Whatever happened to the Mopar 318 engine?

[ShadowsPapa]

Ppowerful but extremely inefficient.
The one I had in a F

Powerful but extremely inefficient.

The one I had 390 in a F-250HD highboy had a little over 400hp and would hail the mail but only got 8mpg yep 8 !!

My F250s 351 (w) got a whopping 12 - regardless of what it was doing. Towing - 12, empty - 12, fast -12, slow - 12
Windy - 12, calm - 12.
It was very reliable in that sense. But not a strong engine.
I'm afraid even the Cleveland version would be a pooch compared to modern technology - a lot of weight and poor mpg.
BTW - the 351 C also came in a 2 bbl version.
It was also very short lived - so it's a given - a 1995 Ford could not have the Cleveland engine - I missed that when asked earlier - well, no way a 1990s Ford could have that C engine, not possible.

Sponsored

 

[Stan H]

Exactly!

The post he was answering specifically stated 351 Cleveland, NOT the Windsor

BIG difference

351W bell housings were both a 5 bolt and smaller the Windsors after 64 had a 6 bolt larger bell housing . The 351Cleveland had a stronger bottom end and was offered in 2V and 4V versions and was only made a few years thats why they are so rare . The blocks themselves have a Cleveland Indian marking in the block cast . ( that is how you can tell a genuine Cleveland
Hey what about the 351M( modified) or 400/351 . Which was a destroked 400 block thus reducing the CI displacement back to 351.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

351W bell housings were both a 5 bolt and smaller the Windsors after 64 had a 6 bolt larger bell housing . The 351Cleveland had a stronger bottom end and was offered in 2V and 4V versions and was only made a few years thats why they are so rare . The blocks themselves have a Cleveland Indian marking in the block cast . ( that is how you can tell a genuine Cleveland
Hey what about the 351M( modified) or 400/351 . Which was a destroyed 400 block thus reducing the CI displacement back to 351.

Yeah, I forgot about the M engine.
A lot of the "betterness" of the Cleveland was heads and crank. Larger valves, larger ports, increased flow. Stronger crankshaft to handle the increased loading. (I've seen a number of Ford 390 crankshafts snapped in half)

The Cleveland engine had a short run but think of the times, the events of those days......... performance was falling out of favor, economy came into play.

 

[Stan H]

Yeah, I forgot about the M engine.
A lot of the "betterness" of the Cleveland was heads and crank. Larger valves, larger ports, increased flow. Stronger crankshaft to handle the increased loading. (I've seen a number of Ford 390 crankshafts snapped in half)

The Cleveland engine had a short run but think of the times, the events of those days......... performance was falling out of favor, economy came into play.

When I had my 390 built the machine shop said .0020-.0030 was absolutely max for turning down an old crank any more than that with the increase .0060 over pistons and larger cam and head work and large 750 carb I was gonna use would more than likely result in a busted crank. We actually had to source a second crank (which cost me and extra $250.00 bucks) because the first one after 30thousandths would not turn out a knick in one of the rod journals.

 

[Stan H]

When I had my 390 built the machine shop said .0020-.0030 was absolutely max for turning down an old crank any more than that with the increase .0060 over pistons and larger cam and head work and large 750 carb I was gonna use would more than likely result in a busted crank. We actually had to source a second crank (which cost me and extra $250.00 bucks) because the first one after 30thousandths would not turn out a knick in one of the rod journals.

I mean way back in 1996 it cost me nearly 2000.00 to have that work done. That's another reason they went by by . They are expensive to build up.
Chevy cheapest Ford middle of the road and Mopar just pay till you cry.

 

[Zachanadandy]

When I had my 390 built the machine shop said .0020-.0030 was absolutely max for turning down an old crank any more than that with the increase .0060 over pistons and larger cam and head work and large 750 carb I was gonna use would more than likely result in a busted crank. We actually had to source a second crank (which cost me and extra $250.00 bucks) because the first one after 30thousandths would not turn out a knick in one of the rod journals.

Your 1st post about 400hp makes sense now. Stock that 390 in the trucks was rated at 255hp until 71 and then just 201hp after and it drove like it was less. Potentially powerful is a more accurate representation. There's a reason why these old, iron block, poorly performing v8 designs all died. The modern v8's from all manufacturers are massively better and return decent fuel economy too. For a modern Jeep I don't know why anyone would even consider a 318 or any other old school v8. You'd play hell trying to keep the computer happy, lose power vs even the 3.6L, and get worse mpg. If you're going to v8 swap a modern vehicle use a modern v8.

 

[Jrgunn5150]

Idk, this 440 in my D100 is maybe 800 bucks, all in lol.

But, again, heavy, wildly inefficient, and not terribly powerful by today's standards.

 

[Stan H]

Your 1st post about 400hp makes sense now. Stock that 390 in the trucks was rated at 255hp until 71 and then just 201hp after and it drove like it was less. Potentially powerful is a more accurate representation. There's a reason why these old, iron block, poorly performing v8 designs all died. The modern v8's from all manufacturers are massively better and return decent fuel economy too. For a modern Jeep I don't know why anyone would even consider a 318 or any other old school v8. You'd play hell trying to keep the computer happy, lose power vs even the 3.6L, and get worse mpg. If you're going to v8 swap a modern vehicle use a modern v8.

% , it took alot of money to make that beast not act like a dog. When I say 8miles a gallon that was when you wasn't into it . I once ran 1.5hours at 80mph plus on Rt. 50 and used a whole tank of fuel. ypu nearly could watch the fuel gauge drop as you was into it . I could be doing 40mph drop the hammer and go into a complete wheel spin and burn rubber .

 

[ShadowsPapa]

% , it took alot of money to make that beast not act like a dog. When I say 8miles a gallon that was when you wasn't into it . I once ran 1.5hours at 80mph plus on Rt. 50 and used a whole tank of fuel. ypu nearly could watch the fuel gauge drop as you was into it . I could be doing 40mph drop the hammer and go into a complete wheel spin and burn rubber .

Run dual quads...............i drive across town and back, maybe run a couple of errands, and need to put more gas in it.

 

[Stan H]

Run dual quads...............i drive across town and back, maybe run a couple of errands, and need to put more gas in it.

No a big cfm Edelbrock . Was 700cfm if I recall. . Converted electronic ignition with high energy coil and performance sparkplugs. Electric Fuel pump . Was a beast .

 

[ShadowsPapa]

No a big cfm Edelbrock . Was 700cfm if I recall. . Converted electronic ignition with high energy coil and performance sparkplugs. Electric Fuel pump . Was a beast .

Performance spark plugs? That's a new one for me.

Dual Edelbrock carbs - 1200 cfm, annular boosters.
RobbMc performance fuel pump.

 

[Stan H]

Performance spark plugs? That's a new one for me.

Dual Edelbrock carbs - 1200 cfm, annular boosters.
RobbMc performance fuel pump.

They were these split tip sparkplug was supposed to deliver a larger spark and improved engine performance
https://www.amazon.com/SplitFire-SF406B-Copper-Standard-Spark/dp/B000F4OKA2

Holy crude thats huge fuel flow I think the reason I had so much trouble with the factory type fuel pump was the increased bore it literally would starve out if you floored it. Went through 3 old style pumps before I took the plunger handle off one put it back on and ordered an electric one and a regulator .

 

[jjdustr340]

318 wasn’t a very popular choice way back when. It was more of the “reliability” engine than anything, but even had in house competition for that title with the old Slant 6.

The 318, 340, and 360 were all the LA small blocks for the old days of Mopar.

In my younger years, easy way to get some decent power was the 340 block, punched .30 over and drop in the 360 crank. Came out to a 377 if I remember correctly and made decent all around power.

 

[gonemad]

I remember (barely) in the mid 70’s, we thought 318s sucked, even new. I had a friend with a Challenger with a 318, and I wondered even then why on earth anyone would buy that.

It felt like my ’63 Rambler 440 with a V-8 in 1972. I don’t even recall what engine that was, it was that forgettable.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

It felt like my ’63 Rambler 440 with a V-8 in 1972. I don’t even recall what engine that was, it was that forgettable.

Probably a 287 if it was indeed a V8. The 440 was one of the lower models.
If you had the automatic, it would feel rather sluggish - it was a cast iron Borg Warner.

Mine had a 287 but it was a stick with OD and man, with the crazy low gears in the rear end, that thing could whomp a lot of things off the line - but it topped out pretty quickly. You could take off in 3rd and not realize it until you went to upshift - oops!
The limited slip let me leave 2 parallel black lines across the highway. (L50s on the rear)

Sponsored