Author Topic: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster  (Read 4752 times)

Offline OldNitro

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2019, 07:27:52 AM »


5.0 (302) or 5.8 (351w) good engines both will move.

The windsor motors were always limited, because of the tiny exhaust ports..
The the way they are structured, there is no way to open them up without
running into a headbolt or water jacket.. That was always the major issue with em!

The only way Ford could make em really go, was add the 351C4V angle valve heads..
Combine the Hipo 302, and Cleveland 4V heads = the legendary Boss 302..
There is a way to convert them yourself, I know several ppl who have made their own
"Boss 351 Windsor"

These days, ya just push the easy button and get a set of Dart Windsor heads, DONE!
Seems that all the old Hot Rod tricks are vanishing, as the people who know them pass away!


« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 07:55:26 AM by OldNitro »

Offline Skuzzy

  • Support Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31462
      • HiTech Creations Home Page
Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2019, 09:46:01 AM »
I prefer Trick Flow's Twisted Wedge heads.

The Windsor base heads were all designed by the team that did all the truck engines, thus low end torque was the call for the day.  Smaller ports, lower RPM.

The Boss 302 and 351C 4V Cleveland heads were insane and went too far to the other side.

Being a Ford fan in the 60's was painful.
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
support@hitechcreations.com

Offline Mister Fork

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7257
Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2019, 02:53:51 PM »
My friend had a 1981 Ford LTD Tankwagon with the 5.8 L (351 cu in) 351 Windsor V8 engine, and when his dad bought a Volvo, he gave it to him not thinking we wouldn't work on it and just drive it around. I think it was called a Custom 500 back then.

[irish accent on]
No sir.  We didn't leave it alone.  No sireee. Timmy did welding at da local college and I 'elped him build a custom header kit and straight flow exhaust and put on a four barrel carburetor.  Jebus. Dat thing would FLY buddy.  Yesssir.  Rocket.  It was nutz. We would be on the cross-town arterial road doing at least 140 mph. Cops couldn't ticket what they couldn't see (or believe).  We called it the J.e.s.u.s. Wagon. More on that later.
[irish off]

What sucked is that it would go through a tank of gas in two day.  Being poor college(Tim) military(me) guys, we would have to drive it conservatively to get at least 2-300 miles in a tank.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 02:56:19 PM by Mister Fork »
"Games are meant to be fun and fair but fighting a war is neither." - HiTech

Offline Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27091
Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
« Reply #33 on: January 17, 2019, 04:16:02 PM »
My friend had a 1981 Ford LTD Tankwagon with the 5.8 L (351 cu in) 351 Windsor V8 engine, and when his dad bought a Volvo, he gave it to him not thinking we wouldn't work on it and just drive it around. I think it was called a Custom 500 back then.

[irish accent on]
No sir.  We didn't leave it alone.  No sireee. Timmy did welding at da local college and I 'elped him build a custom header kit and straight flow exhaust and put on a four barrel carburetor.  Jebus. Dat thing would FLY buddy.  Yesssir.  Rocket.  It was nutz. We would be on the cross-town arterial road doing at least 140 mph. Cops couldn't ticket what they couldn't see (or believe).  We called it the J.e.s.u.s. Wagon. More on that later.
[irish off]

What sucked is that it would go through a tank of gas in two day.  Being poor college(Tim) military(me) guys, we would have to drive it conservatively to get at least 2-300 miles in a tank.

 :rofl

I swear dad, me and Jimmy didn't haul no hogs in the stationwagon.
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline OldNitro

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2019, 10:03:50 AM »
A little clarification.. (from memory not wiki)

Windsor generally refers to the small block family of engines produced at the Windsor Ontario plant..
Started with a 230cid? V8 in the 1961 Fairlane.. Ford never used the 'Windsor' designation, until the 351W had to be differentiated in parts manuals from the 351C 'Cleveland' pattern engine.. So when I use the term Windsor, I refer to all the SB fords of that pattern, not just the 351W..

Actually It was a pretty good motor for the early 60s.. Compact, and a bit lighter than it's arch rival the Small Block Chevy.. It always did well when paired with a 4 speed top loader, in a lightweight chassis, like Fairlane Comet Mustang Falcon, and the AC Cobra, Sunbeam Tiger, GT40..

LOL, Volvos too I guess! :D

The 289/4V in the 63 Fairlane/Comet chassis, with 4 on the floor, takes the credit for the 'first muscle car', beating the F85 Olds by 6mo, and the GTO by a year.. Carol Shelby built his whole legend by tuning 289 and 302s.. Creating a dynasty in Sportsman Road Racing that lasted thru most of the 60s, and a legacy that lasts to this day.. But no matter how good the Builder/Tuner, the head design was always the limiting factor..

While the old 60s Windsors may have been on the anemic side, modern alloy heads remove those limits on the ole Windsor.. And in the 60s, Fords made some MAGNIFICENT Big Block engines! So the 60s weren't all bad for Ford! Galaxy500 w 427SOHC and the Fairlane Thunderbolt for example!

The Cleveland was a whole leap ahead.. Many 351C guys have a set of 4V heads/manifold sitting under their workbench.. But USE the 2V heads, because they are more tractable in use, offering a more moderate power curve.. LOL, the 2V Cleveland heads flow as well as the Hiperf SB Chevy iron "Spike" 2.02 heads..

Ford actually produced relatively large numbers of the 4V Cleveland heads too, well into the mid 70s.. Grand Torino GT used em, and they were often found in those ugly "Elite" models.. Ford had to keep producing them for the public due to the Nascar 'homologation rule'.. After Nascar limited displacement to 352cid, the Cleveland 4V was the best engine goin.. Ford ruled until Chevy complained, and Nascar made the Fords use a restrictor plate, in the name of 'fairness'.. Ford kinda dropped out after that!

« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 10:07:49 AM by OldNitro »

Offline GrandpaChaps

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2019, 05:37:15 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Twice the headlights
Four times the woodgrain
Half the EPA mileage

THIS should be the July 4th "shoot the Santa" type aircraft.  lol   :airplane: :banana:
Uncle Fred

Offline Skuzzy

  • Support Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31462
      • HiTech Creations Home Page
Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2019, 11:43:19 AM »
A little clarification.. (from memory not wiki)

Windsor generally refers to the small block family of engines produced at the Windsor Ontario plant..
Started with a 230cid? V8 in the 1961 Fairlane.. Ford never used the 'Windsor' designation, until the 351W had to be differentiated in parts manuals from the 351C 'Cleveland' pattern engine.. So when I use the term Windsor, I refer to all the SB fords of that pattern, not just the 351W..

Actually It was a pretty good motor for the early 60s.. Compact, and a bit lighter than it's arch rival the Small Block Chevy.. It always did well when paired with a 4 speed top loader, in a lightweight chassis, like Fairlane Comet Mustang Falcon, and the AC Cobra, Sunbeam Tiger, GT40..
<snip>

Sort of.  The 4.38" inch bore spacing was common on the 221, 255, 260, 289, 302, 351W, 351C, and 351M engines.  The 221, 255, 260, 289, 302, and 351W are in that "Windsor" family as they were all produced in the Windsor plant. 

The 221 through the 302 share the 8.2" deck height while the 351W got 9.5" (NOTE:  There were two versions of the 351W.  The early ones used a 9.48" deck and the later ones went to 9.5" and is considered the standard for that engine), the 351C had a 9.2" deck, and the 351M had a whopping 10.297" deck. 

The 351W and 351M got a much larger main of 3", while the 351C used a 2.749" main leaving the rest to use a 2.249" main.  Rod journals were also increased from 2.123" to 2.311" for the 351W/C/M.

None of the major engine components are interchangeable between the 351W and 351C/M, while many of the major components are interchangeable between the C and M.  The smaller Windsor family of engines all share many components or are interchangeable, such as the connecting rod which is the same for the 221, 255, 260, and 289's.  The 255 and 302 use the same crankshaft, and so on.

The thin wall casting Ford pioneered for these engines did give Ford an edge in weight over the competition, yet they are also known for their durability as well.  Still some of these engines were just poor performers, for many different reasons.  The 255 and 351M (the whole M family) were just horrible.  For those engines it was very poor timing as they hit when the whole movement to clean up the emissions got started and were not designed for all the devices that had to be attached to try and make them run cleaner.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 11:47:11 AM by Skuzzy »
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
support@hitechcreations.com

Offline OldNitro

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2019, 07:55:22 PM »
LOL, the "400 Ford".. Ford guys kinda pretend that one didn't happen.. :bolt:

Yeah that 351M400 was a waste of perfectly good cast iron, along with the iron cased FMX trans that was usually paired with it.. You could always ID it by the large bell housing pattern, same as the 429/460, where the Windsor/Cleveland used the small pattern.. That tall deck engine was designed to replace the old FE blocks in the Pick ups.. But it kinda ended up as the corporate engine for the mid late 70s.. Why, I don't know, they had much better options.. I worked on WAY too many of them back in the day, I swear I never saw one that lasted past 100K miles.. I was glad when they passed into history!

But in that era, all the US manufacturers were having serious QC issues..
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 08:13:59 PM by OldNitro »