Hot Rod Forum banner

351 C in place of 351M

5K views 35 replies 8 participants last post by  xntrik 
#1 ·
I was wondering if anyone out there knows if there is a major difference between the 351C and the 351M I currently have a 351M in my T-Bird, but I came across a 351C that has been rebuilt and I am trying to persuade the owner to sell it since it just sits anyhow. I have an FMX tranny. Will this bolt right up? Are there any modifications I have to do? Any advice out there? I dont' want this to be a major project, just more of an easy swap.
Thanks
Chris
 
#27 ·
I have a complete page around here somewheres that fully describes the development of the FOM, COM and FMX (along with LINC/MERC derivatives).

There is a lot of misinformation out there on this series of transmissions.

There was also a true two speed FOM introduced in 1959 and replaced by the C4. It was for economy/low trim level use.

 
#28 ·
I just figured I'd add this. There has been multiple mention of big block vs. small block. This quote was taken from a site that covers most Ford engines pretty well.

The 351C, 351M, 351W, and all other small blocks share the same bore spacing and cylinder head bolt pattern.
To the best of my knowledge the bore spacing and head bolt pattern designates Windsors and Clevelands as 'small blocks'. Ford's other engine families do not share that same characteristic. Below is a link to where I got that particular quote from.

http://phystutor.tripod.com/stang/engines/engines.html
 
#29 · (Edited)
KULTULZ said:
Well, there you go. The C uses the 385 Series distributor also.

The cylinders form an upright ninety-degree angle. I ass-u-me this is why FOMOCO identified the engine family as such.

Then they are not TRUE FORD BLUE... :D

The only fire this Old Fart has in his furnace is heartburn... :(
*****
Hey Old Fart,

Thanks on the distributor, :sweat: You are correct. I remember it now. same as 460. ran it on the run-in machine. yep. haven't machined and assembled a C since 99.

All the Ford V-8s after the flatheads were at a direct 90* angle and directly above the crank centerline. So are the general's. Remember the flatty V-8 was 90* vee, but NOT centered over the crank centerline... Ford's early attempt for the effect to be like "offset piston pins" in later engines. Ya wierd by today's standards. :rolleyes:

LOL, actually found a 350 chevy block like that back in 98. It was about a mid 70s, and when I went to bore it the cylinders were all offset ONLY about .080 to one side/ both banks.... but it had run 100,000 miles like that. Too far to square it up..... gave it away to some guys, and then they had me bore it offcenter..... and they built it into a hobby stock, and ran the crap out of it 6800 rpm for 2 years, and it ran great....... go figure.

Hey thanks for the info all you guys, I save all those links.

Always kinda missed that 58 Fairlane 500 4 dr ht. FE. It would honk the tires shifting into second. NOt fast in 62, but a tire chirper. :thumbup: I was an "early driver" in 62... .... which brings up another story.........lol

thanks again. :thumbup:
x

Also.... way back in # 3 I said that (quote) "GENERALLY SPEAKING the C is considered a small block....because of the way stuff bolts on." :D because he was wanting an easy way to determine what would fit in the existing hole.
 
#30 ·
Below is one of many examples of why I never say never concerning FOMOCO. There is (was) no set of fixed rules.

The 400 FMX block is a special version of the standard Ford 400 block. What makes it different is that most 400’s have the standard Ford big block (370/429/460) bellhousing bolt pattern and a unique motor mount pattern. However, in 1973 only, Ford produced a special version of the 400 with a small block bellhousing bolt pattern and dual motor mounts.


Now before all you BOWTIE BOYS jump on your Stovebolt band wagons, the reason FORD had so many design deviances is the multi-use of engines/transmissions in their complete line (FORD-LINC-MERC) whereas GM had different power in their different car lines. So it is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

 
#31 ·
dmorris1200 said:
I just figured I'd add this. There has been multiple mention of big block vs. small block. This quote was taken from a site that covers most Ford engines pretty well.

To the best of my knowledge the bore spacing and head bolt pattern designates Windsors and Clevelands as 'small blocks'. Ford's other engine families do not share that same characteristic. Below is a link to where I got that particular quote from.
I think the FORD Small Block/Big Block argument is no longer valid as it once was. Back when... :rolleyes: ...the small block was the 221/260/289 and the big block was the FE Series. Somewheres along the line, the 385 Series became known as the Big Block. There are now so many variations, that one series cannot be identified as such no longer.

Look at GM. How many engine variations did they have once you get away from the SBC/BBC?
 
#32 ·
KULTULZ said:
I think the FORD Small Block/Big Block argument is no longer valid as it once was. Back when... :rolleyes: ...the small block was the 221/260/289 and the big block was the FE Series. Somewheres along the line, the 385 Series became known as the Big Block. There are now so many variations, that one series cannot be identified as such no longer.

Look at GM. How many engine variations did they have once you get away from the SBC/BBC?
True. It's easy to forget GM had Buick engines, Caddy engines, Olds engines, and Pontiac engines that were all different from one another. I always tell people it isn't all that hard you just need to learn some basics. The beauty of today compared to twenty years ago is the availability of information for free at the touch of a button over the internet. A simple search engine can uncover a wealth of info. As far as the BB/SB dilemma that has been a mystery for years for most people. I think I read somewhere that it wasn't even Ford that originally assigned the labels to there engines but builders/machinists that took the classifications from GM who started the whole BB/SB thing. Don't know personally but the cylinder bore spacing and head bolt pattern as mentioned on that web site makes sense to me. I remember years ago people arguing whether or not the Pontiac 400 was a small block or big block. Some felt 'BB' cause of it's cubic inches, others said it was neither cause Pontiac never had a SB or BB. I guess 'big block/small block' is less relevant than just making sure you have the right part match-up for any given application.
 
#33 ·
xntrik said:
*****

Also.... way back in # 3 I said that (quote) "GENERALLY SPEAKING the C is considered a small block....because of the way stuff bolts on." :D

because he was wanting an easy way to determine what would fit in the existing hole.
*****************
Duke and 1200,
Thanks, that is some great information. I never saw one of those blocks.

The M and C cranks and rods are not interchangeable, are they?
x
 
#34 ·
xntrik said:
*****************
The M and C cranks and rods are not interchangeable, are they?
x
The 351M and 400 both have 3.000" main journals, the 351C has 2.749" journals. The link I provided before shows the measurements for the Cleveland engines. It worth the time clicking on the links to all the different engine families and reading through, some good info.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top