Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm planning on rebuilding my C code 68 and came across a few stroker ads and found out that it would be something feasible funds wise, I was just trying to round up some opinions about the subject. I don't plan on ever putting it on a trailer but would still like a strong, durable, sunny day driver. BTW, it is a coupe with about 85K, and one way or another, I am planning on a new complete edelbrock system. Your opinions are important, Thanks!

Tony Rolof
1968 Mustang Coupe
1991 Mustang LX
1985 B-1 Lancer
 

·
Supporting Vendor
Joined
·
3,961 Posts
"There is no replacement for displacement". The reason I have
Cleveland in our car is to have "MORE POWER". Everyone I talk
to about the stroker kits say's they are a great idea. If you have
the money do it. I hope to stroke out the Cleveland someday!
I herd I can go to 426.

http://home.earthlink.net/~myradpc/_uimages/turn2.JPG
Turn 11 @ Laguna Seca----My Cleveland
http://home.earthlink.net/~myradpc/_uimages/turn1.JPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
I agree there is no subsitute for cubic inches, but you could build a pretty nasty 351W for what you would have to spend on the 347 kit alone. Plus you're starting with more (you guessed it) cubes to boot. Of course the upside to the 347 is that you can have those cubes in the same size package as the 289. In my opinion if the 347 seems like the logical choice for you and cost is not an issue, then I say go for it. Because after all, your building this car for yourself and, personal satisfaction IS the #1 priority. As for the 351C being stoked to 426ci, I don't think it's possible because the deck heght is too short(9.200") to accomodate the longer rods necessary to clear the crank with all that extra stroke. I think 392 is the most I've seen stroked out of a Cleveland. However, Coast High Performance and others do offer a 426 stroker kit for the 351W. I have built a couple of these engines and they are a pretty tight fit even with the 9.5" deck height.

Every day is a holiday if you love your job.

Current projects: 65 Fastback, 68 Coupe Oval Track Racer, 64 Galaxie 500 XL, 54 F-100 Pickup
 

·
Supporting Vendor
Joined
·
3,961 Posts
I wasn't sure. I would be happy with 392. I put a Cleveland in a '64 Ranchero
back in 1984. The stuff I used in this car is from the Ranchero. My first car was
a '70 Ranchero with a Cleveland. This is still the same basic motor I had in my
first car. The cam that is in it I bought in 1981. I know windsors are good motors
and people like to use them now a days, but I still like the Clevelands.

http://home.earthlink.net/~myradpc/_uimages/turn2.JPG
Turn 11 @ Laguna Seca----My Cleveland
http://home.earthlink.net/~myradpc/_uimages/turn1.JPG
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
did you have to do any mods to get the cleveland in there?

http://www.defpony.batcave.net/images/defpony.jpg
Corpus Christi TX
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,047 Posts
Some say that 347 isn't the best combo for longevity. Rod ratio and oil control (pin in the oil ring land) are the reasons why some people think it is better suited for race cars, because those engines are opened routinely. A friend of mine settled for 331 because of this reason. I would go for FRPP 392 Windsor. And when dreaming adding up with Cleveland heads, Boss 392 sounds like a good project name.

Door handle first when cornering
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,293 Posts
I think I'd go with a tweeked 351w before the stroker. There are some durability issues with stroker motors that should be considered for your "strong, durable, sunny day driver." A Windsor will give you the cubes you desire, and with aluminum heads, intake, and headers will not add any weight over your 289. Because of durability and ease of swap, I'd go with the 351w. Dickson

1965 GT fastback / "Fastbasketcase" (by Midlife)
There's a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness" - Dave Barry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Dickson and the others that advocate beginning with a Windsor are correct. The only advantage a 347 would provide over a W would be that it would look stock. Seeing that your car is a restomod driver anyway, hang on to your original engine, find a 200 buck 351 core and go nuts. For 2500, you can have a 13-second car that is perfectly streetable and reliable.

Glenn Morgan: 66 GT V-Burgundy Fastback 351w+toploader+9 in. TracLoc. Started out as a rusted-out Chicago-area crusher. After sacrificing a solid 66 coupe for its sheetmetal sub-assemblies, I have one solid (and expensive) work in progress!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,885 Posts
Actually, they are now producing a "street" 347 with a modified piston that places the wrist pin below the lower oil ring land. The "race" 347 still has the earlier piston configuration. I'm told that the street engines are no longer oil burners as a result. Check with Nitmare. He has a 347 in his 70 convertible and dosen't seem to have oil use problems.

I have a 302 in my 69 convertible and I'm also considering a 347 to keep the car looking as stock as possible. Our 69 SportsRoof has a 351W and the engine looks much broader in the engine compartment. Since my car still has the original door tag with an F code, I'd like to keep the original look.

Regards,
RagTop
69 convertible

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by RagTop on 04/25/01 12:10 PM (server time).</FONT></P>
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Remember, when you stroke the motor, it weakens it!!! So for a daily driver, go for a 351W!!

65 coupe 302
(rebuilding a 351W)

I'd rather push a Ford than drive a Chevy!!!
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top