351 efi buildup

[Pirate]

And it only took you 4 hours to read all of that up from the ford motorsport Catalog?
Nice.
Am I fucking with you? You are the bitch who started this fight, not me, but I will be glad to end it. Meet me somewhere, and I will be glad to "discuss" this in person.

I never said that the 1993 lightning, nor did I say that any of the 1993-1995 lightnings had roller cams...the blocks are merely set up for them.
GT40P engines? Available in 1996, sorry.
Long Rod engines? Sorry, you are still the idiot here. The reason nobody does articles on long rod engines is why? Nobody makes money on them, so why work with them? The key to remember with long rods is that you can increase compression with them...by a full point with the 351W setup. Do your math again.
If you call me a BS artist about long rods, you call Smokey Yunick a BS artist...and I am a bit more inclined to believe Smokey over a internet loser such as yourself.
You apparently don't mind glossing over the errant information you spew out here, but apparently have plenty of free time to make the incredibly vain attempt to punch holes in my work...get your own shit straight, WITHOUT RESORTING TO CATALOG INFO, and maybe we will talk.

If you haven't done it, apparently it cannot happen, is what you are trying to say, right?

I humbly await your nest catalog-filled response...

[Mercracer]

You are quite the piece of work.
Not that I wouldn't enjoy "discussing" things with you in person, but I am sure that you just don't realize what you are suggesting.

Static compression ratio is a function of chamber volume vs swept volume. The long rod doesn't effect anything unless you started out with a piston down in the hole at TDC, and the longer rod brought it up to zero deck height or above. This is not the case with most motors. You start out with a nearly flush piston. One static compression point does not equal 70HP either.


Jealous because I can back up my information with technical documentation?
If you want to digress to magazine articles, Hot Rod did both a SBC and BBC build with long and short rods with no earth shattering difference in torque curves. There was some difference, but not a huge amount.

You don't have to apologize for not having the correct details on Explorer 302 production. You merely need to find one of us who do, or go out and find the information yourself first hand.
You can also check out a Ford Master Parts fiche or ask your local Ford parts counter. F67E is the part number of the 1996-early 1997 Explorer GT-40 head. The Master Parts even calls it out by engine tag number.
The camshaft is identical for the 1994+ 302 and 351W (non-Lightning) truck motors including the Explorer. There was no 1993 roller cam factory 351W, therefore no F3TZ roller cam block. The factory part numbers jump from F1TZ to F4TZ for the 351W blocks.

[Grand Marquis GT]

You know, you two arguing is making one hell of a technical article! :haha:

Ive learned a lot listening to you two..

[grandpaslincoln]

Gentleman, you are forgetting that the rotator splint is the number 1 power producer among 351 engines today. AND, don't forget the zigglezorp can increase net horsepower by at LEAST 400-500%

Plus, adding a 1BBL Zenith Updraft carburator is a welcome addition to any high horsepower engine.

[Mercracer]

If you can read this, roll me back over

[Pirate]

You are quite the piece of work.
Not that I wouldn't enjoy "discussing" things with you in person, but I am sure that you just don't realize what you are suggesting.

Static compression ratio is a function of chamber volume vs swept volume. The long rod doesn't effect anything unless you started out with a piston down in the hole at TDC, and the longer rod brought it up to zero deck height or above. This is not the case with most motors. You start out with a nearly flush piston. One static compression point does not equal 70HP either.


Jealous because I can back up my information with technical documentation?
If you want to digress to magazine articles, Hot Rod did both a SBC and BBC build with long and short rods with no earth shattering difference in torque curves. There was some difference, but not a huge amount.

You don't have to apologize for not having the correct details on Explorer 302 production. You merely need to find one of us who do, or go out and find the information yourself first hand.
You can also check out a Ford Master Parts fiche or ask your local Ford parts counter. F67E is the part number of the 1996-early 1997 Explorer GT-40 head. The Master Parts even calls it out by engine tag number.
The camshaft is identical for the 1994+ 302 and 351W (non-Lightning) truck motors including the Explorer. There was no 1993 roller cam factory 351W, therefore no F3TZ roller cam block. The factory part numbers jump from F1TZ to F4TZ for the 351W blocks.

Sigh....
Please Get Chevys off of the brain for a moment. After you just made that idiotic statement about how long rods barely increase power, and are now convinced that long rods do jack and shit for any engines, and jack just left town, let me explain a few things to you, my charming little Chevy Oriented, inexperienced grad student.
First of all, since it appears that other than a giant list of part numbers sitting in front of you, these books, HotRod magazine, and your friendly little machine shop cannot lie, I notice you have not bothered to research what I might be talking about, as you have firmly convinced yourself it is bunk.
The long rod setup for a 351W is unique, Moron. Take your standard length 351W rod, at 5.95 inches long (check yor books to verify, it should be close). The rod-to-stroke ratio is around 1.70. You get this number by dividing the rod-length by crank stroke, but that's right, you already knew that. Now, Add a 351M/400 connecting rod, at 6.58" in length. You get a KB piston (I believe part number KB 171 for a 1972-up 9.503 deck 351W block)...but I don't have a catalog parked in front of me), you narrow the big end of the rod to fit the 351W crank rod journals, and you now have around a 1.89 rod ratio or so. Small chevys and large chevys suck major butt, as they have hideous rod ratios, with the 400 chevy only coming in at around a dismal 1.45 or so. The longest rod, taking in piston pin to deck clearance on the chevy is already pretty tight, you can really only fit in about a 6" rod with a 383, or a 6.2 rod with using a 350 crank in a 400 block(Gee, HotRod built the same engine, a longrod 6.2 [300 ford I6 rods] rod 350 chevy with 1.94 AFR heads and an almost stock late-1980's camaro grind cam (215 duration at .050), they got 412 hp/435 ft/lbs TQ, with 390 ft/lbs available from 2500-5400 rpm), but I guess you didn't see that article)...and then the ring lands are well into the piston pin area. The 351W, with its half-mile long pin to deck depth, allows for some serious stroke, OR, a lot longer connectiong rod, in this case, the 400 ford rod. If you notice, I did not mention a 460, a 302, 351C, 390, 300 I6 (which by the way, has some pretty long rods already), or any other Ford motor, I focused entirely on the 351W, because that engine is where you can get the most dramatic increase in power, at no expense of driveability, like you would with a bigger cam. I have built two longrod 351W engines in vehicles that are able to run 87 octane fuel with 11:1 compression, with a conservative timing curve, 92 octane allows a normal HP curve(with aluminum heads, 10.5:1 is max with cast iron and 92 octane, and a fairly decent timing curve). One of these engines was previously rebuilt and dynoed at 361hp/388 ft/lbs...but he wanted more power, this engine being in a factory five Cobra kit car. The cobra engine had AFR 185 heads, but a mild cam, a TFS stage I, with a 1994 roller cam block. I talked him into doing the longrod setup instead of a stroker, as most stroker 393 owners I have worked with have had severe mileage complaints, and I didn't think he needed more low end grunt with such a light car. Engine assembled, he took it back to a local dyno location... within two runs, this engine was making 436 hp, 448 ft/lbs with just about 400 ft/lbs available at 2000 rpm.....with a stage I cam, weiand stealth, AFR 185 heads(street heads with 58 cc chambers), and a demon 650. I am thinking of building another for a Mustang I own....this engine mimics other 351W's built by other shops and companies...but the problem is, is that the 351W long rod motors make it impossible for machine shops and Mustang Magazine engine companies to sell their 351W stroker kits. There are only a couple of companies that do anything with Long Rods, (Other than Wayne's engines), and they do unneccessary machine work to get more money.....the long rod stuff is too cheap for them to sell. Why? Because with Longrods:
1. There is less need for cams of large duration; guys who run these engines can run smaller cams, they tear less valvetrain equipment up, the shops therefore have less work to make $$$ on.
2. They need less of an intake manifold...needing less cam...goes along with #1
3. Pistons have reduced side loading....the rod angle at 90 degrees of crank duration is diminished ( a major problem with 347 strokers)..once again, business, because the pistons last longer, too

Your loser machine shop buddies would not know too much about this, that is why they are loser machine shop buddies, and not building engines for Jeff Gordon....


Now, how did that one engine make another 70 HP, with me not touching it?
Well, you might think about the less side loading, pulling rotational energy away....since you now have a flat-top piston instead of a dish, better flame front....more compression...the engine that was dynoed went from around 10:1 to 11:1 (the block was decked originally, so zero deck height with both pistons...the bore was fine, so the bore was not changed....lighter piston, maybe? I am not going to go further into the advantages of long rod motors, you will have to do that research.
I also know that Longrod motors are not for everyone. In NHRA pro Stock, rod length is pretty much a who-cares quantity, as they are pretty much just there to connect the pistons to the crank...rod ratio is not a factor....Nascar? Yes, it is still a factor there....but not as great, in that class, an few extra HP is what is provided...But why I suggested this to begin with, is because this 351W this guy is proposing to build is a STREET engine, with limited cam duration and a small intake manifold...perfect for a 351W long rod motor. He can get away with more compression on pump gas, making the car more peppy during crusing...wow, this was that difficult for you to swallow, wasn't it?
But no, I m just an internet jockey, pay me no mind. Why in the hell would I waste my time typing this stuff out, making this shit up....to stoke my ego? No, I could just stay at my mustang website, have my ego stoked there, and not be bothered with losers who can't handle the thought of someone else having an idea that might not saavy with his "original" Chevy-induced thinking.
I came here because I was invited to, not because I found this site at random, and thought I should try to impress all of you with my whiz-bang knowledge....and one of the first guys I encounter here is one who has a serious attitude problem.
Let me give you a quick lesson on proper debate etiquette: If you have a disagreement with something that a fellow says, let him finish, ask him to provide a explanation for his statement, maybe asking for some details....but Nooooooo, we ride in with guns blazing, making yourself look like the absolute self-absorbed fucking chevy wannabe owner/idiot that you are. I left the Chevy camp 10 years ago, because of self-absorbed assholes like you, who think they are God's gift to hotrodding because they might have taken a class or two at a local community college to learn how to work on a car, or learned to operate a piece of machinery in a machine shop with a "machine engineering" two year degree. I grew up on dragstrips up and down the west coast, working in the pits from about age 10 to 20 with my father, as he match-raced various top fuel funny cars in search of a sponsorship....I have only about 50% of my hearing left due to standing next to zoomie headers with no ear protection on, a broken hand due to a KB block falling on it, and have seen more of america tha most others will see in a lifetime...and I will be damned if I will take shit from some snaught-nosed little fucking punk who thinks he knows his way around a fucking textbook. NewsFlash, loser....I am also college educated, with a transfer degree in Pyschology, I am almost finished with my BA, and I am moving on to a PhD eventually...you sir, are unmarried, or if you are married, you are controlling, and quite possibly abusive to her, as you apparently don't like any threats to your knowledge base. I have seen hundreds of idiots just like you go down in flames at track after track, losers who thought they knew it all, too....get used to your sad lifestyle, as you will never go beyond it, you don't have the open mindset neccessary to ascend beyond your current socioeconomic status, if you might aspire to become more of a racer that you (laugh) already are....

You have just been owned. Please reply, it only buries you further....I have shot you down in round after round, as you try to shunt attention away from your own shortcomings...you can't do anything unless you have books sitting in front of you....and I have yet to pick one up today for reference...please entertain me some more.

[Mercracer]

So......you are saying that you can tune an engine?
Basic scientific method dude.............
Cause and effect...........
361HP on a Windsor with AFR 185's and a TFS Stage 1 cam is nothing to brag about. Both Keith Kraft and Kuntz are getting over 350HP out of their Factory Stock 302's which have a factory roller cam and unported GT-40 heads. I am turning 12.50's in my Capri with a 302 and a Stage 1 cam with untouched GT-40P heads.
436/448 is respectable. Sounds like you did a decent job on that motor.
You did not however, just change rod ratio with everything else being equal and get 70 more HP.
Take a pill and relax dude.......this isn't life and death stuff. No reason for all of the hostility. No reason for personal attacks either. We don't know each other personally, so let's not make it personal.
I addressed your claim of 70HP direct by pointing out that you changed more than just the rod ratio.

[Pirate]

So......you are saying that you can tune an engine?
Basic scientific method dude.............
Cause and effect...........
361HP on a Windsor with AFR 185's and a TFS Stage 1 cam is nothing to brag about. Both Keith Kraft and Kuntz are getting over 350HP out of their Factory Stock 302's which have a factory roller cam and unported GT-40 heads. I am turning 12.50's in my Capri with a 302 and a Stage 1 cam with untouched GT-40P heads.
436/448 is respectable. Sounds like you did a decent job on that motor.
You did not however, just change rod ratio with everything else being equal and get 70 more HP.
Take a pill and relax dude.......this isn't life and death stuff. No reason for all of the hostility. No reason for personal attacks either. We don't know each other personally, so let's not make it personal.
I addressed your claim of 70HP direct by pointing out that you changed more than just the rod ratio.

Take a pill and relax? I don't fucking think so. Personal attacks? You started it, I am going to finish it, whatever it takes. Just because someone may have a different idea of what may make a few hp, that DID apparently threaten you enough to respond in the way you did. Trying to change your tone to one of syrup and honey in an effort to regain whatever credibility you have lost? Nice try.

The 361HP number? That was with accessories attached(p/S, water pump, and Alt), and stock pullies...the second test was the same, all accessories attached. I touched nothing else with the engine, other than balancing, new rods, and new pistons. Everything else was reused. I had nothing to do with the first dyno test, but the same company handled both the first and second tests. They were a little surprised, also.
Additionally, as I said, the compression was also increased by one full point, a benefit of using the longer rods....this number has been backed up by other engine builders who have built long rod 351W engines (waynesengines out of cali, for one, they are where I get my rods from). The other long rod engine I built? He is running 11.00's(best time an 11.01....with a 5-speed) in a 1986 GT running drag radials.

You know, as you ramble off 1/4 mile times, and personal accomplishments to try to bolster your personal attack on me and my ideas, I really begin to wonder if it is worth trying to ever give anyone any advice....I mean, I am pretty much a noob here, and hey, whaddya know, you are too, and I usually have enough respect for site owners (CVN being excluded from that group, of course), that I don't just ride in and attack the first guy that I think is stupid.,,,,But hey, everybody's respect for site owners differs from person to pserson....maybe this is a fault of your upbringing?

[Grand Marquis GT]

Shut up. Please.

[Pirate]

Shut up. Please.

Yes, sir, all finished.

[Grand Marquis GT]

This is good info.

Esp considering im looking for the best set of heads for my app. Ill prob spring for the GT40s.

[Fatsvert]

POOF

Deleted?
LMAO.. Guess accurate tech isn't wanted around here, so I'll leave you noobs in your ignorance.


Peace :slug:

[Grand Marquis GT]

Who are you? :confused:

[Ifixyawata]

Yay! Just like CVN!

[Grand Marquis GT]

Ok folks, move along, nothing to see here