• Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!
    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

Opinions on a Cleveland vs Windsor

ponyracer

Sr. Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
706
Loc.
Crestview, Fl, 32539
What do you guys think about a cleveland in a bronco?

I'm moving to alaska next year and have been looking at the type of wheeling they do. Not alot of rocks, alot of mid range and upper rpm tire clearing power needed. Looking at a high compression n/a small block built for mid range punch, say 2500-5500 rpm. I'll have my 435/205 combo in by then, prob on 38-42" tires geared/locked for tire speed instead of crawling, 4.10/4.56 etc.

I have a 351w in the truck now that's tired and I have a chance to pick up a cleveland shortblock for $100.

I'm comparing these:

351C
http://www.coasthigh.com/Ford-393C-Flat-Top-2-0cc-Street-Fighter-Kit-p/10677-sf-f393c.htm

351W
http://www.coasthigh.com/Ford-393W-Flat-Top-4-0cc-Street-Fighter-Kit-p/10670-sf-f393w.htm

Both are rated for 600 hp, 393ci, heads are more expensive when using the cleveland, all other parts are about the same $ wise. Machine work should be nearly the same. Looking at small trickflows for the W and prob revorked 2v's for the C.

Whatcha think??
 

bax

Contributor
Old Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
14,491
OH goodie I love these threads.

C motor all the way. If you want to turn it tight put the big port closed chambered heads on it. Are there a lot of gas stations in Alaska?
 
OP
OP
P

ponyracer

Sr. Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
706
Loc.
Crestview, Fl, 32539
LOL I'd imagine. I just finished a 42 gallon bed tank for the bronco. Prob looking to run efi on whatever goes back in there.

What makes the C better? Big port closed chamber would be a 4v head? Or are those 2v? I don't know crap about a cleveland.
 

Broncobowsher

Total hack
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
34,835
There is always the Clevor option (Clevland heads on a Windsor block).

I break this discussion into 2 parts. The block and the head.

The windsor block is my choice. It has a taller deck so you can run a longer rod. It also has larger main bearings. Racers tend to like the C with the smaller bearings. The reduced diameter makes for less drag. Not that big of a deal under 5000 RPM. But a racer wanting that extra 2 HP at 9000 RPM does care. That racer also doesn't care if the bearings die after a few hundred miles as they are always being rebuilt anyway. So I like the W for the better bottom end.

For the heads. The W was plauged by having heads too small. The early heads were better but later ones were small for the base 302 much less a 351. No performance pieces by any means. But the C had huge heads. Several versions as well. This is what gave the C such a reputation as the perfoered performance engine. It could breath. But this is old news. There are now aftermarket W heads that can breath as well. You don't need to do the junkyard cross breading. Although if building with (good) junkyard parts, C heads on a W block.

Also, step up to a 408. Few more inches but you get longer aftermarket rods.
 

broncnaz

Bronco Guru
Joined
May 22, 2003
Messages
24,341
Even with your stated useage they are both high rpm setups. Probably a little/lot more than you actually need. A slightly built windsor will hit good at 2500 RPM. One better than the other well for max HP it would be the cleveland but really other than heads they are the same engine. No matter what you'll need heads for either engine.
I would go with a windsor for a couple of reasons 1 you already have one in there so no swapping or specail headers. radiators ect. 2. A windsor will do the exact same thing as ther C and has a better selection of parts availible for cheaper prices.
Many people tend to go overboard on engine builds not saying high compression is bad but its not a real power adder you probably dont need any more than 10-1 the most critical component will be camshaft and that will really determine what the compression should be. cam manufacturers have recommended compression ratios for each cam. any higher or lower does you no good.
 

bax

Contributor
Old Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
14,491
can you get propane up there? Propane likes high compression. You will not be able to stop either motor from preignition problems with todays pump gas. 9.5 to 1 is the new 12 to 1. the cleveland head / piston design is has better quench than the W design. This helps just a little with preignition. No spark control will will be able to handle the timing retarding needed to stop a 12 to 1 motor on pump gas from preignition problems . Propane would be your best friend and no fancy injection system needed.
There are lots of crank and rod dimension choices for both engines.
The W is 50 pounds lighter than the C.
The C is cool and the W is , well , everyone has one.
The C is stronger in stock form but with todays parts who is using stock parts? that one is a toss up.
Did I say old iron is cool.
Fuel injection is easy on the W. I hate to say that. Injection was never put on the C. It was dead to ford before injection was out. However Injection is possible and not that hard to do for the C or anything else for that matter.

I still say C on propane / 12 to 1 / 4V closed chambered heads/ DUI ignition. it sounds so sweet at 7k. Pull baby pull.
 
OP
OP
P

ponyracer

Sr. Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
706
Loc.
Crestview, Fl, 32539
lol, I'll prob stay to 10to1 or a hair under. And I HATE the smell of propane!! Like driving an old forklift...

Thanks for the info guys. What would be the benefit of going with a clevor? If the W heads flow just as well, what's the point? Is it a 2hp at 9K rpm diff or a mid range diff?
I see the w heads are 1200-1500 for a good set, C's ally ones are 2k+++.
 

bax

Contributor
Old Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
14,491
Ah, young grass hopper. your have been deceived by the slick talking W crowd. You need aftermarket W heads to keep up with the stock C heads. You can get some good c heads for around 8 hundred ready to run that are still/ flow better than the aftermarket W heads. Plus the cast iron will help with the preignition. The Clevor puts the good C heads on the w block. Goal = better flow better high RPM hp and not having to pay for the aftermarket W heads. Now the fancy C aluminum heads are pricy, but the fancy W heads can't touch them on a flow bench.
 

pcf_mark

Bronco Guru
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
3,574
It is a shame you are in Florida - I have 351 Cleveland 2V complete carb to pan I want to get rid of for about $250!

Alaska is crazy talk man!
 

bmc69

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
11,852
I'm going to weigh on and vote on the "W" option here. (OK, OK,,bax..Devin..knock it off with all the gasps and purple faces..).

Here is why. You said 351C 'short block'....100 bucks. There is nothing there to justify going the 'C' route..you are starting from scratch and from scratch the 351C is not the best way to go from the cost v result point of view.

If it was a complete 400C and you wanted to build a 434 or 466..if it was a complete 351C-4V....you get the idea..my opinion would be in line with Bax's or Devins in those cases .;)
 

bax

Contributor
Old Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
14,491
Purple faced, He is talking stroker ( 393) so rotating assembly is a push. No need to use any of the stock rotating assembly. All you need is a block. I personally would not stroke an engine that I was going to take to 7k + on a regular basis. I like the smaller journals and shorter rods in the C for this reason. Stroker and high rpm don't really mix. I will give up the torque and use the HP.
 

broncnaz

Bronco Guru
Joined
May 22, 2003
Messages
24,341
Yeah but he still needs heads for the short block.
Anyways there's no benefit to going to a clevor unless you already had C heads and just wanted to be different. Then you would still need a intake manifold which can be had new for slightly more than a new 351W manifold.
Eitherway the Clevor is again more of a high RPM engine those huge ports in the C heads are not good for lower RPM's. As Bax has mentioned they do like the RPM's so really unless you plan on running 5000+ RPM most of the time I wouldnt bother with the exotic combos or a C. Especailly with your gearing and tire size your just not going to see it unless you only use 1st in that NP435.
The way I see it you still need a engine that is geared more for lower RPM's for your combo as stated. At most you only need a engine that will be able rev to 6000 rpm. I dont see the offroad action in alaska being a lot of high RPM's.
 
OP
OP
P

ponyracer

Sr. Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
706
Loc.
Crestview, Fl, 32539
So throw some decent heads and a 418 stroker kit on the W and spin it to 5K?? Found some C heads off a 71 mustang, supposed to be 4v for $100 local.

I want this thing to have neck snapping mid range but I don't want it to be a complete dog under 2500 either though. That's why I'm looking at the strokers for the C, figured the the extra cubes would help carry it until the heads wake up.
 

Devin

Bronco Kineticist
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
3,956
I'm going to weigh on and vote on the "W" option here. (OK, OK,,bax..Devin..knock it off with all the gasps and purple faces..).

Here is why. You said 351C 'short block'....100 bucks. There is nothing there to justify going the 'C' route..you are starting from scratch and from scratch the 351C is not the best way to go from the cost v result point of view.

If it was a complete 400C and you wanted to build a 434 or 466..if it was a complete 351C-4V....you get the idea..my opinion would be in line with Bax's or Devins in those cases .;)

Is that woman gettin' to ya, Bill? ;D
 

broncnaz

Bronco Guru
Joined
May 22, 2003
Messages
24,341
Well in either case heads are the key. I just feel that C heads are a little to big especailly 4V heads but they could be ok with a stroker but still for all the added costs of a C I just dont see it being worth the effort. One added thing about big heads is that they can move the powerband up in the RPM range by 1000 or more RPM which also lowers low RPM power.
Neck snapping power in the mid range is easy and great lowend is also easy basically its how most of use setup or engines. I'd forget about any HP numbers and just build a engine thats in line with you needs. Which from your stated specs will be a low RPM engine IMO. not exactly a rock crawling low RPM engine but still what I would consider a low RPM type engine. Going stroker will help the lowend and mid range power.
 
Top