Geoff2 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:56 am
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."