http://forums.stangnet.com/719569-302-stroker-information.html
I think he's refering to the old problem with the 347's and the piston pin intersecting the oil ring, which is why the 331 was created. This created excessive oil consumption and reduced engine life (not a 100,000 mile engine).
"personally i would go with the 347, or better a 331"
why do you prefer 331 over 347 ???
http://forums.stangnet.com/719569-302-stroker-information.html
I think he's refering to the old problem with the 347's and the piston pin intersecting the oil ring, which is why the 331 was created. This created excessive oil consumption and reduced engine life (not a 100,000 mile engine).
With new 347 as long as you have one with a 5.315 rod and not the 5.4 inch rod, the previous issue is not a problem anymore.
I vote for the 331 or 347 and sell the 427.
Generally speaking;
Lighter = faster w/ better fuel economy.
Sell all the 302 stuff and get a 460. You can build a mild 460 to make 500hp + for cheap. I would but I have to keep my shock towers. Then you can save the 427 and charge admission fees for people to come see it since by the looks of things, is precious. I laugh at people who complain of "wearing out" a motor like that. How many miles do you truly put on that thing? I think it would take atleast 20 years to "wear it out". Just a thought. I live by the 99% rule.
Steve McQueen didn't seem to have any problems throwing his FE equipped Mustang around corners in Bullitt.
for engine choice with rotating assembly choices: stroked 351 to a 393 with AFR heads would kick that 427's butt!
393W beats 427FE? I don't think so.
427W vs 428FE:
Testing 427 Windsor Vs 428 FE - Mustang & Fords Magazine
The 428 was actually a .60 over 390 or 422. FE made 505 hp, the "W" made 486.
Use a real 427.
yeah, 19 less hp in a package that weighs in at more than 100lbs less.
I am not against 347s, but this 20-30 RWHP figure is too high in my book. If you figure a 1.25 HP/ci 347 or 433 HP for example (a healthy street/strip 347), your going to see about 17 more RWHP than a 1.25 HP/ci 331 after you figure in a 15% driveline loss...not that much, you would hardly be able to notice it.
They had to do a TON of reinforcement to that car in order to make it do what you see in the movie.. and then it was scrap after the movie. :
A TON? Like better springs and shocks? The roll cage was for driver safety not to stiffen the chassis. That was done to the Chargers too. Magazine articles about the movie/car(s) didn't come out until years later. Peoples recollection of what was done probably varied greatly. Yes, the car was trashed afterwards. Every body panel was dented and I am sure the subframe was twisted. It cost more to repair than the car was worth (then).
HowStuffWorks "Mustang Stars in Bullitt"
"Two identical Mustangs and two matching Chargers were used in the Bullitt chase sequence. So that the four-speed Mustang could run more easily with the brawnier four-speed 440 Magnum Charger, Hollywood engineer Max Balchowsky installed a racing cam on both Fords, milled the heads, and modified the ignition and carburetion systems. Additionally, Balchowsky bulked up the suspensions of all four cars for improved strength, handling, and control. One Mustang and one Charger were fitted with a full roll cage."
Go drive a 2008 Mustang with a V6 and a V8. Are you going to walk away from the test drives going "Wow the V6 Mustang with the 100lb lighter engine handles so much better" or "The HP and Tq from the V8 was awesome."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?