Close



Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 58

Thread: Long rod 351?

  1. #26
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=70822

    On this board, the Atlantic TRD Toyota 1600 cc twin cam 16 valve engines, when the rod ratio was altered, plotted to this above stricture at 9000rpm. So did David Vizards 1549 verses 1435 Mini A-series OHV engines at 5500 to 6500rpm. In the case of Vizards, specific dyno calculations determined frictional hp loss, and the rod ratio resulted in a frictional hp loss or gain, proportional to HALF the algebraic difference in L/R ratio.
    The exact references were on two engines, Stans TRD 4AGE item, and David Vizards A series engines. They are conclusive enough, though more data would be nice...

  2. #27
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Not so. The CFM flow rates with the head change when the restrictive intake, exhast pocket work, exhast backpressure is reduced and cam lift is increased, and when the L/R ratio is changed, the idealised hp per cfm rate isn't just 1.535 hp per cfm at 25" H20 per cylinder any more. In most cases, an intake system reduced the peak intake cfm flow rate, but in the EFI 5.0, 5.6 and 5.8, the whole package is a net gain rather than a 10 % loss. The head flow for power is influenced by many other factors. NASCAR racers have been cheating the formula for years, and DavidVizard started making cheeter cams when peak duration and lift and head modifications were restricted. The L/R ratio may only liberate a few hp and lb-ft when restricted by head cfm, but there are several other things you can change. Ford Australia put the Quad Cam 5.4 air intake and upper EFI module on the 5.6, and despite an awfull L/R ratio, power went up excatly proportionally, with no head work and an F303 type cam. How do you explain that when the stock 5.0 220 made 295 hp, yet the 14 % bigger 5.6 250 made 14% more power at 335 hp with the same heads and cam? Easy...it was all in the EFI upper and Throttle body. When the stock GT40 EFI upper was so restrictive, it was easy to garner an extra 40 hp without air flow increases in the GT40 castings.

    The

  3. #28
    FEP Super Member FM2NOTCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Foothills of Piedmont NC
    Posts
    3,265

    Default

    not to discourage yours plans but ford already built a long rod 351, it's called a 351M
    *FOXTOBERFEST* 2015 http://www.foxmustangrestoration.com/events
    85 T Top coupe 5.0 2R red, E7's, rpm intake, 4180 carb, 7.4 1/8
    83 CC capri 5.0 5 speed,black mesh wheels
    76 cobra II 302 auto black/gold, big cam 3 inch dumps- sold to a good friend
    92 coupe 5.0 5 speed -red
    92 Lx hatch 5.0 5 speed -black, 66 coupe 5.0 4 spd (project)
    87 Vert 5.0 AOD red stock as a rock

    " Are you sure you know what you're talking about? It kinda sounds like you know what you're talking about"

  4. #29
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FM2NOTCH View Post
    not to discourage yours plans but ford already built a long rod 351, it's called a 351M
    Yes, but its as tall as the 370/429/460 family of 385 engines, and has a might increase in weight with the 0.837" increase in deck height. Every Cleveland based 335 engine is about 40 pound over weight anyway with the front cover and different water circuit. Fitting a 351m is as hard as a 460 because of it, and there is no tradeoff on having a tall, smaller bore centre engine over the big blocks.

    The 351m and 400's were lovely engines, but a blank wall developement compared to the stalwart power a 429 or 460 can make. The Cleveland based 351m was a pudding, very heavy, despite people saying it was 85% of the weight of a big block 385, it was often as heavy, and had some of the worst piston and chamber selections of any canted valve V8.

    Long rods should go with short deck pistons. Even the 302 Chev was a very tall engine for its power because of its insanely tall 1.9" compression register pistons, and would have been better to be Ford 302 deck heigh with 350 or 400 Chev piston heights...it was 90 pound too heavy compared to the 302 Ford , and 90 pounds is like taking 5% off the capacity.

    And for the rest of the L/R arguement, it was 10 years ago, but nothing has changed. People are still finding long rod engines make more power.

    http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.p...ssies+build%2A

    http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31911

    And the Desktop Dyno varified by Bill in Indy, now named pssnmn1

    http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42347

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy
    Okay, I've got a really good one for you. I can't find conclusive info elseware.

    With the only change being a shorter piston to compensate, take the stock 6.21" rod, and shove an 6.58" rod in it, and then compare the ideal power increase for any application. I recon 3 hp gain at 147 hp stock, perhaps 4 hp gain for any 200 hp modifed combination.


    This is a rod ratio sensitivelty test, and it seams to work best when the stock rod ratio isn't very good. David Vizard, Phil Irving and most specialist engine builders have often talked about the advantages, but I've seen no scientific 'apples matches apples' comparisons aside from SAE papers.

    Quote Originally Posted by pssnmn1
    ok this the figures for xctasy's 6.21 to 6.58 rod ratio question.

    stock engine stock 6.21 rod
    peak h.p. 147@3500 peak tq 250ft/lbs@2000

    stock engine 6.58 rod
    h.p. 151@3000 tq 261@2000

    after rebuild stock rod
    h.p. 197@4000 tq 310@2000

    after rebuild 6.58 rod
    h.p. 202@3500 tq 324@2000



    interesting changes


    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy
    This comfirms exactly what was calculated and discussed. :P

    http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.p...658&highlight=

    By 2005, evidence I'd found showed that power increases half the algeriac increase in L/R ratio. So a 6% growth in rod length gives about 3% more power at best. I'm not sure on a dollar per hp ratio, but a longer conrod needs a special piston, and if 4 hp is worth US $2500, then knock yourself out! :wink:

  5. #30
    FEP Super Member FM2NOTCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Foothills of Piedmont NC
    Posts
    3,265

    Default

    I just don't see the need to "reinvent the wheel" with long rods for a little more power when a good set of heads or a stroker would do much more, may as well rotate the pistons 180 degrees also(notches to the rear) and run a cleveland crank with smaller main bearings for less friction
    *FOXTOBERFEST* 2015 http://www.foxmustangrestoration.com/events
    85 T Top coupe 5.0 2R red, E7's, rpm intake, 4180 carb, 7.4 1/8
    83 CC capri 5.0 5 speed,black mesh wheels
    76 cobra II 302 auto black/gold, big cam 3 inch dumps- sold to a good friend
    92 coupe 5.0 5 speed -red
    92 Lx hatch 5.0 5 speed -black, 66 coupe 5.0 4 spd (project)
    87 Vert 5.0 AOD red stock as a rock

    " Are you sure you know what you're talking about? It kinda sounds like you know what you're talking about"

  6. #31

    Default

    Thank you all so much for your input! It is my plan to go ahead and try it. The piston is the Keith Black KB333. It is still listed on summit and jegs I think. It was created specifically with these builds in mind and still exists (I hope!). If you're in Denver someone is selling the whole enchilada on craigslist for $600. Some assembly required. http://denver.craigslist.org/pts/4086255421.html For me, the extra power is a given going from 5.0 to 5.8. What is intriguing are the positive comments about high compression and good power on 87 octane. Also the comments about these being good street engines. From what I've read the stock 351 pistons are heavy and would be replaced in a performance rebuild anyway. An ots piston is available. Aside from connecting rod modifications, the overbore, new pistons, would have to be done anyway. And you use the stock crank. If the engine only makes stock lightning power, I'll be alright. I hope it will do better than that.

  7. #32

    Default

    351m/400 connecting rods
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  8. #33

    Default

    The "pistons backwards" trick, like long rods, is nothing more than a way to change the relationship
    of the piston to the intake valve close event, and any power gained by doing either is because you
    raised the effective dynamic compression ratio. You can do the same with cam timing, without the
    piston rattle when the engine is cold.

    If you go back and look, you'll find nearly every EMC competition winning engine has has a R/S ratio
    around 1.6 or shorter, and on most, the builder had room for a longer rod, but chose not to use one.
    Kaase has even gone so far as to use custom pistons with very tall compression height, rather than
    a longer rod. I dunno about you, but that kinda thing gets my attention.

    I'm not saying don't build the engine the way you're dreaming, but only that you might want to think
    this whole thing through a bit more. The engine will run fine either way, but IMO, there are better
    places to spend the money, like optimizing the cam timing events for your specific combination.
    Last edited by JACook; 10-18-2013 at 08:45 AM.
    Cheers,
    Jeff Cook

    '85 GT Hatch, 5-speed T-Top, Eibachs, Konis, & ARE 5-Spokes ... '85 GT Vert, CFI/AOD, all factory...
    '79 Fairmont StaWag, 5.0, 62K original miles ... '04 Azure Blue 40th Anny Mach 1, 37K original miles...
    2012 F150 S-Crew 4x4 5.0 "Blue Coyote"... 65 coupe, 289 auto, Pony interior ... '67 coupe 6-cyl 4-speed ...
    '68 Vert, Mexican block 307 4-speed... '71 Datsun 510 ...
    And a 1-of-328 Deep Blue Pearl 2003 Marauder 4.6 DOHC, J-Mod, 4.10s and Lidio tune

  9. #34

    Default

    It's just a station wagon. I don't intend to run at the drags. I basically want to hang with muscle cars and sports cars, bust up every civic integra I come across, while my station wagon idles like a Camry and pulls like a freight train. Sure I could go bigger and faster, but that's a different car, not my Daddywagon.

  10. #35

    Default

    And yet, you're talking about building a long-rod engine? I don't get it. Perhaps you're unaware
    most of the EMC competitions have been about maximizing area under the curve in street-oriented
    engines?

    Again, I'm not trying to throw a wet blanket on enthusiasm, but this just doesn't add up to me.
    Cheers,
    Jeff Cook

    '85 GT Hatch, 5-speed T-Top, Eibachs, Konis, & ARE 5-Spokes ... '85 GT Vert, CFI/AOD, all factory...
    '79 Fairmont StaWag, 5.0, 62K original miles ... '04 Azure Blue 40th Anny Mach 1, 37K original miles...
    2012 F150 S-Crew 4x4 5.0 "Blue Coyote"... 65 coupe, 289 auto, Pony interior ... '67 coupe 6-cyl 4-speed ...
    '68 Vert, Mexican block 307 4-speed... '71 Datsun 510 ...
    And a 1-of-328 Deep Blue Pearl 2003 Marauder 4.6 DOHC, J-Mod, 4.10s and Lidio tune

  11. #36
    FEP Power Member horsepowerjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Juist outside Minot, ND
    Posts
    1,916

    Default

    ^ I agree. If you're looking for a mild budget build, you are sure spending alot of added expense just to say I have a long rod 351w! A simple budget rebuild on a 351w with a nice set of heads & mild cam will get the results you want, and then some, without going through the expense & hastle of doing the long rod thing!!
    11 GT Black, A6,Steeda CAI, SCT X4, Circle D 4C
    89LX Blk Hatch,363 Dart,C4,T76BB,FAST EFI
    86 Black GT, 331 Dart, S-trim aftercooled, 4R70W
    82 Carpi RS, 306, T5, 8.8 4.10's.
    72 Demon 340 4-speed(one of 1667)
    73 Dart Sport 340, 410ci, Indy 230cnc+, bracket brawler
    01 Ram Quad Cab, 5.9L car hauler
    02 Grizzley 660
    03 Honda VTX 1800

  12. #37
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    I don't agree at all because the long rod L/R gospell is specific to purpose. It doesnt win for the Ohio Georges, and the NHRA, but a short rod engine will always win on a Amsoil Engine Masters Challange, or a Smittybilt Every Man Challenge competition, and would win on the street too except for one issue...long term reliabilty and general smoothness. This matter has been discussed at length by Hot Rod Magazine and David Vizard durring the late 80's when 383 strokers and 1535 cc stroker A series engines started taking off on the respective US street and European Mini race cars. The summary from both was that a short rod, maximum capacity engine was a good option for a street car, and for experienced racers who could show some rpm discipline and keep a close to handgrende engine short shifted to let the torque do the work. But the Cole Cutlers 34 Ford with stroked lengine with much longer Chrysler rodded 385 Lima and optimized small blocks started showing that in light streeters, long stroke engines could be beaten on a day to day running. The shear fun of a wide bore spacing engine that hasn't been taken out the the water jackets, and a still shortish stroke means you can drive the pants off it wihtout breaking stuff. Strokers and short rod engines are still not good friends with the thin wall Henries. On the street, an engine is under considerale load, and every short rod stroker is pushing the factory critical load limits too much. Especially on a Windsor or Cleveland with main bearing and oiling issues. Thses guys were not over taxing stock blocks, and thats the key to reliability.

    Here's a video of Cole Cutler running his boss 429 coupe a '34.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0S8IXS_QYg

    On the street, the best engines are the 327 when it could be a 400, a 351 when it could be a 408 Windsor, or a 302 when it could be a 342 or 347. The 16% smaller than the biggest rule always works. They make smooth power.

    I've spent years behind stroked Ford sixes, and sure, they are awesome on the first 50 yards of a traffic light dash, but the smaller engines with L/R ratios better than 1.7:1 worked are nicer and alway much more reliable, especially a unibody Ford. If it was a Torino or late a Panther or F100 or 150 with a full chassis, a stroked short rod 351W would be almost heaven, but we are talking Foxes, and Foxes were at critical mass finite analysis cares only just coping with the hottest Super Charged 351W's in the pre SN95 Saleen years, and a short rod stroked engine is a sure fire way to shake the rusty cages that holds in a Windsor 351 into its surroundings. I'm not kncking the conceptof stokers, you saw my acoldaes to the Falcon T3 5.6, a very successfull factory stoked Windsor 5.0, but ask those people who drive the stroker engines...they aren't smooth daily drivers, but about as subtle as an Uzzi at an Italian wedding. A nice, stock block, stoke stroke, stockbore, short piston engine with long rods is very cheap to put together. And smooth. Those pistons are comming down in price, they no longer hve to be forged, and the old 351 K, 351M and 400 Ford engines are being junked and there rods are excellent factory quality, and in a Windsor 351, create the best darned rod ratio on any small block ever...better than the fabled 302 Chevy Z28, and that engine was a super smooth top spinner.

  13. #38

    Default

    Heres my setup:
    357 LRW (Stock Crank/Eagle Rod/JE Pistons)
    Custom Cam (Grudge Race, don't wanna spill the beans)
    Pro-Comp Heads
    Powerglide w/Trans Brake
    3000lbs 89' Coupe
    Car runs 10.49 on 93 octane & 9.42 on a 125 shot all day long. Now yes, I'm using this setup to drag race, so we've tuned the car to hook- up and run, but when we put pin to paper, we realized this combo was gonna get the more bang for buck. For all the Na-Sayer, come on down to NOLA and I'll show you just how many 393 & 408 we're knocking off (lol)
    All jokes aside at the end off the day, do what you want, not what others think, when any of these guys telling you to do what they think, I say tell'em to pony up some funds and you'll build what ever they want! Have fun w/you build, at the end of the day you're building a FORD (1st on Race Day) so you can't go wrong
    richard3rd

    1965 Coupe
    1966 Convertible
    1983 GT w/T-Top
    1984 & 85 Convertible
    1988 GT w/T-Top
    1988, 89 & 91 LX Coupe
    2001 GT
    1981 T-Top Coupe (Current & Last!)

  14. #39

    Default

    I just bought a 351 lower intake off of craigslist. This was probably going to be the biggest obstacle in my engine build. I know there are aftermarket alternatives, but since I already have a downs box upper and a tubular upper I really wanted this piece.

  15. #40

    Default

    Got my engine wiring harness in the mail today but pics aren't working. I don't understand how pics works here. PITA. Anyhows I'm pleased. It should definitely help with my Daddywagon project. BTW it's the ford harness part# m-12071-a50 purchased from CJ Pony Parts, who had the best price listed. It had a quality tested tag from Ford dated March of 2013. Also the instruction booklet reads Revision 2 and it's dated August of 2013.

  16. #41

  17. #42
    FEP Super Member FM2NOTCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Foothills of Piedmont NC
    Posts
    3,265

    Default

    I wonder why when ford was changing over from 289 to 302 engines, why they didn't just keep the longer 289 rods, they had 2 choices

    1. keep 289 pistons, make new shorter 302 rods

    2. make different pistons, keep longer 289 rods

    they went with shorter rods for the 302

    and Fwiw the boss 302 had 289 rods and custom pistons for the cleveland type heads.
    *FOXTOBERFEST* 2015 http://www.foxmustangrestoration.com/events
    85 T Top coupe 5.0 2R red, E7's, rpm intake, 4180 carb, 7.4 1/8
    83 CC capri 5.0 5 speed,black mesh wheels
    76 cobra II 302 auto black/gold, big cam 3 inch dumps- sold to a good friend
    92 coupe 5.0 5 speed -red
    92 Lx hatch 5.0 5 speed -black, 66 coupe 5.0 4 spd (project)
    87 Vert 5.0 AOD red stock as a rock

    " Are you sure you know what you're talking about? It kinda sounds like you know what you're talking about"

  18. #43
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    "I wonder why when ford was changing over from 289 to 302 engines, why they didn't just keep the longer 289 rods, they had 2 choices

    1. keep 289 pistons, make new shorter 302 rods

    2. make different pistons, keep longer 289 rods

    they went with shorter rods for the 302

    and Fwiw the boss 302 had 289 rods and custom pistons for the cleveland type heads. "
    This is because Ford don't mind changing the rods with every capacity change, and have been doing it with every short deck engine since the post war 105Esuper short stroke engine, then the small six. The rods were easier to change for Ford, while GM/Chevy generally changes pistons and leves the rods.


    It was the same with the 302 Chev verses the 327 it was based on, the 351 M verses the 400 it was based on, the 300 Ford verses the 240, and especially, the Australian 302c verses the 351c it was based on.

    The least cost option was persued. The Boss 302 was a traditional GM/ Chevy style combination, in that the 289 rods were used


    The Q code 1969 302 was just the Q code 1968 Tunnel Port 289 with the next years R-code Boss 351c 4v cylinder heads with even bigger intake valves, so the crank, rods and High Performance block were all locked in. They had no choice but to use the Cleveland heads when the Dual Quad 240 hp SCCA approved Tunnel Port gave such a bad account of itself, and Carol Shelby, even though all the problems with its reliabity were Fords own making. The 302 Boss was a 100% Ford effort, the Tunnel Port was a very sad case of being an emergency response to the sudden arrival of the brilliant Chevy 302. Ford elected not to copy the tall deck Chevy 302 piston.

    Ford just did an Americas Cap match race, and waited untill the challangers hand was declared before its next deal. Very smart move.


    Now, its not specifically Fox related, but this discussion was elevated 5 years ago to one particular form, and none other than a buddy from down South in my own country related how the old tall deck 3.3 Aussie log head engine, like your US Mustang 200 but made on a taller US 250 block, was matched head to head with a certain Aussie GM Holden L6 of 202 cubic inches. One engine had an LR of 1.615:1 and the Ford had and l/R of 6.27/3.126, 2.00:1.


    Name:  XA_six_with_a-c_-4.jpg
Views: 640
Size:  30.1 KB

    Of course,when raced in oval track the same cam profile had to be used, the two engines had the same Stromberg BXOV 1-bbl carb, the same ignition system, the same 4.08 inch bore spacing, but the Holden engine was heavier and made less power, and idled much worse than the long rod engine. That year, 1971 to `1976, both engines were rated atr 135 hp gross for the high compression versions, but Ford had a 130 hp low compression version standard. One the figures I've supplied, and based on the acceleration figures from the factory, the Falcon 500 was quicker by one second over the quarter mile than the Kingswood 202, they weighed the same, thae Falcon did 18.5 with a 3.23 diff, the Holden did 19.5 with a 3.55;1 axle. Net installed figure at the flywheel for the Ford 3.3 engine as an industrial engine was 93 hp. In Australia and New Zeland, the tall deck Falcon 6 was used as much as the short deck Falcon. Maverick/Granada/Fairmont engine was used in pump powerplants or snow blowers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu8zVXRQZT4


    Name:  AussieTalldeck200and2501971to1976FordFalcon6CylinderPetrolIndustrialEnginesBrochure.jpg
Views: 648
Size:  70.3 KB

    So based on that, the Falcon produced 13% more power. Funny thing is, the difference between the two hp ratings (which must have been 13%) is about half the rod raito difference, 24%.


    And that, my friends, is why if you can find a short deck Hypereutectic piston for cheap, with whatever crankshaft and head your planning and can afford, whatever rod ratio improvement you make will result in half the elgebraic increase in power. All else being equal. And that is not even before you optimize the cam profile, lobe center, degree in the cam etc.


    Jac Mac, if your out there, this one is for you.

    http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/smal...-needed-4.html

  19. #44
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    "I wonder why when ford was changing over from 289 to 302 engines, why they didn't just keep the longer 289 rods, they had 2 choices

    1. keep 289 pistons, make new shorter 302 rods

    2. make different pistons, keep longer 289 rods

    they went with shorter rods for the 302

    and Fwiw the boss 302 had 289 rods and custom pistons for the cleveland type heads. "
    This is because Ford don't mind changing the rods with every capacity change, and have been doing it with every short deck engine since the post war 105Esuper short stroke engine, then the small six. The rods were easier to change for Ford, while GM/Chevy generally changes pistons and leves the rods.


    It was the same with the 302 Chev verses the 327 it was based on, the 351 M verses the 400 it was based on, the 300 Ford verses the 240, and especially, the Australian 302c verses the 351c it was based on.

    The least cost option was persued. The Boss 302 was a traditional GM/ Chevy style combination, in that the 289 rods were used


    The Q code 1969 302 was just the Q code 1968 Tunnel Port 289 with the next years R-code Boss 351c 4v cylinder heads with even bigger intake valves, so the crank, rods and High Performance block were all locked in. They had no choice but to use the Cleveland heads when the Dual Quad 240 hp SCCA approved Tunnel Port gave such a bad account of itself, and Carol Shelby, even though all the problems with its reliabity were Fords own making. The 302 Boss was a 100% Ford effort, the Tunnel Port was a very sad case of being an emergency response to the sudden arrival of the brilliant Chevy 302. Ford elected not to copy the tall deck Chevy 302 piston.

    Ford just did an Americas Cap match race, and waited untill the challangers hand was declared before its next deal. Very smart move.


    Now, its not specifically Fox related, but this discussion was elevated 5 years ago to one particular form, and none other than a buddy from down South in my own country related how the old tall deck 3.3 Aussie log head engine, like your US Mustang 200 but made on a taller US 250 block, was matched head to head with a certain Aussie GM Holden L6 of 202 cubic inches. One engine had an LR of 1.615:1 and the Ford had and l/R of 6.27/3.126, 2.00:1.


    Name:  XA_six_with_a-c_-4.jpg
Views: 640
Size:  30.1 KB

    Of course,when raced in oval track the same cam profile had to be used, the two engines had the same Stromberg BXOV 1-bbl carb, the same ignition system, the same 4.08 inch bore spacing, but the Holden engine was heavier and made less power, and idled much worse than the long rod engine. That year, 1971 to `1976, both engines were rated atr 135 hp gross for the high compression versions, but Ford had a 130 hp low compression version standard. One the figures I've supplied, and based on the acceleration figures from the factory, the Falcon 500 was quicker by one second over the quarter mile than the Kingswood 202, they weighed the same, thae Falcon did 18.5 with a 3.23 diff, the Holden did 19.5 with a 3.55;1 axle. Net installed figure at the flywheel for the Ford 3.3 engine as an industrial engine was 93 hp. In Australia and New Zeland, the tall deck Falcon 6 was used as much as the short deck Falcon. Maverick/Granada/Fairmont engine was used in pump powerplants or snow blowers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu8zVXRQZT4


    Name:  AussieTalldeck200and2501971to1976FordFalcon6CylinderPetrolIndustrialEnginesBrochure.jpg
Views: 648
Size:  70.3 KB

    So based on that, the Falcon produced 13% more power. Funny thing is, the difference between the two hp ratings (which must have been 13%) is about half the rod raito difference, 24%.


    And that, my friends, is why if you can find a short deck Hypereutectic piston for cheap, with whatever crankshaft and head your planning and can afford, whatever rod ratio improvement you make will result in half the elgebraic increase in power. All else being equal. And that is not even before you optimize the cam profile, lobe center, degree in the cam etc.


    Jac Mac, if your out there, this one is for you.

    http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/smal...-needed-4.html

  20. #45

    Default

    It has been over 3 years. The Daddywagon is still not done. But out of the blue on impulse alone I ordered a set of kb333-030 pistons. These are the required pistons for a long rod 351w build. Maybe they don't really exist and will never arrive! I chose cnc motorsports over summit for the pistons based on price alone. Haha!

  21. #46
    FEP Power Member Ethyl Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Lebanon, IL
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Those would also work with a 4.100" stroke crank and a 6.300" long sbc rod! 418 cubic inches and 12:1 compression @ 64cc. A 70cc chamber would make it livable I think at 11.15:1 compression.

    Kidding (not really)

    Enjoy your build!
    BBD PERFORMANCE
    HIGH PERFORMANCE PARTS
    CUSTOM ENGINE BUILDS
    CUSTOM CAM DESIGNS
    1983 CRIMSON CAT OWNER

  22. #47

    Default

    I have not done the long rod thing and the only experience I have with it is reading up on the theory behind it. I get the idea and possible benefits of the dwell time, but it is a lot of work to get so little in return. There is also a chance that the longer rods pull the piston out the bottom of the cylinder leaving you with a very expensive boat anchor.

  23. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nelzfoxes View Post
    It has been over 3 years. The Daddywagon is still not done. But out of the blue on impulse alone I ordered a set of kb333-030 pistons. These are the required pistons for a long rod 351w build. Maybe they don't really exist and will never arrive! I chose cnc motorsports over summit for the pistons based on price alone. Haha!
    I did receive my pistons over a year ago. The Daddywagon was a running and driving car briefly. I guess it’s time to start my long rod 351 engine build.

  24. #49
    FEP Power Member slow84lx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,562

    Default

    Get cracking man and let's have your real world results added to this debate. The Daddywagon is a cool car and looking forward to seeing more progress on it.

    Jonathan

  25. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slow84lx View Post
    Get cracking man and let's have your real world results added to this debate. The Daddywagon is a cool car and looking forward to seeing more progress on it.

    Jonathan
    Thanks! If only the weather would cooperate! No garage so I am at the mercy of Mother Nature! I need it to get back into the 30’s for me to wrench on the Daddywagon!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •