"David M" <NOSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:464599c3$0$4703$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 02:15:19 +0000, Jeff Strickland rearranged some
> electrons to form:
>
>>
>> "CobraJet" <shedding@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:110520071905550567%shedding@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <3Y81i.427$b67.111@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Jeff Strickland
>>> <crwlr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, I can't believe somebody put together a site (or even a measely
>>>> page)
>>>> that says these two engines share anything beyond displacement.
>>>
>>> They have the same motor mounts, bellhousing pattern, starters,
>>> distributor cap, balancers, flywheels, and lifters.
>>>
>>> However, the dickhead with the website is still a lazy, stupid,
>>> freeloading bastard.
>>>
>>
>> I guess I'll take your word for it. I thought the Cleveland and Windsor
>> power plants were completely different in each of the areas you just
said
>> they are common.
>>
>> I remember as a kid (with my father in car business) that when a car
was
>> listed with a Ford 351, the first question was, Cleveland or Windsor?
The
>> performance specs were different, and the physical size was different.
Or
>> that's what I remember thinking at the time.
>
> No, they are externally similar (so that they can be used in the same
> cars).
> However they are completely different inside. The 351W is based on the
> small-block. The 351C is not.
>
> --
> David M (dmacchiarolo)
> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
> T/S 53
> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 7 days 23:07
>
My hazy memory might be bad but I seem to recall that the "C" was
desirable
to build up because it could be bored. The "W" was bored as much as it
could be .... in fact I think I remember there were some problems with it
due to "thin walls".
Also ... one (forget which) had a version setup for truck use, IIRC.
RCE
|
