|
|
Post by CORE 4WD on May 24, 2006 19:25:46 GMT -5
New pics added to top...
|
|
|
|
Post by Chele on May 24, 2006 23:05:36 GMT -5
Looks very sturdy and covers up the dent well!! You have been BUSY  Can't wait to chk it out ..... |
|
|
|
Post by CORE 4WD on Jun 6, 2006 17:31:19 GMT -5
New pics added to top 6/6/06...
|
|
|
|
Post by XJames on Jun 6, 2006 21:08:29 GMT -5
Hey looks good man. whats next on the list off modes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2006 10:32:39 GMT -5
Dave that bumper and the corners look great! Will your tire and gear carrier work with it, or is that another new project for you now?
|
|
|
|
Post by CORE 4WD on Jun 8, 2006 21:05:51 GMT -5
Dave that bumper and the corners look great! Will your tire and gear carrier work with it, or is that another new project for you now? I've thought about fabbing the carrier over, but last trip I just strapped the spare, hi lift and shovel inside under tool box. Probably leave it like that. Jim63's will be getting external carrier utilizing bearing set up for pivot. Hivoltage- Next mod will be installing johnny joint upper and lower arms that have been in my garage for quite awhile. Thanks Mike! I'm actually trying to divert my attention to the EB though! |
|
|
|
Post by RuffRider on Jun 9, 2006 15:29:18 GMT -5
Like install a 351w? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by CORE 4WD on Jun 9, 2006 18:16:05 GMT -5
Among other things  |
|
|
|
Post by What It Was on Jun 9, 2006 20:07:39 GMT -5
Personally for an off-road vehicle I'd rather have a 351m or the 351c (If you can find one)... I'd save the windsor for a street car.. others will say other wise..
|
|
|
|
Post by CORE 4WD on Jun 9, 2006 20:32:24 GMT -5
Those engines are fine for mud bogging ie; high rpm. The 351w is the ticket for slow speed NP435-backed rock crawling. Personal opinion? Yea me and lots of others. Go to classicbroncos.com and do a search. You will change your mind. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by What It Was on Jun 9, 2006 21:04:58 GMT -5
hehehe yeah man! It's the same sort of debat like the 289 vs the 302... good stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by CORE 4WD on Aug 2, 2006 21:34:02 GMT -5
Remote winch control install pics added to top 02 Aug ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Aug 3, 2006 8:49:41 GMT -5
hehehe yeah man! It's the same sort of debat like the 289 vs the 302... good stuff. I didn't even know there was a 289/302 debate. Aside from fifteen thousandths worth of stroke, variations in casting thickness over the years, and the odd five bolt bellhousing on the early 289's, they're practically identical. I've only dealt with the Windsor and Modified, never the Cleveland. I'd take the Windsor, for a combination of compact size (9.5" firedeck vs. 10.3" on the M), tremendous parts availability, and the more compact smallblock bellhousing. The only advantage I see to the M over the Windsor is the better rod ratio ... but if you're going to run the 351M/400 block (same block) and put up with the size and bellhousing constraints, why not just run the 400 crank and pistons (rods are the same between the 351M/400). Plus, all the C/M head designs I know much about are open chamber. Pingy pingy pingy. Just my two cents. ::grins:: |
|
|
|
Post by 87B2XLT on Aug 3, 2006 15:22:29 GMT -5
If you've worked on a 351M / 400M / 429 / 460, you've worked on a Cleveland. They're basically the same engine(s) with only the obvious differences, that I'm aware of. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
Post by CORE 4WD on Aug 3, 2006 19:31:45 GMT -5
Haaaay! Quit 'jacking! heh heh  |
|
