Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666 (email redacted)

I have a '65 Mustang Coupe 6cyl that I've already prepared for serious
power. I am getting a 351C which I am beefing up (hopefully 450+ HP). I
am wondering what kind of transmission I should get to complete this
package. My car has a C-4 right now so I want to stay in the automatic
range. I don't know THAT much about transmissions, so I am looking for
some advice, but from what I have heard, I think I want a Hurst shift kit
installed. I dont know much about valve body selection, but I want
something easy to handle with the best performance. Any help?

Justin S.
US Air Force Academy, CO

------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Keith Carter (email redacted)

Justin,

This is just my opinion.... BUT I have always experienced and seen very good
luck with B&M Trannies... I have owned a few that 'should' have grenaded and
have had friends with the same..... A C4 B&M should live fine behind your
450+ 351c for about $900... At least here in Southern California.... Not sure
of the price other places.

Regards,
Keith

Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666 wrote:

> I have a '65 Mustang Coupe 6cyl that I've already prepared for serious
> power. I am getting a 351C which I am beefing up (hopefully 450+ HP). I
> am wondering what kind of transmission I should get to complete this
> package. My car has a C-4 right now so I want to stay in the automatic
> range. I don't know THAT much about transmissions, so I am looking for
> some advice, but from what I have heard, I think I want a Hurst shift kit
> installed. I dont know much about valve body selection, but I want
> something easy to handle with the best performance. Any help?
>
> Justin S.
> US Air Force Academy, CO
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Dixon (email redacted)

Justin,

First up, you'd better find out what tower mods you need to squeeze a 351
Cleveland into that car - I've seen it done, but the exhaust manifolds were
actually touching the towers and I think even then the towers had been
bashed in to allow clearance. I'd say headers would be out of the question
without major bashing.

Second, while I have enormous respect for the C4 as a tough workhorse, a 351
C pumping out 450+ ( and I assume you intend flogging that bad boy, as in
line locks, lunar launches etc ) may be more than it can reasonably handle
for any length of time. You would have to beef it up to handle the horses.
I'd explore bigger and tougher boxes - ask the tranny shops.

A U.S. Air Force Major is over here at the moment on a training course and
he is a Mustang devotee who owned a killer show winning 66 Fastback just
before leaving the US. I'll ask him what he did to manage his beast and
I'll get back to you.

Cheers


Mark Dixon
Capital Classics
Canberra

Website :"capitalclassics.cyberone.com.au"
-----Original Message-----
From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666 <


>I have a '65 Mustang Coupe 6cyl that I've already prepared for serious
>power. I am getting a 351C which I am beefing up (hopefully 450+ HP). I
>am wondering what kind of transmission I should get to complete this
>package.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Cristos Manos (email redacted)

Just out of curiosity do you know that will need to grind the shock towers
on that car to get a Cleveland to fit? It will also seriously jack your
front suspension (too much weight) unless you do some serious building. Also
say bye bye to cornering because your front/rear weight ratio will suck..
Your car will be fast but only in a straight line..

-----Original Message-----
From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666
<(email redacted)>
To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 10:21 PM
Subject: [CM:15381] re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?


>I have a '65 Mustang Coupe 6cyl that I've already prepared for serious
>power. I am getting a 351C which I am beefing up (hopefully 450+ HP). I
>am wondering what kind of transmission I should get to complete this
>package. My car has a C-4 right now so I want to stay in the automatic
>range. I don't know THAT much about transmissions, so I am looking for
>some advice, but from what I have heard, I think I want a Hurst shift kit
>installed. I dont know much about valve body selection, but I want
>something easy to handle with the best performance. Any help?
>
>Justin S.
>US Air Force Academy, CO
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666 (email redacted)

I've heard this alot, but I have also heard that the 351W would work alot
better, what do you think? By the way, the car has a 9" tractionloc
rearend, 16x8 Vintage 45 wheels, negative roll front suspension and
Baer Sport model disc brakes up front and the Baer Touring disc brakes
in the back. I plan on relocating the battery and weighting down the trunk
anyway, to correct any weight anomolies. Would a Windsor putting out
the same HP as mentioned before make any difference in the tranny
selection?

----------------------[Reply - Original Message]----------------------

Sent by:"Cristos Manos" <(email redacted)>
Just out of curiosity do you know that will need to grind the shock
towers
on that car to get a Cleveland to fit? It will also seriously jack your
front suspension (too much weight) unless you do some serious
building. Also
say bye bye to cornering because your front/rear weight ratio will suck..
Your car will be fast but only in a straight line..

-----Original Message-----
From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666
<(email redacted)>
To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 10:21 PM
Subject: [CM:15381] re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?


>I have a '65 Mustang Coupe 6cyl that I've already prepared for serious
>power. I am getting a 351C which I am beefing up (hopefully 450+ HP).
I
>am wondering what kind of transmission I should get to complete this
>package. My car has a C-4 right now so I want to stay in the automatic
>range. I don't know THAT much about transmissions, so I am looking
for
>some advice, but from what I have heard, I think I want a Hurst shift kit
>installed. I dont know much about valve body selection, but I want
>something easy to handle with the best performance. Any help?
>
>Justin S.
>US Air Force Academy, CO
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

===========================================================
==========


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Cristos Manos (email redacted)


A Windsor will fit with no mods (unless you do headers, then you will need
to modify the shock towers again). My personal opinion is that the Cleveland
is one monster of an engine. It will smoke quite a bit of crap. My brother
has a 69 Mach 1 with a warmed over Cleveland and a c6 auto capable of
smoking the tires at 60mph... Its defiantly a mean engine. But I personally
don't think all the trouble is worth it. Although there is no replacement
for displacement I am a strong believer in the 289. You can get a 289 to
push 450hp with a fairly high reliability. But If you want to go like hell
and not worry too much about the money needed to modify the chassis and
engine bay, go with the Cleveland. Remember also that your car is a factory
6 cylinder. When you swap to v-8 you will need to change out the ENTIRE
suspension including your brakes (they are smaller) to accommodate your new
weight change. I have heard too that a Cleveland will cause the frame to bow
as its too heavy. You might want to look into the Windsor or the 289.. Its
up to you...
-----Original Message-----
From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666
<(email redacted)>
To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 1:02 PM
Subject: [CM:15386] re:re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?


>I've heard this alot, but I have also heard that the 351W would work alot
>better, what do you think? By the way, the car has a 9" tractionloc
>rearend, 16x8 Vintage 45 wheels, negative roll front suspension and
>Baer Sport model disc brakes up front and the Baer Touring disc brakes
>in the back. I plan on relocating the battery and weighting down the trunk
>anyway, to correct any weight anomolies. Would a Windsor putting out
>the same HP as mentioned before make any difference in the tranny
>selection?
>
>----------------------[Reply - Original Message]----------------------
>
>Sent by:"Cristos Manos" <(email redacted)>
> Just out of curiosity do you know that will need to grind the shock
>towers
>on that car to get a Cleveland to fit? It will also seriously jack your
>front suspension (too much weight) unless you do some serious
>building. Also
>say bye bye to cornering because your front/rear weight ratio will suck..
>Your car will be fast but only in a straight line..
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666
><(email redacted)>
>To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
>Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 10:21 PM
>Subject: [CM:15381] re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?
>
>
>>I have a '65 Mustang Coupe 6cyl that I've already prepared for serious
>>power. I am getting a 351C which I am beefing up (hopefully 450+ HP).
>I
>>am wondering what kind of transmission I should get to complete this
>>package. My car has a C-4 right now so I want to stay in the automatic
>>range. I don't know THAT much about transmissions, so I am looking
>for
>>some advice, but from what I have heard, I think I want a Hurst shift kit
>>installed. I dont know much about valve body selection, but I want
>>something easy to handle with the best performance. Any help?
>>
>>Justin S.
>>US Air Force Academy, CO
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>
>===========================================================
>==========
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666 (email redacted)

When coverting from 6 to 8 cyls in a '65 Mustang, how important is
changing the steering linkage? Is it a header clearance problem?

----------------------[Reply - Original Message]----------------------

Sent by:"Cristos Manos" <(email redacted)>

A Windsor will fit with no mods (unless you do headers, then you will
need
to modify the shock towers again). My personal opinion is that the
Cleveland
is one monster of an engine. It will smoke quite a bit of crap. My brother
has a 69 Mach 1 with a warmed over Cleveland and a c6 auto capable of
smoking the tires at 60mph... Its defiantly a mean engine. But I
personally
don't think all the trouble is worth it. Although there is no replacement
for displacement I am a strong believer in the 289. You can get a 289 to
push 450hp with a fairly high reliability. But If you want to go like hell
and not worry too much about the money needed to modify the chassis
and
engine bay, go with the Cleveland. Remember also that your car is a
factory
6 cylinder. When you swap to v-8 you will need to change out the
ENTIRE
suspension including your brakes (they are smaller) to accommodate
your new
weight change. I have heard too that a Cleveland will cause the frame to
bow
as its too heavy. You might want to look into the Windsor or the 289.. Its
up to you...
-----Original Message-----
From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666
<(email redacted)>
To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 1:02 PM
Subject: [CM:15386] re:re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?


>I've heard this alot, but I have also heard that the 351W would work alot
>better, what do you think? By the way, the car has a 9" tractionloc
>rearend, 16x8 Vintage 45 wheels, negative roll front suspension and
>Baer Sport model disc brakes up front and the Baer Touring disc brakes
>in the back. I plan on relocating the battery and weighting down the
trunk
>anyway, to correct any weight anomolies. Would a Windsor putting out
>the same HP as mentioned before make any difference in the tranny
>selection?
>
>----------------------[Reply - Original Message]----------------------
>
>Sent by:"Cristos Manos" <(email redacted)>
> Just out of curiosity do you know that will need to grind the shock
>towers
>on that car to get a Cleveland to fit? It will also seriously jack your
>front suspension (too much weight) unless you do some serious
>building. Also
>say bye bye to cornering because your front/rear weight ratio will suck..
>Your car will be fast but only in a straight line..
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666
><(email redacted)>
>To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
>Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 10:21 PM
>Subject: [CM:15381] re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?
>
>
>>I have a '65 Mustang Coupe 6cyl that I've already prepared for serious
>>power. I am getting a 351C which I am beefing up (hopefully 450+ HP).
>I
>>am wondering what kind of transmission I should get to complete this
>>package. My car has a C-4 right now so I want to stay in the automatic
>>range. I don't know THAT much about transmissions, so I am looking
>for
>>some advice, but from what I have heard, I think I want a Hurst shift kit
>>installed. I dont know much about valve body selection, but I want
>>something easy to handle with the best performance. Any help?
>>
>>Justin S.
>>US Air Force Academy, CO
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>
>==========================================================
=
>==========
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

===========================================================
==========


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666 (email redacted)

Is there anyone out there who has ACTUALLY done the 351C conversion
in a '65?? If so, can you explain any problems and what you did to
overcome them. Help here would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks.

Justin Sandifer

----------------------[Reply - Original Message]----------------------

Sent by:"Cristos Manos" <(email redacted)>

A Windsor will fit with no mods (unless you do headers, then you will
need
to modify the shock towers again). My personal opinion is that the
Cleveland
is one monster of an engine. It will smoke quite a bit of crap. My brother
has a 69 Mach 1 with a warmed over Cleveland and a c6 auto capable of
smoking the tires at 60mph... Its defiantly a mean engine. But I
personally
don't think all the trouble is worth it. Although there is no replacement
for displacement I am a strong believer in the 289. You can get a 289 to
push 450hp with a fairly high reliability. But If you want to go like hell
and not worry too much about the money needed to modify the chassis
and
engine bay, go with the Cleveland. Remember also that your car is a
factory
6 cylinder. When you swap to v-8 you will need to change out the
ENTIRE
suspension including your brakes (they are smaller) to accommodate
your new
weight change. I have heard too that a Cleveland will cause the frame to
bow
as its too heavy. You might want to look into the Windsor or the 289.. Its
up to you...
-----Original Message-----
From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666
<(email redacted)>
To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 1:02 PM
Subject: [CM:15386] re:re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?


>I've heard this alot, but I have also heard that the 351W would work alot
>better, what do you think? By the way, the car has a 9" tractionloc
>rearend, 16x8 Vintage 45 wheels, negative roll front suspension and
>Baer Sport model disc brakes up front and the Baer Touring disc brakes
>in the back. I plan on relocating the battery and weighting down the
trunk
>anyway, to correct any weight anomolies. Would a Windsor putting out
>the same HP as mentioned before make any difference in the tranny
>selection?
>
>----------------------[Reply - Original Message]----------------------
>
>Sent by:"Cristos Manos" <(email redacted)>
> Just out of curiosity do you know that will need to grind the shock
>towers
>on that car to get a Cleveland to fit? It will also seriously jack your
>front suspension (too much weight) unless you do some serious
>building. Also
>say bye bye to cornering because your front/rear weight ratio will suck..
>Your car will be fast but only in a straight line..
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666
><(email redacted)>
>To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
>Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 10:21 PM
>Subject: [CM:15381] re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?
>
>
>>I have a '65 Mustang Coupe 6cyl that I've already prepared for serious
>>power. I am getting a 351C which I am beefing up (hopefully 450+ HP).
>I
>>am wondering what kind of transmission I should get to complete this
>>package. My car has a C-4 right now so I want to stay in the automatic
>>range. I don't know THAT much about transmissions, so I am looking
>for
>>some advice, but from what I have heard, I think I want a Hurst shift kit
>>installed. I dont know much about valve body selection, but I want
>>something easy to handle with the best performance. Any help?
>>
>>Justin S.
>>US Air Force Academy, CO
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>
>==========================================================
=
>==========
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

===========================================================
==========


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (email redacted)

Hello, I could be wrong but a 351w, with alloy heads, alloy intake and
headers, will not weight any more than a 289. Just a thought.

Paul Bradway
1970 coupe

------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Cristos Manos (email redacted)

I dunno. Prolly though...

-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Sunday, January 10, 1999 6:02 AM
Subject: [CM:15395] re:re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?


>Hello, I could be wrong but a 351w, with alloy heads, alloy intake and
>headers, will not weight any more than a 289. Just a thought.
>
>Paul Bradway
>1970 coupe
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ron & Keya Columbo (email redacted)

> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 99 17:57:25 MST
> From: "Cadet Justin C. Sandifer, x-4666"
<(email redacted)>
> To: <(email redacted)>
> Subject: re:re:re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?
> Message-ID: <(email redacted)>
>
> Is there anyone out there who has ACTUALLY done the 351C conversion
> in a '65?? If so, can you explain any problems and what you did to
> overcome them. Help here would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Justin Sandifer
>
Dan Jones, a former (haven't seen any of his posts in a while, has actually
put a 351C in his 66 FB. I have a writeup of that swap someplace which I
can't find at the moment. From what I remember, this was not any easy swap
due to the shock tower to header clearance problems. Dan had to hammer his
shock towers somewhat to get adequate room.

BTW, Dan used his 66 for track events, so any front/rear weight
distributions can be worked around. Relocating the battery, don't run an AC
compressor or power steering, get an aluminum intake, if possible, etc.

Dan also stated that the 351W swap was much easier due to the availability
of swap headers, and a slightly slimmer width than the Cleveland. There
have been several folks post to the list who have 351Ws in 65-66 cars, so
they fit with some work.

If I can find the swap info, I will post it to the list.

P.S. I've seen 66's and 67's with 460s in them, so I don't agree that the
weight of a 351c is going to bend frame rails (the above cars did have the
shock towers removed and a Mustang II front suspension setup).

Hope this gives you some hope.

Ron Columbo

------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Sam Weatherby (email redacted)

If you were going to completely redo everything I would say a 302 would be
abetter choice than a 289. It is the same weight as a 289 but has more
cubes. Either way you need a new engine. (replacing a 6...)

But a 351w with aluminum heads and intake will also be light.
It will have more cubes. a 45o HP 289 is not as likely to be streetable as a
450 HP 351w.

There is a local guy I know here with a bit over 500 hp 375 in his '67. It
is his daily driver. He does have an SC though. (Vortech I think.)

Another advatage to the 351W vs 351C is that you will have a much wider
selection of parts.

My 5400 pound Lightning runs pretty nice for a stock 351W...
-srw

Sam Weatherby (email redacted)
insert.com/sammy ICQ # 18354914
'70 Mustang Grabber Sportsroof
'93 F-150 XLT Lightning
'98 FXD Super Glide

-----Original Message-----
From: Cristos Manos <(email redacted)>
To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 1:22 PM
Subject: [CM:15388] re:re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?


>don't think all the trouble is worth it. Although there is no replacement
>for displacement I am a strong believer in the 289. You can get a 289 to
>push 450hp with a fairly high reliability. But If you want to go like hell



------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Rich Silva (email redacted)


A better choice (in my opinion) and I think Sam might like it too...
A 302 stroked to 347. Almost as many cubes as the 351, but it weighs
and looks like a 289...

At 11:05 PM 1/10/99 -0400, you wrote:
>If you were going to completely redo everything I would say a 302 would be
>abetter choice than a 289. It is the same weight as a 289 but has more
>cubes. Either way you need a new engine. (replacing a 6...)
>
>But a 351w with aluminum heads and intake will also be light.
>It will have more cubes. a 45o HP 289 is not as likely to be streetable as a
>450 HP 351w.
>
>There is a local guy I know here with a bit over 500 hp 375 in his '67. It
>is his daily driver. He does have an SC though. (Vortech I think.)
>
>Another advatage to the 351W vs 351C is that you will have a much wider
>selection of parts.
>
>My 5400 pound Lightning runs pretty nice for a stock 351W...
> -srw
>
>Sam Weatherby (email redacted)
>insert.com/sammy ICQ # 18354914
>'70 Mustang Grabber Sportsroof
>'93 F-150 XLT Lightning
>'98 FXD Super Glide
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cristos Manos <(email redacted)>
>To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
>Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 1:22 PM
>Subject: [CM:15388] re:re:what kind of tranny in a planted 351C?
>
>
>>don't think all the trouble is worth it. Although there is no replacement
>>for displacement I am a strong believer in the 289. You can get a 289 to
>>push 450hp with a fairly high reliability. But If you want to go like hell
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

--
Rich Silva (email redacted)
Voice - (310) 414-3101 Fax - (310) 615-4547

------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm