Welll... a 351 C is a nice motor and they sure can make a Mustang run sweet. They work in trucks too, but they don't have the huge torque numbers of the old fashion FE engine. Price depends on what it is. If they haven't cracked open the motor for any work and you can hear/see it run, I would offer $300. Keep in mind that depending on what motor you have in your truck now, you may also need the trans to back your new engine.

--Mike

 

Not my favorite engine. . . . bad bottom end, small bellhousings,[same as 289/302]also 373:1 is a bit low because the big heads, valves & ports like to run more rpm to run right. Problem with more rpm is less MPG though. . . . Probably why the engine is for sale I'd guess the seller knows or figured out what alot of us already know.

FBp

 

Sorry Pete, I am not sure where you got the info about bad bottom ends but the 351C definitely has an good bottom end, it is not the same as the 351M and has a proper oiling system that is not known for failure like the 351M. Also note that you are correct about the bellhousing so an 11 inch clutch is as big as you can use but since that is bigger than these trucks usually came with it should be fine. I ran a 351C in my old 67 for years and the biggest issue is on the 4 barrel engines, they are designed for high RPM usage and are dogs at 1000 RPM but at 6000RPM nobody can compete. The 2 barrel engines have much more potential for a torque monster and they will easily compete with a 390 in terms of torque. Hawkrod

 

hey Hawkrod, hi!

I know a couple guys who used to twist their "C"s mercilessly, almost like the orange replacement engines. They stuck with OEM nodular cranks & rods instead of going for billet or forged. In truth I admit it was lack of knowledge as much as cast bottom ends in their OEM Blocks. When they ran they ran hard and well, but most failure was in their lower ends. I felt the "C" engines overpowered the bottom ends too often.

I do not have anything against nodular FoMoCo castings, except when they spin up much past 6500 - 7K RPM. In typical cast component fashion, whenever one of these guys lunched one out, it was usually a catastrophic event. On flip side I still run Cast Crank/ bottom ends, in my 460s, but I'll ne're see 6K, I don't see 5K either. I'm pretty much consigjned to 45-4800 after which I seem to flatten out too much. No more gain.

I agree with you about RPM's that's what I meant with "big heads, valves & ports like to run more RPM to run right". Also one of those "C" addicts was famous for breaking bell housings. He'd launch/leave at 4K -4200 and break a few feet out. He went to manual shift and got a scatter proof shield/ bellhsg, but didn't run as good as he used to when ran a built A/T (may have been his driving style tho').

IMHO I think there are better ways to get big power and better MPG in the street than running a "C" engine. They don't make copious amt's of torque like some other powerplants do, especially at the lower ranges, as you pointed out.

FBp

 

If it's a 351 Cleveland withe 4bbl heads, you might want to grab it. If I remember correctly, the 4bbl engine had a different set of heads with monster intake ports and I thought they had 4 bolt main bearings. I always liked this engine a lot. It was as hot as anthing around for a "common" stock engine. For what you want it for, I think it would do quite nicely. If you decide you don't want it, PM with information on who to speak with about it. Good luck.

 

Hey pete can I remind you that the engine masters challenge this year was won with a cleveland engine, and infact I believe that 3 of the top 5 were cleve based engines, I ran one in my race truck this year and spun it 7400 all the time but when I hit, and held it against the 7600 rev limiter I did break a stock rod. and to who ever commentedon them having a better oiling system than the 351m nope same oiling system but it doesn't take much to make them live biggest thing I can think of is an extra capacity oil pan cause the main problem with them is pushing to much oil into the heads and starving the oil pump, you can also do some other mods real easy, and never have an oiling problem with them.
Texan just because it is a 4v engine did not mean they were 4 bolt, although you are more likely to find it in a 4v engine it's not a guarentee by any means, but even the 2v blocks are exactly the same as the 4 bolt just need to have the proper caps, and a little machining to turn any cleveland block into a 4 bolt they used the exact same mold either way. Also not all 4v engines had the large valves some actually used the 2v valves (which are still bigger than any other small block produced by anyone) and for anyone thinking you need the 4v engines to make them spin, I was running aussie 2v heads turning 7400rpm and making over 500hp, so personally I would buy the 4v engine sell the 4v heads for a rediculas price on ebay, and buy a set of 2v AFD alum heads or CHI 3v heads, and really make a screamer out of it.

 

I've heard the C's have cooling problems, is that true? I suppose it depends on the application and size of radiator you can fit in there.

 

I could have been much clearer, you are correct in that they have the same oiling system and that is the shortcoming from what I understand, they are EXACTLY the same. According to what I have read in magazines and on the web, because of the larger diameter main bearings and such, the M series bleed off a lot more pressure once the wear sets in and produces more heat at the bearings. Hawkrod

 

I am having to remember back over 20 years but I just don't remember there being many problems with the 351C. When I was a kid, it was a desireable engine. Perhaps folks run into problems with them modified for 500hp but as a stock engine, I seem to recall they were pretty reliable and quite powerful. Of course the ones I remember were in my friend's father's Torino's and Montego's but they'd turn the tires over with no problem.

 

Hello

Sorry for the long reply but the person selling has not been around to call so I have zero new information. I was wonder what kind of fuel economy these engines get. I will be doing alot of highway driving. Do you think it's possible to get 15mpg if I ran a 5 speed with overdrive out of a newer truck. This tranny would line up right because I don't really like the stock FMX tranny because nothin special about them. Thanks guys will keep you posted. P.S with the quench heads and flat tops I will need to change the pistons because I have to run 87 octane fuel correct? 10.7:1 might be a little tight for that kind of octane.

 

I would not expect to anything to write home about as far as fuel economy. Remember this was a real late 60's/early to mid 70's engine. At the time, folks were all that worried about fuel economy. You might get 15 mpg out of it but nothing more than that. I would expect more like 9-12mpg. Someone else may be able to give you a better idea. Not sure about the compression problem. There won't be any electronics witht the engine to compensate for this problem but I would imagine that 93 Octane would do OK.

 

Haaser, It has been posted already that this engine made it's power at higher rpms. Going to OD lowers rpms and may not be best for that setup.

Honestly a 5.0L HO might be a better choice. My 92 turns 2000 rpms at 70 mph. Ya gotta keep the rpms down to sip gas. Hot Rods are gulpers. IMHO

John

 

as for the mileage, I have a 351C with 2bbl heads, edelbrock 650 4 bbl system on top, hedmann headers, mallory unilte dist. holley roller rockers and a c4 auto with a 3:00 rear in a 70 montego 3600# with me in it that was rebuilt with stock compression so I have to run the higher octane, but last week on a trip it got 13.5 mpg running at 3k (70mph) all the way for 200 miles. not bad I suppose. it ran a 14 flat at the track, im hoping for low 13's once I switch the rear to a posi 3:73. hope this helps a little

 

VD, I might suggest you do the one revolution tire roll test, I think your speedo is off. 70 mph & 3000 rpms don't add up to a 3.00 rear ratio. My pickup is running 85 at 3000 with a 3.00. I'm thinking you are closer to 3.50 with that.

John