351c in a '65

ShAkE N BaKe!! · May 17, 2007

So, will a 351c fit in a 65 66, or should we stick with W.?

-Now i know i said i was goin to get my 289 rebuilt but i was thinking before i make that move... what if i buy a cheap complete 351 and just rebuilt that. Over where i live, it seems people only sell 351c. for around $500obo. Now im wondering if i should just get my dad to pay for the 289 rebuild, "OR" I can buy the complete 351c and he can pay to get that rebuilt and hopefully it will just slide in for the most part.

-what would you guys do?

dodgestang · May 17, 2007

I would decide on what I wanted to do with the car? What my over all performance goals where for that use, then decide on how much money I had to spend and then compare the three and adjust accordingly.

ShAkE N BaKe!! · May 17, 2007

i want the car to be a daily driver. Im just looking for some good street power. Probably just put intake, carb, cam, and little stuff like that for now. My dad already said he will pay for the rebuild so that means i will have to buy the engine. i have $500 to spend but can probably get one for about $400 negotiating.

- Now i know if i just wanted a daily driver theres no need to get a 351, but i know that when i have the money i will want to build a monster so... if the 351c is not that much trouble to drop in should i go for it?

STSFCTN67 · May 17, 2007

Keep it simple go with a 302 for a daily driver. You don't need the added weight, tight header clearance, and lack of aftermarket assessories like the ease of getting fuel injection, supercharger or turbo as with a 302. The cleavland fits with banging the shocktowers and the 351w fits with a performer intake and a low profile air cleaner.

see my sig believe me keep it simple

ratio411 · May 17, 2007

STSFCTN67 said:
The cleavland fits with banging the shocktowers

I am not really disagreeing with your 'keep it simple' philosophy, however, I am wondering where you get the idea that the Cleveland requires the BFH method to install?
I have put them in Mavericks without a BFH... and that is a smaller engine bay.
Takes the same header as a 65-66 Stang. Made by Tubular.

Clevelands fit better IMO because the exhaust points downward, rather than heading straight for the shock tower like a Windsor.
Where a Windsor needs small tube headers to clear the towers, the Cleveland can run big tubes as the headers need not clear the towers.

That said, a 302 or 331 is the easy way to go for a street cruiser...
The 351w is the way to go for big power on a small budget...
And the Cleveland should only be considered when cost is no object for getting the 'WOW!' factor when you open the hood.

351carlo · May 18, 2007

Stick with a 302 based motor. If your dad is willing to rebuild it, tell him you need a 331 crank and some nice forged pistons. Let him know your current heads are no good, and you need a set of AFR's. What is he willing to spend to rebuild this motor?

ratio411 said:
The 351w is the way to go for big power on a small budget...
And the Cleveland should only be considered when cost is no object for getting the 'WOW!' factor when you open the hood.

And I'd really like to know where you get your facts for a 351w being the way to go for big power on a small budget. Not to mention the 351c is NOT MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD.

Stock 4v CC heads (Springs, some 1 piece SS Valves, roller rockers... same stuff you'd do to a Windsor) on a rebuilt short block (Cost of machine work is the same, cost of off the shelf pistons is same, rings, bearings, bolts, gaskets) with the same bolt ons you'd put on a Windsor and I will not only put out more power, but I don't have to shell out $1500+ in some fancy aluminum heads. (Before telling me you can get XXX Brand aluminum heads for 1000, compare the flow numbers)

Tell me what parts cost more on the Cleveland.

Hack · May 18, 2007

A Cleveland with 4V CC irons would be cheaper and make more power than a 331 stroker with aluminum heads. I do like the idea of the multitude of cheap used parts available for the 302, but once you buy a stroker kit and aluminum heads... you are way beyond the price of a 351C rebuild. I would say just build a roller 302 with E7s or GT40 heads. You should be able to get close to 300 hp, which will be plenty of fun and won't get you in too much trouble or destroy the stock block.

If you start making a bunch more power you will need a ton of upgrades from the radiator to the trans and rear end. I would say that for now you should avoid opening that can of worms.

Decurion · May 18, 2007

I would say you should get an explorer/mounaineer 5.0L. They have great heads and intake to begin with. Fuel injection is probly out of your league, so sell the intake, they bring decent money on ebay. The profit from the intake should be able to buy you a used Performer RPM intake and 600 cfm carb of your choice. Then slip in a STOCK h.o. cam (explorer cams are lame) and roller timing chain, along with a set of 1.7 roller rocker arms and shorty headers. That should be good for at least 300-325 horse, and for notta lotta money.

dodgestang · May 18, 2007

JC did this thread go weird in a hurry.

1. 351c fits stock engine compartment....how do I know...because I have one installed in my stock 65 engine compartment

2. Build what you own, it is ALWAYS cheapest that way, here is something I threw together comparing cost to build comparable powered 351c vs 351w
http://www.dodgestang.com/cvsw.jpg

With all that said, if you want a daily driver just rebuild the 289. We have a 289 int he 65 coupe with a simple cam, intake, and some head work. It make a little over 180 on the chassis dyno, paired with a 4 speed toploader and a 3.25 rear gear it is a blast to drive, can go anywhere (drove to Nebraska from PA 2 yrs ago for a car club get together) and gets decent gas mileage. It's not the fastest car on the road, its not the slowest car on the road (by far) and it is a great looking, great sounding car.

If you switch from the 289 to anything other than a 302 motor, you are going to have significant costs that you aren't prob. planning on...like headers, intake, radiator etc. There are a ton of little things that add up to significant money when changing motors in a car.

rbohm · May 18, 2007

since you want a daily driver, i would stay with the 289 as it will give you the best fuel economy, and still make decent power.

the 351c fits, but headers are required. each header has a tube that crosses under the oil pan to allow the headers to actually fit.

the 351w fits better than a 351c does, but not a whole lot better. by the way you can put large tube headers on a 351w in a 65-66 mustang without moding the shock towers.

dodgestang · May 18, 2007

rbohm said:
the 351c fits, but headers are required. each header has a tube that crosses under the oil pan to allow the headers to actually fit.

Yes and no. To put it in you are required to buy swap headers. They aren't the cheapest headers on the planet either. $500, but the old tubular auto crap has been replaced since Fordpowertrain started making headers that work.

And they are quite nice.

http://www.fordpowertrain.com/351C.htm

ratio411 · May 18, 2007

dodgestang said:
Yes and no. To put it in you are required to buy swap headers. They aren't the cheapest headers on the planet either. $500, but the old tubular auto crap has been replaced since Fordpowertrain started making headers that work.

And they are quite nice.

http://www.fordpowertrain.com/351C.htm

I would like to respond to several comments...

First: I have owned 3 sets of Tubular headers and they are far from "crap".
I have never owned the FPP headers, however I have seen it posted by someone who had a set that they were "crap".

Next: I have had several Clevelands, and over the years they have gotten more expensive and (more importantly) hard to find good parts for.
Folks may have a point about aluminum heads needed for the Ws, but they are just so easy to find nowadays compared to decent C stuff. I won't argue this point too hard. I just said what I did because the W is just plain easier, if not cheaper.

Next: I disagree that the W fits better than the C.
The C's exhaust ports point more in a downward fashon than the W, therefore there is no conflict with the shock towers. Tubular will build you 2.125" headers on request for a Cleveland. You can't get even close to that with Windsor "big tube" headers at 1.75".

I may be at a slight disadvantage here since I haven't put a C in a Stang, but I have put a few in Mavericks. Like I said, that swap uses all the same parts, and the bay is tighter than any Stang.

Also, you can fit iron manifolds. I have done it. So the idea that swap headers are "do or die" is wrong. Same with shaving the towers... It helps, but is not a must.

These are the headers to fit a C in 65-66 Stang and 69-77 Maverick.
They come in several different tube sizes on request.
I also had a set of these for a B302 with 2.125" tubes.
Good stuff!

Dave

dennis112 · May 18, 2007

Personal experience here (but not Cleveland related.)

I used to have the Tubular Automotive 351w swap headers in my 65'. Worst pieces of crap on the planet. 1 1/2" tubes that couldn't fit between the shock towers. Also the headers were really tall. I hit every speed bump, stone, pebble on the highway. When I finally removed the headers, the bottom part of the collector was almost flat from all the ground interference. What is bad is that they were only 2 1/2" collectors to begin with.

For this build, I bought swap headers from Accufab at the same price as I originally paid for the TA's. 1 3/4" tubes with 3 " collectors which only required minor shock tower dimpling. Also, my collectors now fit tight against the underbody of the same car with the original suspension that once held the TA's. I was able to do both the Shelby drop AND install 6 cylinder coil springs which substantially lowered the car. The headers have yet to hit anything, even after a few thousand miles of usage.

I would NEVER purchase another set of Tubular Automotive headers for a street car if there is an alternative selection from another manufacturer.

dodgestang · May 18, 2007

ratio411 said:
I would like to respond to several comments...

First: I have owned 3 sets of Tubular headers and they are far from "crap".
I have never owned the FPP headers, however I have seen it posted by someone who had a set that they were "crap".

I use the word 'crap' from personal experience because I dislike any header that requires me to stop using my front cross member. I've run both the tubular and ford power train in my 65 with the cleveland and I prefer the ford power train because I can use a front cross member.

ShAkE N BaKe!! · May 18, 2007

- To be honest i think i should only stick with 300hp. because once people go over that, it seems you have to start building up your drivetrain. (from what i hear.)
- So,... its very possible to get a 289 300hp. right? if so, ill just stick with that and start looking for good combos.

ratio411 · May 18, 2007

dennis112 said:
Personal experience here (but not Cleveland related.)

I used to have the Tubular Automotive 351w swap headers in my 65'. Worst pieces of crap on the planet. 1 1/2" tubes that couldn't fit between the shock towers. Also the headers were really tall. I hit every speed bump, stone, pebble on the highway. When I finally removed the headers, the bottom part of the collector was almost flat from all the ground interference. What is bad is that they were only 2 1/2" collectors to begin with.

For this build, I bought swap headers from Accufab at the same price as I originally paid for the TA's. 1 3/4" tubes with 3 " collectors which only required minor shock tower dimpling. Also, my collectors now fit tight against the underbody of the same car with the original suspension that once held the TA's. I was able to do both the Shelby drop AND install 6 cylinder coil springs which substantially lowered the car. The headers have yet to hit anything, even after a few thousand miles of usage.

I would NEVER purchase another set of Tubular Automotive headers for a street car if there is an alternative selection from another manufacturer.

The Windsor tubes are a set I never had.
I was instantly turned off by the 1.5" tubes.
Hooker's swap header looks like a much better alternative with it's 1.75" tubes.
I wish Hooker would make a Cleveland swap header... I would have bought one of those instead of the Tubular.

I had the 351c 4Vs in 1.875", B302s in 2.125", and a set of 1.875" SBC Chevelle headers from Tubular. IMO none were crap, but if the first 2 had been made by Hooker, I would have bought the Hooker.
The Chevy set was the right part, right price, and right time sorta deal.

D.Hearne · May 18, 2007

Decurion said:
I would say you should get an explorer/mounaineer 5.0L. They have great heads and intake to begin with. Fuel injection is probly out of your league, so sell the intake, they bring decent money on ebay. The profit from the intake should be able to buy you a used Performer RPM intake and 600 cfm carb of your choice. Then slip in a STOCK h.o. cam (explorer cams are lame) and roller timing chain, along with a set of 1.7 roller rocker arms and shorty headers. That should be good for at least 300-325 horse, and for notta lotta money.

It's apparent here that you have no clue as to what an Explorer 5.0 consists of. The "Lame" cam has .020 less lift and 10 degrees less duration on the intake side than the HO cam. Put 1.7 roller rockers on the F4TE cam and it'lll run rings around the HO cam with 1.6's. Get better fuel mileage too. Great cam with a carb for a daily driver to boot. And forget the roller chain, the Explorer has that already. Just watch the revs with any 90's 5.0. The rods aren't up to snuff. Ford changed these in 1991 and discontinued the old but better C8 rod.

antifan62 · Jan 30, 2011

You could go the route I did, I just picked up a 70 Ranchero off craigslist with a rebuilt 351C for $1500. The guy put alot of money in it, new edelbrock carb, aluminum intake, altenator, MSD distributor and had it recurved, starter, plus new interior that I am selling. He also had all the paperwork for the work he had done. Just a thought

blown65 · Jan 30, 2011

dennis112 said:
Personal experience here (but not Cleveland related.)

I used to have the Tubular Automotive 351w swap headers in my 65'. Worst pieces of crap on the planet. 1 1/2" tubes that couldn't fit between the shock towers. Also the headers were really tall. I hit every speed bump, stone, pebble on the highway. When I finally removed the headers, the bottom part of the collector was almost flat from all the ground interference. What is bad is that they were only 2 1/2" collectors to begin with.

For this build, I bought swap headers from Accufab at the same price as I originally paid for the TA's. 1 3/4" tubes with 3 " collectors which only required minor shock tower dimpling. Also, my collectors now fit tight against the underbody of the same car with the original suspension that once held the TA's. I was able to do both the Shelby drop AND install 6 cylinder coil springs which substantially lowered the car. The headers have yet to hit anything, even after a few thousand miles of usage.

I would NEVER purchase another set of Tubular Automotive headers for a street car if there is an alternative selection from another manufacturer.

Its funny cause I have a set of Accufab headers in mine also, but for a 302 setup. 1 3/4" and they fit like ass and the welding is far from what I'd call good. They work but should be like 150 bucks not 500+ for the lack of quality.

As far as the 331 making less than a 351C. Ill take the 331 with the alum heads anyday compared to a 351C and all that extra weight in those heavy ass heads.

dodgestang · Jan 30, 2011

I see its old post day again.

351c in a '65

ShAkE N BaKe!!

New Member

dodgestang

Active Member

ShAkE N BaKe!!

New Member

STSFCTN67

Member

ratio411

351carlo

New Member

Hack

Decurion

Member

dodgestang

Active Member

rbohm

dodgestang

Active Member

ratio411

dennis112

dodgestang

Active Member

ShAkE N BaKe!!

New Member

ratio411

D.Hearne

New Member

antifan62

New Member

blown65

dodgestang

Active Member

Similar threads

351c in a '65

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency