If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
why do car engines get noisier with age? | Usual Suspect | Technology | 28 | February 22nd 05 06:25 PM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 3/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 0 | February 18th 05 05:33 AM |
Rotary Engine FAQ 0501 | Felix Miata | Mazda | 1 | January 3rd 05 12:24 AM |
Rotary Engine FAQ 0501 | Felix Miata | Driving | 0 | January 1st 05 12:27 PM |
Rotary Engine FAQ 0412 | Felix Miata | Mazda | 0 | December 1st 04 01:47 PM |