• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

Help with a 351M problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brandog209
  • Start date Start date Sep 16, 2007
B

Brandog209

New Member
Sep 16, 2007
2
0
0
Modesto,Ca
Sep 16, 2007
#1
  • Sep 16, 2007
  • #1
I got a 72 Fastback with a 351M. It's supposed to have a cleveland but someone must have done an engine swap before i bought the vehicle. Anyway I replaced the intake manifold & the carburetor but when it was time to put the distributor back in, it was giving me a hard time. To fix this problem i tried sticking a socket onto the oil pump shaft to rotate it & see if the distributor would fit onto it. But when i pulled the socket out, it pulled the shaft out with it. I then tried to drop it back in & it fell in somewhere and now i can't even see where it is. Do you guys think it would have fallen in to the oil pan? If that's the case i'll just take the oil pan off, but if not then i think i might be screwed on this one. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Sep 16, 2007
#2
  • Sep 16, 2007
  • #2
It's in the pan, time to remove the pan. While you're there, look at the crank casting numbers, maybe you'll be lucky and have a 400 in there instead of a POS 351M. What makes you think it is a 351M anyway ? To transplant one in there, someone would have had to fab custom motor mounts and swap the transmission to a big block C-6.
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Sep 16, 2007
#3
  • Sep 16, 2007
  • #3
They are designed with a keeper that doesn't allow them to pull up or fall down.

The problem is that someone could have removed the keeper, or installed the shaft upside-down.
If so, it's time to pull the pan!
Sorry...
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Sep 16, 2007
#4
  • Sep 16, 2007
  • #4
Whoops!
D beat me to it!

Hope you got a 400.
The 351m is a hermaphrodite at best.
You could always swap in a 400 crank and pistons...
 
B

Brandog209

New Member
Sep 16, 2007
2
0
0
Modesto,Ca
Sep 16, 2007
#5
  • Sep 16, 2007
  • #5
Well it should be an H code 351c 2v, but there is a sticker on the head cover that says its a 351m & it meets all emissions requirements for 1977. My car is a '72 though. I got a new intake for a 351m and it fit perfect. At first i was kind of bummed that it wasnt a cleveland, but one of my friends seems to think it came from a '77 Ford truck & if thats the case it should have more torque. Not sure if it came from a truck but it's definitely a 351m. Thanks for the advice, i will give it a shot this weekend.
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Sep 16, 2007
#6
  • Sep 16, 2007
  • #6
Brandog209 said:
At first i was kind of bummed that it wasnt a cleveland, but one of my friends seems to think it came from a '77 Ford truck & if thats the case it should have more torque.
Click to expand...

Couple points:
Cubic inches vs same cubic inches, I can't think of any 77 model engine that was better than earlier stuff. That year was the peak of mediocrity in the auto business.

Trucks didn't get the 351m to my knowledge.
A 77 PU would have a 400, while mid level FoMoCo cars like Torino and just about any Mercury would get a 351m.

Just because a given engine came in a truck, doesn't always give it more torque than a car engine. On occaision, the manufacturer makes significant changes to do this sort of thing, like long intake runners or different cams. However what Ford did was to use a different crankshaft. Instead of 3.5" stroke, they put a 4" stroke in that block to give the 351m more torque. The only problem is that it is called a 400 now...
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Sep 17, 2007
#7
  • Sep 17, 2007
  • #7
In this case same vs same isn't even close to being equal. The 351M was a dog. The heavier pistons limited it's rev potential. It may have had more torque, but that would only have been on the bottom end. Cams were retarded along with the ignition timing. Lots of 77 trucks had both the 351M and the 400. Only fix for a 351M is to stroke it back to a 400. Even then, that's only part of waking it up. You can do what I did with one and swap cams, I put a Summit RAcing p/n 5200 in one and it made a big difference, even being fed by the stock 2 bbl intake and a Holley 500 carb. It also had long tube headers. The 400's big drawback was the piston comp height, they only came to .100 of the deck. There is only one fix for that, get on the Ford Truck Enthusiest website and locate a company called TMI ent. He had a special run of 400 pistons made that fixed the comp height. Another good swap is a set of Aussie 2bbl Cleveland heads, these had the 4 bbl quench chambers with 2 bbl sized ports.
 
B

bnickel

Founding Member
Aug 21, 2002
5,640
3
77
lubbock, texas
Sep 17, 2007
#8
  • Sep 17, 2007
  • #8
the 351M came in every ford product from the torino on up to the trucks, i've even seen big heavy duty trucks (flatbeds, box trucks, etc.) with the 351m. i had one in my 74 ranchero and it was a total dog.

D, it could also have an FMX behind it rather than the c6. i've seen a few big body stangs that had 351m/400 engines in them that still had the original FMX that was behind the cleveland and the bellhousing from an early 351m/400 passenger car FMX. then you just need to find some 429 engine and frame mounts and you're good to go. i wouldn't do it myself but it can be done.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Sep 17, 2007
#9
  • Sep 17, 2007
  • #9
I wasn't aware the FMX's had a bog block bell. The 429/406 mounts only fit those, the 351M/400 mounts are unique unto themselves, they don't fit anything else and nothing else fits them.
 
B

bnickel

Founding Member
Aug 21, 2002
5,640
3
77
lubbock, texas
Sep 17, 2007
#10
  • Sep 17, 2007
  • #10
D.Hearne said:
I wasn't aware the FMX's had a bog block bell. The 429/406 mounts only fit those, the 351M/400 mounts are unique unto themselves, they don't fit anything else and nothing else fits them.
Click to expand...


yep, the FMX does have a bell for the 351m/400/429/460 and you're right about the engine mounts being unique to the 351m/400 but the frame mounts/stands for 71-73 429/460 will allow the 351m/400 to bolt into the mustang using the stock 351m/400 engine mounts
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Sep 17, 2007
#11
  • Sep 17, 2007
  • #11
Not only did 351m come with FMX, they came with C4s on occaision.
That is where the BBF C4 bellhousings come from that folks use behind 460s.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Sep 17, 2007
#12
  • Sep 17, 2007
  • #12
bnickel said:
yep, the FMX does have a bell for the 351m/400/429/460 and you're right about the engine mounts being unique to the 351m/400 but the frame mounts/stands for 71-73 429/460 will allow the 351m/400 to bolt into the mustang using the stock 351m/400 engine mounts
Click to expand...

I see now, I forgot about the multi piece mounts in the Stangs.
 
S

stonecoldtx

Member
Aug 4, 2007
214
2
18
Dallas, TX
Sep 18, 2007
#13
  • Sep 18, 2007
  • #13
Are you sure that it's really a 351M, and somebody didn't just replace the valve covers? The 351M uses the same basic heads as the 351C 2-V . . . and if this really is a 351C, somebody probably put a nice set of fancy valve covers on the engine, and wanted to keep them when he sold the car; with that being the case, he might have just gone out to a salvage yard and found a set of valve covers that would fit.

The best way to tell the difference between the 351C and the 351M/400, is to take a look at the top bolts on the bellhousing. If they're 4-5 inches or so apart, then it's a 351C; if they're around 8-10 inches apart, then it's a 351M/400--they use the same bellhousing bolt pattern as the 429/460 385-series engines.
 
S

stonecoldtx

Member
Aug 4, 2007
214
2
18
Dallas, TX
Sep 18, 2007
#14
  • Sep 18, 2007
  • #14
ratio411 said:
" . . . Instead of 3.5" stroke, they put a 4" stroke in that block to give the 351m more torque. The only problem is that it is called a 400 now...
Click to expand...

Well, that's PARTIALLY correct--actually, the 400 came out LONG before the 351M . . . I remember getting a '71 LTD in that had a broken crankshaft, and it was a 400.

If I recall correctly, the 351M came out in LATE '74 as a replacement for the 351C (the last year of production for that engine in the US); rumor has it what they did was take a 351W crank and placed it into the 400 block to get the 351M.
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Sep 18, 2007
#15
  • Sep 18, 2007
  • #15
stonecoldtx said:
Well, that's PARTIALLY correct--actually, the 400 came out LONG before the 351M . . . I remember getting a '71 LTD in that had a broken crankshaft, and it was a 400.

If I recall correctly, the 351M came out in LATE '74 as a replacement for the 351C (the last year of production for that engine in the US); rumor has it what they did was take a 351W crank and placed it into the 400 block to get the 351M.
Click to expand...

You are correct on all points.

The statement I made was just to illustrate how Ford gave the trucks more torque. Semi-fecious statement.
It's the truth though. When the 360 FE petered out in 76, Ford put the Modifieds in it's place. If you wanted a torquey truck, you got the 351m with a 4" stroke crank. Which we all know is the 400.
Point being is that they didn't bother with a 'truck cam' or any other tricks like that.
The comment was in response to a remark that a truck 351m was tricked out to be torquey-er than a car 351m. Wasn't the case.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Sep 18, 2007
#16
  • Sep 18, 2007
  • #16
stonecoldtx said:
Well, that's PARTIALLY correct--actually, the 400 came out LONG before the 351M . . . I remember getting a '71 LTD in that had a broken crankshaft, and it was a 400.

If I recall correctly, the 351M came out in LATE '74 as a replacement for the 351C (the last year of production for that engine in the US); rumor has it what they did was take a 351W crank and placed it into the 400 block to get the 351M.
Click to expand...

Actually you're partielly correct, the 351W crank isn't the same casting as the 351M. There's a shoulder on one, forward of the #1 main, that's not present on the other. It wasn't really a replacement for the Cleveland either. It was truly a "modified" engine intended to fill the production hole left by killing the Cleveland that the Windsor plant couldn't fill. They "modified" the 400 to make the 351M starting in the 75 model year.
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Sep 18, 2007
#17
  • Sep 18, 2007
  • #17
Yeah, I didn't intend to support his statement that it was purely a 351w crank.
It's close enough though that I overlooked that point.

You're on the ball D...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Edelbrock 1405 Setup
  • nathantaylor200
  • Nov 4, 2025
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
3
Views
191
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Nov 5, 2025
nathantaylor200
N
C
C4 trans help needed
  • CPH89LX
  • Apr 26, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
136
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 28, 2026
CPH89LX
C
S
Car shakes when taking off help???
  • STANKYstangs
  • May 10, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
177
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- May 27, 2026
LILCBRA
Who the hell puts the wrong spark plugs in a 3.8L?
  • snowstang
  • Mar 25, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
366
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Apr 3, 2026
LILCBRA
M
67 Mustang Ignition Switch Wiring Diagram needed
  • Michaelell
  • Sep 14, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
356
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jan 3, 2026
Michaelell
M
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?