Engine Masters 350 vs 351w shootout

[gmc406]

What is interesting is the speed of modern vehicles...A full size Chevy 4x4 PU weighing about 6200 pound empty with a 420 HP 6.2 can run the 1/4 in about 14 flat at 95 MPH...Of course today's 420 HP was 500 in 1970 when they used gross numbers....The average 330 advertised HP muscle car would get whipped by a typical new family sedan with a V6...

I see your point and you make a valid one at that. Those truck can dance. However, I road in my friends 2013 Camaro ZL1 a few times, and I must say it was the slowest 580hp I’ve ever felt. My brothers 2012 Camaro SS with 425hp, I sware, would nip at its heals all the way down the track. I’m not the only one to feel the same way. My brother, in fact, was quite happy he stuck with the SS version.

I question the 580hp and 556ft/lbs.

[Geoff2]

Steve.k,

[1] All of the 351C 4V engines that were sold here were US built & assembled. So if they performed differently here, maybe...... the air?

[2] I never said that the engines were not quick & powerful once modified. What I said was: in stock form they were a poor performing street engine because the intake ports were too big & as a race engine they were a failure because they reqd serious modifications to make them reliable. Contrast this to the 426 Hemi that not only won it's first race, it won first through to fourth!!!

[3] Chrysler Aust never invested much into racing, nothing like the millions Ford did here with factory drivers. GM invested quite quite heavily, also wih factory backed drivers. Hence Ford & GM dominated.
In New Zealand, it was a different story, with Chrysler Valiants regularly winning over 351Cs.

[4] The GT HO Falcon here had the motoring press dribbling at the mouth when the 351Cs arrived. Some of their comments would make you guys in the US laugh. Claims such as: 'The fastest 4 door car in the world'. Tick any option box on the sales order of any of cars from the big three in the US & you would have had a faster car.

[5] To give you an idea of the hype & legend that built up here around these GT Falcons, I beat many in my peg leg old Dodge at the drag strip; one day I beat a phase 2 GT HO Falcon. As I went to collect my time slip, I noticed the two mate's of the Falcon driver heading for me. I thought there was going to be a fight...One said to me to, ashen faced,"Do ya know you just beat a phase 2". They had swallowed the hype & thought these cars were the fastest on the planet. Oh, & my reply was.....'Yes, done it plenty of times.'

[Truckedup]

What is interesting is the speed of modern vehicles...A full size Chevy 4x4 PU weighing about 6200 pound empty with a 420 HP 6.2 can run the 1/4 in about 14 flat at 95 MPH...Of course today's 420 HP was 500 in 1970 when they used gross numbers....The average 330 advertised HP muscle car would get whipped by a typical new family sedan with a V6...

I see your point and you make a valid one at that. Those truck can dance. However, I road in my friends 2013 Camaro ZL1 a few times, and I must say it was the slowest 580hp I’ve ever felt. My brothers 2012 Camaro SS with 425hp, I sware, would nip at its heals all the way down the track. I’m not the only one to feel the same way. My brother, in fact, was quite happy he stuck with the SS version.

I question the 580hp and 556ft/lbs.

If you can believe the better reputation car magazines, the ZL1 runs the 1/4 in mid 11's at 125 mph...About the same reported on various forums by owners...

[Steve.k]

Geoff this will be my last post on this. I guess what this boils down to is I don't believe you when you say its a poor street performer! If you look at all the 428 specs (which was pretty much fords top performance car in the day)you see only the 681/2 mustang was quicker! 1/4 mile performance is fairly good indicator of street performance. The standard 4v Clevelands were only a few ticks off the boss. So I will end with this. The Cleveland was a good street performer earned most of its reputation on the street and when modified was very aggressive engine bar none. Im willing to bet you ask any chevy, dodge,or subaru owner which ford engine sticks out in there mind the Cleveland will come up.

[Geoff2]

Uhh..Steve... it's not just me that says it was a poor street performer. That's your problem!

[1] By the late Tom Shaw, Muscle car Review, Aug 2016. On the 351C: ".....the 4 bbl heads & valves may have have been too much of a good thing, at least for responsive street driving. Nascar engine builders improved port efficiency by using epoxy to raise port floors & reduce the opening of both intake & exhaust ports by around 30%." Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 351Cs as a stock performer....

[2] History of the Falcon GT [ Australian Publication ]. "On the race track, the GTHO phase 2 was winning races, although reliability was still proving to be a problem, but through a painstaking program of development, during which almost ever major component in the Cleveland engine was modified, the engine eventually achieved reliability as good as could be expected from any race engine."
Hardie-Ferodo 500 1972 race. " "Chrysler introduced a slightly modified Charger. Called the E49, it featured more power from its 265 motor [ 302 hp @ 5600 ] making it an extremely rapid motor car-in acceleration it was slightly better than a GTHO Phase 3, although it was 10 mph slower in top speed."

Similar weight cars, one with a much smaller engine, yet it accelerates faster than the bigger engined car...somebody didn't do their homework.

[3] Roger Huntington, American Supercar."The W31 had a fat top end with smooth, flexible street crusing. Certainly a much better combination than the Boss 302 Mustang - which had too much intake port area".
It seemed Ford learned nothing from ports that were too big for street engines: " Boss 429 had huge round intake ports...& definitely too big for the street."With the street Bosses huge ports & soft low end & mid range torque, the car spent too much time getting up to 70 or 80 mph where the flow in the ports was decent."

[NXBOY]

Whats Sad for FORD was the power eating C6. If they just slightly beefed up a few C4s and put them behind The FEs or Clevelands They would of been easily a couple tenths quicker. I though the 428cjs was Fasted with a stick?? Alot of auto E.Ts.

[Momus]

Uhh..Steve... it's not just me that says it was a poor street performer. That's your problem!

[1] By the late Tom Shaw, Muscle car Review, Aug 2016. On the 351C: ".....the 4 bbl heads & valves may have have been too much of a good thing, at least for responsive street driving. Nascar engine builders improved port efficiency by using epoxy to raise port floors & reduce the opening of both intake & exhaust ports by around 30%." Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 351Cs as a stock performer....

[2] History of the Falcon GT [ Australian Publication ]. "On the race track, the GTHO phase 2 was winning races, although reliability was still proving to be a problem, but through a painstaking program of development, during which almost ever major component in the Cleveland engine was modified, the engine eventually achieved reliability as good as could be expected from any race engine."
Hardie-Ferodo 500 1972 race. " "Chrysler introduced a slightly modified Charger. Called the E49, it featured more power from its 265 motor [ 302 hp @ 5600 ] making it an extremely rapid motor car-in acceleration it was slightly better than a GTHO Phase 3, although it was 10 mph slower in top speed."

Similar weight cars, one with a much smaller engine, yet it accelerates faster than the bigger engined car...somebody didn't do their homework.

[3] Roger Huntington, American Supercar."The W31 had a fat top end with smooth, flexible street crusing. Certainly a much better combination than the Boss 302 Mustang - which had too much intake port area".
It seemed Ford learned nothing from ports that were too big for street engines: " Boss 429 had huge round intake ports...& definitely too big for the street."With the street Bosses huge ports & soft low end & mid range torque, the car spent too much time getting up to 70 or 80 mph where the flow in the ports was decent."

The Cleveland probably should be called the Geelong after the Australian city's Ford plant that manufactured many of them.
One builder I know was running set screws from the top deck to support the combustion chamber roof.

[Truckedup]

The Cleveland probably should be called the Geelong after the Australian city's Ford plant that manufactured many of them.
One builder I know was running set screws from the top deck to support the combustion chamber roof.

Do you mean screws were threaded in from the top of the head? Well, that's not the first time used on a Ford...As a teenager in the early 1960's I read that some Ford "Y" block builders ran screws into the combustion chamber roof for support..I have no idea why I remembered this...

[Steve.k]

Its called staking as compression and rpm get up the deck of head moves. Pro stock started this procedure and im sorry cleveland was not the only head they did this to !. Most likely the competition never had anything with enough power to move the combustion chamber. Oh i forgot. Glidden and Nicholson already proved that!!350 pound handicap cap still kick everyones ass.

[elwood]

Glidden, Nicholson, Gapp & Roush already proved that!! 350 pound handicap cap still kick everyones ass.

fixed it for ya

BooYah Git You Summa Dat

Yes pinning the chambers goes WAY back to the roots of moon runners & nascar

[Steve.k]

Thank you. I owe ya beers!!

[CGT]

If you can believe the better reputation car magazines, the ZL1 runs the 1/4 in mid 11's at 125 mph...About the same reported on various forums by owners...

I haven't personally witnessed that, usually mid 12's at 1'teens from what I've seen depending on weather, in stock form. It doesn't help that they are as heavy as a 1/2 ton truck. , especially with a couple full size adults riding in it. 4100-4200lbs dry weight.

[hpetew]

I watched the episode, I thought that the point was that you can build a sbf that performs well without breaking the bank. And I think they demonstrated that quite well. I saw some earlier posts about nascar in the 70s and 80s. Ford had a horsepower advantage but Chevy had a huge handling advantage on the short and medium tracks, because of engine placement (stock cars really being stock in those days). When Ford introduced the jellybean bird in 83? the aerodynamics were so good that they couldn't get air to the carburetor Ernie Elliot figured that out in 85 and Bill went on a tear, still couldn't win on short tracks though.

[Truckedup]

I watched the episode, I thought that the point was that you can build a sbf that performs well without breaking the bank. And I think they demonstrated that quite well. I saw some earlier posts about nascar in the 70s and 80s. Ford had a horsepower advantage but Chevy had a huge handling advantage on the short and medium tracks, because of engine placement (stock cars really being stock in those days). When Ford introduced the jellybean bird in 83? the aerodynamics were so good that they couldn't get air to the carburetor Ernie Elliot figured that out in 85 and Bill went on a tear, still couldn't win on short tracks though.

Was Elliot not winning on shorter tracks due to driving skill or style ? Or did the Chevy have a better power band despite having less power?

[tchapps88]

i think driving style would have to do more with it than any. Ricky Rudd drove Bud Moore's thunderbird in the same era and most of his wins were on short tracks and road courses