2V vs. 4V Cleveland Build Question

[Cupid]

I'm planning on rebuilding the cleveland in 2-3 months. Lookin' to get 300 rwhp out of the thing and still get somewhat decent gas mileage. I'm wondering should I go to 4V heads. I'm also wondering if I should stroke it. I'm thinkin' strokin' is a bad idea due to gas mileage. I'm pretty sure the kits run close to the 2K range as well. Any thoughts?



Should I stick with the 2Vs and put $ elsewhere?

 

[rbohm]

the 2v heads will do just fine for what you want.

 

[dodgestang]

I get 14-15mpg out of my 410c with 4v open chamber heads
It also runs 11.5 at 108.8
It also has an AOD in it though....

It does seem a little silly to be talking about building something with 300 RWHP and in the next breath mention concern about fuel economy between a standard stroke motor making that power and a larger stroke motor making that power. Neither one will be especially fuel efficient.

 

[D.Hearne]

On the contrary, there's no reason you can't have both. And a stroker is the way to do it. But, I'd build it with a set of Aussie 2 bbl heads, a mild cam and a dual plane intake topped with something like a 650 cfm vacuum sec. carb. With a setup like this, you'll be able to pull down decent mileage with an overdrive transmission and still be able to burn down the tires on demand. Basically you'll be copying what the factory's have been doing for the last 10 or 15 years. The Mod motors are small bore with long stroke cranks, quench heads, & mild lift by wide LSA cams. You'll have tons of bottom end torque that will be able to pull the car along loafing in high gear without lugging it. To do this, you'll need to look at a kit with a reverse dome piston to keep the comp ratio sane enough for pump gas. Look at this year's engine masters winner, that's what you want to copy, but with a shorter deck block and milder cam.

 

[SNAKEPILOT]

Aussie 2v Cleveland heads are about $400 bare. By the time you put in valves, springs, guides and hardened seats you are real close to the cost of Edelbrock's new aluminum 2v Cleveland heads. For only 300hp though, I don't think you will need them. Definitely don't go with the 4v heads.

 

[Cupid]

Thanks everybody. It seems like I will be sticking with the 2V heads.

Can anybody recommend a Cam?

I'm also thinking about head porting(either myself or paying). Is it worth me doing them or should I let somebody else do them. Anybody know how much it costs?

 

[woodsnake]

go look at

s b f t e c h d o t c o m (all one word)
and fordstrokers.com, there is a lot of information to be learned on those two sites.

 

[Hack]

For a solid 300 rwhp, assuming you have an automatic transmission that will lose quite a bit of power, I think you'd be better off with 4V heads or aftermarket aluminum heads. Since you are talking about fuel economy I assume that you want to run cheap pump gas, which also makes me lean toward recommending aluminum heads.

In the end you will save more money running better fuel and cheaper heads (unless you put a TON of miles on the car), but fuel economy as a goal in a performance car requires the most efficient head design. It's nice because more efficient heads give you better fuel economy at cruise and also more power. Of course if you have your foot in the gas all the time using the power you won't get good gas mileage, though.

300 hp at the engine is easy, but at the rear wheels is a little tougher. I am with D. Hearne somewhat on this. I know you can do this with open chamber 2V heads, but a more modern combustion chamber would be a lot more tolerant of bad (cheap) gas, slightly mismatched components and a non-optimum tune. It will also make up for an auto tranny that sucks away the power.

Stroking won't make a big difference in mileage compared to other variables such as your driving style. If you have a good set of aluminum heads that are tolerant of bad gas you won't need a crazy cam, loose converter and 4.11 gears to have fun driving the car. Nothing will reduce fuel economy at cruise more than gears and a converter. Stroking also means you will meet your power goal without sacrificing economy with gears, cam and converter to make the car work well on the street.

A lot of this goes to personal preference, but for an easy 300 rwhp I would go with CHI 3V heads and intake. CHI has proven that their design works by dominating the Engine Masters competition for years. I would also stroke it so that the power is available with a mild cam at a lower RPM so that it's easier to drive on the street and gets better fuel economy (no wild cam or gears). Get a custom cam for your set up from MME or Jon Kaase.

Don't forget a good free flowing exhaust system with headers. The Cleveland is weak in the exhaust department, so headers help a lot!

 

[Arron Johnson]

Just remember... bigger is not better in 90% of all engines. The big 4V heads were short lived for a reason, just as the BOSS 302 was short lived. The 351C-4V heads had ports and vales big enough to just about put tennis balls into, yet we make more power with better low-end torque with 351W's with 180-200cc runners that barely a D cell battery will fit into. Why? VELOCITY! It's also why the 351C4V heads were redesigned to have dual quench chambers and with slighty smaller valvesd. Even Ford knew the heads had valves that were too big! The earlier open chamber heads had no quench area which made them less effecient. The quench area causes the swirl in the cylinders which makes for a faster, more even burn. This is why Hemi heads work great at wide open throttle but aren't so great on the street or at lower RPM's.... no quench area.

Big valves and big heads mean NOTHING to a real engine builder. I've built thousands of engines in my day, mostly some sort of performance or race engine, being that that's all I build.

I don't care WHAT "Engine Masters" magazine says. I was asked to do a build with them before and turned it down. It's like reading any magazine article on an engine build, they almost always screw with the dynos to make them read the numbers they want. I don't do that. That's why engines that I build that I say make 500 HP eat-up and spit out engines other builders build that they "claim" make 600 HP. I always say its because I measure my horsepower with Clydesdales and they measure theirs with Shetland Ponies.

Just an FYI, you most certainly can (and many do) mess with the data acquisition on dynos to make them read high. Pretty much any dyno is capable of reading anything if you make a few adjustments to the D pack. Most magazine articles fake or fudge numbers, and they usually have some pretty down right humorous numbers, like doing a 500+ HP 350 Chevy with cast iron heads that gets 19 MPG. If it was that simple and easy to do, everyone would have a 500HP / 19MPG engine in theor car, and that simply isn't the case... for a reason.

Guy's like me see this stuff all of the time, and the real engine builders all talk and laugh about it. It's one of our more comical conversations as to what magazine just printed the most horse crap article.

So, my point is, 2V heads will get you better low-end, off the line power, which is where 95% of your driving and RPM range will be. Yu aren't building a race engine or looking for high RPM power numbers so why use a head that was designed for that?

302 cubic inches wasn't enough to make the BOSS 302 heads work much below 6,000 RPM. ANYONE that owned or ran one of those cars (or who currently runs in the Vintage race circuit) will tell you that. Vic Edelbrock ownes a couple of them, In fact, he owns George Follmer's old Boss 302 Trans Am car that we race in the vintage car circuit and it is low on torque pulling out of the corners even in full race trim. This is one of the reasons the BOSS 302got dropped and the 351-C4V came along. More cubes makes for more air flow and velocity through the runners. Then they had the BOSS 351 which was a half breed engine that some say never existed. I built a few of those in my day too. Theyhad a 4 bolt main block and the dual quench heads.

My point is, smaller valves, smaller runners and good velocity will make more torque, which is what moves your car from 0 -60. How many times are you going to be above 5,000 RPM, and how often will you be below that? THAT is what should dictate how you need to build your engine and what components you should choose. There are PLENTY of 351W's with small ruinner heads that WILL outright eat-up and spit out BOSS 302, and 351C4v's on a daily basis. Too big is easy to get caught up into.

By the way, Scat makes a nice little 393 cubic inch stroker kt for the 351 C. I built a 617HP 393C4V (with a 100HP shot of nitrous), for a guy's Mach 1. It's in the Ford gallery of my web site if you want to see it. He WAS looking for upper-end power and he wasn't concrned about fuel economy. If he hadn't already had the 351C4v in that car, I would have probably gone with a better, more modern set of heads like the Edelbrock aluminum heads, but I had to work with what he had. Sounds like yours IS going to be driven at lower speeds and RPMs and cruising down the freeway, so I would focus more on "torue" rather than HP, and go with the smaller 2v heads or the set of Edelbrock's.

Just remember.... if you have heads that are too big or a cam that's too big, or your engine is built for upper-end horsepower, you WILL lose a race from stop light to stop light with a car that was built for better low-end torque, and you WILL feel more "stick you in the seat" kind of power with an engine that makes better torque than it does high-end horsepower. Smaller hweads and a smaller cam makes for more low-end velocity, MUCH better throttle response and is MUCH quicker from 0 to 60. THAT is where most of your driving will be.

I hope that helped shed some light on it.

 

[D.Hearne]

Just remember... bigger is not better in 90% of all engines. The big 4V heads were short lived for a reason, just as the BOSS 302 was short lived. The 351C-4V heads had ports and vales big enough to just about put tennis balls into, yet we make more power with better low-end torque with 351W's with 180-200cc runners that barely a D cell battery will fit into. Why? VELOCITY! It's also why the 351C4V heads were redesigned to have dual quench chambers and with slighty smaller valvesd. Even Ford knew the heads had valves that were too big! The earlier open chamber heads had no quench area which made them less effecient. The quench area causes the swirl in the cylinders which makes for a faster, more even burn. This is why Hemi heads work great at wide open throttle but aren't so great on the street or at lower RPM's.... no quench area.

Big valves and big heads mean NOTHING to a real engine builder. I've built thousands of engines in my day, mostly some sort of performance or race engine, being that that's all I build.

I don't care WHAT "Engine Masters" magazine says. I was asked to do a build with them before and turned it down. It's like reading any magazine article on an engine build, they almost always screw with the dynos to make them read the numbers they want. I don't do that. That's why engines that I build that I say make 500 HP eat-up and spit out engines other builders build that they "claim" make 600 HP. I always say its because I measure my horsepower with Clydesdales and they measure theirs with Shetland Ponies.

Just an FYI, you most certainly can (and many do) mess with the data acquisition on dynos to make them read high. Pretty much any dyno is capable of reading anything if you make a few adjustments to the D pack. Most magazine articles fake or fudge numbers, and they usually have some pretty down right humorous numbers, like doing a 500+ HP 350 Chevy with cast iron heads that gets 19 MPG. If it was that simple and easy to do, everyone would have a 500HP / 19MPG engine in theor car, and that simply isn't the case... for a reason.

Guy's like me see this stuff all of the time, and the real engine builders all talk and laugh about it. It's one of our more comical conversations as to what magazine just printed the most horse crap article.

So, my point is, 2V heads will get you better low-end, off the line power, which is where 95% of your driving and RPM range will be. Yu aren't building a race engine or looking for high RPM power numbers so why use a head that was designed for that?

302 cubic inches wasn't enough to make the BOSS 302 heads work much below 6,000 RPM. ANYONE that owned or ran one of those cars (or who currently runs in the Vintage race circuit) will tell you that. Vic Edelbrock ownes a couple of them, In fact, he owns George Follmer's old Boss 302 Trans Am car that we race in the vintage car circuit and it is low on torque pulling out of the corners even in full race trim. This is one of the reasons the BOSS 302got dropped and the 351-C4V came along. More cubes makes for more air flow and velocity through the runners. Then they had the BOSS 351 which was a half breed engine that some say never existed. I built a few of those in my day too. Theyhad a 4 bolt main block and the dual quench heads.

My point is, smaller valves, smaller runners and good velocity will make more torque, which is what moves your car from 0 -60. How many times are you going to be above 5,000 RPM, and how often will you be below that? THAT is what should dictate how you need to build your engine and what components you should choose. There are PLENTY of 351W's with small ruinner heads that WILL outright eat-up and spit out BOSS 302, and 351C4v's on a daily basis. Too big is easy to get caught up into.

By the way, Scat makes a nice little 393 cubic inch stroker kt for the 351 C. I built a 617HP 393C4V (with a 100HP shot of nitrous), for a guy's Mach 1. It's in the Ford gallery of my web site if you want to see it. He WAS looking for upper-end power and he wasn't concrned about fuel economy. If he hadn't already had the 351C4v in that car, I would have probably gone with a better, more modern set of heads like the Edelbrock aluminum heads, but I had to work with what he had. Sounds like yours IS going to be driven at lower speeds and RPMs and cruising down the freeway, so I would focus more on "torue" rather than HP, and go with the smaller 2v heads or the set of Edelbrock's.

Just remember.... if you have heads that are too big or a cam that's too big, or your engine is built for upper-end horsepower, you WILL lose a race from stop light to stop light with a car that was built for better low-end torque, and you WILL feel more "stick you in the seat" kind of power with an engine that makes better torque than it does high-end horsepower. Smaller hweads and a smaller cam makes for more low-end velocity, MUCH better throttle response and is MUCH quicker from 0 to 60. THAT is where most of your driving will be.

I hope that helped shed some light on it.

You know it's really nice to have more experience here on the forums, but do you always respond with a thesis sized answer? The Boss 302 and 4 bbl Cleveland heads were not discontinued cause they were failures. They were put to good use in Nascar and Prostock Drag racing and other venues long after their production runs ceased. The reason for that happening was emisions and economy related. Not because they were bad heads.

 

[Arron Johnson]

Since when is anyone on here running a Nascar engine or a pro stock style engine on the street? They discontinued them because they didn't work on the street. I was referring to STREET engines, not race stuff. I used to run a 427 SOHC engine too. We still used them into the 80's. Does that mean that engine wasa good street engine?

Dirty emissions = poor burn. Take a 351W and a 351 C. Both the same size. The only major difference is the design of the heads. The Windsor is going to produce a better burn. Ford didn't discontinue the Windsor style engines for decades, but they did discontinue the Cleveland (at least in our country anyway). There's a reason for that. THEY DIDN'T WORK ON THE STREET!

Do you always take things people say out of context

 

[dodgestang]

And here I thought it was because Ford dropped all high performance motors from the lineup in the USA in favor of fuel efficiency in cars and low RPM work horse motors in trucks that would run on 87 octane without pinging.

 

[Arron Johnson]

So I guess you forgot about the fact that Ford created a MODIFIED engine calling it the 351 / 400 M which used smaller runner / smaller valved heads, because they made better low-end torque and fuel economy.... Isn;t that why those came in trucks? Good low-end torque with a similar block, displacement and smaller heads? Did you forget about that one? Isn't that what this is all about in the first place?

 

[dodgestang]

So I guess you forgot about the fact that Ford created a MODIFIED engine calling it the 351 / 400 M which used smaller runner / smaller valved heads, because they made better low-end torque and fuel economy.... Isn;t that why those came in trucks? Good low-end torque with a similar block, displacement and smaller heads? Did you forget about that one? Isn't that what this is all about in the first place?

Didn't forget it all. Here I'll quote myself

Ford dropped all high performance motors from the lineup in the USA in favor of fuel efficiency in cars and low RPM work horse motors in trucks that would run on 87 octane without pinging.

This is an old argument that has many people on each side of the battle lines (I assume this is going to end in the old c vs w debate). I didn't mention a thing about engine series in my statement. Simply that Ford dropped high performance from the line up because that isn't what the market wanted at the time.

I still recall with great abandon trucking around in my 84 GT vert with its mind blistering 160 HP.

 

[Arron Johnson]

Oh god, I remembr those days all too well. 180 HP Corvettes, 2,000 nd 2,300 Pinto's, Mustang II's (was that really even a Mustang?). Pacer's, Vega's, Chevette's, etc. All gutless wonders that didn't get that great of gas mileage because the poos things were floored most of the time running at 110% just to keep up with the real cars out there.

My point was, 351C4V heads are way too much for someone wanting 300 RWHP. he should be looking at torque rather than horsepower anyway, but hey, what do I know?

As far as the C vs. W wars. it's not even an arguement when you have 351 cubes that weigh more than a 460. The old Power to Weight issue and "dirty combustion" comes into play. I've built a lot of both and know what they both can do on the street, at the rack and on the dyno, whether naturally aspirated, blown, nitroused, or all of the above.

 

[D.Hearne]

Since when is anyone on here running a Nascar engine or a pro stock style engine on the street? They discontinued them because they didn't work on the street. I was referring to STREET engines, not race stuff. I used to run a 427 SOHC engine too. We still used them into the 80's. Does that mean that engine wasa good street engine?

Dirty emissions = poor burn. Take a 351W and a 351 C. Both the same size. The only major difference is the design of the heads. The Windsor is going to produce a better burn. Ford didn't discontinue the Windsor style engines for decades, but they did discontinue the Cleveland (at least in our country anyway). There's a reason for that. THEY DIDN'T WORK ON THE STREET!

Do you always take things people say out of context

I didn't take anything out of context. YOU were the one who claimed the 4 bbl Cleveland heads were bad designs. I drove a heavy asssed 71 Torino GT with a stock 4 bbl quench headed Cleveland that was backed by an FMX and a 3.00 rear way back when and it lacked nothing on the bottom end. It did turn on better than many engines when it hit the midrange, due to the big ports and valves. Granted the bottom end was helped by the cam it was saddled with, but teh heads were not and are not failures. And the SOHC 427 is making somewhat of a comeback in the last couple years. It's only fault was the low production numbers. You obviously never drove many Clevelnads on the street, or you wouldn't be so quick to put em down. The ones you did drive likely had a big assed cam, a single plane intake and a too big carb, all of which add up to a poorly performing (on the street) 4 bbl Cleveland. The Windsor has only come into it's own in the last 10-15 years, and that's not due to it being a superior design.

 

[D.Hearne]

So I guess you forgot about the fact that Ford created a MODIFIED engine calling it the 351 / 400 M which used smaller runner / smaller valved heads, because they made better low-end torque and fuel economy.... Isn;t that why those came in trucks? Good low-end torque with a similar block, displacement and smaller heads? Did you forget about that one? Isn't that what this is all about in the first place?

The real reason for the 351M coming into being was the fact that the Windsor plant couldn't keep up with the demand for a 351 cubic inch engine after the Cleveland was killed here. The 351 modified was and still is a turd. Fuel economy???????? Are you kidding me??????? The ones I drove got less than 10MPG. And couldn't pull squat. The 400 was a whole nother story.

 

[Hack]

Just remember.... if you have heads that are too big or a cam that's too big, or your engine is built for upper-end horsepower, you WILL lose a race from stop light to stop light with a car that was built for better low-end torque, and you WILL feel more "stick you in the seat" kind of power with an engine that makes better torque than it does high-end horsepower. Smaller hweads and a smaller cam makes for more low-end velocity, MUCH better throttle response and is MUCH quicker from 0 to 60. THAT is where most of your driving will be.

I hope that helped shed some light on it.

First of all, welcome to the forums. It's nice to see a new face. However, there's so much wrong information in that post I'm not sure where to even start!

I decided to clip the post down to one obviously incorrect statement. I have an F250 and its engine is a 351W built for torque. It is great for pulling a load, but it won't beat my '89 Mustang with the 302, 270 duration cam and GT40 heads. HP is THE measure to determine how quick a car will be. Torque doesn't tell you as much. The reason for this is that torque can be MULTIPLIED through gearing. HP tells you how much torque you can get at the rear wheels through gearing.

I will gladly race anyone with a 351W or even a 460 with the stock Ford heads and cam stoplight to stoplight with my 302 which makes less torque. I have no worries at all about losing that race! My car has a lot less torque down low and more upper end than a stock Fox Mustang, but it will beat them down in a stop light to stop light race any day.

The 351C 4V heads are great IMO. I do agree that they have larger ports than necessary and that more modern designs like the CHI 3V are superior. However, a stroker with the 4V heads can make a great street engine. Even the 351C stock stroke engines back in the day worked great in big cars. Your post seemed to go through all the normal 351C myths that most of the Chivy guys like to repeat. I'm almost surprised you didn't call it a big block or mention oiling!

 

[RogerC62]

I didn't take anything out of context. YOU were the one who claimed the 4 bbl Cleveland heads were bad designs. I drove a heavy asssed 71 Torino GT with a stock 4 bbl quench headed Cleveland that was backed by an FMX and a 3.00 rear way back when and it lacked nothing on the bottom end. It did turn on better than many engines when it hit the midrange, due to the big ports and valves. Granted the bottom end was helped by the cam it was saddled with, but teh heads were not and are not failures. And the SOHC 427 is making somewhat of a comeback in the last couple years. It's only fault was the low production numbers. You obviously never drove many Clevelnads on the street, or you wouldn't be so quick to put em down. The ones you did drive likely had a big assed cam, a single plane intake and a too big carb, all of which add up to a poorly performing (on the street) 4 bbl Cleveland. The Windsor has only come into it's own in the last 10-15 years, and that's not due to it being a superior design.

X2
I was going to stay out of this one but Mr. Johnson obviously has little to no experience with 351C on the street or comparable real on-street experience with 351W vs C. I've had both in my current 69 and there is a night & day difference. I also have experience with a 71 Torino GT of a friend. We rebuilt the 351C 4V in that car 30 years ago in auto shop. We actually built it a few times as he would be out playing and screw it up somehow. It was built right and it ran great but he would push it beyond the limits. Point being, building them right is the key. Its easy to throw a few pieces together and it be built wrong.

Your post seemed to go through all the normal 351C myths that most of the Chivy guys like to repeat. I'm almost surprised you didn't call it a big block or mention oiling!

I was thinking the same.

 

[Gud T.B. Blown]

Since when is anyone on here running a Nascar engine or a pro stock style engine on the street? They discontinued them because they didn't work on the street. I was referring to STREET engines, not race stuff. I used to run a 427 SOHC engine too. We still used them into the 80's. Does that mean that engine wasa good street engine?

Dirty emissions = poor burn. Take a 351W and a 351 C. Both the same size. The only major difference is the design of the heads. The Windsor is going to produce a better burn. Ford didn't discontinue the Windsor style engines for decades, but they did discontinue the Cleveland (at least in our country anyway). There's a reason for that. THEY DIDN'T WORK ON THE STREET!

Do you always take things people say out of context

Why the Cleveland was scrapped in favor of the Windsor, economics.

The M-block engine was designed when first-generation pollution controls were already in place. Most Ford V8s required bulky and unsightly external tubing to feed Thermactor air into the exhaust manifolds and exhaust gas to the EGR valve below the carburetor, but this was all built in to the M-block engine.
This all made adapting the M-block to the second generation of emissions control equipment harder. One requirement of the second-generation equipment was an oxygen(O2) sensor in the exhaust, which had to be placed before the Thermactor air was added. Since Thermactor air was injected right into the block's exhaust ports in the M-block, there was nowhere for the O2 sensor to go.
It would have been possible to alter the M-block to work, but it would have required significant effort and cost. Ford decided to simply scrap the M-block engines and replace them with updated 351 Windsor engines at the small end, and a combination of the 6.9 L Navistar International diesel and the 460 at the top end. 1982 was the last year the M-block was sold.