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!
 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....
 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.
 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."