windser or cleveland?
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 296
RE: windser or cleveland?
ORIGINAL: fast66
I don't think anyone is talking about forced induction or nitrous here. The basis of stroking is that you can make the same power at lower revs, and more torque. Everyone is so concerned with power figures, and don't "talk about torque".
As I said, give me a 350Hp 347 anyday over 360Hp 302.
ORIGINAL: 67mustang302
Well, first of all I'm makingmore than 350hp at less than 6,000rpm with a 302, and secondly, a 302 is gonna take more abuse than a 347 before breaking because the shorter stroke means less stress on the crank and block, so a 302 would be preferable for a blower or nitrous when cost is a factor(more oversqaure engines also response more favorably to boost). A reliable blown/sprayed 302 will cost less than a reliable blown/sprayed 347....key word being reliable. It all depends on how you want to make power
ORIGINAL: fast66
Thanks for that marvelous insight easttenmotors. The "stroke it" comments are based on the fact that it costs little more to stroke when doing a rebuild. Sure, you can make power with a 302, but why not stroke it while you are replacing everything anyway?
Give me a 350 Hp 347 ANY DAY over a 350 Hp 302! If reving a 302 to 7000 floats your boat, then go for it.
ORIGINAL: easttennmotors
haha another stroke it to 347 comment...yall do realize that you can and are allowed to make power with 302 ci you dont have to stroke everything
haha another stroke it to 347 comment...yall do realize that you can and are allowed to make power with 302 ci you dont have to stroke everything
Give me a 350 Hp 347 ANY DAY over a 350 Hp 302! If reving a 302 to 7000 floats your boat, then go for it.
As I said, give me a 350Hp 347 anyday over 360Hp 302.
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 512
From:
RE: windser or cleveland?
ORIGINAL: easttennmotors
we know what the basis of stroking is but there are other ways to make that torque. I would rather have a 3.0 stroke 5.4 hipo rod 4.030 bore motor with a higher lift, lower duration solid roller cam and a set of good heads than even the most expensive stroker. you can have your cake and eat it too and have a much more adjustable motor when you want to change a cam, carb, heads,intake, whathave you notbecause you are not limited by having a stroker crank imo. stroker power band 1500-5500, properly built motor power band 2000-7500
we know what the basis of stroking is but there are other ways to make that torque. I would rather have a 3.0 stroke 5.4 hipo rod 4.030 bore motor with a higher lift, lower duration solid roller cam and a set of good heads than even the most expensive stroker. you can have your cake and eat it too and have a much more adjustable motor when you want to change a cam, carb, heads,intake, whathave you notbecause you are not limited by having a stroker crank imo. stroker power band 1500-5500, properly built motor power band 2000-7500
6th Gear Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,162
From:
RE: windser or cleveland?
it depends on your budget id go with the 351w since theres more intakes headers and other small things over the 351c both can be a power house. im runing a world man o war 460 thats basicly a bored and stroked 351w with 225 afr heads on it.its nasty too everyone i have raced cant believe its a small block.
6th Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,468
From: California
RE: windser or cleveland?
Clevelands are the best stock heads Ford ever made for a small block...but Ford isn't exactly the master of head making(not any more at least). Look at GM's LS heads, out of the factory they are power producing monsters. Too bad Ford isn't doing that today. I just wouldn't go out and get a Cleveland to build unless I was going to drop a chunk of change for some good heads. And then yeah, it'd be a power monster.
6th Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,468
From: California
RE: windser or cleveland?
ORIGINAL: fast66
Not sure what you are saying here. What makes your combination any more adjustable that the same engine, but with a stroker crank? What makes a 7500 Rpm motor "better" than a 5500 motor.
ORIGINAL: easttennmotors
we know what the basis of stroking is but there are other ways to make that torque. I would rather have a 3.0 stroke 5.4 hipo rod 4.030 bore motor with a higher lift, lower duration solid roller cam and a set of good heads than even the most expensive stroker. you can have your cake and eat it too and have a much more adjustable motor when you want to change a cam, carb, heads,intake, whathave you notbecause you are not limited by having a stroker crank imo. stroker power band 1500-5500, properly built motor power band 2000-7500
we know what the basis of stroking is but there are other ways to make that torque. I would rather have a 3.0 stroke 5.4 hipo rod 4.030 bore motor with a higher lift, lower duration solid roller cam and a set of good heads than even the most expensive stroker. you can have your cake and eat it too and have a much more adjustable motor when you want to change a cam, carb, heads,intake, whathave you notbecause you are not limited by having a stroker crank imo. stroker power band 1500-5500, properly built motor power band 2000-7500
Ok, apperantly you don't understand a lot about engine internals and power production. First of all I don't know where you're getting these insane rpm figures from. My 302 is making 370+hp at the flywheel(that's a conservitive estimate, drivetrain loss is prolly higher with my Toploader than 15%) at LESS than 6,000rpm. I shift it right at 6. It's running a 5.7" rod(eat that you 5.4 hipo rod guys [8D]) which TOTALLY changes how the engine makes power. Yes a stroker is bigger but has a HORRIBLE rod ratio, very little piston dwell time, which reduces combustion effectiveness. A setup like mine, even though it's a 302, has a lot more piston dwell time than a 347 does, so I can get more efficient combustion and produce more torque across the ENTIRE rpm range with less fuel and less igntion timing. It also helps out considerably with top end horsepower, especially since the longer rod lets me run a much lighter piston. My 302 has a cam with an rpm range from 2,000-5,500, but makes torque from idle to 6,000rpm. At a 4,500ft elevation where I live in top gear at under 1,500rpm going up a hill I can hit the gas and accelerate. Obviously it's making PLENTY of bottom end torque. And it's not even as wild as I could have built it. I didn't set it up to be a naturally aspirated power plant, it's built for boost or spray(it's gonna get boost). It drives with exceptionally good street manners and runs like a scalded cat when I want it to. If I didn't have crappy gearing it'd run 12's instead of low 13's. And all that is with a 570cfm carburetor, a small intake, small heads, and small cam. Like we've said, there are different ways to make power, and the statement of no replacement for displacement, though somewhat true, is mostly garbage. There are PLENTY of other ways to make power than simply making the engine larger(though that is usually the cheapest and easiest)
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 512
From:
RE: windser or cleveland?
ORIGINAL: 67mustang302
Ok, apperantly you don't understand a lot about engine internals and power production. First of all I don't know where you're getting these insane rpm figures from. My 302 is making 370+hp at the flywheel(that's a conservitive estimate, drivetrain loss is prolly higher with my Toploader than 15%) at LESS than 6,000rpm. I shift it right at 6. It's running a 5.7" rod(eat that you 5.4 hipo rod guys [8D]) which TOTALLY changes how the engine makes power. Yes a stroker is bigger but has a HORRIBLE rod ratio, very little piston dwell time, which reduces combustion effectiveness. A setup like mine, even though it's a 302, has a lot more piston dwell time than a 347 does, so I can get more efficient combustion and produce more torque across the ENTIRE rpm range with less fuel and less igntion timing. It also helps out considerably with top end horsepower, especially since the longer rod lets me run a much lighter piston. My 302 has a cam with an rpm range from 2,000-5,500, but makes torque from idle to 6,000rpm. At a 4,500ft elevation where I live in top gear at under 1,500rpm going up a hill I can hit the gas and accelerate. Obviously it's making PLENTY of bottom end torque. And it's not even as wild as I could have built it. I didn't set it up to be a naturally aspirated power plant, it's built for boost or spray(it's gonna get boost). It drives with exceptionally good street manners and runs like a scalded cat when I want it to. If I didn't have crappy gearing it'd run 12's instead of low 13's. And all that is with a 570cfm carburetor, a small intake, small heads, and small cam. Like we've said, there are different ways to make power, and the statement of no replacement for displacement, though somewhat true, is mostly garbage. There are PLENTY of other ways to make power than simply making the engine larger(though that is usually the cheapest and easiest)
ORIGINAL: fast66
Not sure what you are saying here. What makes your combination any more adjustable that the same engine, but with a stroker crank? What makes a 7500 Rpm motor "better" than a 5500 motor.
ORIGINAL: easttennmotors
we know what the basis of stroking is but there are other ways to make that torque. I would rather have a 3.0 stroke 5.4 hipo rod 4.030 bore motor with a higher lift, lower duration solid roller cam and a set of good heads than even the most expensive stroker. you can have your cake and eat it too and have a much more adjustable motor when you want to change a cam, carb, heads,intake, whathave you notbecause you are not limited by having a stroker crank imo. stroker power band 1500-5500, properly built motor power band 2000-7500
we know what the basis of stroking is but there are other ways to make that torque. I would rather have a 3.0 stroke 5.4 hipo rod 4.030 bore motor with a higher lift, lower duration solid roller cam and a set of good heads than even the most expensive stroker. you can have your cake and eat it too and have a much more adjustable motor when you want to change a cam, carb, heads,intake, whathave you notbecause you are not limited by having a stroker crank imo. stroker power band 1500-5500, properly built motor power band 2000-7500
Ok, apperantly you don't understand a lot about engine internals and power production. First of all I don't know where you're getting these insane rpm figures from. My 302 is making 370+hp at the flywheel(that's a conservitive estimate, drivetrain loss is prolly higher with my Toploader than 15%) at LESS than 6,000rpm. I shift it right at 6. It's running a 5.7" rod(eat that you 5.4 hipo rod guys [8D]) which TOTALLY changes how the engine makes power. Yes a stroker is bigger but has a HORRIBLE rod ratio, very little piston dwell time, which reduces combustion effectiveness. A setup like mine, even though it's a 302, has a lot more piston dwell time than a 347 does, so I can get more efficient combustion and produce more torque across the ENTIRE rpm range with less fuel and less igntion timing. It also helps out considerably with top end horsepower, especially since the longer rod lets me run a much lighter piston. My 302 has a cam with an rpm range from 2,000-5,500, but makes torque from idle to 6,000rpm. At a 4,500ft elevation where I live in top gear at under 1,500rpm going up a hill I can hit the gas and accelerate. Obviously it's making PLENTY of bottom end torque. And it's not even as wild as I could have built it. I didn't set it up to be a naturally aspirated power plant, it's built for boost or spray(it's gonna get boost). It drives with exceptionally good street manners and runs like a scalded cat when I want it to. If I didn't have crappy gearing it'd run 12's instead of low 13's. And all that is with a 570cfm carburetor, a small intake, small heads, and small cam. Like we've said, there are different ways to make power, and the statement of no replacement for displacement, though somewhat true, is mostly garbage. There are PLENTY of other ways to make power than simply making the engine larger(though that is usually the cheapest and easiest)
Also don't be so f*ucking condescending regarding my engine knowledge. We can get into a pissing match about who knows more for as long as you like.
Just post your dyno graph with both torque and HP, and we can talk about it, don't equate your torque bytelling me you can accelerate up a hill in top gear, you can do that in my Focus.
6th Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,468
From: California
RE: windser or cleveland?
ORIGINAL: fast66
Thanks for that marvelous insight easttenmotors. The "stroke it" comments are based on the fact that it costs little more to stroke when doing a rebuild. Sure, you can make power with a 302, but why not stroke it while you are replacing everything anyway?
Give me a 350 Hp 347 ANY DAY over a 350 Hp 302! If reving a 302 to 7000 floats your boat, then go for it.
ORIGINAL: easttennmotors
haha another stroke it to 347 comment...yall do realize that you can and are allowed to make power with 302 ci you dont have to stroke everything
haha another stroke it to 347 comment...yall do realize that you can and are allowed to make power with 302 ci you dont have to stroke everything
Give me a 350 Hp 347 ANY DAY over a 350 Hp 302! If reving a 302 to 7000 floats your boat, then go for it.
And can your Focus do it at 1,300rpm in top gear? My point was that even a 302 can produce a lot of bottom end torque, you don't need a stroker to do it
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 512
From:
RE: windser or cleveland?
ORIGINAL: 67mustang302
That right there certainly makes it seem like you think it takes 7,000rpm to get 350hp out of a 302.
And can your Focus do it at 1,300rpm in top gear? My point was that even a 302 can produce a lot of bottom end torque, you don't need a stroker to do it
That right there certainly makes it seem like you think it takes 7,000rpm to get 350hp out of a 302.
And can your Focus do it at 1,300rpm in top gear? My point was that even a 302 can produce a lot of bottom end torque, you don't need a stroker to do it
BTW No it wasn't 1300 Rpm in the focus, its 1500, but the question is how steep is the hill.
6th Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,468
From: California
RE: windser or cleveland?
I don't have dyno graphs, but with about a 3,300lb race weight it takes 315rwhp give or take to trap 107mph. I dunno what the grade of the hill around here I'm thinking of is. It's steep enough that semitrucks and busses can't get up it unless they're empty, and inlow gear, and sometimes not even then
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cobra427302
Classic Mustangs (Tech)
3
Sep 29, 2004 11:07 AM
3000gtkid
Archive - Mustangs For Sale
1
Mar 7, 2004 09:54 PM
