windsor or cleveland?

Discussion in '1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-' started by jlangholzj, Dec 1, 2007.

  1. So, My engine build would be roller rockers and cam. Gear drive timing belt, Torker intake. Whatever carb, under drive pullies. Of course on a 351 c =) With 4v heads, w/ small combustion chambers. Make sure it's all balanced, with the oil ported to the back (heard thats only needed for extended high rpm's) Baffled oil pan w/some sort of skid plate (stock ones are TOUGH!). Put that to the right gearing, and you'll be smoking along at 7k rpm by the time other cars are starting to move.*

    *my car all ready does this, but this way you could do it all the time without looking in your rear view mirror watching your crank bouncing down the road after it blows out =)
  2. I've had both in my current 69 and I can say the difference is night and day. To be fair the C engine is mildly built and the W was bone stock. The C is by no means a slouch in the torque department. Best I can figure is that because it performs so well at higher rpms, people expect the lower rpm performance to be proportionately better. When it doesn't match their expectations we get the "351Cs don't make good low end torque" argument.
  3. My car has a small pause on take off, but then goes off like a bomb to 5500 (shift point). I'm still thinking it's people "My moms old torino wagon had a 351c 2v, and it didn't go fast at all..." Hell it probably had a 2.90 rear end too =)

    If I had the money I'd get a bunch of Australian parts. They never went through the gas crunch we did, and developed the Cleveland up till the 80's (and the falcon instead of a mustang).

    Hell, the 1971 boss 351 was the fastest stock production car for awhile =) Could you imagine, 160 mph stock?
  4. According to this thread in the 335 site the rear oil line isn't very effective.
  5. to set the record straight, i don't think anyone has said that the 4v clevelands "bog" at low rpms, they have said that the 4v cleveland doesn't have the greatest low end torque but it is excellent in the upper rpm ranges.

    if we're comparing box stock engines, 4v cleveland vs 4v windsor then the stock 4v cleveland will win everytime, hands down. but with the proliferation of aftermarket parts for the windsor motors the gap isn't nearly as big as it used to be and the available aftermarket parts for the cleveland isn't what it used to be, however it is better lately than it has been over the last few years.

    dollar for dollar these days the windsor is the better engine to build on, the cleveland is more expensive but will make plenty of power though.

    me personally i'm a windsor fan just because of my personal experiences with both motors ,and i've blown up a few of each.

    i will still build a 302 based clevor at some point though because i really do like the cleveland heads.
  6. I found this on another forum and the cost difference between a cleveland and a windsor is minimal.



    Attached Files:

    • cvsw.jpg
      File size:
      106.3 KB

  7. good lord, they used some expensive parts in those builds!!!! 87 bucks for a timing set? i know it's a cloyes and all but damn.....

    Attached Files:

    • cvsw.jpg
      File size:
      106.3 KB
  8. yeah but this is comparing apples to oranges again. stock (worked) cleveland heads vs aftermarket windsor heads. if you were comparing apples to apples and used aftermarket heads on both you'd get a different bottom line.

    the windsor heads thye used were victor Jr.s at $1329

    staying with the E'brock heads for the cleveland, they only have the performer RPM for the it, you're looking at $1942.

    i don't like comparisons that use stock heads on one build and aftermarket on the other, if the comparsion id against ported stock heads then use that for both builds. the Power heads cnc ported heads cost about the same as the $800 they used for the Clevie head prep and flow as well as or better than most aftermarket heads but probably a little less than the victor jr.s, this may give the cleveland engine a slight advantage on the dyno though, but anyway i like comparisons that are more equal in parts used.

    in most cases a windsor build will be cheaper than a cleveland build, i believe that comparison is a little biased in favor of the cleveland, personally.
  9. He used the stock heads because worked over stock 4v heads will outflow the Edelbrock heads. The only benefit the Edelbrock heads at that point is weight savings which isn't enough. Also worked over stock 4V heads perform as well or better than the aftermarket Windsor heads.
  10. interesting that you are pondering a 302 clevor. i am considering a future project of a 53-56 F100 using a 351w clevor. i like the w block with the cleveland heads.
  11. yes it's true that stock 4v heads flow more than E'brock heads but at the expense of port velocity, the E'brock's have much better port velocity than any stock 4v cleveland heads.

    personally i'll take the better port velocity and weight savings, plus the ability to run a higher compression ratio than iron heads over all out flow numbers any day.
  12. EDIT- NOTE: Ignore the screen-name; it's actually her dummy husband!

    Was "away from the the Internet"(except for PRCA/NFR-related sites) for a several day period; out setting up the final contracts for our local Rodeo -and winning about $600 and losing about $700 for a total loss of $100 (more gambling than I've ever done) on slots and blackjack- while in Las Vegas this week. Interesting to see where this thread has gone....

    Actually I posted that 4-barrel Clevelands "bogged" at low RPMs; compared to 2V Clevelands. Have many references to the HP/torque curves for the two different intake patterns.

    Of which "old wives' tales" are you speaking?

    Personally, I've looked at a lot of "well, my 351C was a dog" and "well my BOSS 351 outran a BOSS 429" stories -that last was in the aforementioned Mustang rag (which one I still don't remember, but I'm betting it was either "Mustang Monthly" or Mustang Illustrated") from October or November of 1983. I actually have a picture of it on a coffee table (that wasn't the subject of the picture, but it happened to be laying there); but it's too blurry to read the bottom of the page.

    Everything I've read - mag articles, technical "build-it" books, and yes, a lot of posts from many different forums in "this new Internet world" - indicates that the torque peak of the "typical" 4V Cleveland came in later than that of its 2V bretheren. I'm not interested in screaming 1/4-miler cars; I want to drive something that gets around town and has very good performance numbers (both on the strip and on the street; a compromise, I'm sure!). For that, the 4V Cleveland appears to fall short of a 2V Cleveland.
    My own experience with the engine has been that a very mildy "warmed-up" 2V Cleve in a heavy old four-door grocery-getter sedan can embarrass the h*** out of quite a few of the typical "period" pony-car and muscle car owners. One could argue that the driver of the 2v-powered sedan was some kind of extraordinary driving genius; but one would be very stupid to try to point that out to me! Because, again, I'm speaking from personal experience because I owned/drove that 2V Cleveland - powered 4-door sedan when it was beating up on Chevy (and some Ford and exactly two Mopar) "hot-rods". Lemme tell you - I am not some genius driver! :rolleyes:
    If a mildly-warmed 2V Cleve (backed by an almost unanimously derided FMX slushbox) in a 4-door sedan can make me look good leaving a stoplight; then it absolutely must be doing something right!

    EDIT: Oops!!!! I'm using my wife's machine, and forgot that it would "log in" under her screen name! :rolleyes: :rlaugh:
  13. i for one am a big fan of the much maligned FMX auto trans, sure it's heavey but it ain't that much heavier than a c6. also since the AOD is based on the basic platform of the FMX and i plan on using an AOD in the cougar build i feel that i'm staying true to the FMX by using it's "offspring"
  14. Hey! -It's really ME this time!

    Don't get me wrong, I can't say enough good things about the FMX. Yeah, you've gotta search a little harder for performance parts for it; but my last one was certainly worth the search, and I'm sure that the one in the Coog will be just as sweet. And the 4R70W in my F150 doesn't complain or disappoiint me in the least; either "running empty" or when there's a loaded horse trailer hanging on the back. That's the FMX heritage.

    BTW; I think you meant "almost as light as a C4! C6 is much heavier.
  15. the FMX is aa tough transmission i will also agree. however i prefer the C4 for the lighter overall weight, and the lower rotating mass. and stangdreamin, he does mean C6, remember the case on the FMX is made from cast iron:eek:
  16. actually the parasitic losses through the trans on the FMX are very close to the C4, i can't remember the numbers specifically but the C4 was pretty low and the FMX was just a couple percent more while the c6 had more than 10% more parasitic losses through the trans. i think i saw it one the network 54 auto trans forum.
  17. i will take the lowest losses i can get when it comes to automatics.
    i know, spoken like a true racer:D :D
  18. One old wives tale, is that the 351 C 4 barrel motor had no lowend, it did verywell in the low,ranges, sure it made more power up high, but very driveable and comfortable down low. This is not hear say, this is from driving one around for a couple of years back in the day.
  19. Well, I actually got to drive a '72 351HO "back in the day" in Tucson. Sorry, but it didn't feel to me or to it's owner (we each drove both with the other riding shotgun) that it pulled from a standing start like my heavier '73 Gran. Up around 2500 RPM, though, it really took off. We probably would have had a lot of fun (and learned a little bit) if we had stood them up against one another; but the card was full at Corona that day - the "test drives" were down Houghton Road later in the day. I think, that if we had manually shifted my FMX I'd still have gotten him on a 60; but we didn't think about 60's back then.
    Maybe if we each had more time behind the wheel, as you did.
  20. Yeah, I started reading and I couldn't believe how almost every post contains misconceptions and incorrect answers! Wow! Just a few things:
    1. The 2 bolt and 4 bolt main C blocks are identical except the 4 bolt blocks have extra tapped holes. The castings are the same. Many people say the blocks are about the same in strength, but the 2 bolt blocks have more material in the mains area and so are slightly stronger in those locations.
    2. 4V heads are great for the street. You just want to use the right cam, gears and converter - just like any engine build up.
    3. The C blocks are stronger than W blocks of the same era. Both have casting shift. The false rumors of Cs being weaker is because the stock heads can flow enough to rev REALLY high - enough to over power the cylinder walls.

    My answer to the original poster's question is that you can't go wrong with either. However, the C was built by Ford to be a high performance engine, but the 351W was designed more for trucks. I think there are more people/shops who understand the W since it's more common and there are more aftermarket options for the W. However, there's a reason why the Ford Nascar cars still run a Cleveland style head! Also, the Cleveland has a strong aftermarket, motors with CHI aluminum Cleveland heads won the Engine Masters Competition several years in a row. You might have fewer aftermarket options, but the options out there are every bit as good as the W options.

    A great low buck mild build would be a 351C with 4V closed chamber heads and Torker intake. It's easy to over cam the C, and you want to make sure you pick the right gears/converter as with any build.

    Try the Network 54 Cleveland forums for top notch tech.