Do not bring back old posts
DRW1000
04-13-2005, 06:03 AM
I responded to the thread 351 Cleveland because I was interested in asking a couple of questions. The post prior to mine was 4-12-05. It genereated a response from GTStang (moderator) to not "bring back old Threads" and it was then promptly closed.
This is an exert from "please read before posting" in the top page of the Mustang Hierarchy.
"BE COURTEOUS: AVOID DUPLICATE POSTS
Do not post the same discussion more than once on a discussion forum or on many forums. Duplicate discussions can be frustrating for other members, especially for those whose time and energy is limited. Weeding through the same discussion in multiple locations can be not only frustrating, but down right annoying. Duplicate discussions will be deleted. Reposting the same message repeatedly can be interpreted as SPAM and could result in the loss of your membership.
I believe this is suggesting that we do not keep starting threads on topics that have been discussed before. That is what I tried to do. Am I not allowed to ask a question on an existing discussion because I was not involved with it a couple of months ago? I find this to be confusing at best. It sounds like I should not start a new thread AND I can't join one that has existed in the past. Let us not forget that this thread was active when I posted
This is an exert from "please read before posting" in the top page of the Mustang Hierarchy.
"BE COURTEOUS: AVOID DUPLICATE POSTS
Do not post the same discussion more than once on a discussion forum or on many forums. Duplicate discussions can be frustrating for other members, especially for those whose time and energy is limited. Weeding through the same discussion in multiple locations can be not only frustrating, but down right annoying. Duplicate discussions will be deleted. Reposting the same message repeatedly can be interpreted as SPAM and could result in the loss of your membership.
I believe this is suggesting that we do not keep starting threads on topics that have been discussed before. That is what I tried to do. Am I not allowed to ask a question on an existing discussion because I was not involved with it a couple of months ago? I find this to be confusing at best. It sounds like I should not start a new thread AND I can't join one that has existed in the past. Let us not forget that this thread was active when I posted
mjcobra18
04-13-2005, 06:41 PM
i thought this forum was to help people?
apparently its too much too ask if you have a question on an old topic
apparently its too much too ask if you have a question on an old topic
dampachi
04-13-2005, 08:00 PM
"Please do not bring back old threads" was directed to mr ghostdog.
GTStang
04-13-2005, 09:14 PM
I responded to the thread 351 Cleveland because I was interested in asking a couple of questions. The post prior to mine was 4-12-05. It genereated a response from GTStang (moderator) to not "bring back old Threads" and it was then promptly closed.
This is an exert from "please read before posting" in the top page of the Mustang Hierarchy.
"BE COURTEOUS: AVOID DUPLICATE POSTS
Do not post the same discussion more than once on a discussion forum or on many forums. Duplicate discussions can be frustrating for other members, especially for those whose time and energy is limited. Weeding through the same discussion in multiple locations can be not only frustrating, but down right annoying. Duplicate discussions will be deleted. Reposting the same message repeatedly can be interpreted as SPAM and could result in the loss of your membership.
I believe this is suggesting that we do not keep starting threads on topics that have been discussed before. That is what I tried to do. Am I not allowed to ask a question on an existing discussion because I was not involved with it a couple of months ago? I find this to be confusing at best. It sounds like I should not start a new thread AND I can't join one that has existed in the past. Let us not forget that this thread was active when I posted
I did not right the Mustang Heirarchy and the bottom line is AF rules will always superceed them. Do not bring back old threads is a long time AF rule. If you want to talk about the subject at hand start a new thread.
The Mustang Heirarchy posting rule is more aimed at things like coverting my 4cyl to a V8, auto to manual conversion questions that do not need to be be brought up again cause there is a shitload of each of these already.
Sorry if this is confusing but I'm sure if you'll figure it out.
This is an exert from "please read before posting" in the top page of the Mustang Hierarchy.
"BE COURTEOUS: AVOID DUPLICATE POSTS
Do not post the same discussion more than once on a discussion forum or on many forums. Duplicate discussions can be frustrating for other members, especially for those whose time and energy is limited. Weeding through the same discussion in multiple locations can be not only frustrating, but down right annoying. Duplicate discussions will be deleted. Reposting the same message repeatedly can be interpreted as SPAM and could result in the loss of your membership.
I believe this is suggesting that we do not keep starting threads on topics that have been discussed before. That is what I tried to do. Am I not allowed to ask a question on an existing discussion because I was not involved with it a couple of months ago? I find this to be confusing at best. It sounds like I should not start a new thread AND I can't join one that has existed in the past. Let us not forget that this thread was active when I posted
I did not right the Mustang Heirarchy and the bottom line is AF rules will always superceed them. Do not bring back old threads is a long time AF rule. If you want to talk about the subject at hand start a new thread.
The Mustang Heirarchy posting rule is more aimed at things like coverting my 4cyl to a V8, auto to manual conversion questions that do not need to be be brought up again cause there is a shitload of each of these already.
Sorry if this is confusing but I'm sure if you'll figure it out.
GTStang
04-13-2005, 09:17 PM
i thought this forum was to help people?
apparently its too much too ask if you have a question on an old topic
Yes you figured it out.... my dream has/was/and always will be, to take time from my day and my car to help out fellow Stang owners by answering their questions. And then in return have to deal with their shitty attitudes.
apparently its too much too ask if you have a question on an old topic
Yes you figured it out.... my dream has/was/and always will be, to take time from my day and my car to help out fellow Stang owners by answering their questions. And then in return have to deal with their shitty attitudes.
mjcobra18
04-13-2005, 09:51 PM
hehe im sorry i didnt know the whole story, now i do
duplox
04-14-2005, 09:37 AM
Well, since you already started a new thread, why not answer your questions here.
No all 351cs did not all have the same heads. There were about 6 different heads available in the US, and two more in australia. So there is a total of 8 different 351c cylinder heads. Here is the general rundown, with the countries available next to it:
2v Open Chamber(OC) 351c - USA + AUS
2v Open Chamber 351m/400 - USA + AUS
2v Semi Quench 302c - AUS
2v Quench or Closed Chamber(CC) 302c - AUS
4v OC 2.19/1.71 - USA
4v CC - USA
4v OC 2.05/1.65 - USA
Boss 351 - USA
Then you have one other cleveland cylinder head, the Boss 302 head. It was a 351c 4v CC head that had a few small modifications to it. In 1969 it came with 2.25/1.75" valves. In 1970 they changed to the standard 2.19/1.71 valves. The Boss heads had the screw in pedistal rocker perches milled to accept adjustable rockers, which is a standard high performance upgrade to normal 351c heads.
So a 351c 4v head with a bit of milling is just as good as the Boss cylinder heads. Thats the only difference(besides boss 302 valve sizes in 1969, but you can have bigger valves installed in the heads as well).
Open Chamber 351c 2v are the most common 351c head. They've got big chambers that have no 'quench' area - the chamber takes up the entire bore. Sizes of the chamber range from around 76cc-82cc, it varies wildly from casting to casting.
The open chamber 351m/400 is more common than the 351c 2v OC head. This is because all 351m and 400 engines came with these heads, although there are myths of 4v headed 400s out of the factory. I've never seen evidence of one, however. I believe there is some Ford documentation on at least a plan to build a 4v 400, but other than this small reference, there is nothing.
The 351m/400 heads are almost the same as the 351c 2v OC heads, except they have a 'bump' in the exhaust chamber. It is actually a water jacket that was added around the exhaust valve guide, which takes up the entire bowl and heavily restricts airflow. These are the underachievers of the 351c head family.
Now we jump the pond over the Australia. Australia used the 351c much longer than in the USA - over 10 years versus the State's 4(5 if you count the Boss 302). They used Clevelands largely in the place of windsors - a cleveland is more common over than a windsor. However, there was a need for an engine smaller than 351 cubic inches, since the 302 windsor was not widely used. Ford Australia responded by casting up 3" stroke cleveland cranks, making a 302 cleveland. However, with the large chambers of the OC 2v heads, compression was extremely low after losing 50 cubic inches. Ford Australia decided to take the 4v closed chamber and put it on a 2v head, creating the 2v CC head, or as its referred to in the states as the "Aussie" head. These usually have combustion chamber sizes around 56-60ccs.
This chamber was too small for some uses of the 302c, and something in the middle of the OC and CC head was required. Ford Australia came up with the semi quench head, which was simply a larger chamber version of the CC head. I believe chamber size was around 70-72ccs, but you don't hear much about these heads, so its difficult to say for sure.
Back to the US. The 4v series of heads were mainly only available in the US, but there may have been a few(a couple thousand perhaps) may have been equipped in AUS cars. I'm not sure, if anyone knows better, feel free to correct me.
The 4vs had huge valves and ports, which were oversized for a 351 cubic inch street car. Velocity in the port was terrible, giving the engine very little power until you hit around 3000-3500rpm. After that, hold on! The 4v OC head was designed for lower compression, a result of the gas crisis in the 70s. The 4v OC head is not a very desireable head, it has big ports that are only good for high RPMs, and a big chamber which lends itself to low RPMs. Its only logical use is in blower applications where a low compression ratio is neccesary for boosting.
The 351C 4v CC head is the most desireable head for N/A power. The oversize intake ports can be 'stuffed' with aluminum inserts to increase velocity and give the engine more low end torque. The chambers are roughly 64ccs and 'heart shaped'. More like a rounded, lopsided triangle in my opinion.
The OC 351 2.05/1.71 head is a 4v head with narrowed valve throats so they are able to take 2v sized valves. This was an attempt to gain some low end torque in the 4vs. It worked a little bit, not as much as the intake stuffers would help, but it wasn't an effort gone to waste.
Boss 351 heads I've already explained. Simply 4v CC heads with milled pedistals for adjustable rockers.
That about does it. I'm no expert on Windsors, but I'm sure someone else on here can answer that question for you.
"By the way I think that any Windsor (289, 302 and 351) as well as any Cleveland (351, 400) can perform if one wants to put the time, effort and money into it."
For a street application, absolutely. But given a regulated competition(like drag racing), with limited displacements, the 351c usually does slightly better. Cleveland derivative heads have won the most championships for Ford, but thats probably because it is the standard smallblock head for almost all Ford racing(nascar especially). I'm not implying the windsor is a bad motor, its probably a better choice for the street since they have such large aftermarket support.
In response to mr_ghostdog:
" the cleveland is my all means much heavier that the windsor counterpart."
The 351c weighs 30lbs more than a 351w. If you consider everything that goes with the engine(radiator, accessories) a 1973 351w 2v weighs 592.69lbs, and a 1973 351c 2v weighs 604.02lbs.. 11.5lbs difference.
"you should seriously consider fixing the one thing the cleveland does badly, the oiling system. its a simple fix. remove the oil plug next to the stock filter. run a brake line from this new hole up and back to the rear sender location. use a t-fitting to reinstall the stock sender in its original location. problem solved."
The terrible 351c oiling system is largely a myth. It has the same oiling system as many common and successful engines. Like any engine, the oiling system needs some improving once you get much over its stock RPM redline. The external oiling line seems to work for some people, but for a lot of people it doesn't do much. Certainly a lot of racer ran the external oil line, but they also had many other modifications. The best oiling system 'fix' I know of is to bush the lifter bores and drill a small hole in the bushing, so the bushing acts as an oil restrictor. The main problem with the 351c oiling system is it tends to dump all its oil in the passenger side valve cover, so restricting flow to the lifters will greatly improve oil pressure and flow to the rest of the engine.
No all 351cs did not all have the same heads. There were about 6 different heads available in the US, and two more in australia. So there is a total of 8 different 351c cylinder heads. Here is the general rundown, with the countries available next to it:
2v Open Chamber(OC) 351c - USA + AUS
2v Open Chamber 351m/400 - USA + AUS
2v Semi Quench 302c - AUS
2v Quench or Closed Chamber(CC) 302c - AUS
4v OC 2.19/1.71 - USA
4v CC - USA
4v OC 2.05/1.65 - USA
Boss 351 - USA
Then you have one other cleveland cylinder head, the Boss 302 head. It was a 351c 4v CC head that had a few small modifications to it. In 1969 it came with 2.25/1.75" valves. In 1970 they changed to the standard 2.19/1.71 valves. The Boss heads had the screw in pedistal rocker perches milled to accept adjustable rockers, which is a standard high performance upgrade to normal 351c heads.
So a 351c 4v head with a bit of milling is just as good as the Boss cylinder heads. Thats the only difference(besides boss 302 valve sizes in 1969, but you can have bigger valves installed in the heads as well).
Open Chamber 351c 2v are the most common 351c head. They've got big chambers that have no 'quench' area - the chamber takes up the entire bore. Sizes of the chamber range from around 76cc-82cc, it varies wildly from casting to casting.
The open chamber 351m/400 is more common than the 351c 2v OC head. This is because all 351m and 400 engines came with these heads, although there are myths of 4v headed 400s out of the factory. I've never seen evidence of one, however. I believe there is some Ford documentation on at least a plan to build a 4v 400, but other than this small reference, there is nothing.
The 351m/400 heads are almost the same as the 351c 2v OC heads, except they have a 'bump' in the exhaust chamber. It is actually a water jacket that was added around the exhaust valve guide, which takes up the entire bowl and heavily restricts airflow. These are the underachievers of the 351c head family.
Now we jump the pond over the Australia. Australia used the 351c much longer than in the USA - over 10 years versus the State's 4(5 if you count the Boss 302). They used Clevelands largely in the place of windsors - a cleveland is more common over than a windsor. However, there was a need for an engine smaller than 351 cubic inches, since the 302 windsor was not widely used. Ford Australia responded by casting up 3" stroke cleveland cranks, making a 302 cleveland. However, with the large chambers of the OC 2v heads, compression was extremely low after losing 50 cubic inches. Ford Australia decided to take the 4v closed chamber and put it on a 2v head, creating the 2v CC head, or as its referred to in the states as the "Aussie" head. These usually have combustion chamber sizes around 56-60ccs.
This chamber was too small for some uses of the 302c, and something in the middle of the OC and CC head was required. Ford Australia came up with the semi quench head, which was simply a larger chamber version of the CC head. I believe chamber size was around 70-72ccs, but you don't hear much about these heads, so its difficult to say for sure.
Back to the US. The 4v series of heads were mainly only available in the US, but there may have been a few(a couple thousand perhaps) may have been equipped in AUS cars. I'm not sure, if anyone knows better, feel free to correct me.
The 4vs had huge valves and ports, which were oversized for a 351 cubic inch street car. Velocity in the port was terrible, giving the engine very little power until you hit around 3000-3500rpm. After that, hold on! The 4v OC head was designed for lower compression, a result of the gas crisis in the 70s. The 4v OC head is not a very desireable head, it has big ports that are only good for high RPMs, and a big chamber which lends itself to low RPMs. Its only logical use is in blower applications where a low compression ratio is neccesary for boosting.
The 351C 4v CC head is the most desireable head for N/A power. The oversize intake ports can be 'stuffed' with aluminum inserts to increase velocity and give the engine more low end torque. The chambers are roughly 64ccs and 'heart shaped'. More like a rounded, lopsided triangle in my opinion.
The OC 351 2.05/1.71 head is a 4v head with narrowed valve throats so they are able to take 2v sized valves. This was an attempt to gain some low end torque in the 4vs. It worked a little bit, not as much as the intake stuffers would help, but it wasn't an effort gone to waste.
Boss 351 heads I've already explained. Simply 4v CC heads with milled pedistals for adjustable rockers.
That about does it. I'm no expert on Windsors, but I'm sure someone else on here can answer that question for you.
"By the way I think that any Windsor (289, 302 and 351) as well as any Cleveland (351, 400) can perform if one wants to put the time, effort and money into it."
For a street application, absolutely. But given a regulated competition(like drag racing), with limited displacements, the 351c usually does slightly better. Cleveland derivative heads have won the most championships for Ford, but thats probably because it is the standard smallblock head for almost all Ford racing(nascar especially). I'm not implying the windsor is a bad motor, its probably a better choice for the street since they have such large aftermarket support.
In response to mr_ghostdog:
" the cleveland is my all means much heavier that the windsor counterpart."
The 351c weighs 30lbs more than a 351w. If you consider everything that goes with the engine(radiator, accessories) a 1973 351w 2v weighs 592.69lbs, and a 1973 351c 2v weighs 604.02lbs.. 11.5lbs difference.
"you should seriously consider fixing the one thing the cleveland does badly, the oiling system. its a simple fix. remove the oil plug next to the stock filter. run a brake line from this new hole up and back to the rear sender location. use a t-fitting to reinstall the stock sender in its original location. problem solved."
The terrible 351c oiling system is largely a myth. It has the same oiling system as many common and successful engines. Like any engine, the oiling system needs some improving once you get much over its stock RPM redline. The external oiling line seems to work for some people, but for a lot of people it doesn't do much. Certainly a lot of racer ran the external oil line, but they also had many other modifications. The best oiling system 'fix' I know of is to bush the lifter bores and drill a small hole in the bushing, so the bushing acts as an oil restrictor. The main problem with the 351c oiling system is it tends to dump all its oil in the passenger side valve cover, so restricting flow to the lifters will greatly improve oil pressure and flow to the rest of the engine.
DRW1000
04-14-2005, 05:45 PM
I did not right the Mustang Heirarchy and the bottom line is AF rules will always superceed them. Do not bring back old threads is a long time AF rule. If you want to talk about the subject at hand start a new thread.
The Mustang Heirarchy posting rule is more aimed at things like coverting my 4cyl to a V8, auto to manual conversion questions that do not need to be be brought up again cause there is a shitload of each of these already.
Sorry if this is confusing but I'm sure if you'll figure it out.
Well Mr GTStang the nobody wrote the "Mustang Hierarchy". It is not a document but rather a group of things arranged in successive order. This is similar to considering the hierarchy of a Hard Drive. Everything is under C and then grouped into folders and subfolders.... This is the way AF is structured. The quote came from a level above this particular part of AF. Here is the link
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=167
I was not quoting fro other forums but from Automotive Forums.
Old is also relative. How can a thread a couple of months old be old when the topic is based on enginges made 30 years ago? Why would we want 2 threads on this topic? Wouldn't that just cause duplicate questions?
The Mustang Heirarchy posting rule is more aimed at things like coverting my 4cyl to a V8, auto to manual conversion questions that do not need to be be brought up again cause there is a shitload of each of these already.
Sorry if this is confusing but I'm sure if you'll figure it out.
Well Mr GTStang the nobody wrote the "Mustang Hierarchy". It is not a document but rather a group of things arranged in successive order. This is similar to considering the hierarchy of a Hard Drive. Everything is under C and then grouped into folders and subfolders.... This is the way AF is structured. The quote came from a level above this particular part of AF. Here is the link
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=167
I was not quoting fro other forums but from Automotive Forums.
Old is also relative. How can a thread a couple of months old be old when the topic is based on enginges made 30 years ago? Why would we want 2 threads on this topic? Wouldn't that just cause duplicate questions?
DRW1000
04-14-2005, 05:52 PM
Yes you figured it out.... my dream has/was/and always will be, to take time from my day and my car to help out fellow Stang owners by answering their questions. And then in return have to deal with their shitty attitudes.
I don't think a moderator's job is to answer every question posted but rather to ensure that abuse and abusive language is not used. We all take time out to help fellow Stang owners or to ask questions not just yourself.
Just who's attitude are you referring?
I don't think a moderator's job is to answer every question posted but rather to ensure that abuse and abusive language is not used. We all take time out to help fellow Stang owners or to ask questions not just yourself.
Just who's attitude are you referring?
DRW1000
04-14-2005, 05:53 PM
Thanks Duplox..................You answered pretty much everything I wanted to know and more.
tturnpaw
04-15-2005, 12:52 AM
Well, since you already started a new thread, why not answer your questions here.
No all 351cs did not all have the same heads. There were about 6 different heads available in the US, and two more in australia. So there is a total of 8 different 351c cylinder heads. Here is the general rundown, with the countries available next to it:
2v Open Chamber(OC) 351c - USA + AUS
2v Open Chamber 351m/400 - USA + AUS
2v Semi Quench 302c - AUS
2v Quench or Closed Chamber(CC) 302c - AUS
4v OC 2.19/1.71 - USA
4v CC - USA
4v OC 2.05/1.65 - USA
Boss 351 - USA
How do you people know this shit???? Jeeze. We should just run threads about power gains on her since its under "performance"
No all 351cs did not all have the same heads. There were about 6 different heads available in the US, and two more in australia. So there is a total of 8 different 351c cylinder heads. Here is the general rundown, with the countries available next to it:
2v Open Chamber(OC) 351c - USA + AUS
2v Open Chamber 351m/400 - USA + AUS
2v Semi Quench 302c - AUS
2v Quench or Closed Chamber(CC) 302c - AUS
4v OC 2.19/1.71 - USA
4v CC - USA
4v OC 2.05/1.65 - USA
Boss 351 - USA
How do you people know this shit???? Jeeze. We should just run threads about power gains on her since its under "performance"
GTStang
04-15-2005, 01:43 AM
Question answered, discussion over, thread closed!
Make-up another thread about why I closed this or the other thread your gone.
P.S. If you don't like it talk Igor or Jacob.
Make-up another thread about why I closed this or the other thread your gone.
P.S. If you don't like it talk Igor or Jacob.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026