windser or cleveland?
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 296
RE: windser or cleveland?
ORIGINAL: true66gt
if you stroke it, then stroke to a 331 rather than 347. 331's tend to make more power. i got a long lecture about the two by my bosses at work (high perf. enigne shop. www.moparengineswest.com ) MEW and Daves engines combined companies to make one. its just called daves enignes now. and if your looking for some engine building info, these are the guys to talk to.
if you stroke it, then stroke to a 331 rather than 347. 331's tend to make more power. i got a long lecture about the two by my bosses at work (high perf. enigne shop. www.moparengineswest.com ) MEW and Daves engines combined companies to make one. its just called daves enignes now. and if your looking for some engine building info, these are the guys to talk to.
the main thing i am starting to look at in my engines is piston design and all the new coating advancements, heat disapating methods, and lightning methods that are starting to come along, I am really pumped about some new stuff I am seeing and hearingfrom my piston maker.
an engine is alot more than a big air pump but you can stillmake an engine do anything you want, knowing what to make it do and how is the tricky part
6th Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,468
From: California
RE: windser or cleveland?
CHI cast iron heads are $1,500 for a pair of them BARE, and limited production. You can get fully assembled aluminum Windsor heads for around $1,300 new for good ones. And Blue Thunder Cleve style heads are $1,700 bare and are for race only. Like I said, $$/hp Clevelands always lose, there's just not enough aftermarket support for them to compete with Windsors on a budget. 20 or 30 years ago Clevelands were great, but by todays standards they're hardly a high performance engine unless you dump a lot of money into them. The cylinder heads on Clevelands is what made them famous and great back in the day, but those same heads are what kills them today. If you already have a Cleveland or have to run a stock engine(but many stock classes allow iron heads such as Dart or RHS) then they're fine, but buying one to build a performance engine from scratch on a budget is a bad idea. Performance, budget and Clevland are 3 words that don't belong in a sentance together
5th Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,176
From: Insanity
RE: windser or cleveland?
ORIGINAL: 67mustang302
Cleveland STYLE heads have an advantage in cantaed valve designs, but actual Cleveland heads suck by todays performance standards. I don't know HOW MANY FREAKING TIMES I HAVE TO SAY THIS, but even the smallest aftermarket Windsor heads like AFR 165's and Edelbrock Performers OUTFLOW even 4V/BOSS Cleve heads up to .600 lift, and that's with a WAY smaller port, which means higher velocity and more power. 30+ years ago Cleveland heads were better than pretty much anything out there, but guess what.....THE HEADS ARE STILL 30+ YEARS OLD!! If you already have a Cleveland then fine, build it, it's cheaper than buying a whole new engine. But unless you have the money to buy good heads for a Cleveland, Edelbrock Performer RPM Cleve heads AT LEAST, you're NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER going to get the same power out of a 351C as you will from a 351W for the same amount of money and rpm range. A Cleve will cost more to get the same power in the same rpm range. Simply put, the stock heads on a Cleveland are a crippling performance factor by todays standards. If you put good heads on it(none of which are cheap) then it will make good power.
Cleveland STYLE heads have an advantage in cantaed valve designs, but actual Cleveland heads suck by todays performance standards. I don't know HOW MANY FREAKING TIMES I HAVE TO SAY THIS, but even the smallest aftermarket Windsor heads like AFR 165's and Edelbrock Performers OUTFLOW even 4V/BOSS Cleve heads up to .600 lift, and that's with a WAY smaller port, which means higher velocity and more power. 30+ years ago Cleveland heads were better than pretty much anything out there, but guess what.....THE HEADS ARE STILL 30+ YEARS OLD!! If you already have a Cleveland then fine, build it, it's cheaper than buying a whole new engine. But unless you have the money to buy good heads for a Cleveland, Edelbrock Performer RPM Cleve heads AT LEAST, you're NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER going to get the same power out of a 351C as you will from a 351W for the same amount of money and rpm range. A Cleve will cost more to get the same power in the same rpm range. Simply put, the stock heads on a Cleveland are a crippling performance factor by todays standards. If you put good heads on it(none of which are cheap) then it will make good power.
Assorted Cleveland head flow:
These are an Iron 4v closed chamber with Parkers port inserts and epoxy.....
Intake Exhaust
Lift CFM CFM
0.500 297 173.9
0.550 312.5 181
0.600 317.7 188.2
0.650 326.9 192.8
0.700 334.9 194.5
0.750 344.8 198.3
0.800 349.0 203.7
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1173548083/
I had some home ported 2V Aussies flow tested.
Here are the results if anyone cares.
I .200 128.8
E .200 98.6
I .300 183.0
E .300 134.7
I .350 196.5
E .350 150.1
I .400 199.0
E .400 165.7
I .450 203.1
E .450 177.0
I .500 205.5
E .500 189.3
I .550 207.0
E .550 196.5
I .600 207.7
E .600 208.5
I .650 207.0
E .650 216.2
I .700 206.9
E .700 220.4
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1077667953/
Blue Thunder heads
Lift....Int....Ex w/o pipe....ex w/pipe
.2______141_______124____________129
.3______191_______165____________172
.4______236_______194____________200
.5______273_______213____________219
.55_____288_______219____________227
.6______302_______221____________231
.65_____313_______224____________233
.7______323_______227____________236
.75_____329_______229____________239
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1099870290/
These heads had a 4V exhaust valve installed and they are not much better than yours.
flow at 28" water, in CFM
Aussie 2V
int exh(1.71")
.050 45 38
.100 70 63
.150 98 85
.200 130 98
.250 161 112
.300 183 126
.350 195 140
.400 198 151
.500 206 166
.600 208 174
.700 209 171
Source http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1071337200/
Head C302B
Lift Intake Exhaust
(inch) 2.19" 1.65"
0.100 81 73
0.200 157 131
0.300 223 180
0.400 266 210
0.500 306 223
0.600 331 228
0.650 --- 230
0.700 325.33 ---
Tested at 28" pressure drop on a SuperFlow 600 flow bench at Stiegemeyer
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1144627378/
CHI 3v heads
That is where the individual flow numbers are, which happen to be:
----- I --- E
.1--- 70 -- 64
.2--- 147 - 114*
.3--- 201 - 153
.4--- 250 - 191
.5--- 286 - 208
.55-- 290 - 214
.6--- 290 - 222
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1156568331/
Intake Exhaust
Lift CFM CFM
0.500 297 173.9
0.550 312.5 181
0.600 317.7 188.2
0.650 326.9 192.8
0.700 334.9 194.5
0.750 344.8 198.3
0.800 349.0 203.7
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1173548083/
I had some home ported 2V Aussies flow tested.
Here are the results if anyone cares.
I .200 128.8
E .200 98.6
I .300 183.0
E .300 134.7
I .350 196.5
E .350 150.1
I .400 199.0
E .400 165.7
I .450 203.1
E .450 177.0
I .500 205.5
E .500 189.3
I .550 207.0
E .550 196.5
I .600 207.7
E .600 208.5
I .650 207.0
E .650 216.2
I .700 206.9
E .700 220.4
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1077667953/
Blue Thunder heads
Lift....Int....Ex w/o pipe....ex w/pipe
.2______141_______124____________129
.3______191_______165____________172
.4______236_______194____________200
.5______273_______213____________219
.55_____288_______219____________227
.6______302_______221____________231
.65_____313_______224____________233
.7______323_______227____________236
.75_____329_______229____________239
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1099870290/
These heads had a 4V exhaust valve installed and they are not much better than yours.
flow at 28" water, in CFM
Aussie 2V
int exh(1.71")
.050 45 38
.100 70 63
.150 98 85
.200 130 98
.250 161 112
.300 183 126
.350 195 140
.400 198 151
.500 206 166
.600 208 174
.700 209 171
Source http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1071337200/
Head C302B
Lift Intake Exhaust
(inch) 2.19" 1.65"
0.100 81 73
0.200 157 131
0.300 223 180
0.400 266 210
0.500 306 223
0.600 331 228
0.650 --- 230
0.700 325.33 ---
Tested at 28" pressure drop on a SuperFlow 600 flow bench at Stiegemeyer
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1144627378/
CHI 3v heads
That is where the individual flow numbers are, which happen to be:
----- I --- E
.1--- 70 -- 64
.2--- 147 - 114*
.3--- 201 - 153
.4--- 250 - 191
.5--- 286 - 208
.55-- 290 - 214
.6--- 290 - 222
Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/11941...ad/1156568331/
http://www.carbdford.com/tech/flowdata.htm
So here is a short break down to make it easier to read (and just so there is no confusion all these cleveland numbers are people who flow tested their heads, not what a magaznie or manufacture claims the heads flow):
Iron 4v closed chamber with Parkers: 0.600 317.7 188.2
ported 2V Aussies: .600 207.7 208.5
Blue Thunder: .600 302 221
Aussie 2v with 4v valve: .600 208 174
Head C302B: 0.600 331 228
CHI 3v heads: .600 290 222
5.0 magazine reported flow numbers
AFR 165: .600 232 188
AFR 185: .600 260 189
AFR 205: .600 292 236
So what's the point of me typing all this information out for you and others to skip through and not read? Well it sure makes me feel better; plus it shows the true facts on flow and from where I sit I see a cast iron 4v head with a little work significantly outflowing your brand new performance afr 165, but then again the 165 is designed for the smaller displacement motors. When you step up to a 205 you get more flow....but last time I checked those 205 were pretty pricey. FWIW flow numbers alone are not 1:1 horsepower indication but the claim that an afr 165 can out flow a 4v iron head is just out and out a lie if you ask me. Either proported intentionally or kept alive by people who refuse to actually use the resources at their disposal (internet) and distinguish facts from fiction.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,176
From: Insanity
RE: windser or cleveland?
Ohh and for a cost break down if you want to build a 351c or a 351w the cost is virtually identical to reach the same performance level....so this whole "budget and cleveland" comment seems out of place to me.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,106
From:
RE: windser or cleveland?
I am a fan of both. But if it was me, and I wanted to do the twisties, I would opt for the lighter of the two. I know the Clevelands can be mean if built with the right parts, but I would use it for a straight liner. Driving nose heavy big blocks vs the lighter small blocks is very different. Nothing like a small block in the twisties. I think it comes down to a matter of taste. A lot of good info on this post. My favorite pushrod engine will have to be a 331 though."dodgestang" what is the HP and torque ratings on the two engines that you listed the partsfor.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,176
From: Insanity
RE: windser or cleveland?
ORIGINAL: 67 evil eleanor
I am a fan of both. But if it was me, and I wanted to do the twisties, I would opt for the lighter of the two. I know the Clevelands can be mean if built with the right parts, but I would use it for a straight liner. Driving nose heavy big blocks vs the lighter small blocks is very different. Nothing like a small block in the twisties. I think it comes down to a matter of taste. A lot of good info on this post. My favorite pushrod engine will have to be a 331 though."dodgestang" what is the HP and torque ratings on the two engines that you listed the partsfor.
I am a fan of both. But if it was me, and I wanted to do the twisties, I would opt for the lighter of the two. I know the Clevelands can be mean if built with the right parts, but I would use it for a straight liner. Driving nose heavy big blocks vs the lighter small blocks is very different. Nothing like a small block in the twisties. I think it comes down to a matter of taste. A lot of good info on this post. My favorite pushrod engine will have to be a 331 though."dodgestang" what is the HP and torque ratings on the two engines that you listed the partsfor.
As for the torque and power on the 'theorical' builds both combos with the parts listed would be capable of putting out 400 at the back tire IMO with the correct cam (mild streetable build at 10.5:1) but it would depend greatly on the cam choice...so all I did was include the cost of a custom cam for the motor.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,106
From:
RE: windser or cleveland?
I guess I've always looked at the Cleveland as a big block as compared to a Windsor, simply due to its size. Not too much difference in weight. A battery relocate could compensate for that.My experience in driving 428's and 429's, you can really feel the weight up front in a turn, as compared to a 289 or 302.
4th Gear Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,080
From: Chandler, Az
RE: windser or cleveland?
Yes, either one will fit with no problems. Go with the 351w, you have a wider selection from cams to intakes to choose from. And yes, AFR 165's do out flow 4v 351c heads that are stock.
http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/f.../cleveland.htm
http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/f...a/aluminum.htm
A C-6 making a 351c a big block doesnt make sense since 302's in vans came with a C-6 too. FWIW, the 351w is 25 lbs lighter than a 351c.
What are the plans for the car, anyway?
http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/f.../cleveland.htm
http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/f...a/aluminum.htm
A C-6 making a 351c a big block doesnt make sense since 302's in vans came with a C-6 too. FWIW, the 351w is 25 lbs lighter than a 351c.
What are the plans for the car, anyway?
5th Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,176
From: Insanity
RE: windser or cleveland?
LOL you will have to excuse for pointing out the lunacy behind arguing over head flow:
AFR 165 per their catalog in 1998 per your link:
Air Flow Research 165cc
I 1.90 - 123 186 225 250 250
E 1.60 - 118 153 178 185 191 [align=center]
[/align]AFR 165 per magazine testing in 2000 per my link
1.90 60 123 176 210 232 232 235
1.60 51 108 149 174 184 188 189
So I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find 4v flow numbers from the factory that are stated higher (or lower) than individual reporting testing as well that's why I included a cross section of real consumer flow testing from multiple sources. I believe the point is that up tpo .4 yeah maybe the smaller head does flow more, however, rather than spend $1000 on new heads I can spend $500 on my stock heads and easily out flow the news ones. Which seems to be quite at odds with the broad statements made previously about how 351c heads suck by todays modern standards. That is just absolutely not true.
AFR 165 per their catalog in 1998 per your link:
Air Flow Research 165cc
I 1.90 - 123 186 225 250 250
E 1.60 - 118 153 178 185 191 [align=center]
[/align]AFR 165 per magazine testing in 2000 per my link
1.90 60 123 176 210 232 232 235
1.60 51 108 149 174 184 188 189
So I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find 4v flow numbers from the factory that are stated higher (or lower) than individual reporting testing as well that's why I included a cross section of real consumer flow testing from multiple sources. I believe the point is that up tpo .4 yeah maybe the smaller head does flow more, however, rather than spend $1000 on new heads I can spend $500 on my stock heads and easily out flow the news ones. Which seems to be quite at odds with the broad statements made previously about how 351c heads suck by todays modern standards. That is just absolutely not true.
