 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / August 2004stroker motors
I am beginning the planing of a new motor. I want to base it on a 302 block. Aside from going .030 over and making a 305, I was thinking of something a little more fun. I've heard a 347 is too much for a daily driven street car, and a 331 is pleanty of power for me right now anyway. I've also recently just heard of a 316 stroker? anyone have any info on such a thing? It might be perfect for me for the next few years. Keep in mind, it's a daily driven car, though I am mostly on the interstate. Not looking for something to rev past 5000 rpm, as I stay between idle and 4500 rpm. So, low end torque, mid range power, 250-300hp N/A is the plan. Thanks all! > I am beginning the planing of a new motor. I want to base it on a 302 block. > Aside from going .030 over and making a 305, I was thinking of something a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks all! If you want low end torque, go with a 347. Top it off with any decent aluminum heads and a cobra or GT40 intake. Also go with a custom grind cam and let the grinder know what you want. Should be very easy to get 250-300. Good luck. Erik D. '94 white lightning PS, I speak from experience, I had a 331 topped off with a cobra intake and as far as torque and driveability it was great. There is no replacement for displacement.... I can't see a 347 costing any more to build than any other non-stock stroke. I shy away from large overbores since roving that much metal can allow the block to flex more than intended. While most think that a big lump of cast iron just ain't gonna move, it is amazing how much this stuff flexes even in gentle use. I'm not sure why 347 would be considered too much since it is ones right foot that controls "how" much. > I am beginning the planing of a new motor. I want to base it on a 302 block. > Aside from going .030 over and making a 305, I was thinking of something a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks all! I understand, but I'm also looking for a motor that will last me another say, 100k miles (I'm already runing 207k on the car now), and be well mannered and streetable. It's my only car, and will be that way for a few more years. Well, I could hit the lotto this weekend.... > There is no replacement for displacement.... I can't see a 347 costing any > more to build than any other non-stock stroke. I shy away from large [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > Thanks all! There's nothing that says your 347 has to be radical.... a mildly tuned 347 will have more snort than a balls up little guy in many cases...... A mild big motor has a better chance of living a long life than a high strung small motor. > I understand, but I'm also looking for a motor that will last me another > say, 100k miles (I'm already runing 207k on the car now), and be well [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > > > Thanks all! > There's nothing that says your 347 has to be radical.... a mildly tuned 347 > will have more snort than a balls up little guy in many cases...... A mild > big motor has a better chance of living a long life than a high strung small > motor. One of the problems with a 347 is the very short connecting rod. My advice would be to get a 351W and build it. They hold up very well and have a stout lower end. Would be nice to know what kind of car you were working with. Al The 351 is an expensive route to go...I know, but does work well and can pass emissions with flying colors if thought out before hand. The 347 has too much rod angle for a streeter, which can cause wear to the outside of the cylinder walls and may not hit your 100K mile target. The 331, IMHO is ideal in terms of power and expense. bradtx > The 347 has too much rod angle for a streeter, which can cause wear to the > outside of the cylinder walls and may not hit your 100K mile target. The 331, > IMHO is ideal in terms of power and expense. If you get a properly designed kit its not an issue. They have been offseting the piston pin to one side slightly to reduce loads. It works to I just pulled my 342 apart and its in great shape. MadDAWG I had thought about a 351, but as mentioned in another post, there is the cost difference. The other problem I need to address is I am currently living in an emissions regulated county, Sooo.... The car is my '88 Thinderbird 5.0L. (pretty cool that it's a fox body, slightly streached, and a little more weight over the rear tires.). A mustang would have been nice, but the insurance was a killer from the start. Being 23, I still have a couple years of higher rates. Oh well, one day. I'm still having fun! > > There's nothing that says your 347 has to be radical.... a mildly tuned > 347 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Al > I had thought about a 351, but as mentioned in another post, there is the > cost difference. The other problem I need to address is I am currently [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > > Al 88 T-Birds uses a different injector, on the Mustang it's sequentially injected, the T-bird is batch injected. Not many people can tell a 351 from a 302. You would need to get a different injector and modify the exhaust. Just changing your 302 to the Mustang version (also used in the Lincoln LSC) will greatly improve performance. It's close to a complete different engine, so a swap would be the way to go. You would also need the computer and wiring. This would be the best bang for the buck if you can find a decent donor car. An 89 to 91 5.0 Mustang would be what to look for. The Mustang also has larger front brakes that will swap to your Bird with very little effort. Al > > I had thought about a 351, but as mentioned in another post, there is the > > cost difference. The other problem I need to address is I am currently [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Al (NOT trying to sound rude here...) When you say batch, do you mean all 8 injectors are fired at the same time? Looks to me the only major diff on my Tbird is the cam/firing order, the old 1-5-... instead of the HO's 1-3... And the manual says 87-88 were SEFI. Either way I go, I'm going to redo my exhaust for a true dual setup. Anyhow, yes, mustang stuff is what I'm going for. Already am planning a MAF swap from the speed density-- 91 auto comp. from a mustang, 73mm MAF meter, new 19# injectors, HO cam, and stock E7 heads (will be CNC'd before putting them on) and hand ported explorer intake. Things may change in the future, it's just what I have in the garage. Suspension wise, I'm going with turbo coupe/mustang/lincolc 11" brakes up front(which ever I can scavenge spindles from) LSC calipers, 10" disks in back. But for A-arms, Ill need '94s I think? Mine are longer than a stang of the same year. Not sure about my route on springs yet though. That makes me feel even better about going with a 65 model.... no smog required here in California. > The other problem I need to address is I am currently >living in an emissions regulated county, Sooo.... V'ger jma(NOSPAM)@snowcrest.net 1965 Mustang Fastback 2+2 Vintage Burgundy w/ Black Std Interior 289 ci 4v V8 oem A Code Dual Exhaust C4 Auto converted to AODE 8" Trak Lok Vintage 40 wheels BF Goodrich gForce T/A 225/50ZR-16 KDWS tires Built in San Jose, CA on my birthday, May 10th ; ) Restoration by: Cool Mustang Restorations Cool, CA Your best bet for well mannered, very streetable, long life and low cost is to supercharge a 302. I built a 331 stroker because I wanted to.. not because it was the best power solutuion. My car is for fun and NOT a daily driver. With the performance heads, intake, cam and exhaust to give it plenty of power it is much more expensive than a supercharger (nearly $8,000 to do everything right and I did all the work myself except balancing). Though it is seriously fast, driveability around town leaves a lot to be desired compared to stock. Ditto for gas mileage. Thats fine for me since I only drive it for fun. If it was a daily driver, I would have gone supercharging all the way. Driveability and gas mileage remain as good as stock (driving sensibly) and power is on tap from idle up. Cost is about half of building a tricked out stroker engine. LJH 95GT > I understand, but I'm also looking for a motor that will last me another > say, 100k miles (I'm already runing 207k on the car now), and be well [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > > > Thanks all! Larry, My 351 wasn't even close to 8 grand...maybe I shouldn't complain! :) It sounds to me that the original poster's engine is slowly going south to the point a new short block or re-build is in order. If a daily driver, the plugnplay might be required. A recipe of 331, Y303 heads, GT40/Cobra intake and E303 cam should be ideal and still pass emissions. bradtx Its amazing how things add up. If you figure block, rotating assembly, heads, and intake it looks pretty reasonable. But if you include every last thing (and I did.. got the spreadsheet to prove it) it's amazing how the "little stuff" adds up. Just the custom cam, quality rockers, rocker studs, and custom push rods is well over a grand. I also didn't use a stock damper, stock oilpan, stock water pump, or stock fasteners. Plus you need a chip and custom programming, a mass air, bigger fuel pump, big injectors, fuel pressure regulator, and lots of other things that are easy to forget about. If you did the same engine for way less I bow to your skill. LJH 95GT > Larry, My 351 wasn't even close to 8 grand...maybe I shouldn't complain! :) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > bradtx > Its amazing how things add up. If you figure block, rotating assembly, > heads, and intake it looks pretty reasonable. But if you include every last [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > bradtx Being able to pass emissions doesn't help the cost of theings either... As I'm finding out how much things cost, the build-up keeps drifting a little farther into the distance, but not much. I mean c'mon, it's got 207k miles. How much longer can she really last under a slightly agressive driver and an avg 18k miles a year? Not as bad as I used to be, but the damage is probably already done. Impressive though, given all the hell it's been through! I'm scrounging everything I can (within reason, of course), using all my friends who can help get me stuff as close to wholesale as possible, and doing as much of the work myself as I can. It'll help some in the cost, but an engine rebuild even is a couple grand! Hmm...if only I were rich, well, I'd have me a GT40! lol So, just out of a sheer curiosity, has anyone heard of a 316ci stroker??? I can't remember where I read it...in another forum somewhere. Larry, Luckily I had 90% of your list of performance parts that were kept from when the engine was a S/Cd 302 that was cost-wise spread out over a few years as that project 'grew.' bradtx That sure helps the perceived cost.. big time. As for added cost of passing emissions.. there was none. I kept the EGR from the stock engine and also used the stock air injector plumbing. I was already running a Bassani X-pipe with cats so the added cost of passing emissions was ZERO dollars. Not only that, my 331 passed the emissions test with flying colors.. 1/4 of the allowable emissions. My stock engine (in great condition) could only manage 1/2 the allowable emissions. Bottom line it cost me nothing to remain emissions compliant and I am polluting considerably less than before. LJH 95GT > Larry, Luckily I had 90% of your list of performance parts that were kept from > when the engine was a S/Cd 302 that was cost-wise spread out over a few years > as that project 'grew.' > > bradtx That's a good thing to hear! I've been worrien about a stroker motor being able to pass emissions, and now a few people tell me they are better than before. Wow! Here's one though-- Should I plan for shortie unequal headers, or can I still pass with full length? Are they worth it for a street car? Drawbacks on either? > That sure helps the perceived cost.. big time. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > bradtx > That's a good thing to hear! I've been worrien about a stroker motor being > able to pass emissions, and now a few people tell me they are better than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > still pass with full length? Are they worth it for a street car? Drawbacks > on either? I'm running full length Heddman's on my 400cid stroker 351W. I'm not aware of any "problems" with emissions. Just gotta make sure your carb is setup correctly. A problem here in Denver. I'm running an Edelbrock carb and ended up pulling the primary jets and putting the secondary jets in the primaries, then bought the next step down from those to go in the secondaries. Also had to drop back a size on the metering rods. But that was all because I'm a mile up.  SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W '97 Cougar 30th Anniv SE 4.6L ThunderSnake #57 Heh, I wish I had a carb! No, I'm dealing with a fuel injected 5.0L Nothing wrong with FI, just more stuff to go wrong.... I just wasn't sure is it would pass emissions with full lengths...something about the O2 sensors or someting just as crazy? > > That's a good thing to hear! I've been worrien about a stroker motor being > > able to pass emissions, and now a few people tell me they are better than [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to drop back a size on the metering rods. But that was all because I'm a > mile up. > Here's one though-- Should I plan for shortie unequal headers, or can I > still pass with full length? Are they worth it for a street car? Drawbacks > on either? If you have to pass a visual inspection in your state you'll be instantly failed for the long tubes. Personally I would go with equal length shorties. There was an dyno in the May 5.0 magazine and the results showed that the ball and socket connection is a big limiting factor for long tube headers. Equal length shorties and 1-5/8 long tubes w/ ball and socket collector made basically the same power. The equal lengths are not that much harder to install. You do have to be a little more careful with the plug wires. MadDAWG I used to have equal length shorties and ditched them when I built the 331. Dyno tests show that equal lengths have a slight power advantage in the midrange while unequal lengths have a slight power advantage at the low end and the top end. Given that the overall power was virtually identical and any differences were less than 1%, the installation hassle and extra cost of equal length headers was not worth it (plus the added heat in the engine compartment). I went with the stainless steel Ford headers with ceramic coating.. very high quality and very reasonable (from Gene Evans Ford). LJH 95GT > That's a good thing to hear! I've been worrien about a stroker motor being > able to pass emissions, and now a few people tell me they are better than [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > > > bradtx |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.