Fordnatics List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

With all the recent talk of strokers, I might as well
ad my 2 cents as I researched this option as well when
deciding to build my supercharged motor. I made calls
to Kuntz & Kraft, Lunati, and Crawford Performance.
I asked general questions about how well it would work
with stock EEC-IV computers on 5.0L. Everything sounded
great, except for a built short block by any of those
mentioned. Those prices didn't seem justified given the
performance from what I have seen at the track. One
example was a 5.0L at 3400lbs, whose owner informed
me that it was a 347 stroker with all the usual bolt
ons. It was all motor, no nos and no blower. It
had a drag launch suspension though with springs
and rear control arms. For normal aspiration,
I was pleased, since it went 12.2 at better than 106
MPH, I believe the best MPH was 108. My friend Steve
has a 88' LX with a complete GT-40 302 B303 cam and
3.73 gears at the time, and his best MPH was 105.9.
At half the cost of a stroker, it was either max
my credit cards or rebuild my existing 302 with
durable parts. Also my engine builder did not
recommend going more than 315 cubic inches with
a stock block, with those big cubes better left to an
SVO block.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> mentioned. Those prices didn't seem justified given the
-> performance from what I have seen at the track. One

Some of those places are charging SVO and Carillo prices for some
junkyard parts and machining. You pay for what you get, not you don't
necessarily get what you pay for. Some of those stroker kits cost more
than a whole Ford crate motor.


-> At half the cost of a stroker, it was either max
-> my credit cards or rebuild my existing 302 with
-> durable parts. Also my engine builder did not

There's room for improvement with the little old 302, which can use
lots more breathing than it comes with. Dropping a 315, 331, or 351
stroker crank in there will do very little good unless you upgrade the
rest of the motor to make use of the extra displacement.


You also have to be realistic about what you expect from a stroker.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dale Maurice)

At 10:27 PM 7/16/94 +0000, Dave Williams wrote:
> discussion on stroking..

I was curious, I've read conflicting opinions on the benefits of
using longer rods in the 302. Only one case that I saw actually
produced some numbers, and increasing the bore/rod ratio produced
some impressive improvements. But I tend not to believe everything
I read.

What's the opinion out there? Would increasing the rod length
lessen piston sidewall loading making a high-rpm engine more
durable? I'm more interested in durability than the horsepower/
torque aspects.

dale

_____________________________________________________________________________
Dale Maurice UNItm) Systems Manager, Competitive Media Reporting
Virginia Beach, VA (email redacted), (email redacted)

"Time is just one damn thing after another.."
_____________________________________________________________________________

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (K Porter)

neat stuff deleted
> You also have to be realistic about what you expect from a stroker.
>>From a 315 you'd probably see less than 10hp difference. For a 331,
>you're looking at a 10% displacement increase. If everything remained
>the same, you'd get 10% more power - from 200 to 220, or whatever. For
>a 351, a relatively larger amount. In practice you probably won't get
>that much more horsepower, though it ought to widen the torque curve up
>and flatten the powerband. For someone running 3.73s and a T5 and drag
>racing, you'd be better off spending your money on heads. For an
>autocrosser or someone drag racing an automatic the extra torque could
>be very helpful.
>
In my experience, on the street, torque is king. Since we never (never
never never never - oh no no) race on the street, having a motor that makes
power up higher in the revs attracts too much attention. The guys with the
big blocks are walking away during cruises because they can get away from
the stop lights without making a fuss. This is subtle. I could take them
if I rev it and launch, but no one is going to think that is very classy -
especially since we are supposed to be FOLLOWing each other.
I am also not going to be putting the severe duty on an engine that the
strip extracts. What I spend should last a few years. I like the idea that
strokers put lower sidewall loading on the block adding to longevity.
Why not just get a bigger block? Because some cruises are hundred of miles
away. I have a range of 300 miles now. Street rods do not often have a lot
of room for gas unless you give up the trunk (which pisses off the wife).
The big block guys have to stop every 180 or less. I also like manual pinto
racks. They don't leak. My wife loves to drive the 48. With more weight up
front, that adds to steering load.
More torque with the same horsepower on a wider band with no added weight
sounds like heaven. I need a rebuild anyway, why not go for some more cubes?
__________________________________________________________________________
(email redacted) | I like you and I like your car. But you
|think everyone who worked on your car is
|now a jerk. I don't want to be a jerk.
|-Howdy Ledbetter
__________________________________________________________________________

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> Is there a FAQ on the stroker motors?

Not that I know of. So far, we're just blowing a lot of ASCII. When
some real numbers start to show up we'll be better off.


-> Can the 331 and 347 displacements be achieved without going to the
-> pre-packaged kits? Not that I hope this to be too much cheaper...

You could do a 347-ish motor if you had access to a lathe, a
sympathetic shop with a crank grinder, and don't mind carving huge wads
of metal off a perfectly good crank. Practically any place that has a
rod hone and a head surfacer can do the rod work. If you can wheel and
deal the machine work prices some you can do a big stroker cheap.

I haven't come up with a good way to do a 327-331-ish motor yet. You
either need an SVO crank or a welded stocker, and neither is cheap.
Plus either custom rods or custom pistons. For the kind of money it
would take to do a 331 you could do a blower motor. Doesn't seem like a
good value for money.


-> It would also
-> prevent the startling realization: "What?? I just paid four grand for
-> a reground cast crank and Pinto rods!!"

Imagine the horse laugh *that* would collect once your buddies found
out... <grin>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> But I tend not to believe everything I read.

That's a good way to start! <grin>


-> using longer rods in the 302. Only one case that I saw actually
-> produced some numbers, and increasing the bore/rod ratio produced
-> some impressive improvements.

*Just* changing the rod probably won't do a whole lot for power output.
The relationships between rod ratio, port flow, chamber shape, and cam
profile get sort of strange right around TDC. You fiddle one thing,
maybe nothing much. Fiddle something else, maybe you get a nice
surprise.


-> What's the opinion out there? Would increasing the rod length
-> lessen piston sidewall loading making a high-rpm engine more
-> durable? I'm more interested in durability than the horsepower/
-> torque aspects.

Longer rods will reduce cylinder wall loading, which translates into
less friction, better ring seal, less stress on the rod, etc.
Ordinarily such small changes as you'd likely do to a 302 would do
nothing, *if* you were running in the 2.5 to 3.5 rod ratio the design
books recommend. When you're way out on the short end of the stick,
even a little bit helps. Now, as to how *much* it helps - Ford doesn't
have any trouble meeting the EPA's 50,000 mile durability requirements
with 5.09 rods - but the 5.0's stock power output is pretty sad, too.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> More torque with the same horsepower on a wider band with no added
-> weight sounds like heaven. I need a rebuild anyway, why not go for
-> some more cubes?

That's exactly the scenario for going to a stroker.

If your engine is in good shape now, a stroker is an expensive way to
get a little power.

If your engine is on its last legs, stroking it may not cost a whole
lot more than a simple rebuild. (lots of factors here, of course)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kelly Murray <(email redacted)>


> -> Is there a FAQ on the stroker motors?

> Not that I know of. So far, we're just blowing a lot of ASCII. When
> some real numbers start to show up we'll be better off.

Speaking of real numbers and strokers, I've got some comments and news.

In general, I'd say building wierd motor setups to get a little more
cubic inches is not really cost-effective, and doing it to get a lot
more inches, it's better to just use a bigger motor and just get a little
more weight. Where it really makes sense is for a Street Racer.
These guys want to believe you are racing a 302, when they've really
got a lot more. Some street racers out here have built a Datsun Z
car that runs 11.70's muffled and on L60-15 DOT tires!
That's without N20. On the bottle, they'll only say it's in the 10's.

The killer is that they run a stock Datsun rear-end!
Who'd ever think a car with a Datsun rear-end can run 10's!
What might look like a 302 is I believe over 400 cubic inches.
I'll see if I can get the exact specs from them next week,
but it's a 351W block, .060 over, with Chevy pistons --
a rod-ratio of 1.46.

Now these guys don't build motors to last, just to go fast.
It's designed to win a small number of big-money races,
not run brackets all season.
But it sure keeps those Chevy guys scratching their heads!
And emptying their pockets!

-Kelly Murray
'72 Mustang 460 Gainesville, Florida
Get caught up in the DRAGnet Web -- prl.ufl.edu/dragnet/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Andre Molyneux)

On Jul 19, 10:39, Kelly Murray wrote:
> Subject: Re: Is it worth the $
>
> In general, I'd say building wierd motor setups to get a little more
> cubic inches is not really cost-effective, and doing it to get a lot
> more inches, it's better to just use a bigger motor and just get a little
> more weight. Where it really makes sense is for a Street Racer.
>
>-- End of excerpt from Kelly Murray


...or for a car in a very strict smog-inspecting state like California.
Let's see, you want to drop a 351W into your 1990 Mustang. Well, you
need an engine that's CARB-certified for use in a 1990 or later passenger
car. Gee, that's too bad, Ford hasn't gotten CARB approval for an H.O.
version of the 351 for that time frame. Guess you're out of luck. A
Lightning crate motor? Sorry, son, but that's out of a truck and they
have different rules than passenger cars.

A stroker is an interesting option out here...

- --
Andre

+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Andre Molyneux KA7WVV | -=-------- PYRAMID TECHNOLOGY CORP |
| Internet: (email redacted) | ---===------ 3860 N. First Street |
| Packet: | -----=====---- San Jose, CA |
| ka7wvv@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na |-------=======-- (408) 428-8229 |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware)

On Jul 19, Kelly Murray wrote:

> In general, I'd say building wierd motor setups to get a little more
> cubic inches is not really cost-effective, and doing it to get a lot
> more inches, it's better to just use a bigger motor and just get a little
> more weight.

Well, not necessarily. There are a few of us out here who like to take
our racing in 20-minute-long WOT sessions with lots of corners mixed
in for variety. Most of us probably want some more mid-band torque to
get us off the corners more efficiently, and want to _lose_ 75-100lb
off the nose of the car at the same time.

Let's face it. Most Ford products that were intended for street use
take to roadracing about as well as Dolly Parton, or maybe a Lawn
Dart. If you like to go around corners at the limit of adhesion, you
have to either do some serious breast reduction on the car, or have an
unlimited tire budget. Adding in another 200lb of cast iron up on the
nose and bashing the strut towers out of the way with a sledgehammer
might just be the wrong solution. For folks like us, a "wierd-combo"
stroker can be a big win, especially if what matters is the lap times
and not the numbers on the tach. Personally, for my application, I'd
rather have another 100ft-lb at 4000rpm than another 1000rpm tacked on
top.

Rules permitting, of course. That's why I love running with
sanctioning bodies that don't believe in rules. And I'll resist the
temptation to say "Different strokes for different folks". Really, I
will...

-skod

- --
Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware
expatriate SCCA New England Region Flagging/Communications worker
(and driver, of anything that turns both right and left,
and can pass tech...) Return Path : (email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> In general, I'd say building wierd motor setups to get a little more
-> cubic inches is not really cost-effective, and doing it to get a lot
-> more inches, it's better to just use a bigger motor and just get a
-> little more weight. Where it really makes sense is for a Street
-> Racer.

That'd be the simplest, cheapest way to go in almost any case - unless
you are subject to underhood inspection by the Smog Gestapo. Some of
them are bright enough to see the difference between a 302 and a 351W
(just look at area between the head mating surface and the deck - a 302
is about even, there's two fingers' width on a 351)

When you absolutely, positively gotta get through California (or other)
smog check, a stroker starts looking much more attractive.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)



-> I don't get it. head to deck mating surface? Doesn't the deck have
-> the same dimentions on a 351W as the 302? I'm trying
-> to visualize where to shove my two fingers...

Take a look at the timing cover, where it bolts onto the block. The
sides over cover where water flows will be about even with the top of
the actual block, where the head bolts on. There may be a pencil's
width between the cover and the actual head casting.

On a 351W, there's another 1-1/4" of space.


Also, if you look under the thermostat housing, you'll see a machined
section of block face that is a continuation of the timing cover
mounting ridge. It has no apparent purpose. The 351W does not have
this machined area. (it was part of the oil fill arrangement of the 221
and early 260, which had the oil fill on the timing cover, and a hole
there, to direct the incoming oil to the lifter valley)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kelly Murray <(email redacted)>


> > In general, I'd say building wierd motor setups to get a little more
> > cubic inches is not really cost-effective, and doing it to get a lot
> > more inches, it's better to just use a bigger motor and just get a little
> > more weight.

> Well, not necessarily. There are a few of us out here who like to take
> our racing in 20-minute-long WOT sessions with lots of corners mixed
> in for variety. Most of us probably want some more mid-band torque to
> get us off the corners more efficiently, and want to _lose_ 75-100lb
> off the nose of the car at the same time.

My perspective is from drag racing, which is clearly different than road-racing.
I can see how engine weight is much more critical for this kind of racing.
You not only have the weight pulling the car off the corners,
but you also have to /slow the car down/ as well.
Drag racers just pull the parachute once the race is over!

So from this perspective, and 302-based motor with more cubic inches
makes a lot more sense. Though I'd still say a good roller-cam setup,
maybe some aluminum rods (maybe not for road-racing),
and a quality ported cylinder head are going to pay off more than
another 30 cubic inches. But then if you can get it cheap, maybe not.
If Dave can figure out how to put one together cheap, that's great!

They're also people who are looking for the "racer's edge", and will
pay a high premium for it. So it may make sense for these folks anyway.

For a bracket-racer like me, faster is better, but fast is good enough.

-Kelly Murray (email redacted)
'72 Mustang 460 Gainesville, Florida

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> I had an early (JAN 1963?)289 which also had the oil filler on the
-> front cover. Pretty darn sure it was original.

I had heard some 289s had it, but I'd never seen one.