• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Why Stroke it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve-Os95GT
  • Start date Start date Jun 21, 2005
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last

Foxfan88

My Grandpa has great wood.
Sep 13, 2004
2,487
4
0
Miami, Ok
Jun 21, 2005
#21
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #21
since the smaller motor has a shorter stroke, the shorter amount of time it takes to go through that stroke, this means more lower end, the motor is working faster... or something
 

stang8urimport

Autozone Junkie
Founding Member
Jun 21, 2002
1,499
12
59
Daytona Beach, FL
Jun 21, 2005
#22
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #22
Steve-Os95GT said:
Why stroke it?
Click to expand...
Cause it feels so good?
 

bluevenom867

I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in
Dec 15, 2003
1,704
1
0
St.Petersburg,FL
Jun 21, 2005
#23
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #23
Foxfan88 said:
since the smaller motor has a shorter stroke, the shorter amount of time it takes to go through that stroke, this means more lower end, the motor is working faster... or something
Click to expand...

2500rpm's is 2500rpm's regaurdless of stroke size.
 

90mustangGT

I felt sorry for girls because
Founding Member
Jan 15, 2002
2,773
17
89
Dallas, GA
Jun 21, 2005
#24
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #24
bluevenom867 said:
2500rpm's is 2500rpm's regaurdless of stroke size.
Click to expand...

Yes, but piston speed will be greater, I think that is what he was getting at, and it is true. The 347 will pull in more air at 2500 than the 306 will at 2500.
 

bluevenom867

I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in
Dec 15, 2003
1,704
1
0
St.Petersburg,FL
Jun 21, 2005
#25
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #25
90mustangGT said:
Yes, but piston speed will be greater, I think that is what he was getting at, and it is true. The 347 will pull in more air at 2500 than the 306 will at 2500.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about piston speed.As a matter of fact,piston speed is good.Because at higher rpm's the air flows better when the piston speed is higher (because there is less TDC dwell time).
 

Aliate X

Member
May 9, 2005
602
1
18
Rockland NY
Jun 21, 2005
#26
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #26
You guys should go check out AFR's website.

Using a crazy setup with 13:1 compression, they made 751hp out of a 347.

Heres the link, 2nd setup from the bottom.

http://airflowresearch.com/ (click on dyno tests, and then ford dyno packages, not 5.0)
 

90mustangGT

I felt sorry for girls because
Founding Member
Jan 15, 2002
2,773
17
89
Dallas, GA
Jun 21, 2005
#27
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #27
Aliate X said:
You guys should go check out AFR's website.

Using a crazy setup with 13:1 compression, they made 751hp out of a 347.

Heres the link, 2nd setup from the bottom.

http://airflowresearch.com/ (click on dyno tests, and then ford dyno packages, not 5.0)
Click to expand...

No suprise there, but I can gaurantee it's no budget minded street motor. I mean look at NASCAR, 358cid, all motor, pushrod motors making 700-800HP.

A buddy of mine has a 351W stroker built with the best money can buy pretty much and that motor can rev to 9000rpm and is suposed to make between 660-680rwhp all motor before the 300shot.
 

89CopCoupe

Banned
Feb 17, 2004
606
0
0
Post Count City
Jun 21, 2005
#28
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #28
Steve-Os95GT said:
So let me get this right. You are saying that those type of numbers on a 302 are feasable but not recommended do to longevity with that type of strain? BTW, thanks for all the help guys.
Click to expand...

I'll hit some basics:

Think of your engine as a set of 8 syringes.
The 347 piston (plunger) travels further down in the cylinder (syringe) ...
...this is why it has the larger designation 347 vs 306 (cubic inches).
A syringe that travels further (with the same diameter bore) will pull in more ... in this case air and fuel.

Now look at piston speed ...
... a 347 has to travel a greater distance in the same amount of time ... 2500 rotations per minute (rpm) is 2500 rotations per minute no matter what the engine size ...
...This means a 347 piston travels faster in the cylinder than a shorter stroke 306.
A faster moving piston will pull air and fuel in with greater force referred to as "velocity".

Then we have intake port size ...
... these are the tracks that air & fuel travel though to make their way into the cylinder.
Think of these as straws attached to the end of the syringes.
Too large of a straw will make the incoming air & fuel "lazy" ... as in poor velocity.
Too small of a straw creates restriction ... not enough volume can be supplied as the engine desires ...
... Kinda like trying to suck up a McDonald's shake
You want these head and intake port tracks to be the appropriate size for the engine combination you are building.
A larger port requires a smaller engine (306) to spin faster in order to create enough velocity to pull and push the fuel in and out of the engine ...
Or a larger port needs a larger consuming engine (347) to keep the air from being too lazy
... Driving a street car around at 3500rpms all day long is

So to wrap this essay up, a 347 will create more consumption (power) than a 306 in the same amount of time ...

That is the whole name of the game ... get more air & fuel in and out of the engine in the least amount of time ... that's why a top fueler is so beastly ... it is very good at doing this
 

90mustangGT

I felt sorry for girls because
Founding Member
Jan 15, 2002
2,773
17
89
Dallas, GA
Jun 21, 2005
#29
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #29
Well said 89CopCoupe.
 

89CopCoupe

Banned
Feb 17, 2004
606
0
0
Post Count City
Jun 21, 2005
#30
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #30
90mustangGT said:
Well said 89CopCoupe.
Click to expand...

I wish amateur (me) advice was worth something ...at least a nickel
 

cjman15

Banned
Apr 15, 2004
1,009
0
0
Fairfield, PA
Jun 21, 2005
#31
  • Jun 21, 2005
  • #31
Steve-Os95GT said:
Why stroke it?
Click to expand...

That's what she said!!!
 
S

Scorcher2005

Member
Apr 17, 2004
883
0
16
South Carolina
Jun 22, 2005
#32
  • Jun 22, 2005
  • #32
Foxfan88 said:
since the smaller motor has a shorter stroke, the shorter amount of time it takes to go through that stroke, this means more lower end, the motor is working faster... or something
Click to expand...


no, the shorter the stroke usually just means it can rev faster/higher more safely
 

speedracer238

New Member
Sep 18, 2003
141
0
0
Clawson, MI
Jun 22, 2005
#33
  • Jun 22, 2005
  • #33
Steve-Os95GT said:
95GT
Edelbrock Heads (out the box)
Shorties, pullies
CAI, stock intake
Lifters, rockers.... that is most of it.
292rwhp
324rwtq
Click to expand...


So you are almost putting down 300 hp to the wheels with a stock intake, stock cam, and no boost??

Please tell me ur secret cause thats next to impossible.
 

giddyup306

Founding Member
Oct 22, 2002
3,041
2
59
Jun 22, 2005
#34
  • Jun 22, 2005
  • #34
89CopCoupe said:
I think the obvious "gear head" advantage is the increased vacuum ...
Click to expand...


Please tell me how a stroker motor would create more vacuum. However if you ment volume I would agree.
 

Modular2v

Founding Member
Jun 30, 2002
3,222
23
99
oklahoma
Jun 22, 2005
#35
  • Jun 22, 2005
  • #35
giddyup306 said:
Please tell me how a stroker motor would create more vacuum. However if you ment volume I would agree.
Click to expand...
i think it creates more vacuum because it is wanting to pull more air in due to the increase in displacement
 

Flavadave4

Active Member
Nov 28, 2003
1,044
21
49
Utica, NY
Jun 22, 2005
#36
  • Jun 22, 2005
  • #36
TheUser said:
I think you answered the question yourself. More power w/ the same combo is probably why people do it. More cubes w/ the same size block. A lot of people don't want to run a big block, which is bigger/heavier, maybe a little more work to fit in and is obvious. No one will ever know you have a stroker unless the motor is torn down or you tell them. BTW, 15% of a 300hp motor is 45hp...not to shabby.

There's a lot of threads detailing pro's and cons of each if that's a consideration for you.
Click to expand...

im with him
 
B

bluray

New Member
Jun 20, 2005
46
0
0
Edmonton, Alberta
Jun 22, 2005
#37
  • Jun 22, 2005
  • #37
So basically stroking a 302 would decrease speed and power in the lower end rpm? If so than a person with a 302(or if I understand correctly, any type of engine) that uses his ride for more than 80% street driving would not want to stroke the engine because it would reduce performance in the lower rpm(which is probably 90% of the time on the street) and increase fuel consumption lowering milage, right?
 

bluevenom867

I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in
Dec 15, 2003
1,704
1
0
St.Petersburg,FL
Jun 22, 2005
#38
  • Jun 22, 2005
  • #38
bluray said:
So basically stroking a 302 would decrease speed and power in the lower end rpm? If so than a person with a 302(or if I understand correctly, any type of engine) that uses his ride for more than 80% street driving would not want to stroke the engine because it would reduce performance in the lower rpm(which is probably 90% of the time on the street) and increase fuel consumption lowering milage, right?
Click to expand...

Were you even looking at the post above?

Its usually quite the opposite effect,you gain power and especiallly torque throw out the entire rpm range.
 
S

Steve-Os95GT

New Member
Jun 21, 2005
33
0
0
Jun 22, 2005
#39
  • Jun 22, 2005
  • #39
speedracer238 said:
So you are almost putting down 300 hp to the wheels with a stock intake, stock cam, and no boost??

Please tell me ur secret cause thats next to impossible.
Click to expand...

Forgot to mention the cam, E 303 I think. It was already on the car when I bought it. There might be one or two more things but I can't remember.
 
B

bluray

New Member
Jun 20, 2005
46
0
0
Edmonton, Alberta
Jun 22, 2005
#40
  • Jun 22, 2005
  • #40
bluevenom867 said:
Were you even looking at the post above?

Its usually quite the opposite effect,you gain power and especiallly torque throw out the entire rpm range.
Click to expand...
Yikes, sorry sorry! There are lots of opinions going around here.

So then there would be increased power and torque at the lower and higher rpm, but fuel consumtion would still increase reducing milage. That sound right?
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Block questions
  • s_vargas54
  • Jan 25, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
21
Views
638
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 8, 2026
Trogdor
Engine on3 Conversion to draw through MAF?
  • sav22rem22
  • Oct 11, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
2
Views
249
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Oct 11, 2025
sav22rem22
Need some camshaft guru advice on power loss from supercharger to nitrous
  • TTSaleen
  • Dec 1, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
18
Views
578
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Dec 29, 2025
revhead347
SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
G
Drivetrain trickflow Stage 3 camshaft 347 stroker. also too much gear????
  • Gross Virgin
  • May 2, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
0
Views
770
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 2, 2024
Gross Virgin
G
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?