351c vs 454 - Page 2 - Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum
FordMuscleForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-08-2010, 06:23 PM   #16 (permalink)
Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 299
Re: 351c vs 454

LOL arm chair racing. We have set a date at the local drag strip. Its march 20th. I will post ets.
__________________
1971 Mach 1 468cid 4SP, 3 55 Gears
1967 Fastback GT 395cid 4v 4SP 3 55 gears
1967 Coupe 357c 4v CC heads 4SP 3 80 gears
machwone is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-09-2010, 06:06 AM   #17 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 35.753983 N, 91.634603 W
Posts: 5,551
Re: 351c vs 454

Will be interesting. Those 454's are no slouches when they're built correctly. Even the poorest oval port heads are ahead of anything Ford offers (factory iron stuff). With just a little bit of work and the right cam & compression those tiny oval port heads have been known to help support 650 HP.

Forgot about the peanut port heads...don't know much about 'em though...and if he's got rectangle port heads, you may have a chance. His cam is TINY for a BBC. A "mild" BBC cam with rect. port heads, 10.5:1 compression and good intake & exhaust will get you 600+ HP. We work on an airboat that is a STOCK cam 454 (idles at 400 RPM...and smooth as silk), Edelbrock intake with a 950 CFM carb and a set of cheapie stainless 2" dia headers...and this thing made 502 HP at 4800 RPM on the dyno. They respond well to basic mods.....but they're heavier than a cleveland.

There's a reason you see so many BBC's at the drag strips....

Subscribing.....
__________________
GET OUT & VOTE THIS NOVEMBER!!
mavman is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-09-2010, 08:19 AM   #18 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: central NY 13208
Posts: 6,355
Re: 351c vs 454

so many BBC at the drags, the real fast ones don't have one OEM part. somebody doest know their 460 Fords ,
DanH is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-10-2010, 12:29 AM   #19 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down Under!!!
Posts: 105
Re: 351c vs 454

Quote:
Originally Posted by plovett View Post
Cubic inches don't make torque either, at least not by itself.
paulie
Thats an interesting comment. What does make torque by itself?

The sure fire way to make torque is extra cubic inches. Yes, the smaller cubes can match the power by spinning it faster and if the heads can suport it, but all things equal, the mores cubes will make more torque, can't dispute that.
__________________
10.74 at 125mph.
3550 pound fat azzed 4 door streeter
Cleveland, AFD 2V heads, TFC 2V, 750 Double Pumper carb.
AFD357 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-10-2010, 06:24 AM   #20 (permalink)
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 425
Re: 351c vs 454

There was a saying, "there is no replacement for displacement" and for a while that was true. But now I think the saying should be "it's not cubic inches, it's cubic dollars!"
Bullitt331 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-10-2010, 10:02 AM   #21 (permalink)
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,741
Re: 351c vs 454

Actually the Cleveland is a descendant of the bbc. The design for canted valves came with Bunkie Knudsen to Ford from Chevy in 1968 when Bunkie left Gm for Ford. That is why the Clevelands have a bad (chevy style) oiling system as well. I don't know why they used it, the Ford system is better.
The matter of fact is both engines have lots of potential. Canted valves are simply a lot better than inline ones.
Now you really have to look at what the engines are in, and the modifications that have been done to the engines. For example my mustang has a 302 and my dad's truck has a 454 which one is faster? Well the 302 is; because the car is much lighter than the truck, and the 302 is built up well whereas the 454 is stock.
ujt389 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-10-2010, 01:00 PM   #22 (permalink)
Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 299
Re: 351c vs 454

Quote:
Originally Posted by ujt389 View Post
Actually the Cleveland is a descendant of the bbc. The design for canted valves came with Bunkie Knudsen to Ford from Chevy in 1968 when Bunkie left Gm for Ford. That is why the Clevelands have a bad (chevy style) oiling system as well. I don't know why they used it, the Ford system is better.
The matter of fact is both engines have lots of potential. Canted valves are simply a lot better than inline ones.
Now you really have to look at what the engines are in, and the modifications that have been done to the engines. For example my mustang has a 302 and my dad's truck has a 454 which one is faster? Well the 302 is; because the car is much lighter than the truck, and the 302 is built up well whereas the 454 is stock.
Thank you!! I was doing a cam swap on his 454 and was surprised on how much the rocker arms and valves were the same as a C.
__________________
1971 Mach 1 468cid 4SP, 3 55 Gears
1967 Fastback GT 395cid 4v 4SP 3 55 gears
1967 Coupe 357c 4v CC heads 4SP 3 80 gears
machwone is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-10-2010, 01:46 PM   #23 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 391
Re: 351c vs 454

Quote:
Originally Posted by ujt389 View Post
Actually the Cleveland is a descendant of the bbc. The design for canted valves came with Bunkie Knudsen to Ford from Chevy in 1968 when Bunkie left Gm for Ford. That is why the Clevelands have a bad (chevy style) oiling system as well. I don't know why they used it, the Ford system is better.
The matter of fact is both engines have lots of potential. Canted valves are simply a lot better than inline ones.
Now you really have to look at what the engines are in, and the modifications that have been done to the engines. For example my mustang has a 302 and my dad's truck has a 454 which one is faster? Well the 302 is; because the car is much lighter than the truck, and the 302 is built up well whereas the 454 is stock.
STOP, back up. Take some time to visit the 351Cleveland.net board and talk to the bubbas over there about 335 Series history. Ford was working on the 335/385 Series canted valve head designs well before old Bunkie was hired away from GM in 1968. Are there similarities? Yes. But that also goes for the orignators of poly-angle valves in productions cars, the old Plymouth Polyspherical head engines from the 1950's. Of course the W-head motors from GM of that same era (348/409) had splayed valves as did the mid-60's US designed Aussie Hemi 6 which predates the 335/385 Series engines in design but not in production. The 215/245/265 6's used a poly-angle valve arrangement--not a true Hemi design. If anything, Ford engineers studied the heck out of those earlier attempts and improved on the designs. Even Kaase has stated in PHR that the 429/460 valve angle are better than the BBC valve angles while the 351C valve angles are almost perfect and one area he rarely touches (I'm paraprashing, wouldn't want to take the gentleman out of context). As for the roller rockers, yes, BBC rockers will interchange with 335/385 rockers HOWEVER the pushrod cup angle is wrong and over time will wear faster....again, one of the differences WELL discussed by the 351 Gurus.

Last edited by xafalcongs; 03-10-2010 at 01:54 PM.
xafalcongs is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-10-2010, 04:08 PM   #24 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,138
Re: 351c vs 454

Quote:
Originally Posted by AFD357 View Post
Thats an interesting comment. What does make torque by itself?

The sure fire way to make torque is extra cubic inches. Yes, the smaller cubes can match the power by spinning it faster and if the heads can suport it, but all things equal, the mores cubes will make more torque, can't dispute that.
Well maybe it seems like splitting hairs, but I'd say torque is the product of cubic inches and volumetric efficiency, not cubic inches alone.

Otherwise every 450 cubic inch engine would make the same torque at the same rpm. They don't because they don't all fill the same size cylinder equally.

Now you said, "all things equal, the more cubes will make more torque". I would agree with that.

That said, I don't even pay attention to torque anymore. It doesn't mean anything without knowing the rpm it occurs at. And if you know the rpm then you can convert it to horsepower which is a much more useful measure of power. 500 ft/lbs of torque at 3000 rpm is very different than 500 ft/lbs at 6000 rpm. The power to accelerate the car has doubled in the second case even though the torque value is the same.

JMO,

paulie
__________________
1967 Cougar. 517 hp. 432 cid FE. C6, 9 inch rear.
plovett is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-10-2010, 04:41 PM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: central NY 13208
Posts: 6,355
Re: 351c vs 454

Quote:
Originally Posted by ujt389 View Post
Actually the Cleveland is a descendant of the bbc. The design for canted valves came with Bunkie Knudsen to Ford from Chevy in 1968 when Bunkie left Gm for Ford. That is why the Clevelands have a bad (chevy style) oiling system as well. I don't know why they used it, the Ford system is better.
The matter of fact is both engines have lots of potential. Canted valves are simply a lot better than inline ones.
Now you really have to look at what the engines are in, and the modifications that have been done to the engines. For example my mustang has a 302 and my dad's truck has a 454 which one is faster? Well the 302 is; because the car is much lighter than the truck, and the 302 is built up well whereas the 454 is stock.
how do you explain the 1968 BB460 , some were built in 67 for the next model year. thats before BK to Ford in 68. who was copying who. well Chry. has the old wide small block back in the mid 50's with rotated valves like the twisted wedge, little cant to the valves and you got 385 , 335 ,bbc , so who cares ? lucky we got them
DanH is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-10-2010, 11:38 PM   #26 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pullman, WA
Posts: 2,617
Garage
Re: 351c vs 454

My Ranger with an iron-headed 289 blows away my brothers 72 mach1 with an aluminum headed 460. And before you say it, yes there is some weight difference but not near as much as you would think... Maybe 400lbs. Plain and simple, I have a pretty well thought out combo and spent some time dialing it in, He's got great heads and decent cam, but a performer intake, and factory manifolds, and probably most important, he's never been able to tune the thing very well!

My point is, just one or two parts of the engine, or even an improper tune, can turn any engine into a dog. Most average joes don't know a thing about tuning, so even if you do know what's under the hood, it may not perform up to its potential.

Quit arguing and just race the guy! :-)
__________________
'99 F250 4x4 V10; '85 Ranger, 350hp 289, T5, 12.9@110.5
"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it. Albert Einstein
Motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2010, 04:32 AM   #27 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 391
Re: 351c vs 454

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH View Post
how do you explain the 1968 BB460 , some were built in 67 for the next model year. thats before BK to Ford in 68. who was copying who. well Chry. has the old wide small block back in the mid 50's with rotated valves like the twisted wedge, little cant to the valves and you got 385 , 335 ,bbc , so who cares ? lucky we got them
Those old Chrysler motors were the Plymouth Poly-A small blocks. The Poly head would interchange between the Poly and the Dodge Red Ram Hemis IIRC. The Chrysler/Dodge engineers eventually tweeked the design while looking at producing a new 6cyl for their trucks. That 245ci poly headed 6-cyl was shelved by the US engineers. Chrysler Australia needed a new line of engines for local production and they wanted a 6-cyl that was bigger than the current 198/225 slant-6's. They picked up the design and ran with it. That "Hemi" 6cyl is a legend down there.

As for the Ford Canted valve heads, Ford had the small block head well developed by 1968 for the 1969 Boss 302 Mustang and the 1969 Trans Am season. The old Tunnel Port 302 wasn't beating the GM guys. If you look at the timelines, you see Ford was working on a lot of different cylinder head designs. They had the High Riser wedge heads down pat and were kicking a lot of butt on drag strips and oval tracks with the FE. They were looking for the performance advantage and were heavy into the OHC stuff in INDY. They tried to go that way with the NASCAR dumbasses with the 427 SOHC but when NASCAR nixed it, Ford went to the canted valve arrangements. The Boss 429 is not a true Hemi. You will find plenty of old documentation calling it a Semi-Hemi and Ford didn't place the valves directly across from each other in the chamber....the arrangement is actually a canted design in the extreme.
xafalcongs is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2010, 04:48 AM   #28 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: central NY 13208
Posts: 6,355
Re: 351c vs 454

I know the history of the Chry & Ford plus Chevy , didn't know about the 6 cyl .head . I see it pointless to say this company copyed from the other
DanH is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2010, 07:24 AM   #29 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Merkel, Tx
Posts: 9,251
Re: 351c vs 454

Quote:
That is why the Clevelands have a bad (chevy style) oiling system as well.
Right - not. Same as the BBF and you don't hear old tales about it's oiling system. See Buick and the small Dodge motors for a bad oiling system. Don't know about the BBC, but the SBC oil system has almost zero resemblance to any Ford oiling system.
__________________
1967 Falcon 4 door 351C - 70 Mustang 351C
Owner built, owner abused.
ckelly is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2010, 07:33 AM   #30 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Central West Virginia
Posts: 6,992
Re: 351c vs 454

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motorhead View Post
My Ranger with an iron-headed 289 blows away my brothers 72 mach1 with an aluminum headed 460. And before you say it, yes there is some weight difference but not near as much as you would think... Maybe 400lbs. Plain and simple, I have a pretty well thought out combo and spent some time dialing it in, He's got great heads and decent cam, but a performer intake, and factory manifolds, and probably most important, he's never been able to tune the thing very well!
My point is, just one or two parts of the engine, or even an improper tune, can turn any engine into a dog. Most average joes don't know a thing about tuning, so even if you do know what's under the hood, it may not perform up to its potential.
Quit arguing and just race the guy! :-)
Those big blocks are very heavy, both externally AND internally. As they come from the factory, they don't really rev that quick. They have a LOT of inertia to overcome. They work GREAT for pulling heavy loads, but can generally be beaten at the track by small blocks that produce less horsepower.

Heavy cars with tall gears do the best with big blocks.
Moderate level lighter weight cars generally do best with small blocks.

Of course, lightweight cranks, lightweight rods, lightweight pistons, aluminum flywheels and small converters immensely helps the revving ability of any engine, especially big blocks... and are generally found on fast big block setups.
__________________

66 Mustang, Toploader 4-speed
Pump Gas 306, 10.134@134.71
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
n2omike is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
difference between 351C-2V and 351C-4V fstemp Mustang Pages (1965-1973) 16 03-23-2013 07:58 PM
new cam/low vac. 4V 351C MACH72 All Ford Techboard 3 01-15-2008 09:04 PM
351C /w Aussies: Please help /w Spark plug T*, Chris Kelly or other 351C ppl. SteeLDawN All Ford Techboard 5 04-20-2003 03:38 AM
differences of 351C 70 and 351C 72 zICRONIx All Ford Techboard 3 11-28-2002 06:45 PM
AOD with 351C 70grande All Ford Techboard 8 05-28-2002 12:46 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
 

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.