Question: What's the difference between Cleveland and Windsor Engines?
John Doe
difference. Can't they both have 4V set ups?
Any help appreciated.
a l e x
260-289-302 block and is just the same block bored over. Each can have
either 2v or 4v setups and a variety of heads and intakes are available for
each, but they are not interchangable.
- a l e x
"John Doe" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
news:3c16be29....@news.qwest.net...
FE410 Merc
--
FE410 Merc
Thundersnake#16
69 Mach 1 clone, Merc scoop, Merc steering wheel, Merc 351 W
78 f-250 XLT supercab 4x4, 400 C6.
http://www.geocities.com/fordguru69/Mach1Muscle.html
Remove mach1 spam block to reply.
"a l e x" <atspa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zeER7.159387$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Stuart@work
> 260-289-302 block and is just the same block bored over. Each can have
> either 2v or 4v setups and a variety of heads and intakes are available for
> each, but they are not interchangable.
>
> - a l e x
>
It's not as simple as that, The 351 Windsor is actually a larger block
with a higher deck height and wider lifter valley as a result. You are
correct however that it is based on the original "Challenger V8"
design and many parts interchange.
The Cleveland or "335 series" is a totally different beast, with
canted valve heads. Another difference between Windsor and Cleveland
is that water passages in the Windsor flow into the intake manifold
whereas the Cleveland has no water jackets in the manifold ( the
thermostat is in the block not the manifold)
Clevelands have different heads for 4V and 2V ( different valve sizes
and combustion cahmber volumes and designs)whereas the 351 Windsor
does not have dedicated 4V and 2V heads. They do however have
different valve sizes etc depending on the year and are better heads
than the 289/302 generally.
The 400 cid motor is a higher deck height version of the Cleveland
design
and the 351M is a destroked version of the 400 ( This is what causes
confusion when comparing 351C to 351M
Just to add to the confusion the BOSS 302 is a Windsor style block (
though it is unique to the BOSS) with Cleveland style heads and a
unique manifold to mate the two styles.
Hope that doesn't confuse you more!!
StuK
John Doe
interchangable. I'm not sure about the second. Who really knows?
Victor DiMichina
> I know that the first guy is wrong. They have the same deck and are
> interchangable. I'm not sure about the second. Who really knows?
Well, I do. The cleveland, a.k.a. the "335" series engines, are a
different design than the Windsor engine. The heads can interchange, in
the case of the Boss 302 it came from the factory with a Windsor block
and 351c-4v heads. Back to your original question, the 2-v and 4-v
heads are not based on valves, but rather the carburetor that came with
the engine (2-venturi or 4-venturi). The 4-v heads have bigger valves
and bigger ports. They also have different design of combustion
chambers.
Before any good aftermarket heads became available for the 302, (before
the 5.0 Mustang popularity), the best bet for good heads on a small
block Ford was to slap on a set of Cleveland heads to your 302, but you
had to make sure you had the right combustion chamber/piston
combination. A lot of shade tree mechanics found themselves with
great, free-flowing heads, and a compression ratio of about 6:1 ;)
Some 351 C engines had 4 bold main bearing caps, this was the only
small block Ford to offer this. The Cleveland can be told apart by
several giveaways:
bigger valve covers, due to the canted valve design
water neck going into the block, rather than the intake manifold,
I could be mistaken, but I think the bellhousing pattern for the
Cleveland engines is the same as the big block Ford (429, 460). Maybe
it's the 351M and 400 I'm thinking of. Before you ask, a 351M is
the same as a 351C, it just has a taller deck height like the 400.
The 351M/400 DEFINATELY has the 429-460 bolt pattern for the
bellhousing.
Vic
2kGT 5m blk
Les Benn
are still made in australia if you can get one from an Aussie
Alacazam
had big block pattern with the exception of some very very early 400
blocks which had small block pattern. On another note, all
351c-2v(factory 2 barrel carbs) had 2 bolt mains. 351c-4v(factory 4
barrel) had 4 bolt mains when they cam with a "Q" code in the VIN. 1970
"M" code 351c-4v may have 2 or 4 bolt mains, 1971 "M" code 351c-4v have
4 bolt mains. Boss 351C, of course, had 4 bolts. Boss 302's were 302
blocks special cast to have 4 bolt mains. A 260-289-302-351W are based
on the same block. 351C-351M-400 are based on a different block (351M is
a destroked 400). All the heads will bolt on top of any of those
blocks. But, as Victor mentioned, with minor modifications to water
ports/head bolt diameter,compression ratio concerns, valve lift/piston
clearance, etc... Special intakes or adapters would be necessary since
the W-C2-C4 ports are so different in size. Cranks are different as
FE410Merc said but bearing radius can be modified to make them
interchangeable. The 302 or 351 Aussie Clevelands have their own rules.
Philly Essnillius
>
>I hear these terms kicked around, and I haven't figured out the
>difference. Can't they both have 4V set ups?
>
>Any help appreciated.
The answer to the question is yes, both engines came with 4 venturi carburetors.
Carburetion depends on the configuration of the intake. Any V8 can run a one,
two, or four barrel carb. Or two primary/secondary style four barrels (Holley,
AFB, Quadrajet). Or two in-line four barrels (Autolite). Or three two barrels
("tri power," "6 pack"), or four two barrels (Weber, Dellorto). Or throttle
body, port, or direct fuel injection.
In '62, Ford released the 3.80" x 2.87" 260 ci Challenger V8. It had "wedge"
heads, i.e., inline valves; six valve cover bolts per side; and a "wet" intake,
meaning that to pass between the heads, coolant flows through the intake.
In '63, Ford released the 4.00" x 2.87" 289. The larger bore allows bigger
valves and significantly more performance potential than the 260.
In '68, Ford added a 3" stroker crank to the 289 and created the 4.00" X 3.00"
302. This engine is substantially the same as all the EFI 5.0's out there.
In '69, Ford made a 289/302-style block, but with a slightly taller deck height.
This allowed a longer stroke of 3.50", yielding the 351 wedge. This tall deck
motor was available in two barrel and four barrel versions. It was not called a
"Windsor" yet, just a "351." (This engine actually displaces 352 ci, but Ford
called it a 351 to avoid confusion with the 352 big block.)
At the same time, Ford had been working on a mid-block engine design, aka the
"335" series. The 335 was to have splayed valves rather than in-lines like the
wedge head small blocks. You could take a head from one of the 260/289/302/351
wedge engines and lay a ruler down the center line of all eight valves. But
with the splayed valve 335 series, it is as if each intake/exhaust pair has been
rotated about 23 degrees (I think that's the right number) from the center line,
with the intake moved closer to the lifter valley and the exhaust moved closer
to the outboard side. The Ch*&y "rat" motor (396/427/454), the Ford 385 series
(429/460), and the Mopar Hemi also have splayed valves. A splayed valve design
allows significantly larger valves than an in-line setup.
It seems like one of the project goals for the 335 series was to take advantage
of this potential and use the biggest valves and ports ports possible. Thus,
the valves in the 4-barrel version measured 2.19"/1.70", and the 2-barrel
versions ran 2.05"/1.65". By comparison, the '69 351's in-line valves were
1.84"/1.54", whether 4v or 2v.
In '70, Ford released this new design in a 4.00" X 3.50", "351" ci
configuration. In addition to the splayed valves, other visual cues to ID the
335 series are the eight valve cover bolts per side, and the "dry" intake,
meaning that to pass between the heads, coolant flows through the block. This
is why the upper radiator hose attaches vertically to a water neck in the block,
as opposed to the horizontal outlet from the intake that you'll see in the
260/289/302/351 wedge motors.
To differentiate 335 series 351 from the tall deck wedge 351, the new motor got
the name "Cleveland," after the Ohio foundry where it was built. At the same
time, the tall-deck wedge got the name "Windsor," after its birthplace in
Ontario Canada.
As others have mentioned, the 335 series subsequently got a tall deck block too,
just like the 351 Windsor wedge had got in '69. With a 3.98" stroke, this motor
was known as the 400 Cleveland. With a 3.50" stroke, it was known as the 351M.
There is no accepted explanation for the "M" designation.
One more thing: the new-for-'69 Boss 302 also had splayed valve heads. The
Boss 302 was built on a Challenger block, but the heads were a Boss-only design,
and came out of the Trans Am racing program. It is a misnomer to call them
"Cleveland" heads. This I got from Bill S. of this NG. Others may disagree.
But I go with Bill S's explanation that there was no Cleveland as of early '68
when the Boss 302 was being developed. Also, the '69 Boss valves measured 2.23"
X 2.19", which are larger than even the too-huge 2.19"/1.70" ones on the '70
351C-4v. So it is mistaken to call the '69-'70 Boss heads "Cleveland" heads.
Yrs, Philly -- Thunder Snake #28
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=6&uid=116159&
Scott A. Ekleberry
engine actually used Cleveland heads (the 351 Cleveland was already in the
development phase in 68'), they just blocked off the water ports. After they
found out it worked, the heads were scheduled for production with the water
passage fix incorporated already. The valves are larger than the Cleveland
valves because a valve size hadn't been decided on for the Cleveland heads
when the Boss 302 entered production. If you will note, 1970 Boss 302 heads
use the SAME size valves as 351 Cleveland 4V heads. That's because they
found out the larger 2.23 valves killed low-end torque on the street. So,
the valves wet smaller for both the Boss 302 and new 351 Cleveland for 1970.
The Boss 302 block is the same block Ford used for the 1968 302 Tunnel Port
program. What they did in essence is take a Tunnel Port bottom end, bolt on
Cleveland heads, make an intake to fit, and they had their new Trans-Am
engine. There is a very detailed description of the hole thing, including
pictures, in the book "Boss 302, Fords Trans-Am Pony Car" which is now out
of print. And, if you want to continue to doubt this, I'll just e-mail you
copies of the pertinent pages.
--
Scott A. Ekleberry
It's About Time!
A full service watch repair shop!
www.itsabouttimeonline.com
SAE...@WOH.RR.COM
"Philly Essnillius" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:JZqS7.61712$xS6.1...@www.newsranger.com...
Stuart&Janet
production however they are truly a BOSS only part. BOSS is BOSS, Cleveland
is Cleveland. Saying they are Cleveland heads is wrong, "Cleveland style" is
correct.( Conversely calling a Cleveland head a "BOSS style" head would be
correct also) It's like saying a Mustang is really a Falcon.NOT! Falcon
based OK. StuK
--
ThunderSnake #11
"This space left intentionally blank"
"Scott A. Ekleberry" <SAE...@WOH.RR.COM> wrote in message
news:ljRS7.9347$ED6.1...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
Johnny Johnson
> It's obvious that the heads were developed from the same design. In
> production however they are truly a BOSS only part. BOSS is BOSS, Cleveland
> is Cleveland. Saying they are Cleveland heads is wrong, "Cleveland style" is
> correct.( Conversely calling a Cleveland head a "BOSS style" head would be
> correct also)
Obviously the "Boss 351" Cleveland head is a "Boss" head, though.
The main differences between the 4-V Cleveland head and the Boss 351
head is the Boss is machined for screw-in rocker studs and guide plates
and the valve spring seats are machined for separate spring cups.
> It's like saying a Mustang is really a Falcon. NOT! Falcon based OK.
Depends on the year of the Mustang; doesn't it? <g>
> StuK
>
> --
> ThunderSnake #11
Johnny Johnson
> You are wrong, the Boss 302 are Cleveland heads. The first pilot Boss 302
> engine actually used Cleveland heads (the 351 Cleveland was already in the
> development phase in 68'), they just blocked off the water ports. After they
> found out it worked, the heads were scheduled for production with the water
> passage fix incorporated already. The valves are larger than the Cleveland
> valves because a valve size hadn't been decided on for the Cleveland heads
> when the Boss 302 entered production. If you will note, 1970 Boss 302 heads
> use the SAME size valves as 351 Cleveland 4V heads. That's because they
> found out the larger 2.23 valves killed low-end torque on the street. So,
> the valves wet smaller for both the Boss 302 and new 351 Cleveland for 1970.
> The Boss 302 block is the same block Ford used for the 1968 302 Tunnel Port
> program. What they did in essence is take a Tunnel Port bottom end, bolt on
> Cleveland heads, make an intake to fit, and they had their new Trans-Am
> engine. There is a very detailed description of the hole thing, including
> pictures, in the book "Boss 302, Fords Trans-Am Pony Car" which is now out
> of print. And, if you want to continue to doubt this, I'll just e-mail you
> copies of the pertinent pages.
Absolutely correct! :-D
There is even a procedure to modify the true Cleveland heads to fit the
Challenger block. It involves machining a pocket around the water port
on block-surface side of the head to take "pancake" Welsh plugs to plug
the water outlets and drilling water outlet holes into the
intake-surface side to align with the "wedge" intake's water passages.
Before the introduction of the Australian 2-V heads (with quench areas
similar to the early 4-V and "Boss 351" heads), this was the method to
adapt the smaller port/valve 351-C 2-V heads to the 289/302 Challenger
engines. In order to have any compression you had to have special
pistons built with domes to fill the open (non-quench) area of the 2-V
chambers. Some brave soles even had the combustion chambers of the 2-V
heads welded up to duplicate the 4-V chambers (_very_ expensive
proposition!).
And as a follow up: I had one of the first 1969 Boss 302 Mustangs
delivered and it came with the "C8" block and the cross-drilled (ala 427
MR) steel crank. This crank and the OE-installed 1969 2.23"
intake-equipped cylinder heads were never available as Service Parts
from FoMoCo P&S (Parts and Service). Any orders for these were serviced
with the 1970 parts (the heads came as a "kit" containing the bare heads
and 2.19" intake valves when ordered as '69 replacement parts).
> --
>
> Scott A. Ekleberry
> It's About Time!
> A full service watch repair shop!
> www.itsabouttimeonline.com
> SAE...@WOH.RR.COM
>
> "Philly Essnillius" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> news:JZqS7.61712$xS6.1...@www.newsranger.com...
>
>> John Doe wrote this:
>>
>>> I hear these terms kicked around, and I haven't figured out the
>>> difference. Can't they both have 4V set ups?
>>>
>>> Any help appreciated.
>>
>> The answer to the question is yes, both engines came with 4 venturi
>> carburetors.
>>
>> Carburetion depends on the configuration of the intake. Any V8 can
>> run a one, two, or four barrel carb. Or two primary/secondary style
>> four barrels (Holley, AFB, Quadrajet). Or two in-line four barrels
>> (Autolite).
I had a set of these back then (two 1400 cfm on a Doug Nash intake):
probably worth a _mint_ today!
>> Or three two barrels ("tri power," "6 pack"), or four two barrels
>> (Weber, Dellorto). Or throttle body, port, or direct fuel injection.
>>
>> In '62, Ford released the 3.80" x 2.87" 260 ci Challenger V8. It had
>> "wedge" heads, i.e., inline valves; six valve cover bolts per side;
>> and a "wet" intake, meaning that to pass between the heads, coolant
>> flows through the intake.
You missed the original Challenger V-8: the 221-CID in the Fairlane.
3.50" x 2.87" bore/stroke.
>> In '63, Ford released the 4.00" x 2.87" 289. The larger bore allows
>> bigger valves and significantly more performance potential than the 260.
>>
>> In '68, Ford added a 3" stroker crank to the 289 and created the 4.00"
>> X 3.00" 302. This engine is substantially the same as all the EFI 5.0's
>> out there.
>>
>> In '69, Ford made a 289/302-style block, but with a slightly taller deck
>> height. This allowed a longer stroke of 3.50", yielding the 351 wedge.
>> This tall deck motor was available in two barrel and four barrel versions.
>> It was not called a "Windsor" yet, just a "351." (This engine actually
>> displaces 352 ci, but Ford called it a 351 to avoid confusion with the
>> 352 big block.)
>>
>> At the same time, Ford had been working on a mid-block engine design, aka
>> the "335" series.
Trivia time: know just _why_ it was called "335"?
>> The 335 was to have splayed valves rather than in-lines like the wedge head
>> small blocks. You could take a head from one of the 260/289/302/351 wedge
>> engines and lay a ruler down the center line of all eight valves. But with
>> the splayed valve 335 series, it is as if each intake/exhaust pair has been
>> rotated about 23 degrees (I think that's the right number) from the center
>> line, with the intake moved closer to the lifter valley and the exhaust moved
>> closer to the outboard side. The Ch*&y "rat" motor (396/427/454), the Ford
>> 385 series (429/460),...
Trivia Two: why was it called "385"?
>> ...and the Mopar Hemi also have splayed valves. A splayed valve design
>> allows significantly larger valves than an in-line setup.
>>
>> It seems like one of the project goals for the 335 series was to take
>> advantage of this potential and use the biggest valves and ports ports
>> possible. Thus, the valves in the 4-barrel version measured 2.19"/1.70",
>> and the 2-barrel versions ran 2.05"/1.65". By comparison, the '69 351's
>> in-line valves were 1.84"/1.54", whether 4v or 2v.
>>
>> In '70, Ford released this new design in a 4.00" X 3.50", "351" ci
>> configuration. In addition to the splayed valves, other visual cues to
>> ID the 335 series are the eight valve cover bolts per side, and the "dry"
>> intake, meaning that to pass between the heads, coolant flows through the
>> block. This is why the upper radiator hose attaches vertically to a water
>> neck in the block, as opposed to the horizontal outlet from the intake
>> that you'll see in the 260/289/302/351 wedge motors.
>>
>> To differentiate 335 series 351 from the tall deck wedge 351, the new
>> motor got the name "Cleveland," after the Ohio foundry where it was built.
>> At the same time, the tall-deck wedge got the name "Windsor," after its
>> birthplace in Ontario Canada.
>>
>> As others have mentioned, the 335 series subsequently got a tall deck
>> block too, just like the 351 Windsor wedge had got in '69. With a 3.98"
>> stroke, this motor was known as the 400 Cleveland.
The stroke on the 400 "Cleveland" is a full 4.00"; not 3.98" (that's the
stroke on the 410 and 428 FE engines).
>> With a 3.50" stroke, it was known as the 351M. There is no accepted
>> explanation for the "M" designation.
>>
>> One more thing: the new-for-'69 Boss 302 also had splayed valve heads.
>> The Boss 302 was built on a Challenger block, but the heads were a Boss-only
>> design, and came out of the Trans Am racing program. It is a misnomer to
>> call them "Cleveland" heads. This I got from Bill S. of this NG. Others
>> may disagree.
I disagree.
>> But I go with Bill S's explanation that there was no Cleveland as of early
>> '68 when the Boss 302 was being developed.
Except that the Boss 302 was developed in _late_late_ 1968/early 1969:
not "early '68.". And the 335 Cleveland 351 was already in the
development stage for 1970 release.
>> Also, the '69 Boss valves measured 2.23" X 2.19",...
Typo, Philly?
It was actually 2.23" intake x 1.71" exhaust (OE-installed 1969 Boss 320
only).
>> ...which are larger than even the too-huge 2.19"/1.70" ones on the '70
Johnny Johnson
>> "Philly Essnillius" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>> news:JZqS7.61712$xS6.1...@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>> Also, the '69 Boss valves measured 2.23" X 2.19",...
>
> Typo, Philly?
>
> It was actually 2.23" intake x 1.71" exhaust (OE-installed 1969 Boss
> 320 only).
My own typo here: that's "302"; not "320". <g>
Stuart&Janet
throwing other motors in would merely muddy the water more, ala BOSS 429!)
A Cleveland head is still not a BOSS head, unless my '71 Cyclone GT had
"BOSS" 2V heads(?!)
As for the Falcon simile the only year you can truly compare the Mustang to
the Falcon is '65 and I'll stick to my original statement! In '66 the Falcon
went intermediate.
I've had a few Chevy guys say they hate Ford because of the confusion in the
engine families. I just tell them that they obviously can't go thinking too
hard so they better stick to nice simple bowtie stovebolts ;^) StuK
--
ThunderSnake #11
"This space left intentionally blank"
"Johnny Johnson" <johnj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C1D15BE...@mindspring.com...
Philly Essnillius
>
>"Scott A. Ekleberry" wrote:
>
>> You are wrong, the Boss 302 are Cleveland heads. The first pilot Boss 302
>> engine actually used Cleveland heads (the 351 Cleveland was already in the
>> development phase in 68'), they just blocked off the water ports. After they
>> found out it worked, the heads were scheduled for production with the water
>> passage fix incorporated already. The valves are larger than the Cleveland
>> valves because a valve size hadn't been decided on for the Cleveland heads
>> when the Boss 302 entered production. If you will note, 1970 Boss 302 heads
>> use the SAME size valves as 351 Cleveland 4V heads. That's because they
>> found out the larger 2.23 valves killed low-end torque on the street. So,
>> the valves wet smaller for both the Boss 302 and new 351 Cleveland for 1970.
>> The Boss 302 block is the same block Ford used for the 1968 302 Tunnel Port
>> program. What they did in essence is take a Tunnel Port bottom end, bolt on
>> Cleveland heads, make an intake to fit, and they had their new Trans-Am
>> engine. There is a very detailed description of the hole thing, including
>> pictures, in the book "Boss 302, Fords Trans-Am Pony Car" which is now out
>> of print. And, if you want to continue to doubt this, I'll just e-mail you
>> copies of the pertinent pages.
>
>Absolutely correct! :-D
In my original post I probably overstated the distinction between '69-'70 Boss
302 and '70-up Cleveland heads. What is true is that the Cleveland name did not
exist when the '69 Boss 302 rolled out, so you can't call Boss heads Cleveland
heads. That is all I really meant to say, but I probably left that unclear. I
think Stu straightened out this point.
As to two further issues:
1. Are '69-'70 Boss 302 heads and '70-up Cleveland 4v quench heads identical,
other than the additional water passages in the Boss 302? I understand that
they are not, although I cannot recite the other differences.
2. Did the '69-'70 Boss 302 heads and '70-up Cleveland 4v quench heads come out
of the same engineering program? I understand that they did.
snip
>> "Philly Essnillius" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote
>>> Carburetion depends on the configuration of the intake. Any V8 can
>>> run a one, two, or four barrel carb. Or two primary/secondary style
>>> four barrels (Holley, AFB, Quadrajet). Or two in-line four barrels
>>> (Autolite).
>
>I had a set of these back then (two 1400 cfm on a Doug Nash intake):
>probably worth a _mint_ today!
Hey Johnny, how come ya didn't ding me, that I didn't mention the Holley "three
barrel"? I think I get to ding you back for not picking up that one.
>>> In '62, Ford released the 3.80" x 2.87" 260 ci Challenger V8. It had
>>> "wedge" heads, i.e., inline valves; six valve cover bolts per side;
>>> and a "wet" intake, meaning that to pass between the heads, coolant
>>> flows through the intake.
>
>You missed the original Challenger V-8: the 221-CID in the Fairlane.
>3.50" x 2.87" bore/stroke.
Ya got me on that one. I'm not a Ford expert, I just play one on TV. I cobble
together these posts in part to amuse myself by looking stuff up and learning
something, and partly to inform readers, including by triggering elaborations
and corrections like yours.
snip
>>> At the same time, Ford had been working on a mid-block engine design, aka
>>> the "335" series.
>
>Trivia time: know just _why_ it was called "335"?
Was it the street address of the nearest coffee shop to the Shelby American
facility at LAX? I give up. What's the answer?
snip
the Ford
>>> 385 series (429/460),...
>
>Trivia Two: why was it called "385"?
C'mon, tell us the answer.
snip
>>> As others have mentioned, the 335 series subsequently got a tall deck
>>> block too, just like the 351 Windsor wedge had got in '69. With a 3.98"
>>> stroke, this motor was known as the 400 Cleveland.
>
>The stroke on the 400 "Cleveland" is a full 4.00"; not 3.98" (that's the
>stroke on the 410 and 428 FE engines).
So that makes it a 402, huh? (I knew the 400C's bore was 4.00, so I calculated
the stroke by dividing 400 by 4 X 3.1416 X 8. That gives 3.98. Again, I'm no
Ford expert, or else I would have known by heart that the 400 is a 4 X 4.)
snip
>>> Also, the '69 Boss valves measured 2.23" X 2.19",...
>
>Typo, Philly?
Actually a copy and paste error. I copied and pasted valve dimensions from
Fomoco.com, then deleted, but goofed up. Here's the bit I copied and pasted
from Fomoco.com:
intake valve
(head diameter) 2.2225" - 2.2375"
(1969)
2.185" - 2.195"
(1970-71**)
exhaust valve
(head diameter) 1.647" - 1.662"
(early '69)
1.7075" - 1.7125"
(1969-70)
1.7045" - 1.7145"
(1971**)
See, there are at least two ways to screw up. First, you've got to round the
stated ranges to the nearest hundredth. Then, you've got to delete the '70
intake info and leave in the '69 exhaust info. I did the reverse.)
More snips.
Thanks for the corrections. Oh, and before you go ballistic on fomoco.com's
"1971 Boss 302" info, the double asterisks refer to this footnote: "** Listed
for Mustang in early dealer literature, but Ford states it was dropped in
pre-production."
Bill S.
production or otherwise....Although, I do have a very rare set of Ford
"D1ZZ" 1971 Boss 302 stripes for what was never built.....A quirk in the
system no less...............Like so many others when it comes to pre
and post production Fords of the 60's and 70's.....................
Bill S.
Philly Essnillius wrote:
>major snippage
bluesta...@altavista.com
wrote:
>That is correct, Ford not once produced a BOSS 302 for 1971, pre
>production or otherwise....Although, I do have a very rare set of Ford
>"D1ZZ" 1971 Boss 302 stripes for what was never built.....A quirk in the
>system no less...............Like so many others when it comes to pre
>and post production Fords of the 60's and 70's.....................
>
>
>Bill S.
Sort of on the same lines.... I saw an ad that reads:
1970 Mercury Cougar Eliminator Boss 302. Is that actually a stock
config to have a Boss 302 in an Elim?
Blue...@NoSpamaltavista.com
1998 GT Coupe - Bright Atlantic Blue - 5-spd
K&N FIPK, Triax Shifter, 3.73's, SpeedCal, FRPP Shorty Headers, 2K Heads,
2K Intake, Bassani X-Pipe
www.bluestanggt.corral.net
I won an "Attaboy" award from Tungsten
and all I got was this lousy tagline.
Bill S.
Believe it or not, yes, the 1969 and 1970 Cougar Eliminator could be had
with the BOSS 302 engine.
Yours In Fords,
Bill S.
bluesta...@altavista.com
wrote:
>
>Believe it or not, yes, the 1969 and 1970 Cougar Eliminator could be had
>with the BOSS 302 engine.
>
>
>Yours In Fords,
>
>Bill S.
>
Thanks for the reply Bill. I knew that a 302 was available for the
Cougar Eliminator, I just wasn't sure if it was *that* 302. If you
know anyone that's interested there's a guy in Tulsa that's got one
advertised at $22,500.00.
Stuart&Janet
have even made a BOSS 429 Cougar. Bill any input on this? StuK
--
ThunderSnake #11
"This space left intentionally blank"
<bluesta...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:qbqu1usd9glc88mf4...@4ax.com...
Bill S.
the Shelby nose on both, but the cougar tail and interior).
Bill S.
Rick Venable
first car was a 62 Fairlane 2 tone with a 221. It was a pretty solid car,
even when I sold it. Oh and here is something to think about, I bought the
car in 1976 for $110, sold it about a year latter for $125.
"Philly Essnillius" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:eowT7.2278$XC5....@www.newsranger.com...
Philly Essnillius
>
>Your reference to the Fairlane with the 221 brings back memories for me. My
>first car was a 62 Fairlane 2 tone with a 221. It was a pretty solid car,
>even when I sold it. Oh and here is something to think about, I bought the
>car in 1976 for $110, sold it about a year latter for $125.
Yeah, I remember in '73 when I was shopping for my first car the rule was
"starts and runs, $50." And there were plenty out there for $50, in good shape.
I don't even remember the price for the clean '65 4-door V8 Olds F-85 I got,
something like $150 sounds about right. That's about 600-700 2001 dollars for a
car as spacious as a BMW 750.
Philly's Crackpot Theory #845, is that the late models are not going to produce
a stock of cheap transportation like this, because the costs of repairs,
particularly drivetrain items, and even more particularly emissions repairs,
will exceed the market value of otherwise good sound cars, causing many to be
junked before their time.
Johnny Johnson
AFAIK (having never pulled a mold from the ports of either head) the
'70-'71 351C 4-V and '70 Boss 302 heads have the same intake and exhaust
ports and combustion chambers.
The factory installed '69 Boss 302 heads were unique in that they came
with 2.23" intake valves (with attendant pocket machining to accommodate
these valves).
These heads were never available as Service Parts, though; and were
always replaced with a special "C9ZZ" kits which included heads with
2.19" diameter seats and eight 2.19" intake valves.
> 2. Did the '69-'70 Boss 302 heads and '70-up Cleveland 4v quench heads come
> out of the same engineering program? I understand that they did.
That's the way I remember it, too.
> snip
>
>>> "Philly Essnillius" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote
>
>>>> Carburetion depends on the configuration of the intake. Any V8 can
>>>> run a one, two, or four barrel carb. Or two primary/secondary style
>>>> four barrels (Holley, AFB, Quadrajet). Or two in-line four barrels
>>>> (Autolite).
>>
>> I had a set of these back then (two 1400 cfm on a Doug Nash intake):
>> probably worth a _mint_ today!
>
> Hey Johnny, how come ya didn't ding me, that I didn't mention the Holley
> "three barrel"? I think I get to ding you back for not picking up that one.
Ah, yes: the 950 CFM "Three Barrel"; originally designed and intended
for NASCAR racing (before the days of restrictor plates and carb
limits).
Have you ever seen a "1050 CFM Two Barrel"?
A few ambitious carb modifiers reworked the Three Barrel by machining
the primaries to the same oval configuration as the secondary.
The idea was to get around the "two-barrel" limitation of many dirt
tracks; just as Ford's "quench" areas of the Boss 429 "Blue Crescent"
engine was intended to qualify the engine with NASCAR as a "non-hemi"
and avoid the hemi's then-existant weight penalty.
Neither attempt was successful, though. <g>
BTW: Most all NASCAR Boss 429s had the heads machined to full hemi after
Bill France's "nixing" of the "non-hemi" attempt, making race Boss 429
heads with the quench areas intact a relative rarity.
>>>> In '62, Ford released the 3.80" x 2.87" 260 ci Challenger V8. It had
>>>> "wedge" heads, i.e., inline valves; six valve cover bolts per side;
>>>> and a "wet" intake, meaning that to pass between the heads, coolant
>>>> flows through the intake.
>>
>> You missed the original Challenger V-8: the 221-CID in the Fairlane.
>> 3.50" x 2.87" bore/stroke.
>
> Ya got me on that one. I'm not a Ford expert, I just play one on TV. I cobble
> together these posts in part to amuse myself by looking stuff up and learning
> something, and partly to inform readers, including by triggering elaborations
> and corrections like yours.
>
> snip
>
>>>> At the same time, Ford had been working on a mid-block engine design,
>>>> aka the "335" series.
>>
>> Trivia time: know just _why_ it was called "335"?
>
> Was it the street address of the nearest coffee shop to the Shelby American
> facility at LAX?
ROTFL! Nice try. <g>
> I give up. What's the answer?
>
> snip
>
>>>> the Ford 385 series (429/460),...
>>
>> Trivia Two: why was it called "385"?
>
> C'mon, tell us the answer.
I'll wait a bit on these to see if any of the resident "experts" post
the correct answer(s).
> snip
>
>>>> As others have mentioned, the 335 series subsequently got a tall deck
>>>> block too, just like the 351 Windsor wedge had got in '69. With a 3.98"
>>>> stroke, this motor was known as the 400 Cleveland.
>>
>> The stroke on the 400 "Cleveland" is a full 4.00"; not 3.98" (that's the
>> stroke on the 410 and 428 FE engines).
>
> So that makes it a 402, huh? (I knew the 400C's bore was 4.00, so I calculated
> the stroke by dividing 400 by 4 X 3.1416 X 8. That gives 3.98. Again, I'm no
> Ford expert, or else I would have known by heart that the 400 is a 4 X 4.)
Just figure that 4"x4" = +/- 50-ci; that's why the 4"x4" six-cylinder
Ford truck engine is "300-CID" (50-ci/ea. x 6 cylinders = 300-ci.)
> snip
>
>>>> Also, the '69 Boss valves measured 2.23" X 2.19",...
>>
>> Typo, Philly?
>
> Actually a copy and paste error. I copied and pasted valve dimensions from
> Fomoco.com, then deleted, but goofed up. Here's the bit I copied and pasted
> from Fomoco.com:
> intake valve
> (head diameter) 2.2225" - 2.2375"
> (1969)
> 2.185" - 2.195"
> (1970-71**)
> exhaust valve
> (head diameter) 1.647" - 1.662"
> (early '69)
Mine was one of the earliest Boss 302s released (came with the "C8"
"Tunnel Port" block and the cross-drilled steel "Tunnel Port" crank) and
it came with the 1.71" exhausts.
I have never seen (or until now even _heard_ of) 1.66" Boss 302 exhaust
valves.
> 1.7075" - 1.7125"
> (1969-70)
> 1.7045" - 1.7145"
> (1971**)
>
> See, there are at least two ways to screw up. First, you've got to round
> the stated ranges to the nearest hundredth. Then, you've got to delete the
> '70 intake info and leave in the '69 exhaust info. I did the reverse.)
We always referred to them as 2.23", 2.19" and 1.71".
> More snips.
>
> Thanks for the corrections. Oh, and before you go ballistic on fomoco.com's
> "1971 Boss 302" info, the double asterisks refer to this footnote: "** Listed
> for Mustang in early dealer literature, but Ford states it was dropped in
> pre-production."
Yup: they decided to go with the Boss 351 rather than another Boss 302,
as the Trans Am rules had changed and was allowing the destroking of 35x
engines down to the 5.0L maximum limit. Therefore there was no need for
a true 302 "race" engine anymore.
> Yrs, Philly -- Thunder Snake #28
> http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=6&uid=116159&
One final trivia question:
Since both the Boss 351 and the 351C 4-V shared the same valve sizes
(2.19"x1.71"), what was the differences in the Boss and 4-V valves???
Johnny Johnson
> Two such BOSS 429 Cougars exist. Both with factory documentation
> (plus the Shelby nose on both, but the cougar tail and interior).
Must be more than that, as the Grabber Yellow (I think they called it
"Bright Yellow" on Cougars) '70 Boss 429 Eliminator I saw was Cougar all
the way (rear _and_ front).
Johnny Johnson
> Your reference to the Fairlane with the 221 brings back memories for me.
> My first car was a 62 Fairlane 2 tone with a 221. It was a pretty solid
> car, even when I sold it. Oh and here is something to think about, I
> bought the car in 1976 for $110, sold it about a year latter for $125.
Do you remember the way to tell a Challenger 221-ci V-8 from a 260/up
from the outside?
Philly Essnillius
>
>Philly Essnillius wrote:
snip
>> Hey Johnny, how come ya didn't ding me, that I didn't mention the Holley
>> "three barrel"? I think I get to ding you back for not picking up that one.
>
>Ah, yes: the 950 CFM "Three Barrel"; originally designed and intended
>for NASCAR racing (before the days of restrictor plates and carb
>limits).
>
>Have you ever seen a "1050 CFM Two Barrel"?
>
>A few ambitious carb modifiers reworked the Three Barrel by machining
>the primaries to the same oval configuration as the secondary.
>
>The idea was to get around the "two-barrel" limitation of many dirt
>tracks; just as Ford's "quench" areas of the Boss 429 "Blue Crescent"
>engine was intended to qualify the engine with NASCAR as a "non-hemi"
>and avoid the hemi's then-existant weight penalty.
>
>Neither attempt was successful, though. <g>
>
>BTW: Most all NASCAR Boss 429s had the heads machined to full hemi after
>Bill France's "nixing" of the "non-hemi" attempt, making race Boss 429
>heads with the quench areas intact a relative rarity.
I love this trivia stuff.
snip
>>> Trivia time: know just _why_ it was called "335"?
>>
>> Was it the street address of the nearest coffee shop to the Shelby American
>> facility at LAX?
>
>ROTFL! Nice try. <g>
>
>> I give up. What's the answer?
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>> the Ford 385 series (429/460),...
>>>
>>> Trivia Two: why was it called "385"?
>>
>> C'mon, tell us the answer.
>
>I'll wait a bit on these to see if any of the resident "experts" post
>the correct answer(s).
Problem is, when a ramfm thread about classic Stangs gets this old, nobody's
reading it anymore. But we'll wait and see.
snip
>> Actually a copy and paste error. I copied and pasted valve dimensions from
>> Fomoco.com, then deleted, but goofed up. Here's the bit I copied and pasted
>> from Fomoco.com:
>> intake valve
>> (head diameter) 2.2225" - 2.2375"
>> (1969)
>> 2.185" - 2.195"
>> (1970-71**)
>> exhaust valve
>> (head diameter) 1.647" - 1.662"
>> (early '69)
>
>Mine was one of the earliest Boss 302s released (came with the "C8"
>"Tunnel Port" block and the cross-drilled steel "Tunnel Port" crank) and
>it came with the 1.71" exhausts.
>
>I have never seen (or until now even _heard_ of) 1.66" Boss 302 exhaust
>valves.
Yeah, these fomoco.com data require keeping the salt shaker handy.
>> 1.7075" - 1.7125"
>> (1969-70)
>> 1.7045" - 1.7145"
>> (1971**)
>>
>> See, there are at least two ways to screw up. First, you've got to round
>> the stated ranges to the nearest hundredth. Then, you've got to delete the
>> '70 intake info and leave in the '69 exhaust info. I did the reverse.)
>
>We always referred to them as 2.23", 2.19" and 1.71".
OK, I'll (try to) commit these numbers to memory so I don't have to click all
over the fomoco.com website every time I need to know. Do you notice how at a
certain age, the brain seems to have reached the saturation point such that
acquiring a new datum seems to force out an old one?
>Yup: they decided to go with the Boss 351 rather than another Boss 302,
>as the Trans Am rules had changed and was allowing the destroking of 35x
>engines down to the 5.0L maximum limit. Therefore there was no need for
>a true 302 "race" engine anymore.
This reminds me of some trivia I read somewhere on the web, that '68 and '69
Firebirds were allowed to compete in the Trans Am series only after their team
owners convinced the SCCA that the Chevy 302 was a regular production option in
'68 and '69 Canadian Firebirds. Truth or urban myth? (I'm all but certain that
none of the 600 or so '69 Firebirds with the Trans Am option package had other
than a 400 ci Poncho.)
>One final trivia question:
>
>Since both the Boss 351 and the 351C 4-V shared the same valve sizes
>(2.19"x1.71"), what was the differences in the Boss and 4-V valves???
Uh, shot in the dark answer: the Boss valves were sodium filled? That's only
one difference, but it's the best I can do.
Bill S.
A total of four BOSS 429 Cougars were ever built, two 1969 BOSS 429
Cougars, neither of them yellow in color, and in 1970, two "Quarter
Horse" BOSS 429 Cougars built with the Shelby nose of that same time
period (once again, neither of them yellow in color), no other 1969/1970
BOSS 429 cougars ever existed. Same goes for those two low serial number
1969 BOSS 302's with factory shaker hood scoops you remember so
fondly................
Bill S.
Johnny Johnson
> Sorry Johnny,
>
> A total of four BOSS 429 Cougars were ever built, two 1969 BOSS 429
> Cougars, neither of them yellow in color, and in 1970, two "Quarter
> Horse" BOSS 429 Cougars built with the Shelby nose of that same time
> period (once again, neither of them yellow in color), no other 1969/1970
> BOSS 429 cougars ever existed.
And your source for this "info" is....? Is it independently verifiable?
BTW: I saw the car in a period magazine, so it is entirely possible that
I am remembering one of the '69s being featured and "cross-remembering"
the '70 Boss 302 Eliminator I used to maintain for the old doctor in
Dallas (it was definitely yellow).
As you know, the first sign of senility is losing your memory; but I
can't remember the second sign. <g>
> Same goes for those two low serial number 1969 BOSS 302's with factory
> shaker hood scoops you remember so fondly................
Didn't claim _here_ they were "factory" (but NHRA Tech _thought_ they
were factory <g>); especially since I was the one who "factoried" them
during Make Ready (along with the trunk-mounted batteries <g>).
No one _ever_ saw the cars (my white one and Bobby's yellow one) without
these components, so there's a large group of people who would flatly
state that they were "factory." <g>
Bill S.
production records from 1967 on up (and is licensed by Ford to run this
type of information). Kevin will be more than happy to run you a
specific report for around $40-$75 each...
Scott A. Ekleberry
get the Cleveland name till the 70 model year. There are shots of the 351
engine in the book from 1968. The only reason it go the name Cleveland was
that it was made in Cleveland, Ohio. Ass to how they decided on using 289
HI-PO type rods in the engine, don't know. The block was the 68 Tunnel Port
block. Ford was going to make a Boss 302 in 71', but when they switched to
the Boss 351 the 71' Boss 302 parts became service parts. You were right
about the switch because of the SCCA rules allowing de-stroking, but then
Ford up and canceled their factory racing program anyway!!! Then very soon
afterward the dark days of the Mustang 2 set in, and only Chevy continued to
make a performance car (Camaro), even if it was a total dog!!!
--
Scott A. Ekleberry
It's About Time!
A full service watch repair shop!
www.itsabouttimeonline.com
SAE...@WOH.RR.COM
"Johnny Johnson" <johnj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C2113EF...@mindspring.com...
Johnny Johnson
> Johnny Johnson wrote this:
>
>> One final trivia question:
>>
>> Since both the Boss 351 and the 351C 4-V shared the same valve sizes
>> (2.19"x1.71"), what was the differences in the Boss and 4-V valves???
>
> Uh, shot in the dark answer: the Boss valves were sodium filled?
Race valves were titanium (intake) and hollow stem (non-sodium filled:
that was FE stuff) exhaust.
Street valves were solid.
> That's only one difference, but it's the best I can do.
The difference between street Boss and plain Cleveland valves/keepers
was that the Boss valves had conventional single keeper grooves with
keepers that "gripped" the valve, while Clevelands had triple keeper
grooves and keepers that butted together and allowed the valves to
rotate within the keeper pairs.
zo...@froob.net
I live in Australia, have an old 302 Clevo from '68 which needs some spare
parts and an overhaul. If they still manufacture them I'll buy a new one and
learn how to overhaul on the old one.
de Zwart.
Les Benn <les...@tg-2000.com> wrote:
> Clevelands were four bolt mains, while Windors were two bolt. Clevelands
> are still made in australia if you can get one from an Aussie
--
$Id: .signature,v 1.2 2001/12/22 02:46:10 dezwart Exp $
"Behold, as a wild ass in the desert, go I forth to my work."
- Gurney Halleck (Dune)
Hunter and Mary Huffman
common is displacement. Windsor engines are 302's with a taller deck height
and longer rods. 3" inch stroke for 302's 3.50" stroke for 351's.
The 351 Clevland was only made from 1970 to 1974. It was then changed to
the 351M (modified Clevland block) The Australian 302 is a different
engine from all of these. It has characteristics of both the windsor style
blocks and clevland/modified/big block heads.
Hunter
<zo...@froob.net> wrote in message
news:10113993...@yggdrasil.intranet.froob.net...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
irpac83
> irpac83
351c 351w are completely dif.engines (bellhousing,engine mounts are same)
the 351m is a modified 400,these are closer to 429-460 engines,with
clevland 2v heads.parts from each engine 289,302,302 boss,5.0. 351c
351 boss,351w,351m,400 can be interchanged with machine work etc.
>irpac83> 85 lx coupe Ttop 7.44 1/8m
SHERRY A HUBBARD
both 2 and 4 bolt mains. As were windsor's. Cleveland are larger in size and
weight. The Cleveland is by far the stronger block. There were around 6
different versions of this engine made. Like the Boss Cleveland.
<zo...@froob.net> wrote in message
news:10113993...@yggdrasil.intranet.froob.net...
Stuart&Janet
just had thicker main caps) StuK
--
ThunderSnake #11
"This space left intentionally blank"
"SHERRY A HUBBARD" <WSK...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:gYh28.20825$LH4.192...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Johnny Johnson
> Just to add to the fray. The only 4 bolt Windsor was a BOSS 302
> (hipo 289's just had thicker main caps) StuK
And to "fray" the subject further: the original 1969 Boss 302 block was
a carryover item from the 1968 302 Tunnel Port program:
http://www.thecarsource.com/fords/engines/302engine.html
http://ford-mustang.hyperlink.cz/images/motory/302tp.gif
XWSPUSNX
toward the intake and exhaust valve(s) are tilted toward the exhaust mnifold.)
The Cleveland 's block extends out in the front so you won't find a timing
chain cover like on a 289/302/351. The thermostat is in the block on a
cleveland unlike a windsor whose thermostat is in the intake. parts are widely
available for engine rebuilts here in the USA