Why did Ford build 2 different 351 engines?

#21
dodgestang said:
Ford built for the cleveland for racing.....until the Chevy guys complained about loosing all the time to it and the sanctioning bodies declare it illegal.

That is the very abridged version of the story
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a stretch. Consider that Ford has never had a 351 ci production car with more horsepower or quicker in the 1/4 than Chevy's Corvette with similar small block. In the '69 - 72 era, the LT1 350 Chevy owned the category. No contest. Don't want to start a war or anything, but stock for stock, the LT1 was consistently producting 70-90 more peak horsepower than the 351c. Not even a contest, with manifolds. It was worse when you added headers and open exhaust. More like a legit. 100-115 hp differential.

Just keeping it real. :nice:
 

  • Sponsors (?)


#23
To address the oiling problem of the Cleveland block, and since the 385 series shares engineering with the Cleveland....I have read that you can bore the pan to filter line to 5/8" and add a deep sump pan. That will cure your oiling (high-rpm) problems. I would take a cleveland over windsor any day...as long as I had the funds to keep it running.
 
#26
Blown4.6 said:
That's a bit of a stretch. Consider that Ford has never had a 351 ci production car with more horsepower or quicker in the 1/4 than Chevy's Corvette with similar small block. In the '69 - 72 era, the LT1 350 Chevy owned the category. No contest. Don't want to start a war or anything, but stock for stock, the LT1 was consistently producting 70-90 more peak horsepower than the 351c. Not even a contest, with manifolds. It was worse when you added headers and open exhaust. More like a legit. 100-115 hp differential.

Just keeping it real. :nice:
Click to expand...
You can't compare apples to oranges, here. The Mustang and Corvette of 71 are completely different cars, in terms of size and weight. A better comparision would be to use the Pantera. Also the HP figures for the 71 Boss were downrated, the true HP figure was probably much higher. And you can't tell me that the LT1 was producing 400-420 hp either, not even the current crop of Chevy crate motors do that.
 
#27
also the weight breaks were for classes other than stock and super stock. they were more for prostock and competition eliminator classes. the reason was that bob glidden was cleaning up with a cleveland powered pinto and mustang ll. when the added weight hit the canted valve engines, glidden changed his combo from a 4" bore and 3.5" stroke to a 4.08" bore and 3.25" stroke thus creating a 340 ci cleveland that was so dominant that his fairmont race car went 32-0 in 1978. he switched to a plymouth arrow in 79, and was nearly as dominant with chysler power, swtiched back to ford for 1980, and was dominant enough that the NHRA decided to go to a 500ci displacement limit, and a 2300lb minimum weight with no weight breaks.
 
#28
this is a little off topic but not to much.can one of you tell me if a c6 on a 351c will bolt on to a 351w?can i use the same bell housing is the question?i have a 69 mach1 351w (soon to be 392w) 3rd gear went out in my fmx tranny.so with the added hp.i'm going with the c6. :shrug:
 
#30
D.Hearne said:
You can't compare apples to oranges, here. The Mustang and Corvette of 71 are completely different cars, in terms of size and weight. A better comparision would be to use the Pantera. Also the HP figures for the 71 Boss were downrated, the true HP figure was probably much higher. And you can't tell me that the LT1 was producing 400-420 hp either, not even the current crop of Chevy crate motors do that.
Click to expand...

Guy, the LT1 corvettes ate a Pantera's lunch......smoked them. I own a 72 Pantaera. I also own a 327 Vette that will SMOKE the Pantera. Stock Pantera's ran about 14.5 @ 96 mph in the 1/4 (yes, times may vary, but trap speeds will not). MY 'Vette is roughly the same power and weight as an LT1.

I could care less about size an weight. LT1 produced a legit 375 hp with manifolds and mufflers. They have been proven to get you 405 or so with headers and open exhaust (and yes, crate motors usually produce slightly less becuase that much isn't exactly streetable for most cars. Streetable for most cars is what crates are looking for. That's their market.. Check out LT1 cam specs). Please don't try and tell me that a stock 351c with headers and open exhuast has ever dyno'd over 335 at the crank. They just don't.
 
#33
just another thing... in 72 smog laws were in effect, so your 351C in 72 wouldn't have been as powerful as a 71. In some cases not even close.

And if you have a 400 hp small block corvette... that'd be more than good enough for 12s... why even make a big block vette if you could that...
 
#34
SadbutTrue said:
again, i'd like to see the dyno graphs of this lt1 you are referring to. I've never even heard a chevy guy claim numbers like that out of a stock small block...
Click to expand...

69 LT1 produced a (gross) 370 hp @6470 rpm. That is with manifolds and mufflers. I have seen a stock LT1 dyno at 420 hp@7000 rpm when running open large tubes with no mufflers. They were solid lifter animals!

My only point is about stock vs stock. Chevy owned the category. As everyone knows, you can make just about any motor, with enough $, do whatever you want. I love the 351c (except for the overheating tend.). I would just rather have a Windsor b/c there are so many aftermarket pars. If you want to go beyond 500 crank hp, you need the better block of the Cleveland.
 
#35
SadbutTrue said:
just another thing... in 72 smog laws were in effect, so your 351C in 72 wouldn't have been as powerful as a 71. In some cases not even close.

And if you have a 400 hp small block corvette... that'd be more than good enough for 12s... why even make a big block vette if you could that...
Click to expand...

72 vs 71 difference was only compression ratio...which did reduce hp.

As for 1/4 mile times, Zora Duntov was much more interested in Can Am racing than drags. He could have cared less. In fact, he was very much against the big block. He wanted a car that would handle in the turns. Zora was the guy behind the Grand Sport Corvette. That was the sb that owned even the 427 Cobra. That's all he cared about. It was the marketing guys who insisted they needed bb for rediculous 1/4 mile times and nothing else.

Before you respond that bb's didn't produce much more hp than the lt1....that's true...on paper. However, if you look at the L88 427. It was rated at 425. Now, with manifolds and mufflers that was an exageration (it dyno'd at about 399 @5200). When you removed the manifolds and added headers with no muffflers, BAM....they put down 500+ @ nearyly 7000. L88 bb with nothing more than headers have been shown to run 11's @125.
 
#36
This guy sounds like a Chevy salesman. Fact was the small block Chevy guys hated to meet up with a Cleveland. If the small block Chevy was so great, then why did Nascar make the Clevelands run restrictor rings under the carbs? And further more, I doubt you own a Pantera, you can't even spell it. And they weren't built for the fastest 1/4 mile times, they were intended to be run a little further. The difference between the 71 and 72 motors was more than a reduction in compression, it also involved retarding the cam timing too.
 
#37
D.Hearne said:
This guy sounds like a Chevy salesman. Fact was the small block Chevy guys hated to meet up with a Cleveland. If the small block Chevy was so great, then why did Nascar make the Clevelands run restrictor rings under the carbs? And further more, I doubt you own a Pantera, you can't even spell it. And they weren't built for the fastest 1/4 mile times, they were intended to be run a little further. The difference between the 71 and 72 motors was more than a reduction in compression, it also involved retarding the cam timing too.
Click to expand...

I own a yellow 72 Pantera. I didn't look at the way I spelled it; but, if it's wrong, it's a typo. Now, I went back and looked and it's spelled correctly you redneck. You may have noticed it spelled without a typo about 3 times prior....yea, that's a typo....... good lord, I'm being spoken to on the subject of spelling by a guy from S. Louisiana. :lol: Pantera's weren't made stock for 1/4. In fact, they really weren't made for anything in particular except for looks. I love them; but, they were not good in the twisties or in a straight line. They also aren't good when it comes to corrosion prevention (whole different story). Tell you what, go buy one and see if you disagree. Until then, save it.

Second, As you can see, I own 2 windsors, a mod 4.6 and a cleveland powered car. So, I'm not exactly a Chevy salesman. I only own 1 chevy at the present time ( I used to own a BB 'Vette, but not currently).

Third, the ONLY actual difference in 71 vs 72 was the compression ratio. They same cam specs were used. The comp. ratio was reduced in order to run on a minimum of 91 research octane. If you disagree, why don't you show us all the cam specs for a stock 71 4v cleveland vs. a stock 72 4v cleveland? I see them installed the same way..........I don't see any difference until much later.

Tell, me this....are you saying an LT1 produced less peak hp or tq, in stock config., than a 351c 4v with manifolds? How about with headers? Hint- The answer is no, not even close in both cases.

I'm done here.
 
#40
Blown4.6 said:
I own a yellow 72 Pantera. I didn't look at the way I spelled it; but, if it's wrong, it's a typo. Now, I went back and looked and it's spelled correctly you redneck. You may have noticed it spelled without a typo about 3 times prior....yea, that's a typo....... good lord, I'm being spoken to on the subject of spelling by a guy from S. Louisiana. :lol:
I'm done here.
Click to expand...
:bs: :bs: Ok, so now I'm being called a "Redneck" again? I've got news for you A-hole, Yea , I'm a Redneck and proud of it, so don't bother calling me that. And yea, I live in South Louisiana, so what? I'm also a certified Texican too, born and raised there. You've obviously have Chevy fever, so why not go back to your favorite Chevy forum and stay there? I think you're full of it, personally. I don't think you've ever owned a Ford. And hold on , let me dig out the book on factory cam specs, and look it up. No wait, let me borrow your's, I can't locate mine at the moment. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

78 Mach1
1969 clutch and flywheel
Replies
0
Views
648
Classic Mustang Specific Tech
78 Mach1
78 Mach1
B
New to the Mustang world
Replies
2
Views
661
The Welcome Wagon
General karthief
General karthief
Alldegree
Resolved Question about Matt Farah’s Foxbody
Replies
12
Views
886
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Willybill32
Willybill32
H
Engine 2004 gt engine swap
Replies
8
Views
862
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Yel2002GTAuto
Y
revhead347
LMR AC Condenser for lower coolant temperatures
Replies
8
Views
975
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
85GTStangGuy
85GTStangGuy
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu