Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Help with stroker questions.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 30, 2009 | 02:27 PM
  #31  
Is1BadFord's Avatar
Is1BadFord
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19
From: Arizona
Default

Originally Posted by knuckless
im talking about the piston ring wear and oil burning ive read about when researching which engine to build. the piston pin is to close to the oil rings on the 347 pistons which causes excess oil burning. people seem to be split 50/50 on oh its ok to nah id rather have a 347 only for racing not street. you just have to get custom fit pistons to avoid this problem. but you get a shorter rod 5.315" instead of 5.4" which causes the piston crown to become thin and prone to breaking.
We knew what you were talking about...it's the same old saw one always hears when discussing 331's vs. 347's. Funny thing is, again that all comes down to the builder and the quality of parts more than any specific dimensions etc. For myself, I've never been involved with an oil burning 347. I also wouldn't build myself a 5.315" rod 347 (by the way...the pin isn't 'too close' to the oil rings...it's inside them...and causes no issues). 5.4" rod only for me. Additionally, I don't know what makes you believe that a .085" difference in where the pin intersects the pin boss on the pistons has anything to do with the thickness of the piston crown itself. There's plenty of distance between the top of the pin and the underside of the crown on my Probe 1.09" compression height pistons.

Now...I also want to say knuckless...PLEASE don't take these replies as swipes at you!! You seem to be one of the victims of this misinformation that I was talking about earlier. Your 'to be different' reasoning for building your motor is a good one!! It's also the only valid one I've read so far. For a street only build your 331 will meet your goals admirably. Thing is...so would a 347 =D. So, for you...it's a matter of personal preferance. Just don't base that preferance on any abnormal wear issues you've read about, because if built properly (like any other engine), those issues are simply myths.

Just trying to help...

Cris
Old Jun 30, 2009 | 03:06 PM
  #32  
knuckless's Avatar
knuckless
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 588
From: New Jersey
Default

thanks for the help
Old Jun 30, 2009 | 03:26 PM
  #33  
JMD's Avatar
JMD
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,469
From: AR
Default

Mind if I take both sides of the issue?

These myths have some truth to them, but the issues are easy enough to MOSTLY completely overcome.

I think the differences between a 331 or 347 are small enough when put into the context of our "weekend cars" to allow for snap decissions.....

If a person is looking for "reliability" "stick to stock", (and the stock power output that goes along with stock).

A simple rule of thumb is that increased performance = less reliability and longevity...

There are exceptions for sure, but rest assured, if you have a 289, a 302, a 331, or a 347 that is making north of 450 HP, it's longevity and reliability, (on average), WILL be LESS THAN a STOCK engine.

Of course this rule only applies to cars that are driven, and I am sure someone will chime in about their 650 HP SBF that turns low 9s at the drag strip every weekend and still lasted just short of 250,000 miles......

But, there is no free lunch.

Last edited by JMD; Jun 30, 2009 at 03:30 PM.
Old Jun 30, 2009 | 04:54 PM
  #34  
EagleStroker's Avatar
EagleStroker
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,377
From: Memphis
Default

Originally Posted by Is1BadFord
We knew what you were talking about...it's the same old saw one always hears when discussing 331's vs. 347's. Funny thing is, again that all comes down to the builder and the quality of parts more than any specific dimensions etc. For myself, I've never been involved with an oil burning 347. I also wouldn't build myself a 5.315" rod 347 (by the way...the pin isn't 'too close' to the oil rings...it's inside them...and causes no issues). 5.4" rod only for me. Additionally, I don't know what makes you believe that a .085" difference in where the pin intersects the pin boss on the pistons has anything to do with the thickness of the piston crown itself. There's plenty of distance between the top of the pin and the underside of the crown on my Probe 1.09" compression height pistons.

Now...I also want to say knuckless...PLEASE don't take these replies as swipes at you!! You seem to be one of the victims of this misinformation that I was talking about earlier. Your 'to be different' reasoning for building your motor is a good one!! It's also the only valid one I've read so far. For a street only build your 331 will meet your goals admirably. Thing is...so would a 347 =D. So, for you...it's a matter of personal preferance. Just don't base that preferance on any abnormal wear issues you've read about, because if built properly (like any other engine), those issues are simply myths.

Just trying to help...

Cris
Like I said earlier in the thread and as you know Cris, the fact of the matter is this whole rumor of oil burning was caused by a faulty piston design when the 347 kits were released from various manufactures. I've seen these motors first hand, and now that is a thing of the past, but it never ceases to amaze me the amount of misinformation still out there on them. I know what Mahle did to correct this is add a support for the oil ring.

The funny thing was, I thought this myth was close to extinct until I worked the All Ford Nationals a few weeks ago.....
Old Jun 30, 2009 | 09:21 PM
  #35  
Scott H.'s Avatar
Scott H.
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,445
From:
Default

.....

Last edited by Scott H.; Jan 23, 2010 at 03:40 PM.
Old Jun 30, 2009 | 11:39 PM
  #36  
dterry68's Avatar
dterry68
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 154
From: NC
Default

thanks a lot all of this really helped a lot. Everyone that posted taught me a little something i didn't know.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
treesloth
New Member Area
4
Sep 28, 2015 07:03 AM
Brett Ludlow
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
7
Sep 23, 2015 06:59 AM
Gabe_mlcc
Mustang News, Concepts, Rumors & Discussion
0
Sep 7, 2015 11:56 PM
cbird1177711
2005-2014 Mustangs
3
Sep 2, 2015 08:51 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 PM.