what will make more power cleveland or windser
04-23-2009, 12:53 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: michigan
Posts: 9
what will make more power cleveland or windser
i am building a 1988 notch and i have a turbo i want to know what engine i should use to make the most power... Cleveland or windser i have the cleveland and i no what it takes to put it in please help me out..
04-23-2009, 01:27 AM
#2
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 480
stock for stock I believe the Cleveland had a little more horsepower, but if I were you I'd do a Windsor because the aftermarket for them is very plentiful. I want to say there is stuff for Cleveland motors, but I haven't looked into it in just how much there is in comparison.
04-23-2009, 05:41 AM
#3
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 21
Plenty of aftermarket parts for cleveland as well, you just need to know where to look, as in which country 
Plenty of aftermarket gear over here in Oz as we used the cleveland instead of the windsor from the late 60's through to the early 80's in both 351 and 302 (de-stroked 351) guise. Maybe not as much as for the windsor though as the US is a much bigger market than Australia.
Plenty of aftermarket gear over here in Oz as we used the cleveland instead of the windsor from the late 60's through to the early 80's in both 351 and 302 (de-stroked 351) guise. Maybe not as much as for the windsor though as the US is a much bigger market than Australia.
04-23-2009, 11:45 AM
#5
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
Good Cleveland parts are expensive. You can build the same power out of a Windsor for a lot less money, up to a point anyway. Of course, if you already have the Cleveland, it might be cheaper to build off of that than go out and get Windsor stuff.
04-23-2009, 03:03 PM
#6
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SC
Posts: 2,401
Windsor and wouldn't look back. The Windsors have the aftermarket almost as sewn up as the small block Chevy. Cleveland was the engine back in the day. A really powerful Cleveland in now the exception and not the rule. Look to spend about twice as much to get the same power and durability.
04-23-2009, 04:39 PM
#7
Yukon Cornelius
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: deep in the heart of dixie GEORGIA
Posts: 11,808
eh not really, a cleveland and a windsor cast about the same and iirc dodgestang build makes more power than a W builod and cost a couple hundred bucks less.
plus a cleve will rev up quicker due to the main journal size
as powdered toast man said theres a ton of cleve parts out there even a good supply of blocks etc across the pond in austrialia www.ausforparts.com
i build a 10.2:1 compression cleve build in my old fastback moderate cam,roller rockers, intake carb and a c4 with a stall converter. the rear had 2.79:1 gears and it was open it would pull the front tires, this was with untouched 2v heads try that with a factory ford windsor head :P
04-23-2009, 05:51 PM
#8
Pro. B.S. caller outer
Join Date: May 2004
Location: IL
Posts: 9,644
eh not really, a cleveland and a windsor cast about the same and iirc dodgestang build makes more power than a W builod and cost a couple hundred bucks less.
plus a cleve will rev up quicker due to the main journal size
as powdered toast man said theres a ton of cleve parts out there even a good supply of blocks etc across the pond in austrialia www.ausforparts.com
i build a 10.2:1 compression cleve build in my old fastback moderate cam,roller rockers, intake carb and a c4 with a stall converter. the rear had 2.79:1 gears and it was open it would pull the front tires, this was with untouched 2v heads try that with a factory ford windsor head :P
plus a cleve will rev up quicker due to the main journal size
as powdered toast man said theres a ton of cleve parts out there even a good supply of blocks etc across the pond in austrialia www.ausforparts.com
i build a 10.2:1 compression cleve build in my old fastback moderate cam,roller rockers, intake carb and a c4 with a stall converter. the rear had 2.79:1 gears and it was open it would pull the front tires, this was with untouched 2v heads try that with a factory ford windsor head :P
04-23-2009, 09:26 PM
#9
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
Comparing a stock C head to a stock W head is retarded. The stock C heads out perform any other stock Ford head, but in the end ALL the stock Ford heads suck. The GT40's are ok for a mild 302, but that's it. To get either engine to perform to a modern standard requires better heads on either of those engines, and C heads are way more expensive.
Back in the day when there was no aftermarket, C heads were the rage. Regardless of whatever faults they had, they still outperformed the stock W family heads. There's no way in hell that a stock C head will even come close in performance to a modern head design. It's the same thing as trying to compare a stock W head to a modern head design.
I really get tired of people hearing the name "Cleveland" and immediately they start looking for a pair of nuts to swing from. Back in the day they performed well FOR THEIR DAY, but not any more. All they really were was a crappy copy of a BBC head slapped on a SBF. They've gone down in history as a prime example of how NOT to design a cylinder head.
Back in the day when there was no aftermarket, C heads were the rage. Regardless of whatever faults they had, they still outperformed the stock W family heads. There's no way in hell that a stock C head will even come close in performance to a modern head design. It's the same thing as trying to compare a stock W head to a modern head design.
I really get tired of people hearing the name "Cleveland" and immediately they start looking for a pair of nuts to swing from. Back in the day they performed well FOR THEIR DAY, but not any more. All they really were was a crappy copy of a BBC head slapped on a SBF. They've gone down in history as a prime example of how NOT to design a cylinder head.