NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/hotrod/487

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 7.8 KB | 169 lines

Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!emory!rsiatl!hotrod
From: [e-mail] (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: 302 parts compatible?
Message-ID: <04qr#[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 06:11:10 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Posted-Date: Thursday, Dec 31 01:11:05
X-Sequence: 3139
X-Gifs-To: [e-mail]
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 152

G'day Dave,

Let me first say that you are certainly knowledgable on all things
Ford so the next time I'm in an argument about size, weights, history
and so on, I'll be sure to email you before I open my mouth. :-)


>-> Can I assume they don't do this already? What about weight? Isn't the
>-> 351C block a lot heavier?
>
> Are you kidding?  Very, very few Americans even know of the existence
>of the 302C.  Anything from Australia might as well be from Mars.

Well I can assure you us Martians do enjoy the 302C - it was still
being placed in cars up until about 6 years ago. Then we had this real
"dork" in charge of Ford and he hated anything motor sport and
anything V8. The big reason for dropping the Ford was our move (albeit
reluctant) to unleaded petrol and the costs of converting the motor.
One of the other local producers, Holden, converted their 308ci/5.1L
motor to unleaded no problems so it was a bit of a furphy Ford were
throwing at us.

But guess what - people voted with their cheque (check) books and
bought Holdens and when Jac Nassar (recent top dog at Ford - now head
of Europe I believe ) arrived, all of a sudden the V8 was a reality
even though it is a weasle when compared to what they used to produce.

>-> the same - makes life hard when you need to tell at a glance what the
>-> capacity is. Trust me on this, but the 302 loves to rev its head off,
>
> Is there any difference on the crank flange at the flywheel?  How about
>the harmonic balancer?  Not that you can see either very well while the

The 351C and 302C Australian are no different to view - they look
identical and many rely on the engine stamp to tell whether it is a
351 or a 302.

As to the American one, some found their way to the original GTs and
as a consequence are rare as hen's teeth. I did see an original
American 351C a long time ago but don't recall any discernable
difference externally.

> According to my Ford stuff, all US 351Cs were cast in Cleveland, Ohio.
>For a few years, they were shipped to Ford Australia for machining, then
>shipped back to the USA.  Wierd.  Anyway, Ford USA canned the motor in
>1974 after a five year production run.  Your post-'75 US four bolts were
>probably shipped out of existing inventory.

I couldn't imagine that inventory lasting long (unless there were
thousands sitting in stock) so that means that the remaining
production in later years of the 351/302 must have come from here.

> You might be interested to know that Ford's Muscle Parts and
>Off-Highway Operations in the early '70s sold Aussie four bolt blocks at
>super-premium prices - close to the cost of a complete US motor, just
>for the block!  The Aussie blocks were a better grade of cast iron, and

Sheez, have you expose a niche market for me?? Anybody want to buy a 2
or 4 bolt 302 or 351C???
And after all we do produce the best steel in the world - at least BHP
keeps telling us that. :-)

>were thicker wall construction, probably because Australians didn't see
>any point trying to cast sheet metal.  The US 351Cs had some flimsy
>areas... like the cylinder walls.  <sigh>

I knew a guy who worked in the Ford casting plant in Geelong, Victoria
(I think?) who remarked once that they dropped one from a great
height and it didn't show a crack - indicating that they were built
solid and this would explain the long held claim over here that the US
motors were a little lighter.

Was the cylinder wall problem the reason for the demise of the 351C or
was it a better generation motor that superceded it?

> The early Falcons used 351 Windsor motors, but I have no certain
>information as to where they're from.  I tend to think they were
>imported from the US, since Ford Oz was so proud of their 351C.

You are right. The first Falcon GT V8 was the 289, then followed the
351W and finally the 351C. I am fairly certain that the 351W was a
fully imported (ie US) motor because that was one of the reasons that
they were dropped in favour of the 351C 4 years later.

The major reason for the swap from 351W ro 351C was that our type of
touring car racing dictated the need for more grunt - something that
the 351W was notorious for lacking on the long hills of Bathurst, NSW.

>-> produced 2 bolt only and imported the 4V 4 bolt mains 11:1 motor from
>-> the US. What was this motor, was it a 351C?
>
> Four bolt, four barrel 11:1, hydraulic lifter - that's the 1969-1970
>standard 4V motor.  For solid lifter, it'd be the BOSS 351.  For solid
>lifter, 8:1 compression, it'd be the 351 HO.  Both were made only one
>year, available in the Mustang only, and are rather rare.

The only imported 351C motor had hydraulic lifter of this I am
certain. The only ones with solid lifters were the later GTHOs which
attracted the price tag accordingly. All US 351C motors (that I have
been able to discern) were 11.0:1. In 1974 when they were put into the
Falcon XB they ran 11.0:1 and the Australian ones ran 9.1:1

What were the rod bolt sizes for the US 351C - were they the same as
the 302/351C Australian?


>-> lbs (1568 Kg), hey? Boy those were the days. Now we get this 5.0L
>-> Windsor (made in Mexico?) and fair dinkum, it would have trouble
>
> I've heard the Mexico rumor before, but nothing to authenticate it.
>I'd kind of like to know if it's true, because the Mexican Chevys are

When Ford announced the impending re-emergance of the 351 all the
motoring pundits over here said "Ah.. But it can't be the 351C because
the castings were returned to the US, don't tell me we're going to get
that choked-up 302W!!!" (Or words to that effect). Many writers were
chastising Ford for the decision and adding little snipes like "How
much tequila does it take before the motor starts to detonate?" etc.

>nothing you'd want to trust.  Up here, people think a "5.0" is a monster
>motor.  <sigh>  We all know, of course, you must have at least seven
>liters to pound your chest and rattle your cage... but compared to a
>1600, I guess a 5.0 does look impressive.

Ahh.. too true. Australians have always loved the V8 - they've had an
affinity with it which I am sure is akin to that of the US. Yes, sadly
the BIG motors have disappeared off mainstream cars, but happily we
still like to show-horn 460s into Falcons or 351W into Cortinas.

We are perhaps better off in some ways than the USA because we do not
have the propensity to change our cars often. In fact, the last
survey I saw put the average age of car owned in Australia at over 10
years old! All of these run on leaded fuel and consequently it seems
that it will take Australia about another 20 years to phase out the
use of leaded fuel. What this means for us "V8 nuts" is we can still
pick and choose what motor we want to put in a car (subject to
registration rules) without having to worry about the grade of fuel
and passing strict and stupid pollution regulations.

But back to the "5.0" Windsor, I hear they produce about 165KW at 4500
RPM, (I think that's about 220 HP) this compares with a bog-standard
302C 2V Australian of 180 KW (about 240HP) at 5000 RPM - chalk and
chees I know but a comparison nonetheless. In fact a few Ford racing
drivers have expressed their "displeasure" with the 5.0 Windsor, much
preferring the 351C and if that wasn't available, the 302C. Perhaps it
is merely patriotism.

What would you say is the rev limit of the 5.0W (3??ci)? Is it fitted
with a rev limiter/computer limiter?

----------
Posted by: Mark Jose <emory!werple.apana.org.au!speednut>