I'll side with Ivstang as far as a 351m/400. Why Ford took
a head that had so much potiental ie the factory boss motors
and reduced it to a low compression boat anchor we'll never
know. The whole cleveland story is kind of weird to me. I
bought a book on clevelands that is a filled with old Hotrod
articles. They raved at how the clevelands were ford's
latest and greatest and would be around for a long time. They
quit making them in 73! Why would they have a 351w and a 351c
and a 351m? I've heard they changed the bellhousing pattern
so it would install in big block cars/trucks. They made small
block pattern c6 so why didn't they keep the 351c? It's all
these strange combinations that keeps these ford message boards
busy. But I feel for the guys who have 351m/400 broncos/trucks.
You have to work with what you got and it sounds like with some
careful planning you can build a good 400. If you want to put
a small block in you will have to change the trans and to me
you are entering the zone where I feel it is not worth the trouble.

 

>But you guys are knowledgeable enough
>to realize thet flow #'s
>are just one part of
>the equation. One of the
>links even states that the
>M heads have giant ports.
>C'mon guys, I'm the biggest
>Ford fan there is but
>you've got heads out there
>that have smaller valves, less
>port size AND flow more
>with smaller CC out of
>the box for less than
>$1000. Equal flow with smaller
>ports = a better performance
>head.(velocity)

It's true that flow numbers are only part of the equation albeit a VERY BIG part. The 4V heads are proof of that in that they have GIANT intake ports and flow a ton but they're designed for high RPM use and the exhaust ports SUCK! That's why as near as I can tell the best combo for a truck especially is 2V heads with 4V valves. Small ports for velocity and big valves for good breathing plus a better design for the exhaust port. I personally know a guy who built this with a 400 for his Bronco and with the stock crank & rods and a single plane C manifold with spacers regularly "parks" it at 7000 RPM.

>I'll back off and not call
>them horrible anymore! LOL!! And
>I never said that any
>stock Windsor head was better(even
>though the GT-40's are admirable
>and in the same 180CFM
>range that Bubba states) But
>the M's are 30 year
>old technology and I have
>heard that the large chamber
>heads are prone to detonation
>EVEN with low compression.

Like Bubba was saying, 76cc ain't that big when you consider the 91cc and 96cc heads the 460s were coming with. The 2V C & M heads are more prone to detonation because Ford screwed up the quench settings by building too little comp. height into the pistons.

>Believe me guys. The people I
>hang with that build Mustang
>race cars(me included) wouldn't think
>twice about different pistons or
>drilling a few water passages
>or two if we thought
>it would give us an
>advantage.

Have any of you ever tried?

>Now the Yates heads with the
>revised exhaust ports and .......well
>that's a Cleveland head. Show
>me the money!!

Where do you think Yates got the pattern for his heads? I never said that C technology couldn't be improved upon and for some serious bux you can get the Yates heads, but not for $1000.

 

>I'll side with Ivstang as far
>as a 351m/400. Why
>Ford took
>a head that had so much
>potiental ie the factory boss
>motors
>and reduced it to a low
>compression boat anchor we'll never
>
>know

<snip>

>But I feel for
>the guys who have 351m/400
>broncos/trucks.
>You have to work with what
>you got and it sounds
>like with some
>careful planning you can build a
>good 400. If you
>want to put
>a small block in you will
>have to change the trans
>and to me
>you are entering the zone where
>I feel it is not
>worth the trouble.


Well it's too bad you jumped on the "M series sux" bandwagon but don't feel sorry for us. For those of us that enjoy the challenge of making an M block that will blow most 460s off the road it's been nothing but fun. I spent hours grinding and polishing on the C heads for my 400, enjoyed every minute of it and I can't wait to post the actual dyno numbers for all of the "unbelievers" out there.

For those folks with a little less imagination or ambition they can slap a 460 in pretty easily and have a truck which kicks some pretty serious @ss. Either way there's no need to "step down" to a small block.

 

>But
>the M's are 30 year
>old technology and I have
>heard that the large chamber
>heads are prone to detonation
>EVEN with low compression.

lvstang,

The 302 design dates back to the early '60s (221) and the 351W was introduced before the 400 was developed from the 351C, which also came out after the 351W. All these pushrod engines are 30+ year old technology. The only things newer on any of them are the EFI stuff and aftermarket parts.

I have to agree with Bill's assertion that the problem is more in the piston design than the chamber. The quench properties that reduce the detonation problem are mostly determined by the interaction of the piston top and the combustion chamber.

Over the years, the 400 deck clearance went from 0.015" to 0.565" (all in the pistons, block height never changed) and compression ratios dropped from almost 9.2:1 in 1971 to 7.33:1 in 1978-79 as they used pistons with lower compression heights and bigger dish volumes. Ironically, the later production, lower compression engines had a lot more trouble with detonation, mostly because the quench properties were horrible.

As you mentioned previously, those were Detroit's darkest days and all the manufacturers (not just Ford) were trying to keep up with the tightening EPA noose and declining fuel quality.

>Believe me guys. The people I
>hang with that build Mustang
>race cars(me included) wouldn't think
>twice about different pistons or
>drilling a few water passages
>or two if we thought
>it would give us an
>advantage.

The 76cc chamber is a lot less attractive with the smaller swept volume of a 302-351ci engine than it is with a 400ci engine. Yeah, in the 400 you could increase compression with smaller chambers, but if you attend to the bigger problems of deck clearance and dished pistons first, the CR (9.0-10.0:1) starts to look pretty reasonable for modern pump gas. With excessive deck clearance and big-dished pistons, I would expect detonation to be worsened with high compression made by smaller chambers alone.

BubbaF250

1980 F250 4x4 Custom, 351M/NP435/NP208/D44HD-TTB/D60-FF/3.55s 6750 GVW, Rust & White.

 

>Got ganged up on by the
>Bubba and Bill show!!!!

<snip>

>Now the Yates heads with the
>revised exhaust ports and .......well
>that's a Cleveland head. Show
>me the money!!

At the risk of being accused of "piling on" here's a direct quote from Robert Yates referring to the engines NASCAR uses:

"Ford had sort of two combinations -- the Cleveland and the Windsor -- and they took the best of both of those and made one engine. The top end is a Cleveland engine and the bottom end a Windsor."

You can read the whole article at:

http://www.nascar.com/news/1998news/September/6/00831173.html

Maybe some of you & your fox body boys ought to take a second look at using some of those "dime a dozen" M heads...

 

76cc on a 4" bore is terrible and you know it!!! The current crop of Canfields, AFR, TFS, Edelbrock will destroy the M heads.

Yates comment was directed at design. His version of the Cleveland head shares the canted valve design and little more.

I do understand your penchant for tinkering but you're making it harder on your selfs! It used to be we had to improvise to compete with the bow tie boys. The Ford aftermarket is equal if not better now.

 

If you are going to build a Ford motor, buying afermarket heads
seems to be a basic requirement. The non-adjustable valve train
is what bugs me the most. Decking the block, shaving the heads,
replacing valve seats, not grinding the valve tips properly
during a valve grind, camshaft with different base circle......
any of these can cause headaches using the original lockdown
fulcrums. By the time you pay to have your heads converted you
might as well buy aftermarket heads.

 

>76cc on a 4" bore is
>terrible and you know it!!!
>The current crop of Canfields,
>AFR, TFS, Edelbrock will destroy
>the M heads.

Have you ever tried using an M head?

>Yates comment was directed at design.
>His version of the Cleveland
>head shares the canted valve
>design and little more.

Well if he was so hot on the W design then why didn't he use it as the basis for his heads?

>I do understand your penchant for
>tinkering but you're making it
>harder on your selfs! It
>used to be we had
>to improvise to compete with
>the bow tie boys. The
>Ford aftermarket is equal if
>not better now.

Like I said before for those with little imagination or ambition run out and buy the best that you can afford. No one's stopping you.

 

>If you are going to build
>a Ford motor, buying afermarket
>heads
>seems to be a basic requirement.
> The non-adjustable valve train
>is what bugs me the most.
> Decking the block, shaving
>the heads,
>replacing valve seats, not grinding the
>valve tips properly
>during a valve grind, camshaft with
>different base circle......
>any of these can cause headaches
>using the original lockdown
>fulcrums. By the time you
>pay to have your heads
>converted you
>might as well buy aftermarket heads.
>

Well it depends on the application also. If it's not too wild in the cam department i.e. a hot hydraulic or not too hot solid then you can get a conversion kit from Crane for less than $75 that will allow you to mount any fully adjustable rollers you want on the heads.

 

>76cc on a 4" bore is
>terrible and you know it!!!

lvstang,

The bore size relative to the combustion chamber volume is not the issue, the issue is swept volume relative to clearance volume. Even though the 302/351 and 400 have the same bore diameter, the 400 has 33% more swept volume than the 302 and about 14% more than the 351.

I'm afraid this is degenerating into an apples-and-oranges comparison. I think you're looking at this from a 5.0L perspective and I'm looking at this from a 6.6L perspective.

>I do understand your penchant for
>tinkering but you're making it
>harder on your selfs! It
>used to be we had
>to improvise to compete with
>the bow tie boys. The
>Ford aftermarket is equal if
>not better now.

I agree this is true for the 5.0L engine, but alas it is not so for the M-block. When it comes to wringing some serious power out of the M-block, a penchant for tinkering is no vice.

There are very few aftermarket options for M-block cylinder heads, but in the 400ci/6.6L application, fortunately the OEM piece is not that bad.

BubbaF250

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-Feb-01 AT 04:02&nbsp;PM (EST)[/font][p]>76cc on a 4" bore is
>terrible and you know it!!!
>The current crop of Canfields,
>AFR, TFS, Edelbrock will destroy
>the M heads.

Maybe you'd better do a little more research before you start posting stuff like this. Here's a link to an article that Ford Muscle Magazine did on aftermarket heads for the 302 and 351W. They included TFS, Edelbrock, Holley, World, Brodix and Ford SVO.

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2000/05/heads/index2.shtml

Compare it to the figures for a STOCK 351C 2V (which is what an M head is) at:

http://www.waldens.com/351heads.htm

You notice that factory M heads flow almost as good both intake and exhaust as most of those heads and better than some! "Not that bad" is a serious understatement.

 

If you do get it, grease the living hell out of the distributor!!My 351M has about 250-300,000 miles on it(w/o a rebuild) But the Dam distributor is siezed up and won't come out.I still drive it(my only vechile).

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-Feb-01 AT 04:19&nbsp;AM (EST)[/font][p]Bill?????? I think you made my point quite well, thank-you! All but one after market head outperformed your M head AND with significantly less runner volume and smaller CC and smaller valves. Which head will perform better on a REAL motor? You mean the ones that most people run at the track? That's what I thought. Why did Yates choose the canted valve design? Because you can fit bigger valves in the same area to utilize an 8000+ RPM motor. Are you doing that? Didn't think so. BTW, Joel at Performance heads(FPS) in Anaheim Ca. did my GT-40P heads for my early Bronco. The flow sheet shows 236 I, 167 E with 1.9 Intakes and 1.6 Exhaust. Not to bad for a stock Windsor head.

Bubba, I appreciate your responses and tone. Some people take this stuff too personal! For me I believe that just because something is more difficult to obtain doesn't make it better.

Take Ford's 392 factory crate motor. This thing belted out 461 HP and 454 pounds of torque with "inferior" GT-40X inline heads.

MM&FF added a set of AFR heads and an over the counter cam and the thing made 537 HP and 505 pounds of torque. This was with milled 58cc heads BTW. Sometimes easier can be better!!



To the post about the adjustable valve train, there are at least 3 GOOD aftermarket heads that allow you to use the stock pedestal mounts; Holley, AFR and Edelbrock. Remember the Gt-40 series heads from Ford use the bolt down arms and while the stud mount may be a better system, I've never experienced a failure running up to aprox. 6500 RPM regularly.

 

>Bill?????? I think you made my
>point quite well, thank-you! All
>but one after market head
>outperformed your M head AND
>with significantly less runner volume
>and smaller CC and smaller
>valves.

Well they d@m well better perform better than the stock heads for the money you have to spend on them! My point is and was that the STOCK M heads flow almost as well as aftermarket heads which have been purpose designed for high performance. You know as well as I do that they are a little more $$$ than the "dime a dozen" M heads.

> Which head will perform
>better on a REAL motor?
>You mean the ones that
>most people run at the
>track? That's what I thought.

Sorry you boy racers need to buy your power in a box instead of using some imagination and resourcefulness.

>Why did Yates choose the
>canted valve design? Because you
>can fit bigger valves in
>the same area to utilize
>an 8000+ RPM motor.

So what? Yates knew a great design when he saw it and utilized it. Maybe that's why you can fit 2.19" intakes in a 400 motor with flat tops without flycutting. What's your point?

>BTW, Joel at Performance
>heads(FPS) in Anaheim Ca. did
>my GT-40P heads for my
>early Bronco. The flow sheet
>shows 236 I, 167 E
>with 1.9 Intakes and 1.6
>Exhaust. Not to bad for
>a stock Windsor head.

Hmm...imagine what you could do with a set of REAL heads.

>Bubba, I appreciate your responses and
>tone. Some people take this
>stuff too personal! For me
>I believe that just because
>something is more difficult to
>obtain doesn't make it better.

Whatever man. You seem to be taking it personal yourself. You come off with this garbage about M heads being junk when in reality anyone who knows anything about Fords know that they were one of the best flowing stock heads on the market. Just because you turn your nose up at them in favor of aftermarket stuff and then get called on it, you start copping an attitude. Grow up.

>Take Ford's 392 factory crate motor.
>This thing belted out 461
>HP and 454 pounds of
>torque with "inferior" GT-40X inline
>heads.

Like I said before what could it have done with a set of REAL heads?

>MM&FF added a set of AFR
>heads and an over the
>counter cam and the thing
>made 537 HP and 505
>pounds of torque. This was
>with milled 58cc heads BTW.
>Sometimes easier can be better!!

It's always easier to open your wallet, just not always as rewarding.

 

LMFAO!!! I call your beloved POS heads for what they are and you get your panties in a wad!!

ANYONE can hog out heads and install giant valves (yes the canted valve will let you use larger valves.) to create supposed good flow #'s.

I'd much rather have a smaller CC to work with, smaller runners to work with AND smaller valves to work with to get more flow AND more VELOCITY.

To compare Yates heads with 2 barrel Clevelands is ignorant.

Yes the C heads were far better than any W head....27 YEARS AGO!!!
Everyone is running out to the bone yard to rebuild these AWESOME heads. They have no equal in the racing world. Everywhere in the pits people are putting on 2bbl Cleveland heads and running 7's.

Your wallet comments are flat GOOFY!! A NEW set of TFS heads are around $1000. A used set is $600+. Take your heads, add SS valves, better springs, valve job and mill them to get rid of some of that ridiculous CC and you have a head that still won't perform as good and costs the same if not more.

It's 2001, welcome to a new age. Or better yet, I got some flathead V8 heads to sell ya. They're the best!!

Better yet, take your incredible knowledge and build a drag car or truck and show them inline valve boys what a "real set of heads can do" ROTFLMFAO!!!