A few points. Opinions based on facts in my head-space. Bearing in mind what a Fox is up against, like Fat Rat ZL-1 Camaros, I'd go a small block iron 400 every time.
Just because its an old iron truck or Land Yacht Lincoln engine used in tractor pulling
doesn't mean its not a perfect Fox engine.
The chassis stiffness can be taken care of, and the total combination COG is better with an Overhead valve engine than a small bore center 5.4 with DOHC.
The main issue with the Fox platform is Ackerman, anti-dive and the focus on attempting to make a 50 Oz unbalance 5.0 do a 5.6 liter job without cracking has been to add a factor of safety into the block rather than the crank.
The Mustang has a benign front mounted steering gear, which unlike the Australian Falcon and Commodore/Catera and GTO/G8 platform, very stability controls transitional under-steer to over steer. The system is in essence the early 68-80 European RWD Escort and 69-87 European RWD Ford Capri steering system, which gives great, sharp steering response without unbalance. Dynamically, its low hood line and cantered over front catwalk makes the Fox Stang and Fox Capri show off the V8 engines as ungainly towers. The whole package is very adept.
Furthermore, the Fox rear end combinations have been well sorted. It can cope with massive increases in Center of gravity, but have it dropped down with parts that MM and aluminum after market performance guys make. Nice for you to undermine the true worth of the MM K member spacers and engine mount systems. I'm a total OHV advocate, the DOHC engines really have issues in a Fox platform compared to even a 400 Ford, despite its huge 720 pound weight with A/C, power steering and ancillaries, its really easy to whip off more than 150 pounds via alloy heads, the intake (31 pounds lighter for a 351C alloy intake verses cast iron , much more, maybee 65 pounds for a 351M/400) and the cranks on all that stuff are 28 Oz. The old Select-Air/York/Tucmseh was AC unit outrageously heavy, and so were the early power steering pumps, its easy to save another 100 pounds on those behemoths; you can get back to less than a 351 C Boss 569 pound mass.
On cranks, Ford earlier fixed the crank in the previous 4.375" bore block, the 1956-1960 Y block with the 312 cubic inch 3.44 crank which had a neutral balance twist forging.
Very importantly, about 1958, Ford had discovered large main journal 3.44 stroke cranks didn't really need to be anything other than nodular iron. Factually, the 400 to 600 mile production car racing of the Fisa Group 2/Group A performance of all 50 Oz unbalanced 302 Mustangs is fraught with timing chain failure, every Group A 1982-1985 Mustang had major issues with this which was the primary reason for failure. The chassis from Job One and Day One was exceptionally able to take a lot of extra power.
In the early days, the Australian GM Holden's near similar 304 and 308 4.4 bore center 8.9" deck engines often used cheap junked Y block cranks, sometimes the fully counter-weighed 4.375 bore center Ford 312 cranks, to create stroker engines that were exceptional endurance race cars is Super Saloons. The similar smaller main bearing 292 truck cranks with 3.3" strokes were also used, toughened, and internally balanced. For Ford, the developments of the new Windsor foundry retrofit to the new 221/260/289 and 302 program were essentially cost and weight related.
The fully internally balance crank was first used in NASCAR about 1986, then filtered down to power boats and endurance AVESCO and other specialist 5.0/331/347 stokers. The zero balance cranks are real art, and work best to protect 5 liter block.
Another risk of self promotion, but none of it is my doing.
The statements made a not my own, but the summaries are.
http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/forums...2/m/2251010656
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h5...psr0ns6egu.jpg
Where a Zero balance crank ranks in the price/cost/results continuum is in the 10 k dollar engine build.
Guys, IMHO, and from personal experience with taking out an XE block with the wrong piston clearances, its get a better block first, then crank, then heads. See http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...h-block-to-use
Take heed of post #9
There are block stays, girdles and "belts and braces" you can use to look after a stock 5.0 block. Below 10 grand, you've got to look at options. I'd seriously look at the fully counter-weighed SVO stroker cranks. Ford SVO in 1989 used to make a blank steel forging that just needed, oh, 8 hours of grinding to index the crank and journals to perhaps 3.4" inches max. No unbalance.
If you want to lean on it, get an upper block girdle. Doug P at Horsepower Sales Valley Girdle Pro. Included in the link is the 4.2 Essex V6 crank girdle, and the factory AU Falcon 5.6 crank girdle. It was cheaper for Ford to add those than up grade the Windsor or Essex block castings.
Eagle's early 430234005400 Ford 347 forged steel zero balance crankshaft.
His stock 1985 block engine makes 384 hp net at 6350 rpm engine with 339 lb-ft at 4800 rpm or thereabouts. So his options were zero balance 1500 hp capable non twist forged 3.4" stroke crank, then still in a stock block.
stroked to 347 in a 85 gt with a T5.
10.25:1 compression
AFR 185s
236/243 .603/.588 108 lsa cam
non ported Victor Jr. intake
quickfuel slayer 750 carb with 2” HVH super sucker carb spacer
MSD ignition and stuff
Originally Posted by john85gt
See http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...lywheel-to-get
Reply With Quote
and we’ll whoever reads this post. 
Connect With Us