5.8 Windsor

[Shel_B]

Is the 5.8 considered a good engine, and by this I mean are there any known, major design issues or major components that tend to need frequent or major repair? Are there any years that are considered better or worse than others? Are the engines found in cars the same as those found in trucks and vans?

 

[Kruse]

Overall, a very good engine. The “hot rod” heads used to be the ‘69 and then the ‘70 heads, in that order. Before the aftermarket started making good heads, these were the ones to put on a 302 for a good budget street build. The 351 can also be easily stroked, as I have a Motorsport crankshaft that gets you 393 cubes using factory rods and pistons. The serious engine builders use the aftermarket Windsor block that sports the Cleveland mains because the Windsor block has the unfavorable main size for high RPM. Parts for the 351 Windsor are cheap, just not quite as cheap as building a small bock Chevy.
What are you plans for your 351 Windsor?

 

[Shel_B]

What are you plans for your 351 Windsor?

I am considering a used van for camping and xcountry trips and the engine choice is a factor. I knew almost nothing about the 5.8 Windsor so I asked.

 

[bullwinkle]

They are a solid old school V8, I had one I transplanted into an old F-150 to replace an uber-sludged 302, and I had a work '94 E-250 & a '93 E-350 box truck that had 351s (modified?), both of them ATE transmissions, but other than the E-250 throwing EGR faults (likely cheap fuel plugging the intake), the engines were trouble free.

 

[Nukeman7]

I had one in a '94 full-size Bronco and did not care for it. It drank gas as if it was 50 cents/gal. and was relatively weak compared to the smaller 5.0 (302 c.i.) V-8. Supposedly, the hot ticket was the 351C (Cleveland) motor, not the 351W (Windsor) motor. I'm pretty sure the Cleveland motor had better flowing heads and improved high performance.

 

[Chris142]

It's a decent engine. Ford used it for about 35 years. It's not a powerhouse but it's good for what it's designed for.

 

[I<3oil]

Literally never heard or seen anyone call it a 5.8l Windsor....always been a 351 W or Windsor. Interesting.

 

[SC Maintenance]

351W is essentially a factory stroked Ford 302 more or less. As mentioned the bottom end is a little light, and they don't make a ton of power, but if your using it in stock form it should be perfectly fine. There were no known issues that i am aware.

 

[AZjeff]

Dad had a '70s Gran Torino with the 351W, gutless. Weren't these engines before liters were invented?

 

[Number_35]

[QUOTE="I Literally never heard or seen anyone call it a 5.8l Windsor....always been a 351 W or Windsor. Interesting.
[/QUOTE]
Me too!

Per the 'net, both of Ford's 351 engines (the C and the W) have a bore of 4.000" and a stroke of 3.500", for a displacement of almost 352 in^3. (The C has better-breathing heads.)

That rounds up to 5.8 litres. Live and learn. (And GM's 350, with its slightly shorter stroke, does round down to 5.7 l.)

 

[OVERKILL]

The 289, 302 and 351W are all Windsor engines. The 351W has the W after it to differentiate it from the Cleveland, which was a higher performance engine with many differences. There was also the 351M (Modified) that had the big block bell housing pattern but was otherwise essentially a smogger Cleveland.

The 351W has a taller deck height than the 289/302 (so it's not a stroked 302), but takes the same heads. This means it cannot take the same intake manifolds, as the lower is significantly wider. Ford did the same thing with the 4.6L and 5.4L Modular engines.

The 351W was mostly a workhorse engine fitted to trucks and vans, so most will be the low performance variant. There was a performance version, fitted to the 1994 F-150 Lightning which featured GT40 heads and a GT40 intake. There was also a marine variant of this engine (we have one in our Supra).

Most external parts, aside from the intake, are shared with the venerable 302. This means there are lots of performance parts available if you were so inclined.

They are easy to work on, parts are reasonably cheap, they are reliable, though typically a bit thirsty, though no more thirsty than a comparable Dodge or GM mill from the same period.

 

[skyactiv]

What about the automatic transmission behind the engine? Everyone I know that had a Ford V8 blew the transmission between 125-140K miles.

 

[D60]

If we're speaking EEC-IV/EFI they're on par with any of the common offerings of the era, ie a Chevy 350 or Dodge 360

Some people will get hurt but they're hardly any weaker than the EFI 460 which was a severely choked DOG. I see zero point in owning an EFI 460

Anyway, YES, I would try for '94 or later. In '94 the 351 got a roller cam. Don't try stabbing in a distributor drive gear from '93 or earlier on '94+ 'cause it'll chew that softer gear very quickly.

Speaking of distributors, you of course want the remote mount TFI (ideally) and if you plan water crossings the Mustang distributor boots actually install easily and fit well.

In '96 and maybe '95 for Newsom-land you can get OBD-II and mass air. I figure mass air is never a bad thing but if you don't plan to try to mod for power the speed density runs like a clock.

The 351W never got a KS (knock sensor) or p/s pressure switch while the 302EFI always did, at least in trucks.

The vans got Saginaw p/s pumps and Dana rear ends, both of which are WAY better than Ford's craptastic in-house C2 pump and 10.25 rear.....so OP's got this going (of course swaps on trucks are easy and very common)

I spent a LOT of years driving a '90 351 all over the country. Sea level in CA to 14,100 on Mount Antero and everything in between. It's not a power house but it was adequate for a fs Bronco and never let me down. Honestly the distributor mount TFI was never a big deal, I think it failed once or twice but fuel pump relays and flakey ECM relays are often mistaken for intermittent TFI failures.

Also the 351W tends to be forgiving of overheating. Don't test this, but warping heads seems less common than some other makes.

 

[OVERKILL]

If we're speaking EEC-IV/EFI they're on par with any of the common offerings of the era, ie a Chevy 350 or Dodge 360

Some people will get hurt but they're hardly any weaker than the EFI 460 which was a severely choked DOG. I see zero point in owning an EFI 460

Anyway, YES, I would try for '94 or later. In '94 the 351 got a roller cam. Don't try stabbing in a distributor drive gear from '93 or earlier on '94+ 'cause it'll chew that softer gear very quickly.

Speaking of distributors, you of course want the remote mount TFI (ideally) and if you plan water crossings the Mustang distributor boots actually install easily and fit well.

In '96 and maybe '95 for Newsom-land you can get OBD-II and mass air. I figure mass air is never a bad thing but if you don't plan to try to mod for power the speed density runs like a clock.

The 351W never got a KS (knock sensor) or p/s pressure switch while the 302EFI always did, at least in trucks.

The vans got Saginaw p/s pumps and Dana rear ends, both of which are WAY better than Ford's craptastic in-house C2 pump and 10.25 rear.....so OP's got this going (of course swaps on trucks are easy and very common)

I spent a LOT of years driving a '90 351 all over the country. Sea level in CA to 14,100 on Mount Antero and everything in between. It's not a power house but it was adequate for a fs Bronco and never let me down. Honestly the distributor mount TFI was never a big deal, I think it failed once or twice but fuel pump relays and flakey ECM relays are often mistaken for intermittent TFI failures.

Also the 351W tends to be forgiving of overheating. Don't test this, but warping heads seems less common than some other makes.

The passenger car 302/302HO didn't have a knock sensor, at least not in EEC-IV form. I don't remember there being one when I swapped a 302HO into an EEC-IV F-150 either, perhaps that was a later addition?

 

[D60]

What about the automatic transmission behind the engine? Everyone I know that had a Ford V8 blew the transmission between 125-140K miles.

The later E4ODs seemed to last to 200k, at least most of the time.

Early E4OD like my '90 (first year)....yeah, it went around 140k!

AOD never came behind the 351, Ford musta known it was too weak just like their rear ends and p/s pumps for vans.

C6: nearly impossible to kill but it's a classic slushbox sucking a lot of power and the lack of OD is a REALLY big deal if you're gonna drive highway much.

ZF5: pretty cool all things considered

M5OD: I wouldn't trust one in a van. Weak 1/2t trans

 

[OVERKILL]

The later E4ODs seemed to last to 200k, at least most of the time.

Early E4OD like my '90 (first year)....yeah, it went around 140k!

AOD never came behind the 351, Ford musta known it was too weak just like their rear ends and p/s pumps for vans.

C6: nearly impossible to kill but it's a classic slushbox sucking a lot of power and the lack of OD is a REALLY big deal if you're gonna drive highway much.

ZF5: pretty cool all things considered

M5OD: I wouldn't trust one in a van. Weak 1/2t trans

Excellent summation. The E4OD of course evolved into the 4R100, which was bomb proof as long as you didn't have the diesel in front of it. We've run two of them to >200,000 miles and they've never as much as coughed, despite doing a ton of towing.

 

[D60]

The passenger car 302/302HO didn't have a knock sensor, at least not in EEC-IV form. I don't remember there being one when I swapped a 302HO into an EEC-IV F-150 either, perhaps that was a later addition?

I dunno, musta been a truck thing? AFAIK they debuted in '85 along with the EFI 302

Here's a guy on FTE needing one for an '86 302:

Knock Sensor Question '86 302 EFI - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks - Knock Sensor Question '86 302 EFI - Hey guys,ive got a wuesiton im REALLY hoping someone can answer here: I JUST found omehting out i should have noticed before i put the motor back into my truck of my rebuild process...the lower intake...

www.ford-trucks.com

 

[Kruse]

As mentioned in a previous post, the 351 CLEVELAND had the higher flowing heads. (Technically, the 351 Cleveland was never put in a pickup, however. The 351 M was) Actually, for most engines, the 351 Cleveland 4V was overkill, especially for lower RPM engines as it had too big of intake ports off of idle. I know the subject was 351W, not 302 small block, but I cut my teeth on the small block. My first car was a '66 Mustang that I dropped a very warmed over 302 into mated to a 4-speed toploader. That car also had the factory 140 mph speedometer. STG, my guardian angels were working overtime, especially on cheap bias tires. My next car that had a 302 was a '76 Mustang II (well, Cobra II) with the factory 302. Except nothing in that 302 was factory. It had a boss 302 crank and connecting rods. I had custom headers made for it and a dual exhaust is actually possible on a Pinto..er....Mustang II with a 302. Hot Rod magazine actually did a write up on the 351 W heads where Valley Head Service from California put Chevy valves in the heads and made them flow with the best heads that Chevy had back in the mid-80s. Yea, I actually sent them off to California to have them done. I still have them in my stash somewhere.
And here is what I put on top of the engine: It's a genuine Buddy Bar 3X2 intake. I'm pretty sure the Motorcraft air cleaner is long obsolete. Don't give me a sermon on stupidity. I was a teenager who was invincible.
The 351W was an adequate engine for a pickup in its day, even if it was a gas hog.

 

[OVERKILL]

I dunno, musta been a truck thing? AFAIK they debuted in '85 along with the EFI 302

Here's a guy on FTE needing one for an '86 302:

Knock Sensor Question '86 302 EFI - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks - Knock Sensor Question '86 302 EFI - Hey guys,ive got a wuesiton im REALLY hoping someone can answer here: I JUST found omehting out i should have noticed before i put the motor back into my truck of my rebuild process...the lower intake...

www.ford-trucks.com

Well, I definitely didn't remove one from the '88 I did the 302HO swap in I wonder if this is a Canadian/American truck difference? Though I know the US Mustangs didn't get them (EEC-IV).

Regarding the linked thread, the fact the truck lower he got also didn't have the provision for the knock sensor has me thinking there's something else in play here, as clearly some didn't have them. It could be that California trucks got them, or maybe he got a Canadian lower manifold? Or maybe Ford deleted them later?

Really weird that the cars would be SEFI and no knock sensor but the US trucks were primitive batch fire but had a knock sensor, lol.

 

[D60]

Well, I definitely didn't remove one from the '88 I did the 302HO swap in I wonder if this is a Canadian/American truck difference? Though I know the US Mustangs didn't get them (EEC-IV).

Regarding the linked thread, the fact the truck lower he got also didn't have the provision for the knock sensor has me thinking there's something else in play here, as clearly some didn't have them. It could be that California trucks got them, or maybe he got a Canadian lower manifold? Or maybe Ford deleted them later?

Really weird that the cars would be SEFI and no knock sensor but the US trucks were primitive batch fire but had a knock sensor, lol.

I dunno, and looking at RA and AutoZone I can't seem to find a listing for a knock sensor, detonation sensor, piezoelectric or vibration sensor.

But the thing to do was to try to bump the timing a bit to get more power. On the truck mailing lists I was on (ya know, before these fancy forum thingies) the 302 guys would get a CEL and KS code when they'd gone too far. 351 guys just had to "listen" for it.

According to this they ARE hard to get (as way back as 2011??) and maybe moved from intake to back of block?

Infamous Knock Sensor!

www.fullsizebronco.com