GTXVette said:
When I was a kid I knew fords, Off the top.... a Cleveland was a 4bbl. engine and the windsor was 2bbl.'s and FI ,there were Lots of windsors but not a lot of Cleveland's . some of the sportier versions of Fords be it Mustang to Galaxy's could be had with Cleveland engine's. Pantera's had them as well as a Stronger Block Made in Australia. there are manifolds to convert Windsors to a 4 bbl. but real Cleveland's had Huge ports. the coveted Boss 302 had Cleveland Heads. That may be the reason Ford Hi Po was in the top of the RPM Range.
There were 2-barrel and 4-barrel Clevelands. The 4-barrel Cleveland used the same heads as the Boss 302, and had very large ports. For this reason, the better street engine is a 2v Cleveland with a 4v carb. If your Galaxie got a Cleveland or a Windsor depended on what horsepower engine you selected.
Sorry for the Misinformation, 70's were a long time ago for me.
In reply to eastsideTim :
I had a 351 in my Ex Police 1996 Bronco
The Mopar Guys called them "boat anchors," the first time I heard that term applied to an engine.
oldopelguy said:
I have a Cleveland or modified 351 sitting on a pallet in my shop I'd give to any grm-er who wants it just to free up the space. My dad picked it up to replace the motor in his bus and didn't realize that you couldn't just swap in any 351.
Why do you have to live so far away?
chuckles said:
The Mopar Guys called them "boat anchors," the first time I heard that term applied to an engine.
The Mopar Guys have their own boat anchors to worry about.
I had a '88 E-250 Extended van with the 5.8L-C6 combo. Being a med-duty van it sat higher then your average E-150 and it was not a light weight but it still did OK MPG wise. On the highway I could get 13+ if I kept the speed below 65. And anyway above 65 it wanted to wander about so it was easier to drive at the lower speed. Towing it did 10 mpg with an open trailer.
The engine was bullet proof. All I did was keep good oil in it and it just ran fine. I sold it last year with 125K on it and it was running as good as it had ever.
In reply to pres589 :
Thanks for That, I couldn't think of a Way to Say it ,that was That Nice.!
ddavidv
PowerDork
1/16/18 9:50 p.m.
93-95 Lightning had a normally aspirated 351W with GT40 heads and intake and tubular exhaust manifolds. It put out around 254 hp. It was fast by the standards of the day. Mine does E36 M3-n-git and tows decently but you have to remember it is similar power to the ho-hum 4.6 modular engine that replaced it.
Used 1st gen Lightnings are pretty affordable if you don't want a show piece. $3000-$5000 will get you a nice driver or one with bubbling bedsides. Less rust prone than the next gen F150 and no ejecting spark plugs.
if Memory serves me right the 300 6 seems to be an engine that gained more of a following after its death. Like an artist. In the day it was acknowledged to be a good engine, but you wanted a v8 if you could afford one.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Yeah, the Ford 300 had (has?) something of the reputation of the Chrysler Slant 6--not particularly exciting, but competent and hard to kill. The same can be said in varying degrees for most inline sixes. It's arguably the best configuration for internal combustion engines. Well, second to the Mazda rotary, of course. 
All of fords inlines have a cult following on fordsix.com, i can understand the love for the big i6's but the love for the 170/200 baffles me too this day.
I would have a 351 windsor in my mustang except for unlike chevy to change from a 302, it won't fit under the hood, the motor mounts, headers, intake, etc need to change.
Let's see SBC, mix and match it all fits. No?
Those 80's/90's v8 horsepower ratings are gross. ugh.
MazdaFace said:
Those 80's/90's v8 horsepower ratings are gross. ugh.
They're actually 'net' ratings. 'Gross' HP ratings were phased out after '71 
akylekoz said:
I would have a 351 windsor in my mustang except for unlike chevy to change from a 302, it won't fit under the hood, the motor mounts, headers, intake, etc need to change.
Let's see SBC, mix and match it all fits. No?
In the mid to late 90’s, there was an under the table project of a 5.7 Cobra. Made way more power than the 4.6 4v of the cobra at the time. It used a lot of parts used all over the company to be that good, so it was much less expensive, too
Got tabled, though. Too bad.
akylekoz said:
I would have a 351 windsor in my mustang except for unlike chevy to change from a 302, it won't fit under the hood, the motor mounts, headers, intake, etc need to change.
Let's see SBC, mix and match it all fits. No?
Actually, motor mounts can be reused and the carb too, the only parts that really change are headers and intake. Yes, overall height changes but it isn’t as drastic as it’s made out to be. Now, width changes a lot like 3” overall.
But to answer the other, a sbc is a sbc is a sbc with very few caveats.
I had a 1969 Torino GT when I was in college. The body finally rusted away but the 351W engine was still going strong at something well over 200,000 miles.
Rodan
HalfDork
1/17/18 12:50 p.m.
alfadriver said:
In the mid to late 90’s, there was an under the table project of a 5.7 Cobra. Made way more power than the 4.6 4v of the cobra at the time. It used a lot of parts used all over the company to be that good, so it was much less expensive, too
Got tabled, though. Too bad.
They did build a few... very few... only 250.
1995 Cobra R
Ranger50 said:
akylekoz said:
I would have a 351 windsor in my mustang except for unlike chevy to change from a 302, it won't fit under the hood, the motor mounts, headers, intake, etc need to change.
Let's see SBC, mix and match it all fits. No?
Actually, motor mounts can be reused and the carb too, the only parts that really change are headers and intake. Yes, overall height changes but it isn’t as drastic as it’s made out to be. Now, width changes a lot like 3” overall.
But to answer the other, a sbc is a sbc is a sbc with very few caveats.
My 5.0 currently rubs the hood so I need to modify my Prothane mounts to prevent it from sitting any taller. Mostly due to the tallish performer RPM fuel injected intake. I really don't want a taller hood.
Rodan said:
They did build a few... very few... only 250.
1995 Cobra R
That's the 351, which Ford has always labeled as a 5.8 liter engine. This sounds different from that.
A slightly destroked 351W with decent heads and intake, with some development on making a performance engine, sounds nice in theory.
Rodan said:
alfadriver said:
In the mid to late 90’s, there was an under the table project of a 5.7 Cobra. Made way more power than the 4.6 4v of the cobra at the time. It used a lot of parts used all over the company to be that good, so it was much less expensive, too
Got tabled, though. Too bad.
They did build a few... very few... only 250.
1995 Cobra R
This was different than that, and a few years later.
Stanger2000 said:
MazdaFace said:
Those 80's/90's v8 horsepower ratings are gross. ugh.
They're actually 'net' ratings. 'Gross' HP ratings were phased out after '71
He did say 'ugh'. Maybe he meant gross in that they smelled or tasted bad. 
alfadriver said:
Rodan said:
alfadriver said:
In the mid to late 90’s, there was an under the table project of a 5.7 Cobra. Made way more power than the 4.6 4v of the cobra at the time. It used a lot of parts used all over the company to be that good, so it was much less expensive, too
Got tabled, though. Too bad.
They did build a few... very few... only 250.
1995 Cobra R
This was different than that, and a few years later.
That reminds me of the super speedway engine Ford developed for the NASCAR Winston Cup Series. It was a 302-based engine that took better advantage of the reduced airflow caused by the restrictor plate. It ran so well in testing that NASCAR developed the first-ever *minimum* engine displacement rule.
