A 298 3V stroker!!!!

In the January edition? What page? I don't see it. But it sounds interesting if it's not too pricey (though I'm sure it is).

Cool. I'm sure they'll want more than it's worth though. Unless you're building an engine from top to bottom, it probably wouldn't be worth it, unless you just HAVE to stay NA.

People can see and hear turbos and superchargers. A stroker looks and sounds just like a regular engine. I prefer to be sneaky.

A turbo is a bit stealthier than a S/C. The only time you notice the turbo is when you start getting near WOT. The S/C whines/whistles from the turn of the key.

What compression ratio was the Stroker when it made 352 RWHP? What are the other mods? I am not buying that magazine to find out. That said, it is not really all that impressive... If people are looking at building a modular motor and staying N/A, you really need to look at the Big-Bore option.

MM&FF has printed to much Bull **** in the past, that I am not going to give them another dime.

What do you call BS: Race Coverage and Dyno Sessions as well as New Product Installs and How-To's...........whatever!

Well now that you bring it up...

A person I know has won a couple of FFW events with his 97 TBird and has been shunned by that magazine by printing incorrect facts about those races.

I know a couple of people personally that had how-to articles printed that when they worked on them with MM&FF staff and what was printed was not the same. You could not follow the magazine How-to and end up with the finished product like the article did.

Some of the articles are blatant advertising by sponsors that are not 100% factual.

I could go on...

As much as I like to look through MMFF, I take everything they say with a grain of salt. A lot of info on the cars they feature is inaccurate as well.

*

I read the MM&FF article. When were you going to mention that the Stroker at 10.8:1 compression ratio had CNC Ported 3V heads with larger valves? As I said earlier, I am not impressed with that 352 RWHP.

How much HP did the Stroker really lose? I say that because a full 1 point bump in Compression( Remember, Stock Compression is 9.8:1 ) is worth 15 - 20 RWHP and ported 3V heads with larger valves have been proven to be worth 25 - 30 RWHP on N/A 3V cars.

Their( MM&FF ) car started at 306 RWHP, adding 40 to 50 RWHP from the heads and compression bump is between 346 to 356 RWHP. Do you see why I am questioning that Stroker build?

ranger04 said:

The compression ratio comes with the kit, you don't have to do anything but installe it, they have lower compression for FI applications. Dude you are very negitive person like if someone pissed in your corn flakes. Life isn't that bad, really. Remember, you can't start the hp count at a stock 300 because of driveline lose. So it's about a 100 hp increase as it was measured at the wheels. Every part that comes out doesn't have to excite everyone, if it did every body would all have the same parts. I'm interested in strokers as I'm debating staying na, not everyone is. The post was intended for folks who are interested in strokers, you apparently not being one of them. Thats ok, different strokes for different folks.

Click to expand...

I am NEGATIVE to components that do not work! I am NEGATIVE towards people who push products that do not work. Stroked Ford 4.6L V8's DO NOT WORK N/A. You are wasting your time and money if you think otherwise. You want to do it, go ahead, but don't push it on others to follow your mistake. As long as I am here, I won't allow you to do that.

That Stroker article is MISLEADING. It leads you to believe the car gained 46 RWHP with the Stroker, but if you really look at it, it didn't. They tell you that the compression ratio is raised from 9.8:1 to 10.8:1 and they used CNC ported 3V heads on the stroker with the same bolt-ons as it had stock. That setup that made 352 RWHP is going to cost about $6300.00 minimum.

You can rebuild your 4.6L with the stock displacement with a bump in compression and ported 3V heads for about $4300.00 and make the same HP if not more than that Stroker. That is a fact and is my point. Reality if you were going to have the motor rebuilt by somebody or buy it assembled, you would be saving about $200.00 not going the Stroker route and have more HP N/A.

The bore of the Modular V8's is to small compared to it's stroke. Stroking the motor does not address that, in fact makes the situation worse. You have more air to fill through the same tiny bore space. Strokers worked on the older pushrod V8's because the bore space is significantly larger. The old 5.0L Ford V8 had a 4" Bore compared to a 3" Stroke, the 4.6L V8 has a 3.55" Bore and a 3.54" Stroke.

I have spent over 3 years researching Big-Bore, Stroker, Big-Bore Strokers. I paid attention to more than magazines, etc. In the end, I went with a 5.0L Big-Bore.

Strokers have been found that when keeping the stock compression ratio, using stock PI 2V heads, PI cams and a PI intake, that they LOST 18 RWHP staying N/A compared to a stock 4.6L PI 2V. Adding ported heads, cams, intake, compression ratio to both the stock displaced and strokers, the difference is not made up. The Stroker never worked N/A and a 2V. You won't find that info printed in a magazine trying to sell you parts.

Ford has 3 Modular V8's, the 4.6L, the 5.0L and the 5.4L. The 5.0L version has not seen put into a production car but it is the best performing of the 3. The big difference, the 5.0L version has a 3.7" Bore while the other 2 have 3.55". The 5.0L has the same stroke as the 4.6.

The 5.0L Cammer comes from Ford rated at 450 HP at the flywheel, upgrading it to the exact components that the 5.4 Cobra R Mustang had bumps it to 465. The 5.4 Cobra R was rated at 385.

That is the direction I push people if they want to stay N/A, to go with the bigger Bore. A 4.6L bored to 5.0L using the stock compression ratio, Stock PI heads, PI cams and stock PI intake GAINED 29 RWHP. The gain is even bigger when you add ported heads, cams, intake. Again info you won't find printed in a Magazine. There is only a handful of Modular builders that do the Big-Bore and none of them advertise in MM&FF.

A 5.0L 3V Big-Bore with those modifications would be damn near if not 400 RWHP. The extra cost would be $1200.00, but you would have an application that works N/A.

It was pointed out to me via PM that what applies to a 2V does not apply to a 3V. Ok, let's look at this.

Jim Junior from JDM is on the record at another board as saying that they have achieved 370 RWHP N/A on a manual shift mustang with of a 11:1 Stroker that has every bolt on except a set of cams. That is with the P&P heads.

400 RWHP has been achieved by a 284 CI 4.6L, that has a .020 over-bore piston at 10.8:1 Compression. The car made 406 RWHP, it has every bolt on including a set of cams. That would mean for the JDM 298 Stroker to tie that car would need a set of cams that makes 36 RWHP. Again to point out, that would be just to tie.

A couple of differences to note, the 4.6L car has high flow Cats and is on 91 Octane fuel. I don't know what the JDM car has for Cats or the fuel used for their 370 RWHP.

Another thing to note is that the cars may not have the exact same bolt-ons. That does play into this the comparison a bit as well. However if the Stroker is such a great option, it shouldn't be in the position it is.

Nevertheless, finding 36 RWHP in a set of cams is going to be very tough. That said, I would like to see the power curve between the 2 setups. If it is like the 2V, the 284 3V CI would be the better motor performance wise than the 298 3V CI. That comparison can't be made until JDM or somebody posts what a Stroked and Cammed N/A 3V has done.

Now questioning a 4.6L 3V Stroked to 4.9 - 5.1 is still valid as it was with the 2V's. If that MM&FF article had used the stock heads and the stock compression ratio and saw that bump from 306 to 352, then you would be on to something.