But does your wife like the answer you give?
After 20 minutes of ineffective communication with my wife, she never likes the answer.
my signature lines...not really directed at anyone in particular..
BE different....ACT normal.
No one is completely useless..They can always be used as a bad example
lol no offence sure thing. Next time i'll try to be more clear from the start. Does it really matter what type of hp I'm looking for vs vehicle weight? I think we've all seen (many own) cars/trucks with way to much power for no other reason then they wanted it. I do appreciate all constructive criticism thow.
I take great delight in playin' "what if?"
What if you started with a 302 roller block, bored it 0.030" and zero decked it using the Speed-O-Motive 354 all-forged stroker kit. AFR 185 heads with 58cc chambers and AFR springs and rev kit to allow a rev limit of 7500. Fel-Pro #1011 head gaskets for a squish of 0.039" and static compression ratio of 10.8:1. Performer RPM manifold with 750 carb and large tube equal-length headers (1 3/4"). Comp roller #35-450-8 cam 286*/286*, 230*/230, 0.598"/0.598", 110 LSA. Uhhhh, better bolt in some 4.56 gears and use a steel flywheel. Like I said, I'm just playin' what if here. I don't know if it's even possible to go to 7500 with juice roller lifters. If not, I might be tempted to use the same cam specs with a solid roller cam. I think the technology has evolved to where you can make them survive on the street.
RPM HP TQ V.E. BMEP
2000 133 350 69 149
2500 170 357 72 152
3000 219 384 78 163
3500 287 430 86 183
4000 354 465 93 198
4500 417 486 99 207
5000 476 500 104 213
5500 508 485 103 206
6000 530 464 102 197
6500 532 429 99 182
7000 523 392 95 167
7500 506 355 91 151
I'd swear up and down that it's a 260 motor out of a '63 Mercury Meteor.
Last edited by techinspector1; 10-24-2008 at 04:33 PM.
it's a full page post to correctly explain HP versus TQ so this is a way over simplified....
TQ is just plain old rotary brute force applied,,,same as a torque wrench,,,,
at approx 4,000rpms the piston speed and A/F intake volume are matched at 100 cylinder fill which is the TQ max peak....
so for idle to 4,000 rpms wicked acceleration fun on the street, as much and as soon (low rpms) as possible TQ is king.....
very very generally speaking: cubic inches=max TQ ft-lbs and that's why a huge cubes motor "feels" wicked powerful,,
once you go above 4,000, the piston is moving too fast to get 100% fill and the TQ drops off so we switch to measuring in HP which is: available TQ measured "over time and distance"
so for "racing" absolute quickest elapsed "time" and highest "miles" per hour at a drag strip.... HP is king....
when you make big HP at higher rpms you lose TQ force at the very low rpms....
(illustration: stick shift 450HP 302 you would need to rev the motor to 2500+ and release the clutch to drive away from a redlight or it would stall from lack of TQ,,the motor makes no power at any less rpms)
it's a bit of a balancing act,,,high rpms HP versus low rpms TQ depending on what you want the car to do,,, aka: priorties list (and your budget)
I didn't build the present motor any stronger (chirps the tires nicely on the 1st-2nd shift with 2 people in the car) because I do loan it out to my son/daughter/family and neighbors very often to enjoy....
there's to much rain and traffic here for somebody who's not used to how this car drives to be safe....
(I literally practiced busting the tires loose in a wet empty parking lot to be sure it would not instantly snap around out of control if you swerve and floor it)
I have a "love/hate" relationship with the 351W....
Ford chose to make it a 250HP truck motor, use 302 heads (that suck) on a 351 motor to make max low rpms 340ft/lbs TQ possible in stock form which it does do very well on 87 octane fuel....
"but" it is much stronger on the bottem end than a 302....
"so" to get it to a respectable 350HP ya gotta' buy new $$$$ heads or it will choke to death at just 5,000rpms!!!
(Chevy 350 has a half dozen different elcheapo inexpensive oem heads that will get it above 350HP!!!!)
"however" the best bang for the cubes and TQ bucks is the totally all new parts 351W crate motor at $4k approx,,,,bolt on a carb and exhaust and drive away on 87 octane with a motor that will last 100,000miles plus....
but I would probably build a 5.0 roller motor with GT40p heads to use in a 32, it's lighter for better weight distribution in a 32'....
have fun with your project....
Joe Sherman builds 400 hp 289s and 302s with factory iron heads and factory rods, factory rockers, hyd lifters, pump gas,
and there have been stories written about them. They are 6200+rpm engines.
He has some tricks that he tells about ---- that work.
I think one story is on CompCams site. google = Joe Sherman 400 hp 289.
AFR or Edelbrock heads etc. can get more power. 450 is possible but it will be a 6200 rpm engine.
All external stuff from a 289 fits on the 302/5.0, I prefer the 327 over the 342 strokers, due to piston pin placement is not in the oil ring, and the rod ratio is slightly better. Any of them will look like a 289, and the 327(331) likes to wind a bit more.
A 5.0 block will net you a roller cam setup, LIGHTER crankshaft, and one piece seal, but 50 oz/in balance.
I have built a '63 5 bolt bellhousing stroker 289 for a stealth build.
Some will say the 289 cylinder wall is shorter than the 302 and should not be used for a long stroker (?), but I say that the chamfer on the lower end of the cylinder is more important than the overall length. When overboring this goes away.
If you try to build a 351W you MUST have aftermarket heads to make power.
LAST MINUTE HELP...289 to 302 or stroker
Last edited by ScoTFrenzel; 10-31-2008 at 11:38 PM.
Since your putting it in a deuce, the 289/302 engine will provide respectable HP and TQ in a very light package, compared to a Windsor. While the "stroker" possibilities,as well as HP and TQ are potentially greater with the Windsor cubic inch wise, most people that are Chevy or Chrysler guys, cant tell the difference between any of the Ford engines anyway, so trying to be stealth doesn't have the same satisfaction. Many others have hit on the reliability factors of 347's, and they are well founded. But when you start trying to push HP #'s higher, there are sometimes compromises that you must make. Its always cheaper to build an engine once, than several times,obviously. Just weigh your pros and cons between the 289/302 vs. 351W, whether its money, reliability,ease of installation or something else. And I think those factors will help you make the right selection for your needs.
Find the old front cover set up from a 62-64 221/260 that has the oil fill tube sticking into the timing cover and smooth no hole valve covers
and use those.
Those always make people do a "double take" when they see them. You can see it in their eyes that they are asking...... "is that a 260 or a 347????"
|Recent Engine posts with photos|
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|289 vs. 302 whats better for my mustang||lost_shadow||Engine||18||08-22-2010 07:05 PM|
|Need some info on Ford 289 and 302 water jackets||onebadmerc||Engine||5||01-09-2006 08:40 PM|
|302 vs 289||kidvid||Engine||36||12-19-2005 12:33 PM|
|LAST MINUTE HELP...289 to 302 or stroker||exiled1||Engine||4||12-14-2005 02:41 PM|
|289 vs. 302 Push Rods (Performance Difference?)||white66coupe||Engine||0||10-20-2003 02:51 PM|