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

And I'm the one who's taking this personally? Reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit in school was it? All I said was that your comments about M heads being garbage were wrong. That comment was true then and it's true now. The heads were a good design, always have and always will outflow and out perform W heads hands down.

>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.

Evidently it's beyond the capabilites of you and your boy racer pals.

>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.

That's because you work with smaller engines genius.

>To compare Yates heads with 2
>barrel Clevelands is ignorant.

The Yates head is designed around the Cleveland heads not the W head. Of course purpose built race heads which costs $6000 a pair aren't comparable to a stock M or 2V C head, any more than a race prepped short block is comparable to a stock W bottom end. They do share a common heritage however.

>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.

No, evidently you and your wannabe racer buddies have more money than brains or imagination so doing anything original or different is completely beyond you.

>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.

Show me some numbers...you want to make all these claims then show me some numbers that back them up.

>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!!!

Tell ya what bright boy...why don't you take your attitude and your cutsey acronyms and go off to the W forum. You can impress all the rest of the small block boys with how many parts you can bolt on to your toys there. You obviously have no purpose other than to denigrate the M series here.

 

Sniff!! Sniff!! Sob!! I guess I hit a nerve. Way to go on the attack!!! Yes the C heads are the greatest. Yes, you are the greatest! Don't race that bench too hard, you might get hurt!

See you at the track. That is if you can get that giant ego through the tech inspection!

BTW, in your own link the cast iron, inline, Windsor N351 beats your precious c head and it's $295 retail bare.

I figure this debate is over since you've resorted to name calling. Clearly the loser will always show his true colors by getting personal.

Until Ken asks/says different, I'll post my opinion in whatever thread I like, even if you don't agree with it. Don't cry to hard, I don't want the tears messing up your Commodore's key board.

 

>Sniff!! Sniff!! Sob!! I guess I
>hit a nerve. Way to
>go on the attack!!! Yes
>the C heads are the
>greatest. Yes, you are the
>greatest! Don't race that bench
>too hard, you might get
>hurt!

>BTW, in your own link the
>cast iron, inline, Windsor N351
>beats your precious c head
>and it's $295 retail bare.

>I figure this debate is over
>since you've resorted to name
>calling. Clearly the loser will
>always show his true colors
>by getting personal.

>Until Ken asks/says different, I'll post
>my opinion in whatever thread
>I like, even if you
>don't agree with it. Don't
>cry to hard, I don't
>want the tears messing up
>your Commodore's key board.


You better check the mirror slick, you're the one who took this debate down the "I'm an immature jerk off" path not me. Not only that but you evidently have real trouble reading as well. The only factory iron heads that came close to matching the 2V stock C heads were the ones which had been ported AND had bigger valves put in them. So compare them to the 2V with bigger valves and GUESS WHAT? Yep, the piddly W heads got blown away.

BTW as long as we're "bench racing" let's not forget that Hot Rod took my "POS" heads and put them on a 400 that turned out 382 hp and 456 ft.lbs of torque. Oh did I mention that was with a 2 bbl carb and cast iron manifolds?? Put a 4 bbl, bigger valves and headers and it would make that 392 look pretty sad in comparison.

You can "figure" whatever you want, just like you can post whatever you want. Just remember that opinions are like *********s, everybody's got one and most of them stink. People come here to get info on the M series without having to put up with worthless, misinformed posts like yours. Try and remember that before you stink up the board.

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-Feb-01 AT 07:22 PM (EST)[/font][p]My gut hurts from laughing so hard at this ignorance!!!!! Using Mr. Cryers OWN link: http://www.waldens.com/351heads.htm the N351 and GT40X which are Ford, inline valve, windsor heads both beat the numbers of the Cleveland head with just a valve job AND bowl job. This is with smaller valves and smaller ports.

Thank-you again Mr. Cryer for proving my point so well.

Game, set, match. Yawn....this is getting boring.

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-Feb-01 AT 07:54 PM (EST)[/font][p]Please tell us the year and model vehicle that came with SVO GT-40X heads or SVO N351 heads stock.

Like I said, nobody comes here to listen to smarmy know-it-alls like you denigrate the M series. You obviously aren't blessed with enough imagination, ability or original thought to take a good design and modify it to make it better. You and your wannbe racer boys need to buy all of your parts out of an aftermarket box because the factory pieces just aren't up to snuff and you're not capable of fixing them. Congratulations, you should be very proud of yourself. Obviously any further "conversation" with you is useless since you never had any useful information to begin with.

Adios little man.

 

Ok, Ok, Your head's best. The cylinder heads still are still not that great.

Mr??? Cryer you're really looking foolish with all the name calling and instigating. It's just a friggen motor for crying out loud. Did a a guy driving a Windsor sleep with your life partner? You know Bruce will come back!!! Maybe you'll be in a better mood when he returns.

Take it easy and don't forget your Prozac!!!

 

i could understand if you guys were arguing over a motor that was worth something, but the 351m/400, and 400 were the worst motors ford ever made, and why would you waste your money tring to build one of these boat anchors, you still won't have anything when your done. if your going to spend money building an engine, buy a big block, even a stock 429/460, pre 72, has twice the power of those boat anchors, and if you put a little cash in it, you'll really have a motor to be proud of.

 

If the M-blocks are suck a bad motor then why is my bone stock 351M been put to 4,500 rpm(or higher coulent see the tach and drive) going muddin in my 77 i made it through my friend couldent make it in his 87 with a 351W that he just got back about 8,000 miles ago his winsor hit 4,200 rpm and his big bad winsor broke he spun 3 rods and there was something else called a tow truck after i pulled him out and his truck got pulled home.

Curtis
77_F150_4x4 aka
"The BeAsT"

 

>i could understand if you guys
>were arguing over a motor
>that was worth something, but
>the 351m/400, and 400 were
>the worst motors ford ever
>made, and why would you
>waste your money tring to
>build one of these boat
>anchors, you still won't have
>anything when your done.
>if your going to spend
>money building an engine, buy
>a big block, even a
>stock 429/460, pre 72, has
>twice the power of those
>boat anchors, and if you
>put a little cash in
>it, you'll really have a
>motor to be proud of.
>

First of all you might want to read the posts before you start makin' noise. We were arguing about the 351W and M heads specifically. There's no question that the 351M/400 series engine was a low compression smog motor from the factory but spare us the exaggerations. Not many 429/460s came out in factory trim with 370 HP which is twice the 400 factory rating. Having said that for the same amount of money it takes to build a 460 I can build a 400 that will have almost as much HP and MORE torque at lower RPMs.

 

a 1969-1971 429 w/2 barrell made 320 horses and 450 ft lb torque, 4 barrell 345 horses and 460 ft lb torque, and the cobra jets and super cj's were even more yet. the most a 351/m or 400 ever made was a 1974 w/170 horses and 330 ft lb torque. so there's your exaggerations, and if your retarded enough to spend the money to try to attain big block numbers on a small block, and don't think the 351/400m is a big block, then you go for it. remember, that torque gets a vehicle moving, and hp keeps it moving, so one without the other ain't worth crap, and if you own a vehicle w/351/400m motor, you know what i mean. i have a 84 bronco and a 89 jeep wrangler, both have 429 cj's in them and 39.5 boggers and swampers, and here in ohio where i live, in the mud, without hp, your done.

 

>a 1969-1971 429 w/2 barrell made
>320 horses and 450 ft
>lb torque, 4 barrell 345
>horses and 460 ft lb
>torque, and the cobra jets
>and super cj's were even
>more yet. the most
>a 351/m or 400 ever
>made was a 1974 w/170
>horses and 330 ft lb
>torque. so there's
>your exaggerations, and if your
>retarded enough to spend the
>money to try to attain
>big block numbers on a
>small block, and don't think
>the 351/400m is a big
>block, then you go for
>it. remember, that torque
>gets a vehicle moving, and
>hp keeps it moving, so
>one without the other ain't
>worth crap, and if you
>own a vehicle w/351/400m motor,
>you know what i mean.
> i have a 84
>bronco and a 89 jeep
>wrangler, both have 429 cj's
>in them and 39.5 boggers
>and swampers, and here in
>ohio where i live, in
>the mud, without hp, your
>done.


First of all I said "not many" not "none" so yes the pre smog hi po motors made lots of hp and torque. The 400 was designed as a low compression smog motor so it had low horsepower from the factory. It still has a longer stroke than any of the motors you mentioned above and I can still take the same money and build a 400 with almost as much hp and more torque than your 385 series.

 

i agree, this is not a 429/460 board we are either fans of or have 351/400's. thats nice that u have a 429 but we dont care. and if 351m's are so bad then why are u arguin? do i smell jealousness? the 351m heads are some of the best stock heads ford made. a local ford racing shop recommends stock 351m heads on all racing engines and yes including your 429's. so there ya go.

 

first of all, the original question was about the good and bad points of the 351/400m. everyone replied with the good points of these motors. no one said anything bad about them, and if you know anything about these motors, then you know they are notoriously weak on the bottom end, yes you could spend your money building one of these motors, but how are you going to keep your crank in it. i've had 3 buddies with these motors, and everyone of them have spun the crank out of them. i've seen people selling these motors for 300 to 500 bucks, then you have to spend more money building them up. my original point was why waste your money, when you can buy a big block to start with, use the same tranny, and have twice the motor. that's all i was saying, and i don't know of any machine shop that does head work cheap!!!!!!

 

>first of all, the original question
>was about the good and
>bad points of the 351/400m.
> everyone replied with the
>good points of these motors.
> no one said anything
>bad about them, and if
>you know anything about these
>motors, then you know they
>are notoriously weak on the
>bottom end,

I happen to know something about these engines, including how to build them to put out decent power and make them last in some truck applications. How many 400s have you built? How much power did they make and how long have they lasted?

If you read through the posts on this thread, you'll see several comments about the weak points of these engines, and specific suggestions for how to address those issues.

>i've had 3 buddies with
>these motors, and everyone of
>them have spun the crank
>out of them.

So you're saying that seeing your "buddies" blow up some poorly built or ill-prepared M-blocks qualifies you as some kind of expert on these engines?

Frankly, I have never heard of an engine that you couldn't spin the crank out of, including FEs, 302/351Ws, and even the almighty 429/460.

Bummer about your buddies' bad luck, but maybe if they had listened to someone who knows what they're doing with these engines, they could have built them to avoid that problem, or selected a better engine for their intended application in the first place.

The specific application that the originator of this thread stated was "general daily use with mild to moderate off roading." Seems to me that almost any engine would be suitable for that application, even a stock-built 351M/400. If he said his application was high revving mud bogging with 44" tires, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a 429/460 big-block.

> my original point was
>why waste your money, when
>you can buy a big
>block to start with

That's as logical as me saying why waste your money on a 429/460 when you can buy an M-block.

What's with you big block guys? Are your engines are so perfect and things so boring over on the 429/460 forum that you have to come over here and trash-talk the M-block? Give us a break!

As for "twice the motor," I say get off that sanctimonious high horse of yours and show us the dyno runs.

I'll put up my M-block engines, dollar-for-dollar, against any 429/460 big-block and I'd bet I never come up short more than 10-20% on either max hp or max torque. I'll spot you that advantage, but "twice the motor" is just ignorant or arrogant, but not truthful.

BubbaF250

 

>a local
>ford racing shop recommends stock
>351m heads on all racing
>engines and yes including your
>429's. so there ya
>go.

big80bronco,

I find it hard to believe that any shop would recommend using a cylinder head designed for the 351M/400 4.38" bore spacing on an engine with 4.90" bore spacing. The 351M head will not even bolt up to a 429/460 block.

BubbaF250