302 Clevland????

Yep. Again I saw it, touched it, sat in AND drove it. Considered buying it.

Reply to
WindsorFox
Loading thread data ...

trainfan1 wrote in news:s7GdnXTTN6YVLGzbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@usadatanet.net:

You forgot 1983. My '83 GT has a factory Holley 4 barrel.

Reply to
elaich

I couldn't recall if the 83 still had the big 2 bbl or not. I should have looked it up.

Rob

Reply to
trainfan1

Earth to elaich, we are talking 351 Windsor here, not 302/5.0...

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

The whole argument is about specific details, 35 year old specific details, they kinda do make a some difference. The only early 70's BOSS 351's were 1971 only solid lifter Cleveland's.

1971 was also the last year for the FACTORY 429 in the Mustang, even though 71, 72 & 73 look nearly the same, 71 was the last year with the "really good" engines....

Fer cryin out loud, Earth to WindsorFox, we are talking 351 Windsor factory four barrel here, not 302/5.0, 351 Windsor...

Sheehs

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

Sorry, but dredging up this very old post was a somewhat feeble attempt by Rob to "insult" or otherwise impugn my position that Ford only ever made and sold the 351 Windsor Four Barrel engine in cars for one model year, 1969. That is a fact, deal with it. You jumped in to the middle of it with more erroneous information.

Generally people who don't want to get shot at, don't jump into the line of fire...

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

In other words, never enter into a thread I didn't start in order not to get caught by a stray round?

As my posts indicated, I am willing to concede the possibility of error on my part after 35 odd years, between the W and the C. I am not in error concerning what year I owned and that it had a 351 4v, or that it had not been altered. And while it may be true regarding getting shot (although I didn't raise up to try to read the VC bullets to see if my name was on one), it is also true that people who want to teach others do not act like an Alpha Hotel with rude and disparaging comments.

Reply to
Spike

Spike, This thread has gone way beyond the "teaching others" point. You (along with a few other misguided "me too'ers) jumped into the middle of Rob's ridiculously insisting that an off topic boat part somehow has some relevance in a discussion about which years Ford offered manufactured and sold CARS with the four barrel 351 Windsor engine.

Christ, if you can't follow along, or even recall what type of engine you owned, what purpose does your input actually serve? If you don't like my response, that's too bad. I didn't like your half cocked erroneous "rebuttal" to my position. Rob's Idiocy on this topic is bad enough all by itself.

Ford only manufactured and sold the 351 4bbl Windsor engine in any automobile for one model year, 1969. If you have some actual proof that this is not so, present it, otherwise, DEAL WITH IT!

Rob attempted (trying to be funny or just ignorant, I don't know) to appear smug in disproving my statement of documented fact about Fords production of a certain AUTOMOBILE engine, the ONE YEAR ONLY 1969 4bbl 351 Windsor, by dredging up "DRAGNET" snipped-for-privacy@usa.com 's stupid post from nine months ago then injected his IDIOCY into it. "As you must know, the 351W was offered in 4bbl trim for many years beyond

1969. It was NOT a one year only engine - that is an erroneous assertion." Then you, WindsorFox & elaich all jump in with your erroneous Me Too input, and wonder why I think your input is idiotic?

I've spent many hours over many years searching for, buying, using and selling specifically these 1968~1974 "rare" Ford engine parts. I am quite certain which years Ford made and sold which parts. Rob, I'd like to see you try and pass your boat engine parts off on a non

1969 351 4bbl Windsor engine concourse restoration project.

Here is an EBay link about the engine in question...

THE 1969 351 WINDSOR IS A HIGH NICKEL CONTENT BLOCK AND IS THE ONLY WINDSOR WITH FOUR BARREL HEADS

formatting link
Item number: 220151392530

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

SNIP

I guess I am misguided. I thought this newsgroup a place for me to learn. Not a place for me to be insulted for being in error. It would appear that I am not alone in such thinking.

Thanks, but I thought I did know what I had. It was a 351, and the one I am most familiar with is the Windsor. My intent was not to rebut your position, but to point out what I drove and see if I was correct, or if you could steer me right. I didn't expect to be insulted.

I don't plan to "DEAL WITH IT". I plan to accept it and forget it. It puts no gas in the tank of my 65 Fastback A Code, so it really doesn't impact my life as it clearly does yours.

Apparently you think anyone who isn't up to your level of knowledge is an idiot. Guess you were born with all that knowledge that so many of us learn by trial and error. It also appears that you have a conflict with Rob and took it out on the rest of us "idiots".

Thanks for clearing that up. Where all the rest of the thread went before I joined in, I do not know. The vast majority of the information you just provided never arrived on my pc.

I do thank you for the continued insults and know it all attitude. Cars used to be just forms of transport. Enjoyable, but just that. I'm relatively new to which cars are which in the Mustang world. I have concentrated on my 65 FB, although I have owned a previous 65 FB,

66 FB, 72 whatever, 74 Mustang II with a 302 4v (that I am positive of because I had to rebuild the carb).

Fortunately, few others insult me for not knowing every possible detail and statistic available. Those are the people who help me learn.

My input may have seemed idiotic to you, but then you probably think that I have memorized every thread and every post for the past couple of years, and therefore felt that I was intentionally questioning your voracity. Such was never the intent of my idiotic input. But I'll "deal with it".

Clearly, you have never been a novice, and never been wrong about anything. Thanks for the lesson. I suppose a warning should be in order. Something along the line that anyone new to Mustangs should just shut up and never voice a thought of their own if you are involved.

Reply to
Spike

Spike, you don't make it easy... First of all there was never a factory 1974 V-8 4bbl Mustang made or sold by Ford.

1974

-2.3L i4

-2.8L v6- 105hp (No v8 option!)

1975-1978

-2.3L i4

-2.8L v6- 105hp

-302ci v8- (4.9L)- 140hp; 122hp in CA 2-barrel carburetor

formatting link

1974 Ford Mustang Engines and Options Ford President Lee Iacocca masterminded the Mustang II, creating a smaller, more fuel-efficient car to compete with sporty imports. Iacocca had eliminated the straight-line six-cylinder engine in favor of a more compact V-6, and per his edict, engineers gave no thought to providing a V-8 engine, a break with Mustang tradition -- and something Ford would soon regret.
formatting link
If you had simply asked a question rather than throwing your misremembered two cents worth in supporting Rob's silly shit, you wouldn't be sitting there trying to figure out why you got some too.

I don't suffer fools. If you want to learn, you ask questions, you don't jump into the wrong side of a dispute spouting what you might know and correcting others with misremembered information. Here is a really easy rule to keep you out of trouble, don't argue about things you are not positive about. It works well for me.

What you did was offensive, I jumped on you about it and you can't handle it. If you want to make something bigger than it already is out of this, have at it. But I'm through explaining these simple things to you.

Clearly this has to do more with you putting your foot in your mouth than my level of expertise. You are welcome.

Finally

Your warning would be better stated like this: Don't state as fact that which you do NOT know to be fact.

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

Spike wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Just killfile the idiot and be done with it, as I have.

Reply to
elaich

Clearly, I shall never have to worry about another piece of inane trivia, and certainly will never have to buy an encyclopedia... I'll just ask you.

Say, God, what day does the world end?

Reply to
Spike

"...for any car made by Ford..." And you have the nerve to make comments on *my* reading retention.

Reply to
WindsorFox

And others such as yourself keep changing the parameters. You said

351 w a 4V, when shown one you added in a car. You said for any car made by Ford and then you added 351. You sir are playing Calvin ball.
Reply to
WindsorFox

Bingo.

Rob

Reply to
trainfan1

SNIP

For the record "Mr Perfect", I NEVER said the 74 Mustang II was a factory original or even that it was sold by Ford.... just that it had a 302 4v. It seems you were in such a rush to prove me wrong that you failed to notice.

It is not I who "can't handle it". I've been honest enough to admit I could be in error, and that after 35 years my memory may be faulty. You, sir,are the one who found it necessary to make insulting and disparaging remarks against the rest of us. Apparently, it is you who can not handle anyone questioning your encyclopedic memory.

Reply to
Spike

Obviously this is no longer true... and hasn't been for 20 years.

Patrick

formatting link

Reply to
NoOption5L

Also whether you consider a Shelby to be "production" or not.

Reply to
WindsorFox

75% of Granandas had the 200 CID or 250 CID 6 cylinder.

The 351W was available to 1977.

302 or 250 after that.

No "M" at all.

Rob

Reply to
trainfan1

You can get one, it's called Pontiac GTO here in the US.

Rob

Reply to
trainfan1

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.