351c --> 1980 F150 ?? Will it work?

It'll fit with a few mods. The cougar is worth enough with that engine to more than get a better engine for the truck assuming the Cougar is in rebuildable condition. The C is not much of a torque engine which is what you need in a truck.

The Cougar was actually bought with our '71 Mustang in mind. It has a 351c

4v in it... this motor is for rebuilding..

i put one in a 78 F150what a mistake 8to9 miles to gallon---burnt out the exhuast valves in 15000miles do to the unlead gas i would stick with the

I put an 86' 4wd 351W into an 86' 300 2wd. What a difference. Can't believe I ever drove that 6. Should be the same as the Cleveland. :)

It's not.The 351 cleveland is a dog with runners way too large for truck usage,or even car usage for that matter.I had a '73 351 C until a couple years ago and it got 8 MPG with 2.75 rear diff. in a cougar.I saw another thread somewhere else this year where a guy tried the 351C in a truck and he was really sorry he did.It's NOT a truck engine and was designed at a time when Ford was looking for a high winding chevy-killer.In low compression,reg.gas,truck applications it will get miserable gas mileage and will not perform well. I'd stick with the 300. Best....Brian O.

********************

FYI: Production of the 351C began with the 1970 model year and ended during the 1974 model year. To keep up with the market demand for engines in the 350 cubic inch class (which apparently Ford couldn't do with its production of the 351 Windsor alone), the 351M was developed.

Interestingly, the 351 Cleveland built such a strong performance reputation and market appeal that Ford referred to the 351M as a "351 Cleveland" in their own marketing literature for at least the first couple years after the 351M was introduced. Ultimately, this led to a lot of confusion, and even a mistaken belief among some pickup truck owners that their trucks had 351 Cleveland engines. In fact, the only trucks ever equipped with a 351 Cleveland engine by the factory were

1970-74 Rancheros, which shared the Torino's platform and power train options. Many auto models were available with the 351C engine including the Mustang, Cougar, Torino and Pantera.

The 351C was able to produce very good low-end torque and yet it could pump out serious horsepower all the way to 6,500 RPM. The 351C was light, powerful, extremely rugged, and got better gas mileage (in that era) than most other engines 2/3 it?s size. SAE Gross (aka Brake) horsepower ratings for the 351C 4V in 1970 are 300 HP @ 5400 RPM. Torque for the 351C 4V is 380 lb-ft @ 3400 RPM.

The 351 Cleveland belongs to Ford's 335 engine family. The 351C was based on the design of the 385-series big blocks, but it was smaller and lighter. The 351C features different heads for 2V & 4V versions. Cleveland 4V heads feature larger ports/valves than the Cleveland 2V heads. The 70-71 Cleveland 4V heads also feature a closed or quench-type combustion chamber - 2V heads feature an open combustion chamber. The

351C 4V heads essentially descended from Boss 302 heads. Cleveland 4V head > It's not.The 351 cleveland is a dog with runners way too large for

Thanks I know all about the clevelands.The other guy I referred to that put a 351c in a heavy PU got 6 MPG he claimed and since I got 8 in a

3500 lb. car this seems quite likely. =A0=A0=A0=A0I have a GMC PU ('69) for work.It has a 350ci with 1.72 Intake/150 ex valves and was rated at 355 torque at 2400 on regular gas.That's the kind of performance you want in a truck,plus it gets 15.5MPG on freeway 12.5-13 ave. =A0=A0=A0=A0I saw a period dyno test of a 1971 4v cleveland "285 hp" and they found that Ford had greatly overstated the figures,even for gross #s.(I think they came up with 240 actual gross) Plus the 4v engines were notorious dogs below 3500rpm. =A0=A0=A0=A0The 2v engine I had had 2.041 intake valves and massive runners.A 460 only had 2.08. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0and the 1.65 ex valves were about the same as 460 also. A review of all major engine/vehicle matchups by he EPA in '73 showed the 4v getting 8.7 mpg in the cougar.What kind of mileage do you get??? =A0 Don't get me wrong,I was a great fan of that motor but it's real potential is as a high performance ,high winding,high compression,high octane guzzling motor. =A0=A0My 73 was rated at 256 ft pounds but it never really felt like it.My 350 chev with the small 1.72 valves was rated at NET 310 lbs.and I can feel the huge difference even in a 5000lb.truck. =A0=A0=A0=A0I am not making up the fact that small runners contributes to better torque.This is a well known fact. Best...Brian O. ********************

I have a 1970 Mustang Mach I as follows:

Engine: 351 CID V-8 "Cleveland" stroked to 377 CID 340 RWHP @ 5,000 RPM 400 lb-ft torque @ 3,300 RPM

Power/weight ratio: .103 Transmission: Close ratio 4 speed Toploader Differential: 3.50:1 limited-slip (Traction-Lok)

The 351C is a high performance eng> Thanks I know all about the clevelands.The other guy I referred to that

I still think it's a big mistake to put a stock used 2 barrel 351 C in a

4200 lb.truck. Let us know how it turns out. ********************

Lots of good reading in this subject today! Thanks. I do not understand the meaning of =AO=AO=AO=AOI, though. Can anyone explain this to me?

Clevelands forever...

I know a guy who put a 429 out of a cougar into an F100. MAN did that truck ever scream!!!

NES

"Dennis" wrote in news:cpv79c$fsc$ snipped-for-privacy@news.datasync.com:

One thing everyone needs to realize is that like many fords of that era, the 351C had mostly dist. curved at the low end of the spec charts. I "seldom" found one that was close to the middle let alone top of the spec chart curve. I could ruteenly push the basic timing up 4 to 6 degrees and really wake them up. Didn`t even have to recurve the dist. I never worked on a C that got less than 10 MPG and even the 4bb had ok low end torque with the proper dist settings. KB (example- 74 351C 4bb hi output (for the time) version. stock settings dist. could barley turn the tires over when power braked. after recurving the dist to top specs on the curve spec sheet. it would absoultly fry the tires from a stop with no power braking. The correct curve is that important. also went from 11 mpg to 14 mpg and that is with a kid driving it. KB PS the 289s were also bad about the slow dist curve. every tune up got a 4 degree basic timing bump and power and milage would jump.

I agree with Mr. Grover C. McCoury III I dropped a 351C into a 1986 F150 4X4 and what a change in power (of course the engine is no where near stock). Gas milage is around 10mpg but who cares. Besides the tires cost to much to be a daily driver anyway.

Well,OK,I never said a 351C couldn't make power. The OP suggested putting a stock 2v low compression(if it was '72-on) in place of the big 6 and I just don't see the point. Mileage IS a concern for most sensible folks using a truck for work. Best...Brian

********************

I agree. Any 25+ yr old engine in stock form is a potential thirsty dog. With the uprades available today, a 351C should be capable of more than 15 mpg matched to the right vehicle.

DC