 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / December 2005Stroked 351 Windsor
So I have a 69 351 Windsor block that I have put a 393 stroker kit in. I have it all built and it starts up and sounds smooth, however there is a slight rapping noise coming from the bottom. I have pulled the pan and checked the clearances of the counterweight to piston skirt. Everything looks good. Could it be that the oil pan is being contacted??? Will a stock oil pan work on a 393 stroker kit or do I need a clearanced oil pan??? Stroking an engine leaves us needing to check a host of things... on our 440/500 conversion, we had to notch the bottom of the cylinders for connecting rod clearance, the boss where the oil pump pick-up enters the block (obviously, not a concern with the Windsor) had to trimmed severely, and we had to address the oil pan rail.... when clearancing these areas, we need to realize that things can "grow" at high rpms. Anything in the way of metal to metal contact should leave witness marks... some of these may require very, very close inspection. > So I have a 69 351 Windsor block that I have put a 393 stroker kit in. > I have it all built and it starts up and sounds smooth, however there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contacted??? Will a stock oil pan work on a 393 stroker kit or do I > need a clearanced oil pan??? > Stroking an engine leaves us needing to check a host of things... on our > 440/500 conversion, we had to notch the bottom of the cylinders for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>contacted??? Will a stock oil pan work on a 393 stroker kit or do I >>need a clearanced oil pan??? What oil pan are you using? Canton pans are famous for making contact in the rear, I think if was on the left. I clearanced mine with a small hammer.  Signature.boB On Order: 2006 FXDI, Red. 1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged Stolen 11/26/05 in Denver 1HD1GEL10VY3200010 CO License J5822Z 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast. >Could it be that the oil pan is being > contacted??? Will a stock oil pan work on a 393 stroker kit or do I > need a clearanced oil pan??? I also have a 393 stroker crank in my Windsor. Yes, the oil pan has to be clearanced, and not by much either. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ Hi Scott.. How did you determine where it needed to be clearanced? Are there any good aftermarket pans that will work and not have to be messed with??? > >Could it be that the oil pan is being > > contacted??? Will a stock oil pan work on a 393 stroker kit or do I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ThunderSnake #57 > http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ > How did you determine where it needed to be clearanced? I let my engine builder determine that. He told me he just used a small ball peen hammer and did some percussion engineereing on it. Of course the motor was out of the car and on a stand. With the longer stroke stroker kits you HAVE to clearance EVERYTHING before installing the motor. It's truly gonna be a PITA for you to do it now. >Are there any > good aftermarket pans that will work and not have to be messed with??? I seriously doubt it. But, you could call CHP to see what they say, they may have pre-clearanced oil pans. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>Could it be that the oil pan is being >>contacted??? Will a stock oil pan work on a 393 stroker kit or do I >>need a clearanced oil pan??? > > I also have a 393 stroker crank in my Windsor. Yes, the oil pan has to be > clearanced, and not by much either. I'm considering a Coast Windsor stroker. My gut tells me the 331 would likely be less to worry about (no need for notching the block, better rod angle, etc.), and good to go on 6000+ RPM, but my need for speed tells me 347 is 16 more inches. I just have a problem with pushing any block to the limits, you know? And I could always fit the 331 with a Paxton =) OTOH - I am spending this $ once... unfortunately anything in the FE category is prohibitively expensive, having gone so far down the 289/302 path. Any thoughts? A 351 crate would require me to buy a lot of new stuff too. The new 600 carb would be a waste. The 8" Currie, although strong, would probably break. Please chime in anyone SignatureObie f.k.a. Wound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx > I'm considering a Coast Windsor stroker. My gut tells me the 331 would > likely be less to worry about (no need for notching the block, better rod > angle, etc.), and good to go on 6000+ RPM, but my need for speed tells me > 347 is 16 more inches. I just have a problem with pushing any block to > the limits, you know? And I could always fit the 331 with a Paxton =) I SERIOUSLY doubt you'd notice *any* "SOTP" difference between the 331 and 347. > OTOH - I am spending this $ once... unfortunately anything in the FE > category is prohibitively expensive, having gone so far down the 289/302 > path. Any thoughts? A 351 crate would require me to buy a lot of new > stuff too. The new 600 carb would be a waste. The 8" Currie, although > strong, would probably break. Well... with the 393 stroker the only odd part is the crank itself. The pistons are 302 pistons and the rods are stock 351 rods. MUCH cheaper than going bigger and having to be ALL special parts. Just find a beat up 351W and tear it down. rebuild with new crank and dished 302 pistons and you're done. Everything else will bolt on (as I know you know). The only difference would be finding a good block. I re-used the rods that were already in my 351 when I got it. Used 12cc dish 302 pistons to keep the compression at 9.5:1 using D0OE iron 351W heads (though they are FAR from stock; roller rockers, port polish). 393 crank from CHP for ~$250. Balance the whole thing and put it together. The block is ".060 ob, so It's in essence a 400 small block (rounding up the way Ford always does). Once I put on a set of GT-40X heads, It'll pump out damn near 500lb/ft and ~430hp all with a rebuilt 625cfm Carter. Glad I've got a fairly solid FMX and a 9". SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ It won't be so bad.. Ill just put the frame back up on jack stands and drop the oil pan. I think I will try a couple things before I go back that direction though. > It won't be so bad.. Ill just put the frame back up on jack stands and > drop the oil pan. I think I will try a couple things before I go back > that direction though. Easiest to pull the plugs so you can rotate the engine easily and see where the crank knocks the pan. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ Yeah... I broke down and ordered a race pan for the car.. I called milodon and their pans are deeper all around and will clear the crank.. I started up the car and reached under, I could feel the taps on the pan from the crank.. Ill know by tommorow night if that is the case.. ;>) >>I'm considering a Coast Windsor stroker. My gut tells me the 331 would >>likely be less to worry about (no need for notching the block, better rod [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I SERIOUSLY doubt you'd notice *any* "SOTP" difference between the 331 and > 347. I wondered this myself. But, while I was at it... >>OTOH - I am spending this $ once... unfortunately anything in the FE >>category is prohibitively expensive, having gone so far down the 289/302 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 500lb/ft and ~430hp all with a rebuilt 625cfm Carter. Glad I've got a fairly > solid FMX and a 9". That sounds like a great combo. I would have thought you'd use a larger CFM carb at higher altitudes. Whatever I get, the Performer 600 is staying, at least for a while. The GT-40 head is sometimes wrongly maligned. I looked at the P head and the only issue was header clearance. And if I had experience doing it, I would love to build my own. But I would likely go crate, and I have thought 351W in the background this whole time. I just fear I'd jump on it and break the third member. The transmission can take it, for sure. Currie rates its stuff on the conservative side, IMO. It's an 8" four-pinion limited slip unit with the same webbed case as the GT/CS cars had. Hell, Ford they put a non-reinforced-case open 8" behind the 352 in a heavier car, not sure if the torque is similar, but I have to think this very stout little 8" could take 400 lbs./ft.... ???? Am I kidding myself??? AAHHHH. Hindsight. All this trouble with getting the tranny in, strong enough for a built 390, but the rear end worries me. I wonder if I should just risk it, and if I do bust it, feign indignance to the wife and then get the 9" N case =) SignatureObie f.k.a. Wound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx > That sounds like a great combo. I would have thought you'd use a larger > CFM carb at higher altitudes. Actually I need less. I'd just lose fuel efficiency (not like I'm getting much anyway). I never plan on running this thing near or over 6k rpm, so the 625 Carter is just fine. The only issue with the smaller carb is when I drop the hammer from a stoplight, the car just CAN'T suck enough fuel to keep up with the vacuum and it the off-idle flat spot is HUGE. But once I hit ~2000 rpm it's a rocket!! I'm thinking a 2200 stall is in order, even though a bigger carb is cheaper. In the long run the higher stall is more efficient in my case. From a 10mph rolling start I beat the crap out of a '69 Camaro with a 390 and the Edelbrock RPM package (heads/cam/intake), a 4-spd, and 3.73's. I was amazed and the Camaro's owner was not amused. Especially when I lifted the hood at the Autozone, after the impromptu race, and he saw a plain 'ol edelbrock performer intake, a dinky 625 Carter, a stock dizzy with points and iron heads. The only thing that says performance (visually anyways) about this engine is the Powermaster alternator and the long tube Hedmans. Everything else is very stealth. No way to see the stroker, cam or the extensive headwork. > The GT-40 head is sometimes wrongly maligned. I looked at the P head and > the only issue was header clearance. And if I had experience doing it, I > would love to build my own. Other than the fact that the P is an iron head, I'd still go with the "X" head. Much maligned, yes, does it's job, yes, especially with the cam I have. And since I'm not planning on revving the hell out of it I don't really need the more expensive bigger port heads out there. What I can use is the increased compression. The D0OE heads are 72cc chamber giving 9.5:1. The X heads will push that to the 12.5:1 range. Hoo-Boy!! I nthis altitude it won't hurt to bad since you can almost take 1 full point off for being a mile high. I can run my 10:1 302 on 85 octane pump gas (with nary a hiccup) at this altitude, so I should still be able to run on something out of the pump without resorting to race gas. > But I would likely go crate, and I have thought 351W in the background > this whole time. I just fear I'd jump on it and break the third member. > The transmission can take it, for sure. If you stick with the 600cfm you don't need to worry about it. It'll flat spot off the line anyway, killing max torque off the line and sparing you 8". You can add the aftermarket 8" case bracing anyway can't you? >Currie rates its stuff on the conservative side, IMO. It's an 8" >four-pinion limited slip unit with the same webbed case as the GT/CS cars >had. Hell, Ford they put a non-reinforced-case open 8" behind the 352 in a >heavier car, not sure if the torque is similar, but I have to think this >very stout little 8" could take 400 lbs./ft.... ???? Am I kidding >myself??? Remember that they were gearing them for the highway with those 8"ers behind the BB's So the motor had to work to get the car going. They weren't running 4.11"s behind those FE's and 8" rears. Yes, they woulda busted something. 352 was good for stump pulling, but not a high revver. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>That sounds like a great combo. I would have thought you'd use a larger >>CFM carb at higher altitudes. > > Actually I need less. I'd just lose fuel efficiency (not like I'm getting > much anyway). I see what you mean. I would have thought "big CFM, jetted a bit leanly". I suppose smaller CFM jetted fairly stock works well, too. I never plan on running this thing near or over 6k rpm, so the > 625 Carter is just fine. The only issue with the smaller carb is when I drop > the hammer from a stoplight, the car just CAN'T suck enough fuel to keep up > with the vacuum and it the off-idle flat spot is HUGE. But once I hit ~2000 > rpm it's a rocket!! I'm thinking a 2200 stall is in order, even though a > bigger carb is cheaper. In the long run the higher stall is more efficient > in my case. Makes sense. I get fuel starvation at WOT in 1st because of my gears (and I need some braided hose too). Having driven a fair bit up at a mile high higher, I would probably also prefer a higher stall convertor, to get on cam quickly and stay there. > From a 10mph rolling start I beat the crap out of a '69 Camaro with a 390 > and the Edelbrock RPM package (heads/cam/intake), a 4-spd, and 3.73's. I was > amazed and the Camaro's owner was not amused. Especially when I lifted the > hood at the Autozone, after the impromptu race, and he saw a plain 'ol > edelbrock performer intake, a dinky 625 Carter, a stock dizzy with points > and iron heads. HA HAA. Always the best. He expects more than what he's got.. but it's not there! But why no Pertronix? Best $70 I ever spent. Points suck man! Especially new ones, the metal seems to have degraded in quality over the years, and the dwell changes too quickly. The only thing that says performance (visually anyways) > about this engine is the Powermaster alternator and the long tube Hedmans. > Everything else is very stealth. No way to see the stroker, cam or the > extensive headwork. This is partially why a stroker SB apppealed to me. I have no chrome badges, and never will. Let them guess, I say. My car is plain jane but has smooth lines and nice paint. I am going for "looks stock but goes like hell." >>The GT-40 head is sometimes wrongly maligned. I looked at the P head and >>the only issue was header clearance. And if I had experience doing it, I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is the increased compression. The D0OE heads are 72cc chamber giving 9.5:1. > The X heads will push that to the 12.5:1 range. Hoo-Boy!! Good lord, high torque starter next!! What gas do you need for that? You can't really run more than 10.5:1 here without worrying about octane. I nthis altitude > it won't hurt to bad since you can almost take 1 full point off for being a > mile high. I can run my 10:1 302 on 85 octane pump gas (with nary a hiccup) > at this altitude, so I should still be able to run on something out of the > pump without resorting to race gas. That makes sense. Mine is a rebuilder, so figure 8.0-8.5, but I time it for 89. Seems to be the best curve for the cam. What I need to do is get those damned 351 manifolds on it in the meantime. It's so constricted I can feel it fight those manifolds at anything over 3500 rpm. I would like to have about 6000 rpm available to me, with an operating range starting in the low 2000s, because of overdrive. The five speed makes me want that extra 800 rpm badly. Plus I wanna hit 60 in 2nd. I just like lots of room to play with. Comp Cams makes "Xtreme Energy", high-lift, short-duration cams that fit this profile. I run a middling one now, waving bye-bye at about 5200, because I don't want to spin the snot out of the cheap motor I have in it. It seems like you've got a great, well planned setup there. I have had in my mind a balanced, livable but powerful setup like yours for my car for years now. The last piece is the "real" motor. >>But I would likely go crate, and I have thought 351W in the background >>this whole time. I just fear I'd jump on it and break the third member. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spot off the line anyway, killing max torque off the line and sparing you > 8". You can add the aftermarket 8" case bracing anyway can't you? Good point, that big jolt off the line can be killer. I never considered that bog as a means to save my parts! And yes, there is an external pinion support available for the 8". >>Currie rates its stuff on the conservative side, IMO. It's an 8" >>four-pinion limited slip unit with the same webbed case as the GT/CS cars [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 4.11"s behind those FE's and 8" rears. Yes, they woulda busted something. > 352 was good for stump pulling, but not a high revver. I wasn't really sure. I guess it was designed for low-to-mid range torque to push those big things around, not for produce smoke hitting 2nd gear.... passenger car motor I spose SignatureObie f.k.a. Wound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx >> ...a '69 Camaro with a 390 I meant 383, not 390. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>>...a '69 Camaro with a 390 > > I meant 383, not 390. Missed that entirely. 350 bored .030 over, right? SignatureObie f.k.a. Wound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx >>>>...a '69 Camaro with a 390 >> >> I meant 383, not 390. > > Missed that entirely. 350 bored .030 over, right? Nope, 350 with a 400 crank. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>>>>...a '69 Camaro with a 390 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope, 350 with a 400 crank. SHOITE! I don't remember me Chivvy crap that well. OH WELL SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx >> Nope, 350 with a 400 crank. > > SHOITE! I don't remember me Chivvy crap that well. OH WELL The only reason I knew that was cause I used to own an '83 Z-28 with the boat anchor 305 chucked. I dropped in a stump pulling 400 SBC. That thing kicked a.s for Chivvy. TH-350, 3.73:1 Posi, T-tops, custom paint, IROC Cowl induction racing hood, Colorado Custom Somerset wheels. This was no Mulletmobile. Alas, Colorado didn't like the idea of a carb'd 400 where a TPI 305 was supposed to be. I couldn't get it licensed when I moved from MO to CO. I ended up trading it for a Saab 900. And that's all I could do ever after, Sob, until I got the Ranchero. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>>Nope, 350 with a 400 crank. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > induction racing hood, Colorado Custom Somerset wheels. This was no > Mulletmobile. Sounds pretty cool, despite its shaky cowl. Bro-in-law's got a stock '97 SS, LT-1 6spd. Ok car, but he thinks it's worth a lot more than it really is, with 130k mi on it. It's evidently got the torsional rigidity of a saltines box, and the fit and finish of the same Alas, Colorado didn't like the idea of a carb'd 400 where a > TPI 305 was supposed to be. I couldn't get it licensed when I moved from MO > to CO. CRAP, I'd have been so PISSED. You were a Missouri guy? Where did you live? I've been here 13 years. The rules here are a freaking JOKE in terms of what passes inspection and what doesn't compared to CT/NY/NJ/MA, or other states / commonwealths with environmentally active legislatures. I grew up in CT. I ended up trading it for a Saab 900. And that's all I could do ever > after, Sob, until I got the Ranchero. Gotta love the exemption. Why I own a '67 has several answers. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx > It's evidently got the torsional rigidity of a saltines box, and the fit > and finish of the same I can attest to the tooth jarring effect of railroad tracks at any speed. When you jack up one corner of a car to change the tire, you should still be able to open and close the doors. SHEESH!! > CRAP, I'd have been so PISSED. I was, but no arguing about it. It was either dump it or convert it to EFI. > You were a Missouri guy? Born, not raised. >Where did you live? Nevada, 'bout an hour north of Joplin and the original home of Jamie McMurray. I was born in Nevada and moved to CO when I was still a kid. Moved back for awhile when I got out of the Service in OKC. Been back here in CO for about 7 years. >I've been here 13 years. > The rules here are a freaking JOKE in terms of what passes inspection It's freaking amazing. In MO they ensure that your car is sfae to drive and don't give a crap about emissions. As long as it's a sound vehicle, drive it. Here in CO it's the EXACT opposite. You can drive a rusting shitbox with pieces falling off of it, fluids pouring out the dry rotted hoses, tires showing the belts, and no brakes... ...as long as it passes emissions. WTF!! > I ended up trading it for a Saab 900. And that's all I could do ever >> after, Sob, until I got the Ranchero. > > Gotta love the exemption. Why I own a '67 has several answers. I still have to have emissions, but with classic tags I only have to have it done ONCE, as long as I keep the classic tags. Mustang has'em, Chero doesn't. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ > HA HAA. Always the best. He expects more than what he's got.. but it's > not there! But why no Pertronix? Best $70 I ever spent. I've had bad luck with Pertronix. I'm gonna save my pennies for the Crane XR-1 with the built in rev-limiter. > Good lord, high torque starter next!! What gas do you need for that? You > can't really run more than 10.5:1 here without worrying about octane. I could probably get away with 91 > That makes sense. Mine is a rebuilder, so figure 8.0-8.5, Time for a Roots!! ;) > Plus I wanna hit 60 in 2nd. I can already do that with my Ranchero, course it's a built 302 being held back by a C4 with a trans-go kit and 2.70:1 peg leg. >Comp Cams makes "Xtreme Energy", high-lift, short-duration cams that fit >this profile. I'm running the XE262H. It's specifically for stock stall automatics with 3.5-4.11 pumpkins. However I've heard Crane is coming out with profiles SPECIFICALLY for strokers. Hmmm. > I wasn't really sure. I guess it was designed for low-to-mid range torque > to push those big things around, not for produce smoke hitting 2nd > gear.... passenger car motor I spose Like my Ranchero. Even though I have a SB. Wish I had the stock motor again since it built torque down low. The engine now is built to rev and the gears hold it back so badly I can barely tow with it. I can't get enough RPM before the damn tranny shifts again. PITA!!! This car, however, is a freaking BULLET on the interstate. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>HA HAA. Always the best. He expects more than what he's got.. but it's >>not there! But why no Pertronix? Best $70 I ever spent. > > I've had bad luck with Pertronix. I'm gonna save my pennies for the Crane > XR-1 with the built in rev-limiter. I've heard both sides of the story. I love mine. Some have had back luck. I have a generation 1 or whatever >>Good lord, high torque starter next!! What gas do you need for that? You >>can't really run more than 10.5:1 here without worrying about octane. > > I could probably get away with 91 Reasonable. >>That makes sense. Mine is a rebuilder, so figure 8.0-8.5, > > Time for a Roots!! ;) You know, it has crossed my mind. I mean why not get the Paxton actually and just huff the damned "Pep Boys" crate motor and see if it holds together? If it doesn't, a blower was probably going to be in my plans anyway. >>Plus I wanna hit 60 in 2nd. > > I can already do that with my Ranchero, course it's a built 302 being held > back by a C4 with a trans-go kit and 2.70:1 peg leg. My Tremec's 2nd is 1.98, and I have 3.80:1 rear. Factoring in tire diameter, I'm going to need a smidgen over 6000 to reach 60. My first t-code Stang had a tightly built C4 behind its (replaced) 302 and 2.79s. It would still bark 2nd at just under 60. I may have the pumpkin rebuilt to 3.55s, because 1st is useless, and 3.25 wouldn't give me enough torque to push the Stang through the air 75 mph without hitting the secondaries all the time. >>Comp Cams makes "Xtreme Energy", high-lift, short-duration cams that fit >>this profile. > > I'm running the XE262H. It's specifically for stock stall automatics with > 3.5-4.11 pumpkins. However I've heard Crane is coming out with profiles > SPECIFICALLY for strokers. Hmmm. I like my XE256 for mid-range torque, but after 5000 there's not much at all. Gearing and displacement will have to be factored into the final equation. A flat-tappet 302 that pulls over 6500 isn't very tractable in 100 degrees with the a/c blasting. >>I wasn't really sure. I guess it was designed for low-to-mid range torque >>to push those big things around, not for produce smoke hitting 2nd [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > before the damn tranny shifts again. PITA!!! > This car, however, is a freaking BULLET on the interstate. No kidding? Just got the revs up there, power on demand, huh? My 302 Stang was like that with the 3.80s and the C4 - 3500 at 75 (taller tires), right in the meat of the torque curve... step on it and GO. No kickdown, no need to. Fun but loud. SignatureObie f.k.a. Wound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx > You know, it has crossed my mind. I mean why not get the Paxton actually > and just huff the damned "Pep Boys" crate motor and see if it holds > together? If it doesn't, a blower was probably going to be in my plans > anyway. And if it scatters, just make sure you remove the blower before trying to return the crate complaining something went wrong in their assembly. > I like my XE256 for mid-range torque, but after 5000 there's not much at > all. Gearing and displacement will have to be factored into the final > equation. That's the problem with my current cam. When we ordered it, we ordered for a 351, not a 400. So now the engine wants MORE since it has the extra torque just waiting to be unleashed. > Just got the revs up there, power on demand, huh? I've gone 95mph on the interstate and the engine is JUST STARTING to rev up. All this roaring out my twin glasspacks as I fly by the riceboys. I've had a couple try to catch me, but they have to rev their engines SO far in the stratosphere to make any power that all I have to do is put my foot in it and pull away with nary a fart from the little small block, all at about 3500rpm. 60-90mph is a snap of the neck. I really have to watch the speedo on the interstate 'cause the 302 just loves the powerband at 80mph with those gears. REALLY easy to speed and have no idea that I am. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ Welp.. its fixed.. I replaced the stock pan with a Milodon 7 quart pan.. The noise has gone away....Yay... > Welp.. its fixed.. I replaced the stock pan with a Milodon 7 quart > pan.. The noise has gone away....Yay... Good deal, glad to hear it. I thought a deep pan might do it, but figured I'd wait to see what you found rather than suggest something based on what I thought might be a half-assed notion. COOL MAN!!!!! Later SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx >> Welp.. its fixed.. I replaced the stock pan with a Milodon 7 quart >> pan.. The noise has gone away....Yay... > > Good deal, glad to hear it. I thought a deep pan might do it, but figured > I'd wait to see what you found rather than suggest something based on what > I thought might be a half-assed notion. My issue wasn't with the depth, but the width. A few well placed dents cured the whole thing and I didn't have to spend ANY money. I'm a cheap bastard. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>>Welp.. its fixed.. I replaced the stock pan with a Milodon 7 quart >>>pan.. The noise has gone away....Yay... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My issue wasn't with the depth, but the width. A few well placed dents cured > the whole thing and I didn't have to spend ANY money. I'm a cheap bastard. AH! I knew we'd get to that. The crank threw the rods down at angles previously unforeseen at stock assembly. Geometry is good to contemplate. I'd still hate to discover this then pull the damned pan and work it over... I wanna assemble, fire, and smile SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx > AH! I knew we'd get to that. The crank threw the rods down at angles > previously unforeseen at stock assembly. Geometry is good to contemplate. > I'd still hate to discover this then pull the damned pan and work it > over... I wanna assemble, fire, and smile That's why you leave it on the stand, upside down, and turn the crank until every degree has been cleared by every possible catch or hang-up, including, in the OP's case, the oil pan. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>AH! I knew we'd get to that. The crank threw the rods down at angles >>previously unforeseen at stock assembly. Geometry is good to contemplate. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > every degree has been cleared by every possible catch or hang-up, including, > in the OP's case, the oil pan. Twist the bar, and THEN and only then, degree the cam. BUT WAIT! Understand heat is a big factor. BIG. Operating temp.!!!!!!!!!! sh.t, you gonna spin something to SIX GRAND while HOT, then you'd better expect more play than dead cold turned by hand, yeah? Yeah. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694 AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx |
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.