New Features: Ford Mustang Knowledge Base - check it out & suggest new topics here.
Ford Mustang Forums - Ford Mustang Classifieds - MustangForums.com Photo Galleries - MustangForums.com Chat Room - Create an Account - Mustang News

Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > Classic Mustangs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-02-2007, 12:36 PM   #1
67ride
My Garage
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location:
Posts: 11
Default 351C

I am looking to buy a used 351C from the local classifieds to put in my 67 coupe. Doesanyone have any hints on what to look for when I check it out (casting numbers etc ...)?Also, does anyone have a preference or know which one would be a better buy ... a351C or 351W?
67ride is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
This ad is not displayed to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
Old 05-02-2007, 01:15 PM   #2
atomsk680
5th Gear Member
My Garage
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW
Posts: 3,802
Default RE: 351C

A C and the W are both very good engines, the C can make more naturally aspired horsepower alot easier then the W, but the drawbacks are parts are a little more expensive. the W has a large after market, terefore parts are cheaper. and pretty much every ford between 70 and 74 had C's in them. its easy to check just to see if the radiator goes to the block and not the intake manifold. or if you can pulll the starter off and post the block number here, one of us could decifer the code.
__________________
1990 Mustang Lx Hatch 2.3L (sold)
1971 mustang Mach 1 clone 5.0L 302 (sold)
1969 Mustang coupe 5.8L 351C (sold)
atomsk680 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 03:20 PM   #3
66GTKFB
5th Gear Member
My Garage
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 2,623
Default RE: 351C

A friend put a 351C in his 67 hardtop and only encountered exhaust pipe problems, he had to have a custom 'H' pipe made, other than that, it worked.
Jim
66GTKFB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 03:23 PM   #4
66GTKFB
5th Gear Member
My Garage
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 2,623
Default RE: 351C

One more thing, if you are looking for an upgrade from an I-6, 1967 engine mount brackets, mounting holes in the frame and insulatorsare unique to 1967. You cannot use another year's materials.
Jim
66GTKFB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 05:08 PM   #5
Decurion
2nd Gear Member
My Garage
 
Decurion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: next to Kwame-town
Posts: 421
Send a message via AIM to Decurion
Default RE: 351C

Look how much aftermarket stuff there is for a Kleveland, then look how much stuff there is for the WINdsor. The clevelands had piss poor blocks and marginal oiling systems (maybe Im thinking of the modified here...) on top of being heavier. They are also wider, and so not nearly as many header options. Unless your car came with a cleveland AND you have some reason to keep it, go windsor and dont look back. Theyre cheaper, lighter, and have WAY more parts available. Sure the heads may not be as good, but thats a whole lot cheaper and easier to replace than finding out your cleveland block has pourosity and core shift problems.
__________________
-Eric
65 Falcon wagon, 5.0L, t5, 3.55 8", cruiser
65 Comet wagon, 302, c4, 3.55 9", bruiser
www.performanceas.com
Decurion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 06:01 PM   #6
mikethebike
3rd Gear Member
My Garage
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 551
Default RE: 351C

Quote:
ORIGINAL: 66GTKFB

A friend put a 351C in his 67 hardtop and only encountered exhaust pipe problems, he had to have a custom 'H' pipe made, other than that, it worked.
Jim
Why not just use headers for a 70 351'C'....are the chassis not the same?
mikethebike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 06:27 PM   #7
66GTKFB
5th Gear Member
My Garage
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 2,623
Default RE: 351C

The exhaust manifolds were Cleveland, the problem was the stock 70 (and the 71 that was also tried) 'H' pipe had too many interferences. It was more practical to have a muffler shop make one.
Jim
66GTKFB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 06:43 PM   #8
JBradley500
3rd Gear Member
My Garage
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UPSTATE NEW YORK
Posts: 614
Send a message via AIM to JBradley500
Default RE: 351C

unless you really want a cleveland id probably get a windsor...used c's are usually pretty abused.
__________________

JBradley500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 07:49 PM   #9
longlive289s
3rd Gear Member
My Garage
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 626
Default RE: 351C

my pop's had a 70 mach 1 with a clevelend......he wishes it had been a windsor....said it was too pricy compared to the windsor....and that was back in late 70's
__________________

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2590051
289 C Code
rebuilt: engine, tranny. grab-a-track suspension
engine pretty's and hooker comp headers
longlive289s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2007, 10:37 PM   #10
LCC
4th Gear Member
My Garage
 
LCC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Vehicle: 68 Fastback
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,175
Default RE: 351C

Windsor is the way to go if your trying to put something together that is strong and cheep. I was going to build my 351C until the price to build for the same HP was more for theC then the W. If you would have said something about 2 weeks ago I would have sold you mine. If you need some headers for your 67 I can help you, I still have mine.....
__________________
68 Mustang Fastback

Lentech AOD, 357 SBF, Vortec S/C, F.A.S.T. EFI
LCC is offline   Reply With Quote



Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Advertising

Featured Sponsors









New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 AM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

MustangForums.com and InternetBrands, Inc. are not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company