Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - Reply to Topic
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Hotrodding Basics> 351 C in place of 351M
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: 351 C in place of 351M Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
09-30-2005 09:17 PM
xntrik
you got mail

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdiedrick
Now basically I am rather lost in this thread, but I have the feeling that the engine will go into my car. However, I need a new tranny with a C4 bellhousing pattern and a new distributor. Am I correct on this assumtion?
Thanks
Chris

you got mail
09-30-2005 03:55 PM
cdiedrick
swap 351M for 351C

Now basically I am rather lost in this thread, but I have the feeling that the engine will go into my car. However, I need a new tranny with a C4 bellhousing pattern and a new distributor. Am I correct on this assumtion?
Thanks
Chris
09-30-2005 10:56 AM
dmorris1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by xntrik
*****************
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.
09-30-2005 09:52 AM
xntrik
Quote:
Originally Posted by xntrik
*****

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."

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
09-30-2005 05:13 AM
dmorris1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by KULTULZ
I think the FORD Small Block/Big Block argument is no longer valid as it once was. Back when... ...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.
09-30-2005 02:20 AM
KULTULZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmorris1200

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... ...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?
09-30-2005 02:12 AM
KULTULZ Below is one of many examples of why I never say never concerning FOMOCO. There is (was) no set of fixed rules.

Quote:
The 400 FMX block is a special version of the standard Ford 400 block. What makes it different is that most 400ís 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.

09-29-2005 11:49 PM
xntrik
Quote:
Originally Posted by KULTULZ
Well, there you go. The C uses the 385 Series distributor also.

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

Then they are not TRUE FORD BLUE...

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

Thanks on the distributor, 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.

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. I was an "early driver" in 62... .... which brings up another story.........lol

thanks again.
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." because he was wanting an easy way to determine what would fit in the existing hole.
09-29-2005 07:34 PM
dmorris1200 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.

Quote:
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
09-29-2005 06:33 PM
KULTULZ 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.

09-29-2005 05:43 PM
ChevelleSS_LS6 I should compile the info and request that Jon make a sticky of it, or post it in the FAQs. I'll be sure to post it for your approval, I don't know a whole lot about the Blue Oval, but I sure would drive one over foregin most-anything any day of the week!
09-29-2005 04:51 PM
KULTULZ -DESCRIPTION of LINCOLN TURBO-DRIVE AND TWIN TURBO-DRIVE TRANSMISSIONS-

This shop manual (1958 LINC) shows the operating characteristics of both the three speed TURBO-DRIVE (heavier version of the FORD FORD-O-MATIC) and the replacing three speed TWIN-TURBO-DRIVE (heavier version of the FORD CRUISE-O-MATIC).

It shows how each operated and shifted for maximum performance.
09-29-2005 10:58 AM
66GMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by KULTULZ
Why forget it? How else is information to be exchanged if you do not participate?

I too do not enjoy arguing. Leave that to the seventeen year old BOW-TIE BOYS...
I was in a bad mood yesterday ... and getting a little testy.

Then I recalled my mom's advice:
"Keep your words tender and sweet ... you never know when you'll need to eat them ..." and removed my own post.

I agree that this has been a very informative thread, in fact ... perhaps all of this could be summarized and kept as a "sticky".

You say "old fart" ... but there's nothing like "being there when it happened", and being a valuable resource of information for those that weren't.

I sort of "followed my uncle's footsteps" too. He worked in Ford parts from about the time I was born (1957) until just a few years ago, when he retired.

I currently have an opportunity to "go back" to Ford ... I'm meeting with the dealer principal at lunch today to discuss it. I'm feeling like I could use a change after working in the same NAPA store (2 different owners) for the last 13 years. As I'm sure you know, it seems the only way to get a raise in this business is to make a move.
09-29-2005 10:24 AM
66GMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by xntrik
About the "green dot" Ford transmissions:

One position locked the trans in 1.
One position auto shifted 1-2-3
One position started out in 2 and auto shifted to 3. for slippery weather starts.

The 1-2-1 shift did lock the trans into second, if you caught it before the governor shifted it. (depending on how far you over revved it.) Slowing down while in second, it would auto downshift to 1. If I remember correctly my 58 FE car did this also. The AOD trans having only 1, D, O on the shifter does this 1-D-1 lock into 2 gear also.

The C-4 had variations in valve bodies, but stuck to 2 basic shifter patterns. As described above and the other being the later models with
one position locked in 1.
one position 1-2 auto upshift
one position 1-2-3 auto shift

One rare valve body variation was an auto 1-2-3 upshift at @ 4800. If "locked" in 1, it would auto shift to 2 at 5800, like it or not.

Duke might have more precise info. I never "did" transmissions.

x
Yup, OK, I'm sure you're right on this ... it's been a lot of years, and I was still just a stupid 17/18 year-old when I drove that car. I'm still reasonably sure that I remember that it would not downshift from 3-2 in the green dot position either.

I used to love that "auto downshift" (2-1) thing too ... that's how I used to get the "hot wheels" guys to race me.

I'd pull up alongside them going down the cruise circuit at around 25 or 30 MPH in 2nd gear ... stab the throttle to trigger the downshift (usually accompanied by a tire chirp for attention) and voila 3,000 RPM ... right in the Cleveland's power band That (1971) Cleveland-powered 66 Galaxie gave quite a few of them a bit of a surprise. Heh-heh-heh
09-29-2005 12:21 AM
xntrik About the "green dot" Ford transmissions:

One position locked the trans in 1.
One position auto shifted 1-2-3
One position started out in 2 and auto shifted to 3. for slippery weather starts.

The 1-2-1 shift did lock the trans into second, if you caught it before the governor shifted it. (depending on how far you over revved it.) Slowing down while in second, it would auto downshift to 1. If I remember correctly my 58 FE car did this also. The AOD trans having only 1, D, O on the shifter does this 1-D-1 lock into 2 gear also.

The C-4 had variations in valve bodies, but stuck to 2 basic shifter patterns. As described above and the other being the later models with
one position locked in 1.
one position 1-2 auto upshift
one position 1-2-3 auto shift

One rare valve body variation was an auto 1-2-3 upshift at @ 4800. If "locked" in 1, it would auto shift to 2 at 5800, like it or not.

Duke might have more precise info. I never "did" transmissions.

x
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may 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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.