351 Cleveland swap?

[Mercracer]

Any pictures of the business end of a set of 351C heads?

Here is an interesting picture for you... you can see the relative size of 2V and 4V heads and see how someone filled the 4V head for better efficiency...
http://www.panteraplace.com/Tech%20I...2V%20ports.jpg

[Mercracer]

huge crank bearing diameter limits high rpm use, questionable oilling system design are two reasons i know of to not use a cleveland, however the heads flow very well and have huge valves, but modern aftermarket windsor heads flow as well or better

The Cleveland crank journal actually has a smaller diameter and is better suited for high RPM use. 351C = 2.75" 351W/M & 400 = 3.0". The oiling system is only an issue at high RPMs and is not a problem at the 400HP level. Blocks have paper thin cylinder walls. The oiling and block issues are huge reasons to go Clevor on a serious build with 4V heads.
The current NASCAR Ford block is a hybrid Windsor/Cleveland design with Cleveland style heads. They used the smaller crank journal design of the Cleveland for high RPM use but kept the stronger Windsor block design and improved on it.

[ford man]

Sounds like you're at least trying to establish a point of comparison, though, so that's hard to follow though with unless we put down examples and ask how much they cost.

Not meaning to pick on you in particular, but lots of folks have a tendency to make wild claims of "xxx horsepower is easy and cheap if you start with yyy" without anything to back themselves up, or better yet, with no more experience than I have. On the more extreme side, the implication could be interpreted to be that if you get the motor free and throw new rings and bearings at it for $75 or $100 and stick in a $50 Summit or PAW cam you'll instantly be making a HP number people will respect. Hopefully no one actually thinks that, but it's good not to sound that way either.

And now I'll shut up and see if smarter folks than myself have edumacational factoids to share about 335-series engines.

I don't think my comments were that hard to wrap your head around. A 300 hp cleveland is a stock rebuild with a flat tappet cam. A 4 barrel carb and intake is a given. 300 hp is not a wild claim, these motors were available with over 300 hp from the factory. If a engine only needs rings and bearings and you stick in a flat tappet cam then yes you would be making 300 hp in a cleveland.

Sorry I don't have 'examples' to help you follow along. I'm not a machine shop or car craft magazine. If you care enough about the topic you can do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

I think my original point was that a 300 hp cleveland would be cheaper to do than a 400 + cleveland. It would be a good value compared to a windsor at that power level. It wouldn't cost more than a windsor to build to 300 hp because the cleveland would be stock and the windsor would need some sort of head work.

The cleveland is a better performance package from the factory. The windsor wasn't respected as a performer until the aftermarket opened up in the last twenty years to cater to it.

I'm of the opinion that if everyone built 302s and 350s the car hobby wouldn't be as interesting.

[87gtVIC]

Keep it civil please guys. Nobody learns anything by being ridiculed. But please keep up the discussion. Much is to be learned here.

[flyb0t]

Keep it civil please guys. Nobody learns anything by being ridiculed. But please keep up the discussion. Much is to be learned here.

Second. Don't wanna start a flame war, but this is bringing out a lot of very pertinent information that I and many others can use!

[zoomie]

Second. Don't wanna start a flame war, but this is bringing out a lot of very pertinent information that I and many others can use!

check out john kaase nuff said, if i had my choice it would use a cleveland, i test drove a 72 stang with one in it , it barked the tires without much provocation at all, and it was quick, too bad the braking system was shot so i never got a chance to open her up

[flyb0t]

alright, was just out there today. Didn't get a casting number, didn't have enough time, but the guy said it was a 2V from 1971. Hopefully when I go out there tomorrow I can see it a bit more up close.

[Mercracer]

alright, was just out there today. Didn't get a casting number, didn't have enough time, but the guy said it was a 2V from 1971. Hopefully when I go out there tomorrow I can see it a bit more up close.

The heads will have 2V cast into the top on the intake manifold side corners when viewed from the top. The valve covers do not cover this up. The actual casting numbers are under the intake ports so you can not see them with the heads on the engine and the intake manifold bolted down. They are not really important for 2V heads as they did not change significantly from 1970-1974.

[Mercracer]

Any updates?

[PushnFords]

A '70 351C 4V is factory rated at 300HP with 11:1 compression. I think the 2V version was around 240-250HP. For a street car I wouldn't worry about a 4V motor because the power is all upper RPM. You really need a high stall and deep gears to use it. For a good performing street motor get some closed chamber 2V heads and an aftermarket intake to put a four barrel carb on it. It'll make power in much more usable RPM ranges. The Aussie heads are nice but I wouldn't go to the time or expense of finding some unless you are really going for specific performance goals. An AOD might not last long behind anything but a stock engine though. I knew a guy that stuck a Cleveland in a fox body and I think the main problem was the manifolds ran right into the firewall. They ended up getting some shorty headers and running around it though.

[Mercracer]

A '70 351C 4V is factory rated at 300HP with 11:1 compression. I think the 2V version was around 240-250HP. For a street car I wouldn't worry about a 4V motor because the power is all upper RPM. You really need a high stall and deep gears to use it. For a good performing street motor get some closed chamber 2V heads and an aftermarket intake to put a four barrel carb on it. It'll make power in much more usable RPM ranges. The Aussie heads are nice but I wouldn't go to the time or expense of finding some unless you are really going for specific performance goals. An AOD might not last long behind anything but a stock engine though. I knew a guy that stuck a Cleveland in a fox body and I think the main problem was the manifolds ran right into the firewall. They ended up getting some shorty headers and running around it though.

I ran mid 14s with a 4V motor with a stock FMX (stock converter) that slipped 2nd to 3rd badly and all it had was 3.50 gears. It had plenty of torque. I ran plenty of different 4V Clevelands on the street in the 80s. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. This site is full of stock 302s and HO conversions. A Cleveland 4V Powered Panther would be in the upper 10% ...

[PushnFords]

I ran mid 14s with a 4V motor with a stock FMX (stock converter) that slipped 2nd to 3rd badly and all it had was 3.50 gears. It had plenty of torque. I ran plenty of different 4V Clevelands on the street in the 80s. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. This site is full of stock 302s and HO conversions. A Cleveland 4V Powered Panther would be in the upper 10% ...

My '70 Ranchero was stock except for a 600 Edelbrock, Pertronix Ignition, and a C6 instead of an FMX swapped in. Rear gearing was 3.00:1 and I ran a 14.9 with the timing set at 0 because of detonation problems. Not really sure how heavy the car was but my '68 Chevelle owning friend riding with me was impressed.

I would like to see someone do this conversion...it doesn't fit the goals of my current CV but I have several Clevelands...one has been tanked and is ready to machine...ALL of the new parts needed (roller rockers, adj studs, valves, timing chain, pistons, etc.) have been purchased. The rods have been polished and a balance job partially done...it was going to go in my Ranchero before I decided it was parked for good. It would be fast...but I bought the CV to have a better mpg cruiser.

[Merc302]

A lot of folks here (including me) reuse the stock fuel line, and pinch off/remove the fuel return line to the tank. The pump is inside the tank, so that will have to be removed or bypassed. I took mine out and made a pickup tube and then ran an external inline pump when I converted from CFI to carb. If I had to do it again I would have replaced the fuel line when I did the swap, just for one less thing to worry about.

Im going 85 GM 302 CFI to carb and im trying to figure out my fuel pump solution
Id really like mechanical but im totally down for whatever is cheaper/easier

[flyb0t]

Sorry about the lack of updates, college happened haha. Haven't been on it as much.

As for the swap, is it feasible in terms of consumption? Over the last month or so the GM has been sucking down fuel like nobody's business..new EGR valve, sensor, belts, already did a cap and rotor change, new plug wires, new fuel injectors for the CFI...still quite fuel consumptive. The question then becomes, if tuned right, would the Cleveland be a bit more efficient? I know the numbers (if it is more efficient) aren't gonna be world-shattering, but I'd still prefer better than 7 MPG in city..lol.

[1990LTD]

I've heard 351c's were horrible on gas, but 7mpg is also horrible (do you get that with your CFI?)