The CJ and SCJ were 429s. For some reason it seems to me that the 428 may have been called CJ, but I'm not sure on that one.
The high-performance version of the Cleveland was called "Boss". I think it might have also been called CJ in 1971, Ford must have liked the name.
Hack - please don't take this as a personal attack... but please be careful when posting info like the above - it's partially correct - but is confusing to people who may not know the history.
First CJ - 1968 1/2 - 428 with basically 427 low riser heads found in Mustang, Fairlane, Cougar, Cyclone
1969 - 428 CJ see above... also available as SCJ - brought capscrew rods (LeMans), Oil Cooler, and 3.91 - 4.30 rear gearing (4.30's were Det Locker only) - Found in the same vehicles as above.
1970 - Now it gets confusing... 428 CJ & SCJ Avail - Mustang Cougar
429 CJ & SCJ (385 series engine) - the SCJ was a WILD one with Solid lifters and all only available in 1970 Torino, Falcon (70 1/2), and Cyclone. 351 Cleveland 2v and 4v engines in all of the above - NOT CJ or Bosses.
1971 - 429 CJ and SCJ - as above In Mustang, Cougar (supposedly), Torino and Cyclone. Late year 351CJ (lower compression 4v open chamber heads- 4bolt mains) - and Boss 351 (another Kick butt engine with Solids)
1972 - Good bye Big Blocks - 351CJ stays, and to mid year the "R" H.O. option - which was a low compression Boss 351 engine - .
1973 - 351CJ
Does anyone see anything that needs corrected?
EDIT : oh - and to get with the thread- Big Blocks Rule!
Hi all, I just joined this board and I wanted to throw in my .02. Out of the three Stangs I've owned I liked the Cleveland in my 71 Mach the best. My 67 had the 390, fairly stock, and that was nice, lots of torque and since I was only 17 at the time, the ability to do big burnouts was just what I was looking for It couldn't turn a corner worth a damn though, but at the time I didn't care to much about that.
The 302 in my Cobra II was lightly modded, and that car ran decently enough once I got all the smog crap off it and gave it intake and exhaust so the poor thing could breath decently. One thing I could never figure out though, was why do all the hot rodders go for the Mustang II front suspension for their custom builds? Is it a space issue, tuneability, or something else? Maybe someone in the know can help me out on this, but when i owned that car I never thought the front end was especially interesting. It handled OK, nothing to write home about, but the power steering was probably the most knumb, overboosted thing I've ever driven. Still though I liked the car alot, nice look I thought with the louvers, spoiler, and air damn, great cockpit. I think these cars deserve a little more credit than they get today, no one seems to care much about them but they are a part of the Mustang legacy.
The Cleveland was my fav though. It was, again, lightly modded, 2V heads, intake, exhaust, ignition, cam, basically stock bottom end. My father had the 69 428 CJ Mach back in the day, and even he was impressed with the 351's power. I think Ford's advertising slogan at the time was "the small block that runs like a big block". I wanna eventually build a 67 coupe with a GT/CS body kit, and I've pretty much decided it'll get a Cleveland. Funny though, most of the young guys I've talked to lately who arent into the vintage Stangs don't even know what that motor is all about. So basically if I had to choose, if I was building a weekend car that went to the strip and not much else, I'd go for the big block (cost not an issue). Anything else that might see routine driving, or road coarse work especially, small block (Cleveland) all the way.
Either way I am glad I have my busted ass cleveland 4v it has the best of all worlds, thats why massaratti used them in the late 70's, as well as the pantera, they have small block weight, big block power, they rev fast and high, dont give me crap about the oiling problems, any cars going to need trick oiling systems running 6-8000 rpm constantly.
Hack - please don't take this as a personal attack... but please be careful when posting info like the above - it's partially correct - but is confusing to people who may not know the history.
No offense taken, I only had partial info, which is why I said in my post that I don't know for sure. I'll probably continue to post if I feel like it, but explain that I'm not certain when I'm not.
Impressive detail on your post. I wish Ford would have come up with more of a variety of names for motors. I always liked the Chryslers... super commando, magnum, etc.
No offense taken, I only had partial info, which is why I said in my post that I don't know for sure. I'll probably continue to post if I feel like it, but explain that I'm not certain when I'm not.
Impressive detail on your post. I wish Ford would have come up with more of a variety of names for motors. I always liked the Chryslers... super commando, magnum, etc.
Yeah, I agree that they should have done *some* sort of name change with the Fe vs 385 vs Cleveland...
Heck, that's why we like Fords vs the "other" brands... It's like a model... Fords are the complicated ones with a million pieces and Brand x's are the snap together kits.
While there is a lot of "newer technology" available, I built a 450hp at the fywheel 393 for about $4000 bucks. That is not cost prohibitive or exotic. This stroker motor may be my favorite motor yet, and I have had all but the bosses.
I give big blocks credit where it is due. They make lotsa torque, and I love torque. They look really cool, especially if you don't work on em, and they create really good power through the factory manifolds, much more so than a small block.
That being said, they are more expensive to find parts for, they carry extra weight, and they generate a lot of heat under the hood.
I would trade my present day fastback for my old CJ Mach in a New York minute. Panache is hard to measure, but that car had it in spades.