Building a quick snappy motor.... for the 90 Mustang GT

Hey Gary, relax. I didn't mean to offend anyone by stating my opinion. But my opinion is the same. Carbs are fine for some people but not me. I like passing emissions, being able to start it in the winter on the first try and not smelling raw fuel spewing out my tail pipes. But that's just me. As for hood clearance, this is a 90 GT we're talking about. Know anyone with a

351 block in a fox body Mustang that can close a stock hood? I don't. Drop motor mounts only buy you so much and then it's time for a cowl hood. 8500 RPM stock bottom end? Not on any American Ford product! At least not for long ;-) I do like your quote. But how can you believe in that and not like a stroker? More cubes has got to be better, right? As for the oil consumption issues of 347s, the older designs placed the wrist pin through the lower ring of the piston which basically made it worthless at that intersection. Newer designs found a little more room so that shouldn't be an issue any more as long as you get the newer kit. 331s never had that problem because of a taller piston. I still stand by my figures for what the two shops that I mentioned offered packages for. $2k will buy you a set of AFR 165/185 heads and a new Edelbrock EFI intake. You re-use the hydraulic lifters. Unless you know there is a problem, these guys last a long time. You could get away with re-using push rods, but they're cheap enough to replace. I didn't factor in gaskets, head bolts/studs, RTV ect. because that's a given for any route you take. An off the shelf roller cam will run you $150+, a custom more like $300+. I was a fool and paid $180 for my ancient E cam. I should have sent my money to Ed and done it right the first time. Oh well, we live and learn which is what I hope to do from you and others like you. You've obviously been at this game longer than I have but I can give good advice too.

Peace, Bard

Reply to
Bard
Loading thread data ...

"Bard" wrote in a message:

A properly tuned carb'd, and standard ignition motor can do the same thing. Besides, in most states, these older cars are exempt from emmissions testing, since they don't have any of the emmissions stuff on the motor. Here in PA, they are just starting emmissions testing, and the starting point is the 74 model year. Any thing below that gets an exempt sticker

Well, I can show you one, it's a .030 over 302 and it has been together for a looooong time, and gets it mileage a 1/4 mile at a time. It's all in how it's put together. I can show you another guy that runs 351w's & c's, that just slaps them together and blows them up reving them to 7 grand. The 302 in my Pinto was originally put together by the guy that runs the .030 over

302 around 12 years ago, and I've been running it up to between 6500 & 6800 rpms. This winter I'm changing the cam & lifters, and putting a set of 351w heads on, and will be red lining it at 7000 rpms.

stroker? More cubes has got to be better, right?

Well, in drag racing, a properly built destroked motor will make just as much horse power as a stroked motor, but the big difference is in how fast it will rev to the red line under load. We proved that back when I was crewing on a friends stock car back in the 80's. Normally, he would run

355's in his late model modified Camaro, untill we talked him into giving a 331 a try, which is a destroked 350. The 331 rev'd faster, which made it faster out of the turns, and we were able to go with a slightly higher rear gear ratio. With the 331, he won 13 straight races. Also, years ago, have you ever taken notice that Fords would dominate in stock car races, and Chevy would dominate in drag racing? Do you know why that was? If you don't know, I'll tell you. It was all in the stroke of the motor. The Chevy has always had a shorter stroke than Ford in simular motors. One day, I'd like to destroke a 351w to around 331 and prove the theory. ;-)

I can show you pistons for a 326 stroker motor, that the wrist pins intersect the oil ring as well. More than likely, what they did to use a taller piston in the 331, was to use a shorter connecting rod.

I know the feeling about buying a cam and then later wishing you would have bought something else. I bought an X303 for $100.00 at the Maple Grove fall flea market this past weekend, and after I got home, I looked the spec's up on it, and found that it isn't enough cam for my application. If being into racing since 75 is a long time, then I guess I've been, but it only seems like yesterday to me. I'm always learning something new everyday, just like everyone else.

Reply to
GEB

Ok, I'll bite.

I can only read so much of this small cube, rev higher garbage before I begin to feel sick. If smaller cubes and higher revs made more power we'd all be driving a V-Tech Honda.

Why do you think EVERY competitive race class has displacement LIMITS? Why do you think all of the top teams build to that limit?

I'll try and make it basic...

Displacement equals torque. Decrease the displacement of an engine, keeping airflow the same, and you can make the same horsepower at a higher rpm but it will not make the same level of torque at the same lower RPM.

Given ANY engine powerband the engine that is 'fastest' will be the engine that produces the MOST power THROUGHOUT THE POWERBAND, not the peaks, not the highest RPM.

So... in decreasing your cubes you created an engine that made less torque.

Now, keep in mind that there are some reasons people will do this. IE: 10.5" tires can only put so much power to the ground. Launching a 383 cubic inch terror is easier to tune in on that particular chassis than a 427 inch engine, they use a little less displacement due to the chassis limitations and 'drive it out the top.'

These are actual REAL race world facts. Look through every competitive class, be it Nascar, Indy, F1, Mud Racing, or drag racing and look at the engine combo's the class leaders have, I garauntee you it's not 100 cubes under the limit...

Then again, keep propogating these rumors and it'll make it easier for us to continue to build winning combinations. The problem is that real engine builders already know.

Brian Adams ADPerformance.com

Reply to
EagleonU

This is just flat out incorrect.

Unless you believe Probe racing is the engine design and piston god (trust me, they're not) then there is absolutely ZERO credibility in that advertisement.

Every 347 we send out the door intersects the wrist pin and oil ring. Guess it's magic that none of them burn oil?

Many of the 331 pistons also intersect, but never seem to have this oil burning reputation.

The truth is in the assembly and machine work. You can assemble a 306 that burns oil, or you can assemble one with 2% leakdown. The difference is in the person doing the work and the quality of the work done.

BTW: They didn't just 'find' extra room on the 331's and 347's. They REDUCED the ring and ring land thickness, creating a piston that is broken easier and moved the ring package 'up' in the piston to pull it out of the intersection. While this is fine for a street car you'll know why it isn't the best package when you apply boost or high cylinder pressure.

Brian Adams ADperformance.com

Reply to
EagleonU

"EagleonU" wrote in a message:

Ok. so you think your a professional engine builder? How long have you been building motors and for what type of racing? Then tell me what effect the camshaft has on a motor, and why you can take a bone stock motor, put in a cam with more lift and duration, and gain HP and torque, and rev to a higher rpm? Hmmmm?

BTW, NOT every class of racing has displacement limits. In stock car racing that I was involved in, their limit was WEIGHT per Cubic Inch. NO LIMIT on displacement. In bracket racing, there is NO limits.

The other thing that you fail to realize is the fact that in drag racing, you want the torque up in the higher rpms, not down just off idle! If you build all your torque down low, then what happens to the guy that launches his car at let's say 5500 or 6000 rpms? He's used up his torque before he's even left the line! Sure, for the average guy that all he wants to do is impress his friends buy smoking the tires on the street, building the torque down low is ok. BUT, for the serious guy that is into drag racing, and trying to make money at it, it's a whole different ball game! Besides, I have yet to see more than one stroker motor last a full season of drag racing, that can rev past 7 grand. And the one that lasted a full season is not your typical street stroker motor.

Reply to
GEB

Gary,

I own the company, AD Performance.

We build engines and supply parts to a variety of racing applications including but not limited to: APA Boat racing, Mud racing, numerous stock car, dirt track and other local racing ciruits, Historic racing cars and a number of other applications. You're welcome to check out our website,

formatting link
as well as visit a number of boards in which our reputation is well known.

Since you brought up credentials... where are yours?

What exactly would you like to know about a camshaft? Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly but your example lends nothing to this discussion.

Lets take your own example of displacement and weight limits... Why do these same classes build engines bigger than 1.8 liters? BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE POWER, it's very basic.

Bracket racing is the SAME thing, if you have a 10 second index the cars that are winning aren't the turbocharged Honda's screaming at 9,000 RPM. It's the consistant bigger displacement engine that runs a 10.01 day after day after day.

No, what you fail to realize is that EACH combination is built SPECIFICALLY for each chassis and combination, when done correctly. A properly built engine will utilize a POWERBAND that optimizes the gearing, chassis and track.

Putting stock 302 heads on a 408 stroker isn't going to rev to 7,000 rpm but it'll outrun the stock 302 next to it, gauranteed.

I don't know why you're stuck on RPM being everything, it's not. Powerband's and torque win races, RPM is a measure of the engine's speed and HP is a numerical relationship to torque.

I'll try and ignore the strokers not lasting 7k and a full season, I guess every engine builder in the world who isn't using a stock stroke must be selling garbage combinations. Almost every race engine in the world isn't a stock stroke and therefor a 'stroker' in some sense of the word. If you're interested I can refer you to customer's running both ends of the spectrum that have had no problems keeping their engines together.

Soryr for the sarcastic tone this morning, it seems like it's come across the wrong way but it's simply type and I'm tired of seeing things that simply aren't true in our experience.

Brian Adams

formatting link

Reply to
EagleonU

"EagleonU" wrote in a message:

formatting link
as

If your referring to a business name, I don't run a business. If you read my posts, you would have seen that I've crewed on stock cars and drag cars. Next year I will be drag racing my own car.

Yes it does. The camshaft is the limiting factor as to where the torque and HP is made, and where the redline will be. It will also dictate how much air/fuel will get into the combustion chambers.

Hmmm, Then explain to me why a Pinto with a 2.3L motor consistantly beats stroked big blocks. Surely, if large displacement motors rule, then those big blocks should never lose to a 4 cyl Pinto. Right? And I'm talking about dragsters, and door cars.

You need to get out to some drag races! Alot has been happening lately. There is no index in bracket racing. In the IHRA, in the TOP class, the ET's range from 0 to 10.99 and the MOD class range from 0 to 12.99 if I remember right. any thing higher than that runs in the trophy or compact class depending on the vehicle. The only difference between TOP & MOD classes is that MOD is not permitted to use electronics, meaning time delays or throttle stops.

SPECIFICALLY for

So, in your thinking, your lower reving stroker motors should beat, lets say, a prostocker that rev in excess of 10 grand? If HP is a numerical relationship to torque, then why does HP continue to climb while torque drops off. Also explain to me why on a dyno sheet that the higher the RPMs attained, the higher the HP. Also, there is one part of the formula that you are forgetting. Torque is the amount of work used to get an object moving, and HP is used to keep it moving, or in this case accelerating.

This is starting to sound more and more like an advertisement for your business.

Well, I'm only pointing out what I've seen and experienced over the years. I'm not saying that a stroker motor can't be built to last. I'm saying if your going to do it and are stuck with a budget, and can't afford to do the necessary machine work, it won't hold up. Remember, if a car is normally running out of rpms before it gets to the traps, then you need to get it to turn more rpms. Stroking it will not solve the problem. All it will get you is more torque and wheel spin, which is one thing you don't want in drag racing, if you want to run consistant. On most cars you are limited as to how big of a slick you can get under the car, and if you can't get them under, why try and make more torque?

Reply to
GEB

There are a number of factors that dictate the amount of fuel and air that enter the chambers. Although the camshaft is important it isn't that simple. Come on now...

Gary, this is simply pointless. Lets compare apples to apples, as you wanted to with your first example, in power to weight handicap systems. Additionally you can build your Pinto to whatever level you want, a BB will simply make more power under the same conditions (IE: a built engine, worked heads, combo and

20PSI.)

You're stretching the point far beyond what it really is ... a stock 2.3l Pinto isn't going to complete with a stock BB. Build the 2.3 and add some boost to it and you're not talking about an apples to apples comparision any longer.

You take the Pinto, I'll take the BB. We'll spend the same amount of time and money developing each of them and see who goes faster.

I need to get out?! There are a NUMBER of classes, you know that...

No Gary, given two engines I'll take a 6,000RPM stroker over a 8,000RPM smaller stroke engine making the same power anyday. If you've been reading it's been my statement the WHOLE time. If you can make the same power at a lower RPM then why would you abuse the parts for higher RPM? More displacement, same hp, lower RPM will be more durable, more reliable, and cheaper to build.

If you understand the relationship of torque, RPM and HP then there is no reason to explain this to you.

HP climbs as torque stays the same and RPM increases. As torque decreases, and RPM increases at a higher rate then you're STILL increasing hp.

In your thinking of dyno sheets why do people shift at all? Because engines stop making power when the induction/exhaust have an impedence of flow. Back to building an engine for what it's made to do... powerbands, setups, combinations.

Gary, you're attacking me and my credibility. We have numerous winning combinations, you have a 'friend' with xyz and you continue to attack basic engine theory. Call it what you will, but references and winning customers are what they are. It's not to say you haven't been around drag racing or any other type of racing, the point is that more displacement will make more power, lower RPM is more durable, cheaper to build, more reliable and that torque is more preferrable on the street.

Essentially this thread has gone far enough. It's a reason why most people with the most experience don't get involved in these newsgroups, no matter what is said people can't contribute constructively and want to turn it into a pissing match. =/

When cast stroker kits are $899 what's the problem with the budget? When you buy a decent set of pistons, ARP rod bolts, recon the rods and crank you're over halfway there already. There is no additional machining with the exception of notching the block, an hour of machinist labor.

If a car is "running our of RPM" then there are a number of ways to solve the problem. Induction and motor components, and gearing for example. Where did that come from anyway? This all started from a 'use a 289 engine' post.

If he can't hook up with a mild NA 347 then there are other issues that need to be resolved. The engine definitely isn't making 'too much power,' the chassis on the other hand...

Brian

formatting link

Reply to
EagleonU

This is a motor you had built and not something that came off the assymbly line. I don't doubt it can be done. It's just that not everyone can build them with those kind of results.

stock car races, and

I didn't know that and I want you to prove it too. Just for grins :-)

I don't expect a picture, but did the 326 have oil consumption issues too? I can't positively answer the shorter connecting rod. I thought that the rotating assembly was the same for the 331/347 except for the shorter piston on the 347. Maybe they went to a shorter rod for the "new" 347 to allow for a little taller piston? I dunno. Something to investigate.

At least you only gave what you could get out of it if you turn around and resell it!

So true. I haven't been into racing that long and it's not a real big drive for me. I enjoy tinkering with the car and I enjoy hitting the track a couple of times a year, but two young kids and a wife that isn't interested kind of keeps it all in check ya know? I wanted to make a joke about 1975 but it just hit too close to home since I graduated in the mid 80s.

Reply to
Bard

"Bard" wrote in a message:

This was a motor that just had new rings and bearings, and all the clearences checked and double checked. There was nothing special done to the motor. The reason I'm going with 351w heads, is because I want to get away from the peditistal rockers, and because I'm putting in a bigger cam.

That's easy, and you can find that out by looking in any repair manual that dates back to the 60's and 70's, that give engine specifications. If you compare the Chevy 350 to the Ford 351's you will see that Fords has a longer stroke. For results from the past to the present for drag racing, go to

formatting link
and look at some of the ET's. You will see that the GM cars were faster. Then go to
formatting link
and look at the results in past races and see what make is in the top 10 for stock, super stock, and prostock. Yep, you guessed it. GM. Now I don't know if
formatting link
has any results from back in the 60's & 70's, but Ford dominated back then. Today, if they had a set of rules that applied to all makes, then Ford would dominate today, but the Chevy guys cried like a baby when they couldn't win, so NASCAR did things like made the Fords run with less rear spoiler so the others had a chance to win.

The chevy 331 that my friend put in his stock car was a 350 block, bored .030 over (if I remember right), 283 crankshaft, and 327 rods and pistons. All basically stock componets. and man did it like to rev!!!!

Nope, the 326 didn't have any oil consumption problems. The problem he had was the machine shop flycut the #1 piston too deep, and he ended up blowing a hole into the piston where it was flycut too deep, the a little bigger than the size of pencil.

Wow...Your basically still wet behind your ears yet! I was already out of school for around 15 years when you graduated. I guess I'm showing my age. ;-(

Reply to
GEB

GEB wrote.

let's see,

ford vs chevy stroke

289 vs 283, shorter srtoke 289! 302 vs 302, tie! 302 vs 327, shorter stroke 302! 302 vs 305, shorter stroke 302! 351 vs 350, virtually a tie, 3.50 vs 3.48

BBC'S have shorter stroke's than BBF'S but they didn't dominate Ford's

427 or Ford's 428 in racing.

If you destroked a 351W to 331 it would have the same bore & stroke as a 302 stroked to 331!

Reply to
winze

"GEB" wrote

2003

If you used a 283 crank in a 350,it would be a 302!(306), If you used a 327 crank in a 350,it would be a 327!(331)

Both engine sizes were built for production vehicles and nothing special as far as bore and stroke goes!

Reply to
winze

"winze" wrote in a message:

Dude! Learn to read! I didn't say he used a 327 crank! I said he used 327 rods and pistons. There is a big difference!

Reply to
GEB

You! learn to read! you said "built a 331" from a "350" using a "283 crank". This makes it a 302 not a 331!

the bore and stroke of an engine determines engine size, not rods and pistons!

Reply to
winze

Gary... what happened to valve size and port cross-section? Where did header tube size go? How about carb size and intake design? We wont start harping on air quality since we have no control over that...

To paraphrase Brian and re-iterate my previous statement... there is absolutely no replacement for displacement. Our car is heading for 3800 poiunds with the cage and all...... a small inch motor is going to have trouble from the get-go. 15 inch wide slicks with a 90 or 94 inch rollout

*need* torque......

Let's mention power adders at this point.... forced induction specifically. All these types of power adders do is to fool your little guy motor into thinking he's bigger. Cram an atmosphere and a half into a 300 inch mill and it'll think that it's a 450 inch mill. Nitrous works the same only different..... the heat of combustion releases the oxygen from the working fluid - in effect, we are increasing the oxygen content of the inhaled air to 30+percent (compared to 24% for atmospheric air) making the motor think it has inhaled a bigger gulp.

It's not hard to find a horse and a half per cubic inch..... it is much harder to find 1.75 hp per cube and even harder to find 2 horses per cube.

BTW... anyone notice the mid-year cubic inch limit change for NHRA fuel cars??

-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Reply to
Jim Warman

"Jim Warman" wrote in a message:

Jim...All that stuff is important. I'm not disagreeing with you. All I stated was that the camshaft is the main determining factor in how much HP, Torque, and RPMs a motor will make. If it was possible, bore the the block an 1" over, and put 20:1 pistons in, the biggest port & valve heads, with the best flowing intake, and the absolute best carb on. But! If you don't install a cam that will allow the air fuel mixture to get to those cylinders, all that work you did was a big waste of time & money!

I agree on "No Replacement for Displacement". But my question for you is what car are you building that weighs 3800 pounds? What height are the slicks? Also, what motor are you going with? If it's not a built up BIG block, I think your over doing it on the slicks. I've seen many 3000+ pound cars running 10" - 12" wide X 28" high X 15" slicks that hook up just fine.

specifically.

I understand how all that works. But you need to remember the difference between injection and carburation. In injection, the air and fuel flow parallel to one another, while carburation they flow in series to one another. I deal with carburation only, because I can tune the motor for drastic changes in altitude, and as you say for bad air, on the spot, and between rounds as the weather changes.

It all depends on how deep your pockets are, and how full they are, and how much of it your willing to spend. It's not uncommon to get 2+ HP per CU In. But it takes quite a bit of money and machine work to accomplish it.

I seen on the NHRA website they are changing it again for 2004. But what does that have to do with us? Not many of us have a top fuel motor in our cars, let alone afford to buy one or the fuel they use. ;-) But I imagine they are trying to level the playing field like NASCAR has been doing for several years now. Only NASCAR punishes the faster cars by taking rear spoiler height away from them so they have to slow down. Sure, they have to run restrictor plates on the super speedways, to slow them all down.

Reply to
GEB

Ha ha a diesel?

Reply to
Matthew B. Tepper

"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote in a message:

No. I was just making a point about the importance of the camshaft. In order to make use of those bigger heads and better flowing intake, without installing a cam with more lift or duration, your not going to see the full benefits of the new parts.

Reply to
GEB

Sorry wasn't flaming it just brought out a laugh. In my neighborhood the Honda kids seam to think a loud muffler is all they need to beat my stock

5.0 I usually rev up the engine at the light and then let them take off like a bat out of hell and think they beat me and just laugh to myself.
Reply to
Matthew B. Tepper

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.