351C 4V Buildup

Discussion in '1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech' started by Camshaft78, Jun 27, 2005.


  1. Camshaft78

    Camshaft78 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    After much consideration i've decided that I want to build a 351 Cleveland small-block for my '78 MII. What should I expect to pay for a decent 4V block?
  2. JonDawg

    JonDawg Mstng2 supplied me with my pair Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    See those taillights right in front of you?
    is there such a thing as a Cleveland SB?? :shrug:
  3. Power Surge

    Power Surge Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Palm Coast, FL
    A few things on the subject...

    Be careful when looking for a 351C block. Make sure you don't wind up with a 351M block (much more common). The M was basically the same motor, but it uses the 429-460 bellhousing. A real C block uses the Windsor bolt pattern.

    If you can find a 351CJ/Boss351 block, it's 4 bolt main. All others are 2 bolt. Not really a big deal in this day and age of main girdles and all though.

    You don't want 4V Clevland heads. They were WAY too big for street use, and low end power is practically non-existant with them. They were designed for 4000-7500rpm operation, like on the Boss 302/351. A 2V head with a nice valve job and port job will be a GREAT street/strip head.

    I'm not sure why you want to do a 351C over a windsor, but it's not going to be a fun road. Aftermarket Cleveland parts are scarce and pricey. Clevelands have oil issues and don't like to rev. The motor is quite a bit heavier and larger than a windsor. You'll need to use custom headers, most likey exiting out the wheel wells which you'll probably have to cut out to make room. If you have an automatic, you won't be able to use the smaller MII bellhousing setup because there is no 148 tooth 351C flywheel. A built windsor will be way cheaper, fit right in, and make just as much, if not more power with all the head choices available today.

    Of course if you are doing it just for the "shock" factor, that's cool too. A 351C in a II looks cool. There is one on ebay right now (I think it's the 5th time it's been on ebay).
  4. Camshaft78

    Camshaft78 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I wanted "shock value" I would've chosen the 429 CJ I could've bought. :nice:

    Looking at pictures of the disassembled motors I always assumed that the Cleveland would make more power...the intake ports look to be at least three times as big! If a Windsor is better, then i'd rather build one of those. Why spend twice as much to go half as fast?

    If that is indeed the case, i'll have to start looking for Windsors. I wonder, is is possible to take an '03 Cobra six-speed and mate it to a Windsor and make it work in a deuce? That would be slick!

    Thanks for the help!
  5. Camshaft78

    Camshaft78 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, Camshaft got a visit from the F@#%up fairy. :D I meant longblock. :banana:
  6. 74ProII

    74ProII Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Bremerton, WA, USA
    I currently run a 351C 4V in my 74. I would glady discuss it with you via pm if you so desire. 4V blocks are hard to come by, the 351cj/boss are mechanical cammed 4V's. A far as a 351W it seams they have become the carryover 5.0 craze. With that reasoninb why not just 347? While I do not look down on the potential of a windsor ( I have them myself). It is just that that are more common and cheaper to build, always have been. Yes, it is true the 4V's were designed for NASCAR. this being said, I could, and did turn 225/60/15's to dust without any effort with a near stock, lowered compression :nice: 4V.
  7. Wart

    Wart I'm Mad as HELL and I'M not Gonna Take it ANYMORE! Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 1998
    Messages:
    3,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    I suggest checking out the Ford Racing form at Mustangs and More. Some of the folks over there get into the Cleveland pretty deep. That's an understatement.

    A few things on the subject:

    Make sure you don't get a M block. These engines not only use a 385 series (429/460) bell they also have ~ 1" taller deck.!!! NOTE !!! Some of hte early M blocks use a SBF bell. Leads to misidentification.

    2 bolt/ 4 bolt blocks doesn't matter unless your going to whale the **** out of it. 4 bolt mains can be retrofitted to a 2 bolt block.

    4V heads make plenty of twist for daily driving. Hell, any 351 makes enough torque to motivate a II to the grocery store. If your cutting loose, well, the C is a Horse Power engine. Screw down low, that's not where Clevelands work.

    In all applications some swear by 2v heads, others swear by 4V heads, the head question rages on.

    Clevelands rev just fine. Fact, they were built to rev. Engine doesn't weigh that much more than a W with iron intakes. Going to Alunimum saves a bunch more weight than going to one on a W because the C intake is massive. When alls said and done your not picking up much weight.

    He3adders? IIRC, hooker still makes a set. And it's not like your not into custom headders if doing much more than a 302 anyway.

    Flywheels and Flexplates? Any SBF 28 Oz works. That means you can choose from around 63 to 81~82, and any 351W wheel or plate works.


    If you need a relitively brainless build I suggest going with a Windsor, you can build one of those by going through the parts books and picking a part from colum A, then a suitable part from B, and so on.

    Funny thing is, it's easier now to build a C than it was in '73. With a little research.

    Far as fitment? Don't believe anyone who tells you a 351W will "fit right in". You do not bolt motor mount to a Windsor and drop it in the car bolt up the exhaust and other stuff, turn the key and drive away. OTOH it is possable if you believe beating structure with a sledge to make clearance is a vallid method of installation. To me beating to fit isn't an option.

    Also what people seem to forget is the W has a smaller head than a C but it also has a bigger block by ~ 1" deck. There is a dimensional tradeoff making the engine smaller than what one would think.


    Bottom line is, W or C is alot of work, time and Money. You had best be commited before starting such a project.
  8. Blue Thunder

    Blue Thunder Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Upstate New York.
    A few points;

    The oiling problem with the C motors was due to the fact that the main bearings are fed pressure *after* the upper end. The ass-backwards oiling system can be fixed by running an external oil line, (steel line) that diverts pressure directly into the mains first. That takes care of the upper-RPM oiling issues.
    The C motors have a smaller main bearing journal than a W, which reduces bearing surface speeds, so the C journals are actually superior to the Ws as far as that's concerned. (that's why NASCAR engines utilize windsor style blocks but with Cleveland style bearing journals. Superior W oiling system + smaller C journals = virtually indestructible bottom end)

    As far as the 4v vs 2v head issue; Heh.
    The 2vs are nice for torque in 351 truck applications, and are really nice for performance street 302s, especially the Australian 2v quench heads, because they even have small combustion chambers for higher compression ratios.
    But I'd never run the 2v heads on a performance motor which is substantially bigger than a 302, such as a 351.

    Anyway, you can slam this argument to the ground with one simple step: Build a stroker Cleveland. Coast Performance offers a fairly cheap cast steel Cleveland stroker crank: http://www.coasthigh.com/Crankshafts/cast_steel.htm
    (Notice, however, how much cheaper the cranks are for the W motor, because they're more common)
    With 4.03" bore and the 4.85" stroke crank, you'll have 393 cubic inches. You'd have to measure to see if longer W rods would fit in there, I'd think they would.
    So a 393" motor with 4v heads will make plenty of low end torque AND upper end hp.
    You want shock value? haha that'll do it. Especially when they see you launch that thing.
  9. Camshaft78

    Camshaft78 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah buddy! A 393 sounds like a good balance. Right now the car has a '71 302 with a compression ratio higher that a glaucoma patient at a Dead concert. This is going to be a street machine that I can take to the track, kick some ass, and drive home, hopefully. I want to start building the motor this winter and hopefully start work on the rear axle and tranny sometime next year. I'm thinking about a T56 6-speed and a Ford 9-inch with a locker and 3.55s. :banana:

    Thanks again for the input!
  10. Power Surge

    Power Surge Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Palm Coast, FL
    A 393 would be a perfect street/strip motor. Gobs of tire smoking low end power, and plenty up top. Plus there are plenty of us here that have done the 351 based motor swap to guide you along.

    As for the T56, it's a neat idea, and it can be done. My only concern would be it's massive size. I don't think it will fit under the IIs trans tunnel. You might want to consider the TKO600, which can be had in two different gearsets, instead.

    And of course, a 9" is always a good thing :).
  11. Camshaft78

    Camshaft78 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the T56 dosen't fit, the Tremec will work fine. :flag: Anyone ever done a six-speed deuce?

    Another idea I had was tracking down a Mach 1 shaker hood...I wonder if it would work?

    I hate to lump all my aspirations into a "Pro Touring" description but it fits. I want to make this car handle if I can. Anyone make good suspension parts for these cars? I know that Baer makes some great brakes but that's all i've found.
  12. 78CobraII

    78CobraII Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 1998
    Messages:
    1,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    37
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    I'm afraid that if you want it to handle, you're going in the wrong direction with engine weight.

    At the very least, you are going to need to go to aluminum with every component that you can. Heads, intake, water pump, radiator. And you need to ditch everything in the engine compartment that doesn't make it go faster, i.e. AC, PS, etc. Move the battery to the rear, lighten the bumper and use fiberglass fenders.

    Maybe adding some balast in the back would help too. :)

    Ford Racing has an aluminum 351W block available, but its pricey:
    http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/category.asp?catID=38&catdesc=Engine Blocks

    Dart also has an Aluminum Ford 351 block, (w/Cleveland mains):
    http://www.dartheads.com/Fordb.aspx

    With so much torque available, you are going to need to weld up all of your spot-welded seams and add additional supports to the front end also. Something like the T-Top supports (top and bottom) but larger by 100% might work.

    A lot of the ProTouring cars have full cages with diagonals all the way to the front frame rails.

    Here are a couple of great ProTouring websites (mostly 1969 Camaros though):

    Lateral-G.Net: http://lateral-g.net/
    Full-frame 1965 Mustang: http://www.lateral-g.net/libbymustang
    2003 Cobra/1965 Mustang body: http://www.lateral-g.net/members/julian

    Pro-Touring.Com: http://www.pro-touring.com/
    They have a couple of good Mustangs and a nice V8 Vega.

    Popular Hot Rodding has some good ones too:
    http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/

    I've been thinking along these lines also, but the MII front weight bias makes it challenging.

    The Monroe Mustang and Kemp MII racer are the prototypical ProTouring cars! :)

    And the
  13. Power Surge

    Power Surge Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Palm Coast, FL
    I agree with 78CobraII. If you are trying to build a car that will carve corners, I would strongly suggest building a 302 based motor, like a 347. Like most Fords, the II has too much weight over the front axle, and adding any more to that will only make the car handle worse.

    If you REALLY want the car to handle, and also look "different" than the norm, I'd build a nice 300hp turbo 2.3 :D.
  14. 78CobraII

    78CobraII Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 1998
    Messages:
    1,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    37
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    The Turbo 2.3L is where I'm thinking...wish I could afford the Esslinger aluminum head or the Volvo DOHC conversion.

    The Ghia that I'm currently restoring is going to be my 2.3L test-bed...if it handles really well when I'm done and feels like it needs another 200 HP, then a late Turbo 2.3L will be the answer.

    A 9/10's built 2.8L V6 would make a good corner carver also. Even better a SHO Taurus V6 or V8. There's not piles of torque in any of these engines, but its not anything that a turbo wouldn't solve. ;)
  15. Power Surge

    Power Surge Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Palm Coast, FL
    As a former SHO owner, an SHO powered II would be SICK. My stock 91 SHO plus ran 14.9s all day.
  16. Camshaft78

    Camshaft78 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh well then, I might as well just make it stupid fast in a straight line, before i'm old enough to know better.
  17. Blue Thunder

    Blue Thunder Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Upstate New York.
    That's what I did. Weight is your enemy, especially nose weight. The IIs have one of the worst front:rear ratio I've ever seen in a car. They're something like a pickup truck in that regard.
    My friends say I'm nuts because I plan to mount the windshield washer tank in the trunk and run a stainless 3/16" line up front to feed the squirters. But that gallon of blue fluid weighs 8 pounds, and that's not counting the tank and pump.. haha

    Another option, (that I also did) is to install some massive tires on the car. The 245/45 17s up front make my II handle like a beast, and the manual rack allows me to feel how the road and the car are getting along before it's too late.

Share This Page