/MSD6AL, fluidamper, 5 lug conv. with 17x8 bullits there's more but it's still not finished yet. Oh, and the oldest boy is turning his 89 GT into a FFR cobra this next summer.

02-12-2003, 10:26 AM	#10
87BOSS351C Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Midland, Michigan Posts: 92	What did you use for an oil pan? That and the headers are the only real special parts needed (not headers as you point out). I have heard of people welding a dual sump 302 pan to a C pan rail. I've got $5800 into my engine, so I felt headers were quite important, but stock 4v manifolds would still flow good. I am also using a "stock" 3 core mustang rad and rad hoses. they both fit great. Are you running 2v or 4v heads? It can definitly be done cheap if you have some ingenuity and fab skills. __________________ Black '87 LX 5.0 5 spd T-top with 450hp '71 351 Cleveland 4V, C6 tranny, "and some other stuff" Rice Haters Club Member #124

02-12-2003, 04:24 PM	#11
MEDIK418 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Amarillo, Texas, USA Posts: 780	I had forgotten about the oil pan. It's a Moroso pan I got from Summit for about $270 with the pickup tube. Canton also makes one and the price is about the same so it's a toss up. Watch the thing though. It really sticks itself out on bottom. Mine now looks kinda like an upside down spoiler in front now. I have the 4 bbl heads and don't let anyone tell you these things don't make bottom end power. This thing pulls like a bull from 1500 on up to 5800 for mine. The cam I have in it is pretty mild. .509-.512 lift at 226 deg. The next cam I'm going to go with will be a roller in the .560 range. THe things do cost a little more to build but they're a lot of fun. Mine is pretty much stock, 10.5:1 forged pistons, and a good rebuild and it still cost me in the neighborhood of $3500. . and I did all the work! The heads cost the most to refurbish. New valves, springs, roller rockers, hardened seats, bronze guides, milling and a $475 bill when I picked them up. Like I said it's still out in the driveway but it's real tired. At least two lobes flattened and it smokes a little now so it's time to do another one. My son drove it from the time he got his license till last year and he was a little rough on the poor old thing. 3 years of teenaged lead feet are hell on an engine. __________________ 1986 four-eyed LX coupe, 358 Cleveland, Tremec TKO600/centerforce clutch, dish cut Probe forged pistons, comp cams hyd.roller cam, .579/.588@224/230, Edel.performer, 670 holley street avenger, CPR custom built long tubes, ported and polished 4bbl heads, manley valves, beehive springs, MSD peo-billet dist/MSD6AL, fluidamper, 5 lug conv. with 17x8 bullits there's more but it's still not finished yet. Oh, and the oldest boy is turning his 89 GT into a FFR cobra this next summer.

02-13-2003, 08:34 AM	#12
87BOSS351C Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Midland, Michigan Posts: 92	Your build sounds pretty similar to mine. I've got the crane H-288-2 cam (226/230* at 0.050") with like .526" lift. Don't have the car done yet, but with a 3000Rpm converter and 4.30 gears, I don't think I'll have a "soggy bottom end." People always seem to think that a 4V C is worthless on the street, but they forget they came from the factory in cars heavier than a Fox. I cost me almost $400 just for the port and polish job on my heads. The guy did a good job but he charged by the hour Oh well, he was the only Ford racer in town(circle track) and his shop cam highly recommended. Counting the RR's and all the other head related parts and machine work I have $1500 into them. That counts the cost of buying the heads too. I can't wait to test this thing out in the spring! It'll be fun picking on all the chevelles and camaros in town __________________ Black '87 LX 5.0 5 spd T-top with 450hp '71 351 Cleveland 4V, C6 tranny, "and some other stuff" Rice Haters Club Member #124