A 351W is a small block, a lot of 302 parts are compatible. Parts are easier to find, and more of them are built up.

351C, my personal fav., is a block from the 335[i think] engine series. Not too many parts fit from a small block.

The bore and stroke are the same. Windsor's water outlet from the block is through the manifold in the front, cleve. is just straight from the front top of the block.

I know I missed a lot, but that's the basics to me

 

both are small blocks. They both take small block bellhousings. The main differences are the heads. The cleveland has a canted valve lay out, with HUGE ports and valves. There are 2 different CLEVELANDS that is there were 2v and 4v. Both had more than generous ports, and valves. The big cleveland had 2.19" intake valves, and 1.71" exhaust valves. The intake ports could easily fit a lime into them.

Also the mains were smaller on the cleveland...2.75" I do believe. The 351C was only made 70-74 so the parts for it are just not as abundant as the more readily available 351 Windsor (go to australia where the Cleveland was built till the 80's and it is the opposite.) Because there are so many more Windsors out there than clevelands, the windsor got more attention with the aftermarket. Also a reason the aftermarket was so strong to the Windsor was because it was MUCH HARDER to make these go fast from the factory where as the Cleveland was much easier.

The 351 C was based after the BOSS 302, and was pretty much the same (more or less) as the BOSS 351.

Also, the cleveland Intake is dry, whereas the windsors is not.

Now maybe some Windsor people will come in and give you some more info...

 

Actually the Boss302 was based on the Cleveland. It just was rushed out to meet the Trans-Am needs early.

The cleveland block (351) is smaller than the Windsor block overall. 9.200" deck height C, 9.48,9.503" on Windsor.

In Australia, the 302 is from the Cleveland family! Never made in the US.

 

The C has oodles of horsepower more than a W

All of the above, plus the C has 2.749 mains vs the W's 3". C has a shorter rod due to it's deck - 5.78 vs 5.955. Piston pin heights are different - don't have those figures handy.

 

On 2003-11-20 23:51, allenman85 wrote:
Actually the Boss302 was based on the Cleveland. It just was rushed out to meet the Trans-Am needs early.

The only commonality between the Boss 302 and the 351C/Boss 351 is the heads. That's it.

 

So the Aussie Cleveland heads are actually 302 heads? I need a set for my C. These would be sweet....

Cleveland Engine Heads for sale | eBay

Get the best deals for Cleveland Engine Heads at eBay.com. We have a great online selection at the lowest prices with Fast & Free shipping on many items!

www.ebay.com

 

Mightymach, I do not agree with your statment:
Quote:
both are small blocks. They both take small block bellhousings. The main differences are the heads.

I would say that the only thing they have in common is the boltcircle for the bellhousing and heads.
And that the Cleveland has the same bore and stroke as the Windsor.
The rest of the 335 family (351M and 400M) has the same bellhousing bolt pattern as the 385 family (429 and 460).

Allenman85:
The Boss 302 has slightly modified Cleveland heads.
If I recall this correct, I think it´s the water passage to the intakemanifold thats differs, since the Cleveland doesn´t have water in the intake.
Other than the heads the Boss302 doen´t have anything in common with the Cleveland.

Have a nice weekend,
Jalle

 

Are you guys forgetting about the short-lived 302 tunnel port heads? They were developed for Trans-Am, before moving to the more readily available Cleveland heads...a bean counter solution to a performance problem.

The "Aussie" 2-v heads are suggested as an attempt to "civilize" the Clevelend heads for low rmp use on small block engines. Peak HP, will increase with 4-v heads, butlow/mid range intake velocity will be lower...usually causing a decrese in overall average HP under the useable rpm curve.

 

The "Aussie" 2-v heads are suggested as an attempt to "civilize" the Clevelend heads for low rmp use on small block engines. Peak HP, will increase with 4-v heads, butlow/mid range intake velocity will be lower...usually causing a decrese in overall average HP under the useable rpm curve.

True, but with the availablity of the Parker Funnelwebs and his port stuffers designed for that intake, a little extra work and $$$ changes that whole picture.

Also - The Aussi 2V's usually come in 58 cc chambers - about 11+:1 compression on a 2V engine. THe 4V heads run 62cc+, making a more manageable 10.5 or so.

 

I still don't buy into the whole "2V head is better for the street" theory. I know that the smaller ports have better velocity and what not, and that they are adequately sized for a mild 'small' block. However, I have NEVER seen a 2V clev run with anywhere near as strong as a 4V clev. I've driven both and in various states of build-up. Basically, if I had a 2 bl Clev, I would keep the heads probably. But there is no way in the world I would remove the 4V heads and swap on some aussie heads like a lot of people are doing these days. It'd be like taking AFR 185's off of a windsor to swap on a set of stock iron castings. Enough of that......

As far as differences go:

• Windsor: either 1.84/1.54 or 1.79/1.45 valves
• Clevelands: can't remember the exact #'s, but bigger than any windsor ever had

• Windsor: 6 valve cover bolts
• Cleveland: 8 bolts

• Windsor: traditional valvetrain geometry, pedestal or rail rockers
• Cleveland: canted valves, pedestal mount rockers

• Windsor: thermostat mounted on intake
• Cleveland: mount on front of block

• Windsor: aluminum timing cover
• Clevland: thin sheetmetal timing cover, chain recessed in block

• Both use the standard sbf bellhousing bolt pattern
• Both have same bore and stroke, all else is different

 

Doesnt the Cleavland block have a oiling problem vs.Windsor??

 

I am in no way arguing with any of the above comments. They all have merit, in different ways, for different engine builds.

What you consider a "street able" engine may greatly differ from the next guy. When I was younger or as a weekend ride...I can tolerate a much more radical engine than one that I need to depend on daily, for commuting to and from work or the occasional 20-30 mile trip to a customer site during the work day.

I'm a car guy...if it burns fossil fuel and can get out of its own way...I'll drive it (or break it) . But there are some cars in my garage that are not my first choice for slippery roads, long trips or going to meet the in-laws.

I can't argue the point, that given correct circumstances, a Cleveland style head will generally out perform, produce more horsepower than comparable wedge (usually!), but that doesn't always make it the best choice. Just like Mopar found out, the old wedge headed FE's were known to spank even Hemi's in the right conditions, with the right tune.

When building an engine you need to look at the whole package, How much do you want to spend, what is the engine expected to do, what is its expected operating range (3K - 8K, 1500 to 6K), are you going EFI or not, how much fabrication are you willing to do to make th engine work in the chassis you are using?

Also, the cylinder spacing for the W vs C engine is the same, otherwise the heads (combustion chambers) wouldn't fit, they would be in the wrong position. There is a lot more similarity between the C and W engines that you would think. Ford has never been one to reinvent the wheel, when it isn't needed. As a personal opinion...that's why so many ford guys resist change. The Mod motors have been on the performance scene for 10 years, and they are just now being readily accepted, by the 5.0 crowd, as worth building. Same thing when they changed the design of the F-150. Ford guys are a stubborn lot!

The same thing happened when the 429-460 replaced the 428-427, the resistance was so great that Ford had to sell both engines as an option in the Fairlane / Torino 'cause a lot of guys didn't want to take a chance with the "new" motor, no matter how good it sounded on paper. The flat-head guys?...well, they will never change. The world is flat, and that's that.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Beoweolf on 11/21/03 11:35pm ]</font>

 

On 2003-11-21 10:45, indigo66 wrote:
I still don't buy into the whole "2V head is better for the street" theory. I know that the smaller ports have better velocity and what not, and that they are adequately sized for a mild 'small' block. However, I have NEVER seen a 2V clev run with anywhere near as strong as a 4V clev. I've driven both and in various states of build-up. Basically, if I had a 2 bl Clev, I would keep the heads probably. But there is no way in the world I would remove the 4V heads and swap on some aussie heads like a lot of people are doing these days. It'd be like taking AFR 185's off of a windsor to swap on a set of stock iron castings. Enough of that......

I agree with you to a point. With my 4v build it was PLENTY streetable. Mileage was not great, and it burnt 91 octane. BUT 4.11's made up for the lack of low end. With all else being equal a 2v will out perform a 4v when built to drive primarily on the street (ie gears, cam) It is not untill you begin the 4v the way it was supposed to be built that it will out perform the 2v imho. Both have their pros and cons...but both require two different builds--if you built up a 4v (big cam low gears single plane big headers), and switched ONLY the heads to 2v heads it would have performed better with the 4v heads. But on the contrary if you build a 2v motor (smaller cam dual plane intake, smaller headers, high gears), and switched ONLY the heads to 4v heads it would have performed better with the 2v heads.

My take on it...

Jeff Given

 

Doesn't the Windsor burn oil.

 

what do you think,come on man

 

Talk about mining for oil. Someone mined this old topic up from an age long ago

 

No Windsor I've ever built, own, or driven has burned oil. And that is a lot of engines.

I've just started down the road of a Cleveland build and I don't suspect it'll burn oil. Never heard that they burn oil either.

Where you getting this info? I think you should not take advice from that source.

 

To address the oil question: Clevelands have a minor oiling problem with mains #4 and #5, this problem becomes evident in severe duty situations (Ie: drag only cars) and can be fixed by installing an oil bypass from a point near the oil filter to a point located near the back of the block. Both Clevelands and Windsors can be built to the point that they make some of the most kitted out BBC's look slow, it just takes more work from the Windsor than the Cleveland.

The Cleveland was born and bread for the racetrack, never ever forget that!

 

To address the oil question: Clevelands have a minor oiling problem with mains #4 and #5, this problem becomes evident in severe duty situations (Ie: drag only cars) and can be fixed by installing an oil bypass from a point near the oil filter to a point located near the back of the block.

No, that doesn't fix anything. Oil control in a high RPM drag 351C is done with the lifter bores, specifically sleeving the right side to control bleed off. Managing clearances in the bearings and choosing the pump based on that, keeping the oil in the sump - thats where the work is done.

 

no, its not a fix for 351M/400 or a Cleveland. like CKelly said lifter bushings if the bores are loose. BBF 385 share the same type oil system also, do you here them needing a fix

 

Just think about it for a sec - in a 351C with proper clearances, you will see the same oil pressure - or nearly the same, within 5 lbs or so - at the back of the block that you see at the port above the filter. I know - I've measured. If you have a tube with the same pressure applied to both ends, how much material will flow through the tube?

And if you check and DO see a large pressure differential front to rear, then the engine has a problem that needs to be addressed and pulling oil volume off the front of the motor is not going to solve it.

And it's really about adequate volume to the bearings, not pressure. We ran a 302 for several years that had hurt bearings - try 10 psi cold with 40 wt and almost no gauge reading hot. It was funny, you'd scare the jeepers out of a car person when you showed them the pressure gauge.

 

If you want the end all for any Cleveland questions you might have then go here: Ford 335 "Cleveland" Series Engine Forum
Loads of very knowledgeable guys who live and breath Cleveland.

 

you might have then go here: Ford 335 "Cleveland" Series Engine Forum

You've posted that link before and it is helpful. I used to run a Network54 Forum though, boy does that software suck in comparison to modern forum software. Wish the Cleveland fellows would migrate to a modern server/software package as it'd make the information contained there much more readily available.

Ron

 

we've been running a an honest 500HP 351c for the last year.
bottom end was built with stock forged crank, stock rods and 40thou over cast pistons, with an unchanged oiling system.
uses AFD 2v alloy heads, edelbrock performer and a 750 helloy street hp with a 3 inch open spacer. to make the 500hp it uses 150hp shot of NO
up shifts are made 6500rpm.
and it crosses the finish line at 7000rpm.
it moves our aussie XD falcon to a 11.32sec @ 123mph

We don't have problems with oil.

at what point are you guys saying the oiling system becomes a problem?

that being said, we are building a new engine based on a windsor bottom end. dart block, 426cui, AFD 4v clevo heads, tunnel ram, twin 950 carbs,
solid roller cam to suit NO, should see 650 to 700hp with out the NO and 1000hp with the NO