Interesting take on Windsor vs Clevo

[Ext User(Jason James)]

http://www.fordforums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-1808.html

From "Gammaboy"

Normal 302 Windsors (not Hipo/Mexican or Boss blocks) have a reputation for
breaking blocks once you get them past 500ish hp (Don't ask me how Minges is
still in one piece, maybe he doesn't drive it?:insane:), and yes, there are
ways and means to get a 8.2" deck height block out to 400+ci (8.2 deck Svo
or Fontana bored to 4.125", 3.6" stroke i think it is.... someone ran this
setup with CHI heads in Engine Masters, came 3rd?4th?)...

351W is a real boat anchor, It was only reall ever built for trucks....

Clevos. Well, apart from core shifts in casting, 10kg extra weight in the
block and the infamous oiling issues, the block is a good thing. Heck, the
9.2" and 9.5" SVO blocks use the same crank architecture, but with a Wheezer
oiling/cooling architecture.
The Biggest thing the Clevos have going for them are the Heads. Even the 2V
heads flow more than *any* factory Windsor head. The canted Valves make them
very efficient compared to a pure wedge motor. John Kaase *won* Engine
masters this year against all comers using an XE block and CHI heads/intake,
sleeved down and stroked out to 406 (?) ci.
None of the aftermarket Windsor heads are anywhere as efficient as either
the CHIs or the AFDs, to get similar flow numbers they've got *Massive*
ports which kill bottom end....

As far as Aftermarket support, well theres *tonnes* of stuff for windsor if
your in the US, but a dearth of gear for Clevo. In Aus its different. We've
got 2 people manufacturing great heads, 3 or 4 different intake
manufacturers, but no-one building for Windsors.....

Me? I like Clevos. You don't have to drop the cooling system or remove the
dizzy to remove the intake. They rev, they flow, there are factory heads
that will let you make enough power to break cranks and smash blocks without
a blower... And they're AUSSIE BUILT!

Ben

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Hmm 'Ben' ? Sounds familiar.

Jason (love the Cleveland,....so does Exxon)

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Jason James" <home@work.1.0> wrote in message
news:44fdcc82@news.comindico.com.au...

> Hmm 'Ben' ? Sounds familiar.

I have no idea who "Ben" might be, but if he's a "Ford Forum" regular then
there's a good chance he doesn't know the difference between cat shit and
canola oil. Most people there seem to be Ford fanatics first, and
informative "experts" a long way second, and what he posted about the
engines here doesn't really say much.

Both the Cleveland *and* Windsor had their good and bad points, but neither
of them was a spectacular engine.

The Windsor (and in particular the 289-302) was a compact little engine that
made a reasonable amount of power which made it perfect for fitment into
"compact" (by American standards) cars like Falcons & Mustangs. It had
limiting factors, and they weren't confined the cylinder heads. Connecting
rods and crankshafts were weak points in all Windsor engines with the
exception of the Boss 302 and the 289HP.

The Cleveland was a better engine, but was still far from a perfect one, and
as good as the heads could flow they still had shitful exhaust ports and
terrible problems with incomplete combustion which made it impossible for
them to meet emission standards and why they were killed off so quickly in
the US.

The biggest problem *both* engines had was the fact that they were
externally balanced, which was a habit Ford liked to persist with for some
strange reason. It made the crankshafts in both engines prone to flexing
whenever "serious duty" was involved, and the ways in which Ford set about
trying to solve the problem were often hard to understand (like 3 inch
diameter main journals on 351 Windsor cranks for example).

That said, both engines could make very respectable power outputs with some
"tailoring", and for all their short-comings they had some "hero" versions
in the line ups. The Boss 302 was a *fantastic* engine in it's day (and
would be one of my all time favourites), and the Boss 351 (which was
identical to our Phase III Cleveland engine with the exception of the
camshaft profile and 4 bolt main caps (which not all of the boss 351's
actually got)) was a pretty lethal small block street engine.

Even the lowly 351 Windsor "truck" engine could be respectable.

Given some compression, a decent camshaft and a 4 barrel carb it could
*easily* make a reliable 325hp off the showroom floor (provided you didn't
rev it past 6000rpm), and that's exactly what Ford Australia did when they
stuck it in the XW GT.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Jason James)]

"Noddy" <dg4163@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:44fe02ac@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Jason James" <home@work.1.0> wrote in message
> news:44fdcc82@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> > Hmm 'Ben' ? Sounds familiar.
>
> I have no idea who "Ben" might be, but if he's a "Ford Forum" regular then
> there's a good chance he doesn't know the difference between cat shit and
> canola oil. Most people there seem to be Ford fanatics first, and
> informative "experts" a long way second, and what he posted about the
> engines here doesn't really say much.
>
> Both the Cleveland *and* Windsor had their good and bad points, but
neither
> of them was a spectacular engine.
>
> The Windsor (and in particular the 289-302) was a compact little engine
that
> made a reasonable amount of power which made it perfect for fitment into
> "compact" (by American standards) cars like Falcons & Mustangs. It had
> limiting factors, and they weren't confined the cylinder heads. Connecting
> rods and crankshafts were weak points in all Windsor engines with the
> exception of the Boss 302 and the 289HP.
>
> The Cleveland was a better engine, but was still far from a perfect one,
and
> as good as the heads could flow they still had shitful exhaust ports and
> terrible problems with incomplete combustion which made it impossible for
> them to meet emission standards and why they were killed off so quickly in
> the US.
>
> The biggest problem *both* engines had was the fact that they were
> externally balanced, which was a habit Ford liked to persist with for some
> strange reason. It made the crankshafts in both engines prone to flexing
> whenever "serious duty" was involved, and the ways in which Ford set about
> trying to solve the problem were often hard to understand (like 3 inch
> diameter main journals on 351 Windsor cranks for example).
>
> That said, both engines could make very respectable power outputs with
some
> "tailoring", and for all their short-comings they had some "hero" versions
> in the line ups. The Boss 302 was a *fantastic* engine in it's day (and
> would be one of my all time favourites), and the Boss 351 (which was
> identical to our Phase III Cleveland engine with the exception of the
> camshaft profile and 4 bolt main caps (which not all of the boss 351's
> actually got)) was a pretty lethal small block street engine.
>
> Even the lowly 351 Windsor "truck" engine could be respectable.
>
> Given some compression, a decent camshaft and a 4 barrel carb it could
> *easily* make a reliable 325hp off the showroom floor (provided you didn't
> rev it past 6000rpm), and that's exactly what Ford Australia did when they
> stuck it in the XW GT.

Great read Nod. In the cleveland at low engine speeds (say up to 3500), I
recall reading from your posts in the past that the air/fuel gas speed
remains too low due to the larger ports and valves and pooling of the fuel
occurs in the inlet manifold as a result, how does that stuff-up the
emmisions? Does the now leaner mixture cause the operator to use more
go-pedal and thus force the pooled fuel into the chambers to cause a rich
burn?

Jason

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Jason James" <home@work.1.0> wrote in message
news:44fef107@news.comindico.com.au...

> Great read Nod. In the cleveland at low engine speeds (say up to 3500),
> I
> recall reading from your posts in the past that the air/fuel gas speed
> remains too low due to the larger ports and valves and pooling of the fuel
> occurs in the inlet manifold as a result, how does that stuff-up the
> emmisions? Does the now leaner mixture cause the operator to use more
> go-pedal and thus force the pooled fuel into the chambers to cause a rich
> burn?

The Cleveland's biggest problem as far as emissions go was it's incomplete
combustion.

Most people seem to think that this was thanks largely to the size of the
intake ports causing an excessively low intake velocity which permitted fuel
"fall out". The shape of the chambers didn't particularly help (in either
open or closed variety), and the angle of the spark plug also compounded the
issue.

Basically, the Cleveland's ability to thoroughly burn the mixture in each
cylinder was pretty average, and a lot of unburnt petrol was spewed out of
the tailpipe with every exhaust stroke. Ford looked at ways of reducing
this, but took the "cheapy" path of retarding the cam & ignition timing and
limiting the engines to very small carburettors, In the end, the only way
they could make the emissions get close to what was required was by stifling
the engine so bad that it was lucky to make 100hp, so they simply killed it
off and stuck with the Windsor which was much better as far as emissions
went.

What they really needed to do was to cast new heads for the things, and if
you look at any of the current crop of performance after-market Cleveland
heads you'll see how the plug location and chamber shape are remarkably
different to those of the original Cleveland.

While these modifications in after-market heads are principally designed
increase performance, one of the ways they do that is by making a dramatic
improvement to combustion. They also have radically different exhaust ports
(which was a major Cleveland weakness) and a smaller volume on the intake
side.

Such heads give the average Cleveland an incredible boost, even compared to
the original closed chamber 4V's, and it's a shame Ford didn't build them
like that originally as we might very well have seen GTHO's with an easy
450hp.

--
Regards,
Noddy.