Hot Rods How good can you make a Windsor look?

Yep! I bought a set of those twisted wedge heads from trick flow for my Windsor... All I had to do to make them work was to drill out the head bolt holes to .531" so they can be bolted on a 351-W.... Those heads came with 2.02" intake and 1.60" exhaust valves...

 

I have to admit, though I like SBF's in the right car, I always cringe when seeing them in an early Ford, especially pre-war models. If I'm scanning ads and see one with a SBF I just scroll on past, it's pretty much a deal breaker, kinda like MII front ends. Just not interested. Same at car shows, I may see a car that looks nice from a distance, then I get close and see the SBF, & my heart drops. It's just about the worst power plant choice you could make. But now, say in a 63 Falcon, bitchin! That's the right application. Or any Ford newer than that, now you're talking.

 

I’m just the opposite, I cringe when I see a sbc in a Ford. Love to see a 289/351/427 in an early Ford. Just a little different and that’s kinda what it’s all about. Bones

 

Here's mine in a bucket

 

Ain’t nothing wrong with that! Bones

 

To each is own. You do have a point ......kind of.

The thin walled V8 made it's debut in 1962. Originally it was designed for the the new Ford Fairlane.....hence the Fairlane V8. FoMoCo has always been Nostalgic so this new engine debut at 221 CID in honor of the 1932 221. They also knew this engine could be a landmark design.
By 1963 it was up to 289 CID and was offered as an option for the full sized Galaxie forever replacing the Y block in a Ford car. Ford at the time was pushing Total Performance with the Cobra and the K code Fairlane.
By 1964 a whole line of performance products and upgrades were available for the "Challanger V8" at your Ford Dealer. Too the aftermarket was quick to offer performance goodies for the new little engine.
So this little engine has a proud traditional performance heritage. It was there....it has nothing to prove. It is what it is.

Some things come to mind when topics like this come up, I.E. the small Ford is not traditional.

My first thought is people do not know the history.
My second thought is they suffer from "I should have had a Flathead V8." Or Caddilac or Hemi......Olds,SBC, FE or Y block be cause those are the "real "traditional engines....
If you want one of those by all means do it.
Lastly......Valve cover conversions......how Poser can you be ?and......it's not nessesary this little engine has more traditional heritage than most.

 

the only way to make one of those look good is to put it in an early Mustang.

 

Please, lets not forget how good the engine in the Munsters Koach looked!
-Dave

 

Ford in a Ford is good, dress her up and do what YOU want, the heck with everyone else.
I put this little 302 in my F1 and it ran perfect, air and heat with a C4 and 9 in...simple and reliable. It was a FI motor but I put an Edelbrock carb/manifold and shorty headers with a HEI type distributor in it.
Friend put on Lincoln valve covers from the 60's on his 302 and it looked real cool

 

Bottom line......

If a early to mid 60s build makes you happy, there is no reason to dump the SBF.
Now if you want a 50s and earlier build seek a period engine.

 

F-1, you are close on the history, but they went from the 221 to the 260, then to the 289.

 

Yessir

I skipped the 260. The 289 came out in 1963 and was the base V8 in the Galaxie replacing the 292 Y Block offered in 62.
The 260 appears later in 62. By 63 the 260 was the base V8 for the Fairlane and Meteor.
In 63 they may have offered all 3 221, 260 and 289 Special + the Hi Po 289in the Fairlane. I know the 260 and 289 were in the Fairlane in 63. It seems the 221 may have been offered in the 63 Meteor.
Anyway it seems there were some 221s made in 63.
Oddly enough anyone who has had a 221 said it was a peppy little engine. Some guys even drag raced them.
Part of the Total Performance campaign was the Cobra, the 260 Falcon Futura Sprint , K code Fairlanes and a little later the 289 Sunbeam. Of course there is the off topic Shelby Mustang.

 

Well, not bad. But I like this one better. 8^) Jack E/NJ

 

You seen any rods built in the early to mid 60's with a SBF?

 

I may not agree with You but You sure made my day with Your comparison )

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L21 using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munster_Koach

 

Opinions on what “ looks right” are just that, “opinions “. There is no right or wrong. You are not going to change what I like, I am not going to change what you like. Trying is pointless. OP ,it is your ride, your money, Do what YOU like! Bones

 

The absolute best way to make a Windsor look good is to close the hood.

They are not an easy engine to dress. I got a late 302 in a Falccn here that is supposed to be getting some attention. It is real plane, chrome rocker covers (stock style) and a chrome ford style (the tops were a little different than aftermarket) open element carb cover. Aluminum intake and the rest paint. I like the look real well. Simple and to the point.

 

Talk about butt ugly.....let's talk about the HEI distributor and the quadrajet carb. Granted...they both function great but complete eyesores. I get the whole period thing but it also has to do with what we grew up around. I grew up in an all ford family so that's why I suppose I defend them. They got me to where my dad, grandfather and such needed to get us. Can't really compare reliability or defend it either. The Ford falcon sprint set many records for durability and gas mileage in the mid sixties. And the Cobra....we all know what that did. The 427 cars of Sox set the bar back then and no one seems to see the distributor in the front of that engine. I love cars of all makes but to suggest to dumpster an engine just because it isn't a Holier than Thou SBC is just ignorance. They all run...they all break.....they all bring a smile to our faces when we turn the key.

 

he was not saying anything about tradition or the history or performance of the motor. He was talking about looks and he is correct to a point in an open engine application they are usually not what one expects or wants to see. They were never a popular engine in what most here consider to be a hotrod until the '70s.

They did have their place in a '60s car. Falcon, Comet sized cars come to mind. I even raced one once in a Box Nova, The guy would have beat me if he hadn't red lighted. I remember walking into his pit and looking over his shoulder and saying, "Daaaammmmmmmnnnn I never expected to se that." He just grinned and said, "My dad is a ford man"

 

This sort of discussion always makes me laugh. Laugh at the Chevy only morons who think that somehow the "350" out of that 78 van in the back 40 is traditional but a 289 or early 302 is not.

There are as many vintage parts for the small block ford as there are for the Chevy. And for my money the engine makes good power, has a tendency to run cool, and clears the firewall better than a Chevy due to the front mounted distributor.

So for all the "throw it in the bin" comments, how about ya slither back to the shallow end of the gene pool eh?

 

Glad I don't have a 30's rod or I'd have to hold my nose and conform to keep most everybody happy with my crate 350 between the fenders.
If I did have one it would probably have 351 Cleveland in it so even the Ford guys would give me scolding.

 

The OP has a Model A and he does have a point as far as looks. Again I stand by my statement about a 60s hot rod. If he wants an earlier time he needs another engine. On the other hand if he is OK with 60 s era car.....I see no reason to change it.

The SBF debut in 62. The little Fairlanes were designed around the little engine. The engine inherited it's front end ugliness from the FE......Big Timing Cover.....fuel pump, water pump....oil filter.....all of these things are right there. It must be remembered that both the FE and the SBF come from a time when the engine was covered by......the flat shape of late 50s-60s engine compartments.....radiator tanks of the FE.....power steering and generators.........massive air cleaners.....carburetor manifold heat.....

All of these features contrast to the clean and artful looking engines of the 40s and early 50s when you actually could see the engine when you open the hood.

In historical reenacting you are dated by your newest piece of equipment. You can't do 1770s with 1812 stuff......but you can do 1812. The earliest he can do is 1962 and that's a stretch.....64-65 when the aftermarket catches up and enough were around in wrecks make 65 or so more realistic.
I do believe by 64 Hurst had Early Ford transmission conversions and mounts available for the SBF.

On the practical side there are other reasons the small Ford can be problematic in a Early Ford.

These are the same things as mentioned above.....the length, (pushes the Radiator forward....or the engine back) the front sump, (Axle or crossmember clearance) the aluminum timing cover, (Can't do Cradle mounts) the fuel pump location (it's in the way)all of these things make mounting one in a Early Ford problematic. But....it was done atleast on show rods.

If these problems have been rectified in the OPs build, I would keep it but it's not my car.

On the other hand the Early Oldsmobile and the Caddilac fit well very well almost better than a flathead. The SBC fits like it was designed for the Early Ford......
So in 1963....what do you choose? A few chose the new Ford but most would go fo an earlier engine that looked better and most importantly was easier to mount.
All brand loyalty BS aside.....that is just a fact.

 

I love sbf's. They have history, and I think they look great. I'm kind of confused how one engine is uglier than any other. As long as an engine shows its mechanical aspects and isn't dressed up like a pig in lipstick then I love them all.
An engine gets ugly when chip Foose gets ahold of it. I swear...

I have built several 351w's and they are TOP performers. They're so good, you can't go wrong. I've had stock ones too. Again, you can't go wrong! 289's are GREAT too! 302's are fine, I have avoided them though for no real reason except how its the go-to Ford hillbilly truck engine in my area. That, and the hillbilly always says its a BOSS 302. LOL. 5.0's are great amazing engines with a killer stock torque curve. We are getting off topic here, but to sum it up a 289 is a perfect way to get a vintage look and reliable power. Dress the 351 as a 289 like some do, or do some bolt on stuff, it doesnt matter. But if you ditch the engine let someone that appreciates it have it.

 

I agree with the OP. There's something about the SBF that looks hokey in early Fords, and there's plenty of evidence in this thread why my opinion should be wrong. I think I've seen too many 70's-80's era street rods with Cobra valve covers that have given me some sort of palsy whenever I see one....damn if they aren't a great little motor though.

 

Probably not since the SBF was brand new in the early '60's. Didn't see many SBC's in the first few years after they first came out. Not too many tri-fives in the junkyards yet and not a lot of crate motors available.

 

Only small block chevie available then was a straight six. 1953 Ford introduced the OHV Y Block. TWO years before the chevie!

 

Let's face it, if you want a beautiful engine compartment, put a hemi in the thing.

 

Weber's make Windsors look good....