The title for the 67 with a 6 cylinder and c4 trans gives a weight of 2700 pounds.I have a 83 cutlass with a bored and built up 350 and a beefed up 350 trans. I did all the work myself and it screams. What I do not like is the radical cam does not come alive till 2400rpm so I put in a 410 posi. The olds weighs 3800 lbs. At around 110 mph the front end gets a little light and the steering gets scary so I have to back off. I did blow off a ford lighting from a 30 roll and he was pissed. I don't know what engine it had but he insisted I was running nitros but I am not. I am starting to think that the aditional weight up front might be good with the 400m. The 383 chevy is 4.030 bore on a 3.75 stroke, I am putting one in a firebird currently. So the 400m with a 4.00 bore and a 4.00 stroke should have more torque. Thanks for all the help. I think I will go with the 400 c6 combo but I will have to get a better rear end. The ranger rear I have is a 7.5. What ford should I look out for to get a stronger rear gear?? I do not know the 1/4 mile performance on the olds. I won't let anyone else drive it at the track. At least no one yet that I can trust with it.
Rear ends that are a direct bolt-in are getting scarce at salvage yards. Some Granada's had a 9" and the Lincoln Versailles did with disc brakes but those are from the 70's. Hard to find even on ebay. The 7.5 Ranger rear end housing will hold 8.8 gears. You could swap in the 8.8 traction lock and gears from a 4x4 Ranger or Mustang (Fox). If you don't run super big tires it will hold up for a while. I had a 85 GT 5.0 5speed that was the last year for a 7.5 in a GT. It lasted a while before I broke the spider gears.
If you find a Maverik, they had an 8" that was 2" narrower than the 67's 8". I put one in my first Mustang and ran 9" wide rear tires in the wheel wells, it looked like it was tubbed.
Well I found a pair of used 2V australian heads on E-Bay. They are a BUY it NOW for $359. If you request the valve train is included. According to the site posted above the compression ratio would be 10.2 to 1. That may be a little high for iron heads. They most likly would need a complete rebuild as well but the site seems to really rave about them. I might be better off witth the 351 2V heads at a lower compression and add a light shot of nitrious if I want more but cast pistons are not happy with the shot of juice...........Are these heads worth it? And would they be streetable on pump gas????????????
I would spend the money on pistons to raise the compression. Then you can get what you want and maybe go with forged so you can use NOS. The thing about the heads is that most consider them for flow (bigger valves/ports). For your low end torque motor the 400 heads should be fine. That's my opinion anyway.
Posts: 613
Joined: 2/5/2005 From: UPSTATE NEW YORK Status: offline
Id read around on ford-trucks.com on their forums about the 400 ....they are in love with them and anything you need to know they will know....
You can make an absoulte ton of power with a 400 for cheap, go to tmeyerinc.com to look at performance parts. Theres a guy with a 53(i think) f100 with a 434m stroker EFI, CHI heads and complete roller valvetrain making like 590-600 hp on the street.
Also chi heads, as stated above, are probably the best heads anyone of use normal pay people can afford, so if you want to make power with a 335, thats best the way to go.
The open chamber heads tend to ping on pump gas as opposed to the quench chamber of the Aussie heads. I ran 10 1/2 : 1 compression on my old 302 and it didn't ping on 89 octane gas but would on 87 octane.
Take it for what is worth.....just one point of view, I still have an old set of 351C 2V heads sitting on my garage floor that I can't get $50 out of but the Aussie heads will fetch the asking price.
Then are we saying the aussie heads have the larger ports and valves but could suffer on the low rpm torque? then the 2V 351 heads would be better for low end torque and gas friendly? I have the 351 2V heads but I am having a problem getting the yard to pull the block of the 351 C. Lasy I guess and I have offered to pay. I might have to go with the 351 2V heads over the 499 heads to get a little more compression, I will check out the pistons to get a little more compression.
Posts: 3143
Joined: 1/18/2007 From: Las Cruces, NM Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: JBradley500
Id read around on ford-trucks.com on their forums about the 400 ....they are in love with them and anything you need to know they will know....
You can make an absoulte ton of power with a 400 for cheap, go to tmeyerinc.com to look at performance parts. Theres a guy with a 53(i think) f100 with a 434m stroker EFI, CHI heads and complete roller valvetrain making like 590-600 hp on the street.
Also chi heads, as stated above, are probably the best heads anyone of use normal pay people can afford, so if you want to make power with a 335, thats best the way to go.
In light of this thread I have gone back and looked at some of the specs for the "M" engines, and I will have to say on paper they actually look pretty good,,, Cleveland heads, a 6.5 inch long rod, (this would make for a very good rod ratio), etc.... It makes me wonder if there i some inherent weakness with this engine that makes it undesirable for some reason.... yea the 8 to 1 compression ratio sucks,,, but this is easily fixed....
Are they weak in the bottom or something?
_____________________________
66 Coupe I-6 Conversion, 408 Windsor, Tremec TKO 600 Wilwood fronts, SSBC Rears 9" Track Loc.
I had a 400M in a 79 4x4 10 mpg , and 4mpg when using the 4 wheel drive , 351C to me would be better
Same thing here. I had a 76 4x4 400M, upgraded with edelbrock parts and emissions removed. I got around 8mpg on 89 because it would diesel on 87 and 91. But with that engine I never met an offroader that could compete. I managed to pull a '04 V10 F250 and '93 exploder tied together out of a mud pit by barely touching the gas. The power was so addicting, nothing could out pull it.
I have had them in trucks with high milage and no problems. I think they get a bad rep because they were heavy and Ford never made a 4V version with a good cam or high compression so all anyone knows is they are a low performance truck motor. Like you said they have the Clevland heads and 4" bore with a long stroke. No reason it can't be made to run. I think most people would just rather use the lighter engine in a car. I really think it would be cool to see Dennis build this 67 with a 400...
The only thing I came up with was that the block was heavy, and used the C-6 bolt pattern, which makes it a poor choice for building in the Mustang. The power to weight ratio wasn't favorable due to the weight of the engine and tranny, when compared to the 351C.
The 400M and 351C are relatively the same motor, the main differences were that 400 has a 1 inch taller deck height and larger main journals. There are no weaknesses to this block that the 351 already didn't have, if anything it was stronger due to the larger journals. Ford's main idea behind this engine was to replace the phased out 351C to be the new truck and large car motor. The 351W was not ideal for the application because it was a high revving motor, the M series was designed with low torque in mind. Due to all the torque the motor had I was designed with the bolt pattern for the C6 because it would of popped a C4 but it still was a small block by weight and dimensions. Also if you want you can use performance windsor heads on the block because it was designed with the same bolt pattern.
The reason the motor wasn't that popular was because of the government. Being introduced in the mid-70's it was subject to all the new emission standards, thus killing its gas mileage and output. Then it was killed because of the second round of emission standards, with it being designed with the first set in mind it had no place for the 02 sensors. Ford determined the redesign to be too costly so the just dropped the motor.
There are no real disadvantages to this motor other than you have to use a C6, but there are some out there with the smaller bolt pattern of the FMX. It is basically a 351C stroker from the factory with the ability to use the windsor aftermarket. Once you remove the emissions the motor is a monster stock but change the intake and heads, which is rather cheap to do, and nothing will keep up stop light to stop light or in the 1/4 mile.
Its a small block with the power and characteristics of a big block basically.
dgulian, The Australian heads are worth the money. Most that I have seen are sold in as-pulled condition, It may be wiser to find someone that sells them bare, and magnafluxed. It would be a big pain in the ass to spend good money to get a set of used heads across the ocean, only to find out that they are cracked. There are several places selling the 2V heads, I would shop around a bit. Consider having the heads built up for you, that way you end up with a spring and valve combo that works with whatever cam you choose. I'm no Cleveland guru, but I think you'll be fine with a 10.2 compression ratio with the Australian heads and their superior chamber. If I wasn't trying to remove as much weight as possible from the front of my Mustang I would have gone with the AU heads.
As for which engine, I would go with the 351C and C4. You will save some weight, and it will be a combo that is easier to find headers for.
Check out this link for great information on Ford 7.5" and 8.8" rear ends.
1971 Mustang Grande project. 425hp 426 Ft-lb 377" Cleveland with CHI 2V heads & many other goodies. Broader built FMX transmission 10” custom converter. Maier racing suspension, 31 spine 9” with Detroit True-trac, more to come.
I seem to be getting a drift on this post. As people look closer things seem to be not as they orginally thought. I am going to drop the aussie head idea. The compression is to high. My olds is running 11.2 compression but with aluminum heads. The static compression is 225 pounds and I get no ping. It does rev pass 7200rpm but I cut it off at 6700rpm. The 400 will not see that high. The stroke is 1/2 inch longer. 5200 to 5600 rpm on the safe side. Piston speed would be quite high at high rpm. The rod ratio is better than the chevy 400 that had a rod length of only 5.56 inches. that did cause piston wall thrust and reduced the torque potenical. The 400m has a rod length of a pole vault. So I am leaning to the 400 m with a chi open intake. chi heads in aluminum if they got them, a torque cam with flat lifters. forged pistons with crowns to get the CR to as least 10 :1, a dual spark ignition,toss the retarted cam sprokets and chain a high volumn oil pan with a deeper hand built sump so it does ont suck dry when you get on it.I did find the some early michigan blocks did crack. Mine is a 78 but I will check it out. As far as the weight, one of the sites said the 400m weighted in at 575#. A small block chevy is 500#. Also a 400 chevy trans is as much as a weight beast as the C6. What is the advantage of a ford 9 inch (If I can find one) over the 8.8 ? Is there enough to make the search worth while? Or the cost to buy one ready to go. I am thinking of a ratio around 3.4 to 3.7. I have no concern for gas miliage. What it burns it burns. I build them, drive them, and fill them. Really on a car like this or my olds. Would you really take a cross state trip or longer???? I have the firebird to wrap up while I research the mustang. The mustang will be My last build up. So give me some more feedback, And thanks for all the information. please keep it coming Den
Posts: 3143
Joined: 1/18/2007 From: Las Cruces, NM Status: offline
You can count me as one of those who have rethought the situation and arrived at a different opinion regarding the "M" engine. After looking at the specs with a "clean slate", that engine looks pretty damn good..... It is really easy to take what is thought to be "common knowledge" and apply opinions that don't have much basis in fact,,,,, (Guilty)
It is interesting how a "bad reputation" can follow an engine around for years and years for really no reason, or at least no reason that could not be easily overcome by a competent modifier...
To me the weakest part of the 400 and 351 M is the anemic compression ratio of 8 to1,, this is easily overcome.
The way I see it the additional weight of the engine trans combo. is almost a non issue. If you already have an 8.8 that will fit then I say use it, if you have to pay for a rear end then you might look for an 8 or 9.
Why will this be your last build?
< Message edited by JMD -- 10/4/2007 8:55:02 AM >
_____________________________
66 Coupe I-6 Conversion, 408 Windsor, Tremec TKO 600 Wilwood fronts, SSBC Rears 9" Track Loc.
I had the 351M in an 80's F150 and always felt it was underpowered, pretty gutless. But I was used to my '78 with the 460. Later my Dad had a 97 with the 5.4L and it too was sluggish. But reading up on the truck enthusiast sites, it looks like the sport truck crowd has created quite a demand for this engine. Based on that, I'm still sure I'd rather have the 351C and the C-4 in a Mustang. I must admit though, the yards aren't full of 351C's.
Posts: 3143
Joined: 1/18/2007 From: Las Cruces, NM Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jaded
I had the 351M in an 80's F150 and always felt it was underpowered, pretty gutless. But I was used to my '78 with the 460. Later my Dad had a 97 with the 5.4L and it too was sluggish. But reading up on the truck enthusiast sites, it looks like the sport truck crowd has created quite a demand for this engine. Based on that, I'm still sure I'd rather have the 351C and the C-4 in a Mustang. I must admit though, the yards aren't full of 351C's.
was the M in the 80s truck swapped in? I had thought that the last year for the M was 78....
_____________________________
66 Coupe I-6 Conversion, 408 Windsor, Tremec TKO 600 Wilwood fronts, SSBC Rears 9" Track Loc.
The 400 block is only about 25 pounds more than the 351C, which is itself 25 pounds heavier than the 351W block. The 429/460 is about 145 punds more than the 400 block. I pulled all the info from this chart.
The real rub for me though is the power robbing C6. As I mentioned I will likely use this because I have one on hand, though is there a modern manual transmission I can use? I just don't know much about manual trannies to know if a TKO for example can be mated to a big block...
Printable Version
RE: which 351m/400 or 351 cleveland?? - 
Victoria 
