|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
| It wasn't derogatory, and you were right. |
| By Dave Shoe - 12/27/2002 7:53:05 PM; IP 216.243.176.34 |
A pure stock 351C would trounce a pure stock 351CJ, every time. Well, I don't know this for sure, but I assume it's true, based on the engine specs.
I think it was a dirty trick for Ford to use the CJ name on the first "emissions Cleveland". The engine sure had lots of potential, just as any 351C did, but it was nothing but a reduced compression ratio 351C which replaced the 351C mid-year 1971. Instead of naming it the 351CJ, they should have named it the 351RC, or maybe left the name 351C. The "CJ" acronym had a reputation as an octane-demanding street brute, and there was no reason to dillute this in an emissions application.
Reduced compression may have opened up a number of alternatives for making power with supercharging, but these were not particularly well developed back in the mid seventies, at least not as store-bought packages as nitrous is nowadays. When the 351CJ came out, racing gas was called "premium" and it was available at every corner gas station for a couple cents more per gallon than "regular". The 351CJ should have demanded more octane than the 351C, not less as it did.
If I had purchased a new car with a 351CJ in it, I'd expect it to be an upgrade of the great 351C. I guess it was a sign of the times, as the basic Torino Cobra came standard with a plain 429 engine, not a CJ or SCJ, so you had to know your options list, or suffer the consequences.
Shoe. |
|
|
This thread, so far...
|
|
|
|
Post A Response
|
|
|
|
|
|