You're confusing the 351C with the 351M, They're similar but not the same. The 351M which is a destroked 400, shares the big block bolt pattern on the bell housing, and different mounts. The one good quality in the 351M is the rods. Heads are also basically the same casting as the 351C 2 bbl heads, with minor revisions.SadbutTrue said:
351c vs 351w
- Thread starter vdubsta
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
SadbutTrue
Founding Member
D.Hearne said:
'Yeah, I knew the 351M/400 were on the big block bolt pattern and different mounts, but I thought the C was too.. my bad.
To convert from a 2bbl Cleveland to a 4bbl Cleveland basically you need the heads of course, 4bbl intake and 4bbl manifolds/headers. Its a simple swap if your rebuilding the engine anyway. IM doing this right now, I bought 1970 4bbl quench heads for my 1972 2bbl engine. Its only costing me 250 dollars more, the price I paid for the heads to have it done. Either way my 2bbl heads would have needed rebuilt so I figured mines well go for some real power. Plus I wanted a new intake, headers and cam anyway for the 2bbl rebuild. Its amazing the HP I see comming from 4v Clevelands with nothing more then a new carb, intake, headers, and cam. The quench heads on the Cleveland were rated at 300HP stock so you can imagine what nice headers, intake, carb and cam will do for it.
Jim
Jim
vdubsta said:
A intake designed to fit a 4bbl holley/carter/eddlebrock carb and the carb. Eddlebrock and Weiland (Holley) both make these type of intakes. about 700-800 total for NEW parts, less for used.
Hearne- I was just realying what I've heard. They may have been referring to open 4V heads from 72-73.
~meow
Definitely go with 4v heads, and get the quench heads while you are at it. It isn’t worth going with the 2v heads. 4ZV Clevelands do not have bad low RPM torque production, that is a myth. We have to remember that 351 4v engines were designed for regular production engines. If any of the 4v Clevelands were loafy in the low end it was the ones that got 8.5:1 compression, retarded camshafts, and a host of pollution plumbing. That will slow down any engine.
A 4v Cleveland only needs a good cam intake and carb to be a ridiculously good performer on the street. Mine pulls from 1500 RPM’s in overdrive…..
A 4v Cleveland only needs a good cam intake and carb to be a ridiculously good performer on the street. Mine pulls from 1500 RPM’s in overdrive…..
Hows the torque on a stock 1971 351c 4v? Alot of people keep telling me the 351c 4v is horrible on the street blah blah blah but I never drove one and I know 99% of these people have never drove one. Has anyone who drove one had a bad experience with the 351c 4v on the street getting killed in a race because of the lack of torque?
Jim
Jim
SadbutTrue
Founding Member
I'm sure a 351C (2v or 4v) has more than adequate torque for most purposes... the 351W will just make more of it 
I'm losing this argument, I think.
I'm losing this argument, I think.
1973mach1 said:
No, the torque will not be a problem. I have 4v Cleveland. Granted it isn’t stock, but either should yours be. You don’t want too much low end torque anyway, you’ll just fry your tires off. Again, 4v heads, 10.5:1 compression, good cam, 750 Holley DP, Blue Thunder intake, headers, 3.50+ gears and you will have a very hot car.
dodgestang
Active Member
1973mach1 said:
I prefer to just let people continue to beleive in the myth of 351c as a dog on the street with no bottom end. That way they can beat their heads even harder when I pop my hood and show them what powered the car that just showed them tail lights. Its very easy to dog out any motor and the 351c is no exception....so some folks with limited ability put in a high lift cam one day to take advantage of those big ole 4v heads and forget to match all their compements properly and ended up with a dog of a motor in the early 70s.
Then they told 5 friends, who told 5 friends, who told 5 friends...you know how this goes
English is also a funny language and full of strange ways to say things..for instance the statement:
"a 351c will have a lot more top end pull than low end grunt" - is for the most part a true statement.
"a 351c doesn't have low end" - is a false statement.
So what's the difference you may ask? simple....the first statement uses a comparative phrase to allow the speaker to quantify a value that has been given no assigned value. The second is a statement made with no comparisons and asserted as an absolute with no qualifier. It is easy to beleive that people with less than a firm grasp on the language can easily jump to statement 2 when they hear statement 1. Statements like number 2 are also almost always uttered by people who have never owned, driven, or riden in a 351 power car
Clear as mud now.
Dodgestang- nice use of the ever-clear english language. I believe that most 351C4Vs will have a hell of a lot of top end but their low end may not match the top end power. My 351C2V burns rubber with 2.11s, and a 2bbl automatic. stock with problems. and it easily pulls off 97 mph on street (ain't gonna race till I'm sure of what I have solid).
~meow
~meow
RogerC62
Founding Member
Exellent dodgestang!
I've been arguing for a long time that a 351C's torque is adequate for the street and far from a dog. My best friend in school had (actually still has) a 71 Torino GT his dad bought brand new with 351C 4V automatic. The car was my initiation to Ford performance. We built his engine in auto shop class. That car was one of the fastest in the area at the time with numerous Chevelles, Novas, Camaros, Roadrunners, Chargers, a Superbee and one bad Challenger in the mix back in the late 70s. My friend also had a 70 Cougar convertible with/351C 4V in it. I've had a 72 Gran Torino Sport (man I want another one bad) w/351C 2V and my current Mustang w/351C 4V and close ratio 4 speed. I had a 351W in my stang before the C and there's a big difference in the performance.
I've been arguing for a long time that a 351C's torque is adequate for the street and far from a dog. My best friend in school had (actually still has) a 71 Torino GT his dad bought brand new with 351C 4V automatic. The car was my initiation to Ford performance. We built his engine in auto shop class. That car was one of the fastest in the area at the time with numerous Chevelles, Novas, Camaros, Roadrunners, Chargers, a Superbee and one bad Challenger in the mix back in the late 70s. My friend also had a 70 Cougar convertible with/351C 4V in it. I've had a 72 Gran Torino Sport (man I want another one bad) w/351C 2V and my current Mustang w/351C 4V and close ratio 4 speed. I had a 351W in my stang before the C and there's a big difference in the performance.
ratio411
Founding Member
I don't agree with folks that malign the torque of a 4v either.
I have seen 4v cars with nothing aftermarket but headers, Holley, and very mild gears that have amazing throttle response.
It all comes down to tuning.
Same thing with single plane intakes... I have run SP intakes on cars with C4 tranny and 3.00 gears, and had enough torque and throttle response to roast the tires while in motion. Folks would be speechless when I pop the hood afterward and they see the 750 DP and high rise single plane... Comments about "that intake and carb on a 302 is not supposed to do that!" would pop up quickly.
Don't believe everything you read, take what you can use and ignore the rest.
My .02
Dave
I have seen 4v cars with nothing aftermarket but headers, Holley, and very mild gears that have amazing throttle response.
It all comes down to tuning.
Same thing with single plane intakes... I have run SP intakes on cars with C4 tranny and 3.00 gears, and had enough torque and throttle response to roast the tires while in motion. Folks would be speechless when I pop the hood afterward and they see the 750 DP and high rise single plane... Comments about "that intake and carb on a 302 is not supposed to do that!" would pop up quickly.
Don't believe everything you read, take what you can use and ignore the rest.
My .02
Dave
