CJ? Engine Well Clearance ?

65 Mustang
Considering 351W. Restorer says he thinks the fit between exhaust
manifolds at the shock towers and at steering box is extremely tight
and will be a major headache for tune ups. Anyone know for sure? I
didn't think there was that much difference between the 289 and the
351W. CJ?
Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Spike wrote:
> 65 Mustang
> Considering 351W. Restorer says he thinks the fit between exhaust
> manifolds at the shock towers and at steering box is extremely tight
> and will be a major headache for tune ups.

This swap has been done many, many times. The 351 Windsor is just a
raised deck version of the 260/289/302. Clearance around the steering
box is identical to the smaller block. The taller deck height puts the
spark plugs closer to the shock towers, true, but how often are you
going to change the plugs anyway? I would worry about a restorer who
is not aware of the ubiquity of Windsor-into-1st-gen swaps.

180 Out

The fit if fine. Although the 351 is taller and wider it still fits between
the shock towers and you can buy headers specifically made for this swap.
Changing plugs is no problem. I've had 351Ws in 4 of my projects. I'm not
sure where your getting the CJ reference, though. I never heard of that.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who once said, "I drank
what?".

I r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d



"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> 65 Mustang
> Considering 351W. Restorer says he thinks the fit between exhaust
> manifolds at the shock towers and at steering box is extremely tight
> and will be a major headache for tune ups. Anyone know for sure? I
> didn't think there was that much difference between the 289 and the
> 351W. CJ?
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

In article >, Mark C.
> wrote:

> The fit if fine. Although the 351 is taller and wider it still fits between
> the shock towers and you can buy headers specifically made for this swap.
> Changing plugs is no problem. I've had 351Ws in 4 of my projects. I'm not
> sure where your getting the CJ reference, though. I never heard of that.

You've never heard of me? Everyone in the uncivilized world knows
what I am.

The stock W exhaust manifold *is* wider at the rear than a 289
part. I have no experience with the fit in an early car, though. An
other alternative might be the HP 289 castings as they don't "flare
out" like the W's.

>
> --
> I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who once said, "I drank
> what?".
>
> I r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
>
>
>
> "Spike" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 65 Mustang
> > Considering 351W. Restorer says he thinks the fit between exhaust
> > manifolds at the shock towers and at steering box is extremely tight
> > and will be a major headache for tune ups. Anyone know for sure? I
> > didn't think there was that much difference between the 289 and the
> > 351W. CJ?
> > Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> > 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> > Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> > Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> > w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>
>

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

WOW! Somebody never heard of you? Seems to me it was in all the
papers.... LOL

Hey thanks, CJ


On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:04:41 -0700, CobraJet >
wrote:

>In article >, Mark C.
> wrote:
>
>> The fit if fine. Although the 351 is taller and wider it still fits between
>> the shock towers and you can buy headers specifically made for this swap.
>> Changing plugs is no problem. I've had 351Ws in 4 of my projects. I'm not
>> sure where your getting the CJ reference, though. I never heard of that.
>
> You've never heard of me? Everyone in the uncivilized world knows
>what I am.
>
> The stock W exhaust manifold *is* wider at the rear than a 289
>part. I have no experience with the fit in an early car, though. An
>other alternative might be the HP 289 castings as they don't "flare
>out" like the W's.
>
>>
>> --
>> I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who once said, "I drank
>> what?".
>>
>> I r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
>>
>>
>>
>> "Spike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 65 Mustang
>> > Considering 351W. Restorer says he thinks the fit between exhaust
>> > manifolds at the shock towers and at steering box is extremely tight
>> > and will be a major headache for tune ups. Anyone know for sure? I
>> > didn't think there was that much difference between the 289 and the
>> > 351W. CJ?
>> > Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>> > 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>> > Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>> > Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>> > w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>>
>>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Sorry for throwing you for a loop with the CJ reference.... but you'll
see what that refers to in one of the responses.

Any of those projects a 65 or 66? Ford made the 67s a bit bigger.

I knew the engine would fit, but the installer had a 351W in a later
year so he had more room, and wanted to make sure I knew it was going
to be tight around the towers and steering box. So I figured I had
better do some follow up before getting in to deep. After all, I sure
would not want to have to jack up the engine every time I wanted to
clean/change the plugs.

Thanks for the help.

By the way, happen to recall what kind of gas mileage you got with the
351W. Wondered how it would compare to the 289.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:20:48 -0800, "Mark C."
> wrote:

>The fit if fine. Although the 351 is taller and wider it still fits between
>the shock towers and you can buy headers specifically made for this swap.
>Changing plugs is no problem. I've had 351Ws in 4 of my projects. I'm not
>sure where your getting the CJ reference, though. I never heard of that.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

I knew the engine would fit, and was pretty sure about the differences
between the 289 and the 351W, but had to make sure before making the
decision.... I've run 289s for years, but this is the first experience
with the 351W.

He had a 351W in a later model coupe which wasn't a problem, but
wanted me to know that compared to the 289, it was going to be a bit
tighter around the towers and steering box before I made the decision.

Thanks for the assist.

On 25 Feb 2005 08:24:36 -0800, wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> 65 Mustang
>> Considering 351W. Restorer says he thinks the fit between exhaust
>> manifolds at the shock towers and at steering box is extremely tight
>> and will be a major headache for tune ups.
>
>This swap has been done many, many times. The 351 Windsor is just a
>raised deck version of the 260/289/302. Clearance around the steering
>box is identical to the smaller block. The taller deck height puts the
>spark plugs closer to the shock towers, true, but how often are you
>going to change the plugs anyway? I would worry about a restorer who
>is not aware of the ubiquity of Windsor-into-1st-gen swaps.
>
>180 Out

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

In article >, Spike
> wrote:

> WOW! Somebody never heard of you? Seems to me it was in all the
> papers.... LOL

It was, but I got upstaged by that pesky tsunami.
>
> Hey thanks, CJ

Sure.

>
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:04:41 -0700, CobraJet >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >, Mark C.
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The fit if fine. Although the 351 is taller and wider it still fits
> >> between
> >> the shock towers and you can buy headers specifically made for this swap.
> >> Changing plugs is no problem. I've had 351Ws in 4 of my projects. I'm not
> >> sure where your getting the CJ reference, though. I never heard of that.
> >
> > You've never heard of me? Everyone in the uncivilized world knows
> >what I am.
> >
> > The stock W exhaust manifold *is* wider at the rear than a 289
> >part. I have no experience with the fit in an early car, though. An
> >other alternative might be the HP 289 castings as they don't "flare
> >out" like the W's.
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who once said, "I drank
> >> what?".
> >>
> >> I r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Spike" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > 65 Mustang
> >> > Considering 351W. Restorer says he thinks the fit between exhaust
> >> > manifolds at the shock towers and at steering box is extremely tight
> >> > and will be a major headache for tune ups. Anyone know for sure? I
> >> > didn't think there was that much difference between the 289 and the
> >> > 351W. CJ?
> >> > Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> >> > 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> >> > Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> >> > Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> >> > w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
> >>
> >>
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1

Yeah... Those waves tend to hug all the glory....

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:42:20 -0800, Spike > wrote:

>Sorry for throwing you for a loop with the CJ reference.... but you'll
>see what that refers to in one of the responses.
>
>Any of those projects a 65 or 66? Ford made the 67s a bit bigger.
>
>I knew the engine would fit, but the installer had a 351W in a later
>year so he had more room, and wanted to make sure I knew it was going
>to be tight around the towers and steering box. So I figured I had
>better do some follow up before getting in to deep. After all, I sure
>would not want to have to jack up the engine every time I wanted to
>clean/change the plugs.
>
>Thanks for the help.
>
>By the way, happen to recall what kind of gas mileage you got with the
>351W. Wondered how it would compare to the 289.
>
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:20:48 -0800, "Mark C."
> wrote:
>
>>The fit if fine. Although the 351 is taller and wider it still fits between
>>the shock towers and you can buy headers specifically made for this swap.
>>Changing plugs is no problem. I've had 351Ws in 4 of my projects. I'm not
>>sure where your getting the CJ reference, though. I never heard of that.
>
>Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

The windsor will fit without a problem. If you really want a challenge cram
a CobraJet in there! (I mean the engine not the person)

Merc
Thundersnake#16
"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah... Those waves tend to hug all the glory....
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:42:20 -0800, Spike > wrote:
>
> >Sorry for throwing you for a loop with the CJ reference.... but you'll
> >see what that refers to in one of the responses.
> >
> >Any of those projects a 65 or 66? Ford made the 67s a bit bigger.
> >
> >I knew the engine would fit, but the installer had a 351W in a later
> >year so he had more room, and wanted to make sure I knew it was going
> >to be tight around the towers and steering box. So I figured I had
> >better do some follow up before getting in to deep. After all, I sure
> >would not want to have to jack up the engine every time I wanted to
> >clean/change the plugs.
> >
> >Thanks for the help.
> >
> >By the way, happen to recall what kind of gas mileage you got with the
> >351W. Wondered how it would compare to the 289.
> >
> >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:20:48 -0800, "Mark C."
> > wrote:
> >
> >>The fit if fine. Although the 351 is taller and wider it still fits
between
> >>the shock towers and you can buy headers specifically made for this
swap.
> >>Changing plugs is no problem. I've had 351Ws in 4 of my projects. I'm
not
> >>sure where your getting the CJ reference, though. I never heard of that.
> >
> >Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> >1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> >Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> >Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> >w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>
> Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16