I ran a hydraulic roller in my 347 with the 220 afr and went mid 10s. I switched to a solid roller for the 363 and went high 9s. My 347 needed a 850 carb with lower compression and a 950 for higher. My 363 is under carbureted with the 950. We found they definitely need a lot of carburetor
@@dennisrobinson8008 128 in the hydraulic roller and 136 in the solid roller. 3,025 with me in it. We just tried a 1250 dominator on it and we’re still tuning the dominator on the 363. Definitely a lot more power once we tune it
I personally never paid much attention to 5.0. It was just easy to find a 350 and 400 cranks so as a kid mostly stroked small block chevy or a old cheap big block and a little shot of juice. But honestly I am pretty impressed with the 347 numbers
Only reason to build a 8.2 deck (302) block is a 9.5 (351w) won't fit! Noone believes that a 306!! Those little motors will make power, but the deck 8.2" deck height makes you use short rods, the rod stroke ratio sucks!
@@markmccarty9793 , another reason for a 302 block is to keep weight as low as possible. Weight on the front axle is you enemy, no matter if you build a car for handling or drag traction.
@@westmus ran both of them! The Windsor pulled the tires higher! Ran both in the same car!! The car with 4:10s ran as fast with no gas as the 306 did on a 100 shot! Now, the 306 got alot more outta the 100 shot!! But the cheap cast piston Windsor was still half a second faster on the hundred shot!! Cast flat tappet 357w with ported 289 heads(pretty much the same heads) ran 6.50, the ran 7 flat with a hundred shot, (1/8 mile)! That 8.2 deck stock block will break ur heart I'd you go over 150 shot on it sooner or later! I'd simply don't think you should stroke a 8.2 stock block into a car if you're shooting over 150 on it! Build a stock stroke 9.5 block, and running it till you get tired of it!! In my opinion, and I did 3 times a week for 5 years, just get a 9.5 block, preferably a 95 roller! You can shoot 150 on it night after night!! Also, the Windsor with Victor Jr's on it ran 6 0's on 150 shot! It's just too easy and too cheap!! One motor, all season! Po boys hot rod!! My buddy had a solid roller 357 that ran almost that fast on motor, but the the shift light was set at 6900 rpm.
Hell yeah Rich! Always good to hear your thoughts and see the results. I'm building a nice little 302 at the moment and a stroker kit is definitely on the horizon. All the best from Downunda!
Hi Richard, I'm not sure of the point of the comparison when you change so many variables as well as the displacement. A dyno back to back of 302,306,331, 347 and 363 all with the same cam spec ,heads and intake would be interesting. You would need to change the carb for the bigger engines I guess. I still enjoyed the watch though. I have a 331 for my 68 falcon.
Richard, wouldn't it be interesting to compare a 347/3.4 stroker to a 347/3.25 big bore and see how each power curve compares with same heads, cam, intake and carb/EFI?
Finally, more Ford content! Still thinking on future upgrades to my 351C 2V. Is anyone offering a top end kit for these things now? Is there any significant horsepower to be made with the 2V open chamber heads? Would like around 400 horsepower with good torque for the street. Don't have the resources to go with a major build at this time. Most are telling me to go with aluminum heads. Which ones? Seems factory 4V closed chamber heads are hard to find now. Thanks!
The best top end kits are usually AFD or CHI (both Australian). They cost money though. You can get 400 with open chamber 2V stockers, but you'll need a good camshaft and headwork on the 2Vs. Both AFD and CHI make heads that range from 2V to 4V and even offer a heads in between. CHI makes a 3V head which is basically an "in between 2V/4V."
302C heads are all small chamber and are the head to use. 4Vs make good doorstops!! The 302 heads will give 10=1 plus and with a decent cam make good power. Still a Clevo though with its oiling and cooling issues. Use single groove retainers as those triple groove things fail! Factory pistons too while ok for a stock engine a re very suss once you turn it harder
@@ldnwholesale8552 4V heads rip dude. 2V open chambers aren't that great (had some). Aussie 2V closed chamber heads are pretty good, but for factory stock heads, the 4Vs are by far the best. It's been proven time and time again. A good buddy went from 2V closed chamber Aussie heads to 4Vs and it picked up throughout the entire power band. I also stated that the CHI heads were expensive.
Richard: Great video. I like the discussion on specific output. Apparently, the larger displacement engines cannot keep parody with smaller engine outputs because of the difficulty to fill the larger cylinders in the same amount of time without increasing cam specs and or cylinder flow. When does it become impossible to match the specific output of the smaller engine (seems like engine master folks, on average worked well at 400ci to balance specific output and friction/rotational forces). You stated the compression was increased as well to assist the out put, which is true, but isn’t that also a complimentary technique to fill in the power band as the cam specs favor the mid to higher rpm (using compression to bring up the low end)? Could you take this experiment a bit further by comparing through the same displacement progression/ specific power outputs, plus adjusting LSAs and Durations (after optimizing overlap for each combination) to widen the power band? Example: tighter LSA, less duration at a given overlap vs wider LSA, with more duration/ equal overlap? I suppose this would be the “right cam video” (or give the engine what it wants) v/r wh
Let's go back 60 years... Two motors with the same heads and cam grind making about the same hp but at slightly different rpms. The 4 1/8 x 4 1/4 452 with a 6" stock other GM brand 2" pin rod had a very short compression ht with 2 rings pistons or 3 ring with 2 through the pin The longer stroke gave more leverage than the 4" crank but it had a lot of side thrust and did not wear well. The 4x4 combo is well known. The 452 did give more torque but not as much as you would expect. The "fulie" heads limited hp on both motors. The 452 had very short dwell around TDC and really accelerated the piston quickly away from TDC and the valve had to start opening earlier in order to get the flow going as the piston was accelerating. The tradeoff was more overlap than the 400. Not hard to do the math to show crank angle where rod is perpendicular to the crank throw which is where max piston acceleration is (although intake velocity continues to accelerate even as piston is decelerating (inertia and all that) It's enough different (same rod different stroke) to make a difference. Now figure how much different a 3" or sub 3" stroke is with a long rod cheers challenges
@@richardholdener1727 Not directly about rod length. i got lost on 302 vs 400 which of course do take different cams I was not clear in that it is better to consider piston dwell rather than camshaft degree of overlap. Around TDC you can get away with more overlap in a short rod motor than in a rod motor. I used to start with crank angle of max piston velocity but now you can model the entire cycle. Getting the intake opening for max flow is tough on a traditional SBC or SBF (flat tappet) without opening too early. WE used to cheat with steeper angles and sink the valves. High ratio rockers help but roller cams have to work to be as quick as a flat tappet unless a small wheel inverse radius profile is used (Thanks to the GM indy car project) Long rod ratio just gives more crank degrees (especially important with modern chambers and hemis which need less overlap) . cheers
Richard im surprised the 302 didnt make more horsepower in one of your books it made the same horsepower with much smaller cam and valve float also surprised 363 didn't lose more torque down low with that intake and cam only problem wit building a 363 is you need aftermarket block gets expensive can you test newer renegade 165 and 185 someday
The little 302 was just a rebuilt block with stock E7TE heads/pistons/cam and then put a carb intake and distributor on. No surprise it didn't make 'big' power. With a camshaft it would've made more power, more like ~1.1hp/ci so up to around 330hp or so. Adding the AFR heads to give 400hp is a no brainer if you have the money but there's certainly no shame in using what you have.
And the supply issue is a huge drama, I looked at doing one last year but no 4 1/8 blocks available. Just as well as I read the rules for category and it must be a production block. The 363 though I feel would be a very good engine
Hey Rich! I watch many of your vids. I’m running a Vortech SC Ti and 363, Afr 195cnc. I’m looking to step up the Cam and go to a short travel lifter for more control and rpm. Can u recommend something through email if u knew the complete combo or do u have someone u recommend? Thanks
Hey Richard! Love the shows and content and information you provide. You’ve been making me a little jealous of your GLH stories, since I donated mine to the boys ranch years back- now I’m pretty sad about it. I wanted to ask, cause the information is so conflicting; I just bought a carb setup for my Ford 302, but got a 500cfm cause the calc said that was right size. The online stuff said too big a carb- 600cfm- would cause drive ability issues. This is a plow vehicle, and engine is stock…should I keep the 500cfm? Or, trade it back for 600cfm? I really don’t plan doing any building on this block, unless I need to rebuild it…what’s your point of view? Thanks and ache!!
Richard, great video! Thanks for all the info you share. I'm running a mid 80's 302 with an 89' mustang GT upper and lower intake and computer. I'd like to put in a better cam, but should the rockers and springs be replaced with the comp cams 274? Thanks from NY!
Great timing of this video... for me lol. I have been trying to find a good cam for my 363, but not go all the way to a solid lifter. You seem to be the guy to go to. Quick specs: AFR 185 cc heads (1492) 9.9:1 comp, 75 mm TB, ON3 turbo kit 78/75. (4R70W trans, 3:55 gears) Current cam 35-518-8, which on the dyno showed a peak power at a very low 5,100 rpm, which my guess is from the added displacement. What would be a good hydraulic can for a power peak closer to 6,500? TKS!
Just curious about the rpm intake and rpm air gap. Have you ever tested them back to back changing only the intake. And then with a 1 or 2 inch spacer. Have you ever tried to take the rpm cut out some of the center divider and compare that to the rpm air gap
I had a question for Richard or the Ford gurus. I have an 86 Bronco with 5.0 efi. Im swapping over to carb because its much easier to build a mild performance motor than with the old Speed Density setup. My wires are old, been patched along the years. The top end kits ive been looking into (edelbrock 360ish) horsepower are hovering about 2800. I figure i can also ad a Scat 347 Stroker kit. Which with the said combo. Should bring me to the 400 hp range while maintaining reliability. But im extremely nervous about all these failing lifters everyones talking about. My other option would be a 99 Explorer 5.0 to build. Which has a roller. But i have not seen roller top end kits. Which this lack of a kit would throw me into at least 1k-2k higher build cost for similar power. Any ideas on which route to go? Thank you!
But then once you get to having to buy a dart block..ummm idk. If I can't replace what I had for the bone yard. It's just not as munch fun if you have to worry about hurting it. I mean I know on a stock 454 a 400 shot of nitrous is enough to put your piston through the fender.smh
A big block will always make more power than a small block.. A Ford 4.6L Modular block can handle 1k+ hp, i'm gonna build one, never got into these Fox bodies, but i'm the type that thinks bigger is always better..
Hey, Richard. You mentioned upping the CR on the 347 and 363 combinations. For comparison's sake, what CR's did each combination have, and what octane rating did they require to limit detonation? I want to put TF 44cc heads with MHS Stage 1 or 2 cams on my NPI 4.6 and am concerned that 91 octane gas might detonate on hot days in the Rockies.
I'm wondering why you guys over there don't opt to use Cleveland heads , you'd never see anyone put Windsor heads on Cleveland - just saying 😊 The max flow figure isn't the be end all is it ? To how the power is made Still you found good power - more Ford's please
So you don't see it a advantage to use a bigger intake valve canted head on a 4" bore ? I'd like to see you get to test out a trackboss alloy block clevo some day
I have run CHI heads, stock 4V heads and others, I know what they do. You asked why more people don't run them in the US-I told you why. People aren't usually building max effort motors and can get what they want easier and at a lower cost with available Windsor stuff-BTW-I have built a 408 Clevor with CHI heads-it did well
Cool got it , it's always Max effort for N/A guys that's all we have lol Much like all the LS test you do trying all type of heads - same thoughts try better heads see what that does is all Can't see it being much dearer using clevo heads if your buying all new parts anyway - cheers
first i heard of it, but it would be interesting to know--probably cheaper to pick up a junkyard dist. i found a milk cartoon of 'em for free from a former demo derby guy clearing out his garage.
2 things: bearings and 100% crap stator. I think the stiffer body causes more stress on the bearings which you need HD units--varies per application. But msd puts the lowest quality stator in there: fails all the time. Even some rebuilt fomoco's use better stators. Got a Mallory polished dizzy like the MSD and developed bearing drag (aka shot) after 18months, ugh. If you rebuild the MSD with better bearings and a fomoco stator, they are more accurate & will be bulletproof.
Ya know... you hear everyone say.." don't do a 347 because they burn oil" 1000's have said that.. I personally know people that did the 347 and yes, they use oil badly.
Thanks. That’s a cool test but I’m also interested in seeing what happens when you swap a stroker crank with the same parts. Does it just lower the rpm with similar power? Is it more streetable? I’m going to rebuild the 351w in my ‘87 F250 4x4. I’m not looking to race it just have it be in a somewhat more useable rpm range with good power. Say 5800-6000 rpm max instead of trying to run it to 7000+. I’ve been eying the 4.17 stroke rotating assemblies.
@@P71ScrewHead the 4.17 stroke makes a 426 with a 4.030 bore. I have looked at the 4 inch stroke too. I’ll do one of those two. Thank you for the suggestion.
@@realazliving You're welcome.. n hey, I'm with you, if you can go bigger, go bigger.. I was gonna suggest 427W stroker kit but most always tell me that's a bit too much on a production block. 😆🤣
@@thetruthspeaker1978 you gotta turn the piss outta those little b!@ches! Ran a cast piston, Fred Flintstone cam, rpm heads in a Victor Jr intake and borrowed carburetor. 357 ci Windsor. A second faster than the 306! Took a 100 shot for the 306 to run that fast. We sold it to a guy to run street. Ran 7 flat 1/8 in it with 4.10 gears! Buy a 351w short block and don't look back!! Preferably a 95 roller! Cheap, dependable, pump gas combo!
@@thetruthspeaker1978 The block isn't strong enough for most of these builds! If ur gonna buy a Motorsports or Dart block might as well get a 9.5 block and build a 427! Now, 10 people will chime in to tell me you can go bigger, but that 4" stroke is already getting out there where your checking for rod clearance as the go by the side of the block! Back when people started stroking those Windsors they we're popping them too! It ain't gonna live long with 3 shots of gas! It's getting past the point where it's just fun and games!
Thanks for the FoMoCo content, Richard! For guys that don't have access to a dyno 👍
I ran a hydraulic roller in my 347 with the 220 afr and went mid 10s. I switched to a solid roller for the 363 and went high 9s. My 347 needed a 850 carb with lower compression and a 950 for higher. My 363 is under carbureted with the 950. We found they definitely need a lot of carburetor
What MPH in the hydraulic roller and solid roller and car weight? In any case your engine is no joke.
@@dennisrobinson8008 128 in the hydraulic roller and 136 in the solid roller. 3,025 with me in it. We just tried a 1250 dominator on it and we’re still tuning the dominator on the 363. Definitely a lot more power once we tune it
the little Winsor Ford seems to be never obsolete
Anything can be a hot rod motor if you have enough money too throw at it
Great video Richard, love the 8.2 deck Ford content.
I personally never paid much attention to 5.0. It was just easy to find a 350 and 400 cranks so as a kid mostly stroked small block chevy or a old cheap big block and a little shot of juice. But honestly I am pretty impressed with the 347 numbers
Only reason to build a 8.2 deck (302) block is a 9.5 (351w) won't fit! Noone believes that a 306!! Those little motors will make power, but the deck 8.2" deck height makes you use short rods, the rod stroke ratio sucks!
@@markmccarty9793 , another reason for a 302 block is to keep weight as low as possible. Weight on the front axle is you enemy, no matter if you build a car for handling or drag traction.
@@westmus ran both of them! The Windsor pulled the tires higher! Ran both in the same car!! The car with 4:10s ran as fast with no gas as the 306 did on a 100 shot! Now, the 306 got alot more outta the 100 shot!! But the cheap cast piston Windsor was still half a second faster on the hundred shot!! Cast flat tappet 357w with ported 289 heads(pretty much the same heads) ran 6.50, the ran 7 flat with a hundred shot, (1/8 mile)! That 8.2 deck stock block will break ur heart I'd you go over 150 shot on it sooner or later! I'd simply don't think you should stroke a 8.2 stock block into a car if you're shooting over 150 on it! Build a stock stroke 9.5 block, and running it till you get tired of it!! In my opinion, and I did 3 times a week for 5 years, just get a 9.5 block, preferably a 95 roller! You can shoot 150 on it night after night!! Also, the Windsor with Victor Jr's on it ran 6 0's on 150 shot! It's just too easy and too cheap!! One motor, all season! Po boys hot rod!! My buddy had a solid roller 357 that ran almost that fast on motor, but the the shift light was set at 6900 rpm.
Hell yeah Rich! Always good to hear your thoughts and see the results. I'm building a nice little 302 at the moment and a stroker kit is definitely on the horizon. All the best from Downunda!
A nice 302 don't have a stroker kit.....then it's not a 302 anymore.
Hi Richard, I'm not sure of the point of the comparison when you change so many variables as well as the displacement. A dyno back to back of 302,306,331, 347 and 363 all with the same cam spec ,heads and intake would be interesting. You would need to change the carb for the bigger engines I guess. I still enjoyed the watch though. I have a 331 for my 68 falcon.
see the 302 vs 347 video for the same components, but using the same stock components limits the bigger motor
That's a really cool Dyno for the 306 it was going straight vtech at 5,000
Richard, wouldn't it be interesting to compare a 347/3.4 stroker to a 347/3.25 big bore and see how each power curve compares with same heads, cam, intake and carb/EFI?
they would be the same
Finally, more Ford content! Still thinking on future upgrades to my 351C 2V. Is anyone offering a top end kit for these things now? Is there any significant horsepower to be made with the 2V open chamber heads? Would like around 400 horsepower with good torque for the street. Don't have the resources to go with a major build at this time. Most are telling me to go with aluminum heads. Which ones? Seems factory 4V closed chamber heads are hard to find now. Thanks!
The best top end kits are usually AFD or CHI (both Australian). They cost money though. You can get 400 with open chamber 2V stockers, but you'll need a good camshaft and headwork on the 2Vs. Both AFD and CHI make heads that range from 2V to 4V and even offer a heads in between. CHI makes a 3V head which is basically an "in between 2V/4V."
302C heads are all small chamber and are the head to use. 4Vs make good doorstops!! The 302 heads will give 10=1 plus and with a decent cam make good power. Still a Clevo though with its oiling and cooling issues. Use single groove retainers as those triple groove things fail! Factory pistons too while ok for a stock engine a re very suss once you turn it harder
@@johnhickman106 CHI 3Vs are the go,, very good but quite expensive. More power from them than any other.
@@ldnwholesale8552 4V heads rip dude. 2V open chambers aren't that great (had some). Aussie 2V closed chamber heads are pretty good, but for factory stock heads, the 4Vs are by far the best. It's been proven time and time again. A good buddy went from 2V closed chamber Aussie heads to 4Vs and it picked up throughout the entire power band. I also stated that the CHI heads were expensive.
@@johnhickman106 thanks!
That’s awesome!! Thanks mr Holdener !
Richard: Great video. I like the discussion on specific output. Apparently, the larger displacement engines cannot keep parody with smaller engine outputs because of the difficulty to fill the larger cylinders in the same amount of time without increasing cam specs and or cylinder flow. When does it become impossible to match the specific output of the smaller engine (seems like engine master folks, on average worked well at 400ci to balance specific output and friction/rotational forces). You stated the compression was increased as well to assist the out put, which is true, but isn’t that also a complimentary technique to fill in the power band as the cam specs favor the mid to higher rpm (using compression to bring up the low end)? Could you take this experiment a bit further by comparing through the same displacement progression/ specific power outputs, plus adjusting LSAs and Durations (after optimizing overlap for each combination) to widen the power band? Example: tighter LSA, less duration at a given overlap vs wider LSA, with more duration/ equal overlap? I suppose this would be the “right cam video” (or give the engine what it wants) v/r wh
Great job!
Thank you for sbf content
Should do a toyota 5.7L dyno and build series too
Let's go back 60 years... Two motors with the same heads and cam grind making about the same hp but at slightly different rpms. The 4 1/8 x 4 1/4 452 with a 6" stock other GM brand 2" pin rod had a very short compression ht with 2 rings pistons or 3 ring with 2 through the pin
The longer stroke gave more leverage than the 4" crank but it had a lot of side thrust and did not wear well.
The 4x4 combo is well known. The 452 did give more torque but not as much as you would expect.
The "fulie" heads limited hp on both motors.
The 452 had very short dwell around TDC and really accelerated the piston quickly away from TDC and the valve had to start opening earlier in order to get the flow going as the piston was accelerating. The tradeoff was more overlap than the 400. Not hard to do the math to show crank angle where rod is perpendicular to the crank throw which is where max piston acceleration is (although intake velocity continues to accelerate even as piston is decelerating (inertia and all that) It's enough different (same rod different stroke) to make a difference.
Now figure how much different a 3" or sub 3" stroke is with a long rod
cheers
challenges
I don't understand your point here-is this about rod length somehow?
@@richardholdener1727 Not directly about rod length. i got lost on 302 vs 400 which of course do take different cams I was not clear in that it is better to consider piston dwell rather than camshaft degree of overlap. Around TDC you can get away with more overlap in a short rod motor than in a rod motor. I used to start with crank angle of max piston velocity but now you can model the entire cycle. Getting the intake opening for max flow is tough on a traditional SBC or SBF (flat tappet) without opening too early. WE used to cheat with steeper angles and sink the valves. High ratio rockers help but roller cams have to work to be as quick as a flat tappet unless a small wheel inverse radius profile is used (Thanks to the GM indy car project)
Long rod ratio just gives more crank degrees (especially important with modern chambers and hemis which need less overlap) .
cheers
Richard im surprised the 302 didnt make more horsepower in one of your books it made the same horsepower with much smaller cam and valve float also surprised 363 didn't lose more torque down low with that intake and cam only problem wit building a 363 is you need aftermarket block gets expensive can you test newer renegade 165 and 185 someday
The little 302 was just a rebuilt block with stock E7TE heads/pistons/cam and then put a carb intake and distributor on. No surprise it didn't make 'big' power. With a camshaft it would've made more power, more like ~1.1hp/ci so up to around 330hp or so. Adding the AFR heads to give 400hp is a no brainer if you have the money but there's certainly no shame in using what you have.
And the supply issue is a huge drama, I looked at doing one last year but no 4 1/8 blocks available. Just as well as I read the rules for category and it must be a production block.
The 363 though I feel would be a very good engine
Nice numbers from the builds. Anything on Ford 352?
Hey Rich! I watch many of your vids. I’m running a Vortech SC Ti and 363, Afr 195cnc. I’m looking to step up the Cam and go to a short travel lifter for more control and rpm. Can u recommend something through email if u knew the complete combo or do u have someone u recommend? Thanks
what cam do you have
Hey Richard! Love the shows and content and information you provide. You’ve been making me a little jealous of your GLH stories, since I donated mine to the boys ranch years back- now I’m pretty sad about it. I wanted to ask, cause the information is so conflicting; I just bought a carb setup for my Ford 302, but got a 500cfm cause the calc said that was right size. The online stuff said too big a carb- 600cfm- would cause drive ability issues. This is a plow vehicle, and engine is stock…should I keep the 500cfm? Or, trade it back for 600cfm? I really don’t plan doing any building on this block, unless I need to rebuild it…what’s your point of view? Thanks and ache!!
that carb is fine for a stock motor
Richard, great video! Thanks for all the info you share.
I'm running a mid 80's 302 with an 89' mustang GT upper and lower intake and computer. I'd like to put in a better cam, but should the rockers and springs be replaced with the comp cams 274?
Thanks from NY!
YES ON SPRINGS
Great timing of this video... for me lol. I have been trying to find a good cam for my 363, but not go all the way to a solid lifter. You seem to be the guy to go to. Quick specs: AFR 185 cc heads (1492) 9.9:1 comp, 75 mm TB, ON3 turbo kit 78/75. (4R70W trans, 3:55 gears)
Current cam 35-518-8, which on the dyno showed a peak power at a very low 5,100 rpm, which my guess is from the added displacement. What would be a good hydraulic can for a power peak closer to 6,500? TKS!
comp xfi236
@@richardholdener1727 Thanks Richard!
I wish you would do another test with some Anderson cams.. be badass
👍
anyone recommend an oil for a 302 bored 30 over to 306? previous owner was using mobile high mileage 10w40
Just curious about the rpm intake and rpm air gap. Have you ever tested them back to back changing only the intake. And then with a 1 or 2 inch spacer. Have you ever tried to take the rpm cut out some of the center divider and compare that to the rpm air gap
I had a question for Richard or the Ford gurus.
I have an 86 Bronco with 5.0 efi. Im swapping over to carb because its much easier to build a mild performance motor than with the old Speed Density setup.
My wires are old, been patched along the years. The top end kits ive been looking into (edelbrock 360ish) horsepower are hovering about 2800.
I figure i can also ad a Scat 347 Stroker kit. Which with the said combo. Should bring me to the 400 hp range while maintaining reliability.
But im extremely nervous about all these failing lifters everyones talking about.
My other option would be a 99 Explorer 5.0 to build. Which has a roller. But i have not seen roller top end kits. Which this lack of a kit would throw me into at least 1k-2k higher build cost for similar power.
Any ideas on which route to go?
Thank you!
get an explorer motor from the yard, add a cam-reuse the lifters, add AFR Enforcer heads and dual plane
bro, why you still doing 720p videos. everything does 4k60 now days
But then once you get to having to buy a dart block..ummm idk. If I can't replace what I had for the bone yard. It's just not as munch fun if you have to worry about hurting it. I mean I know on a stock 454 a 400 shot of nitrous is enough to put your piston through the fender.smh
A big block will always make more power than a small block.. A Ford 4.6L Modular block can handle 1k+ hp, i'm gonna build one, never got into these Fox bodies, but i'm the type that thinks bigger is always better..
Hey, Richard. You mentioned upping the CR on the 347 and 363 combinations. For comparison's sake, what CR's did each combination have, and what octane rating did they require to limit detonation?
I want to put TF 44cc heads with MHS Stage 1 or 2 cams on my NPI 4.6 and am concerned that 91 octane gas might detonate on hot days in the Rockies.
we ran 91 on all
I'm wondering why you guys over there don't opt to use Cleveland heads , you'd never see anyone put Windsor heads on Cleveland - just saying 😊
The max flow figure isn't the be end all is it ? To how the power is made
Still you found good power - more Ford's please
more mods necessary and limited intakes and Windsor heads flow as much or more
So you don't see it a advantage to use a bigger intake valve canted head on a 4" bore ?
I'd like to see you get to test out a trackboss alloy block clevo some day
I have run CHI heads, stock 4V heads and others, I know what they do. You asked why more people don't run them in the US-I told you why. People aren't usually building max effort motors and can get what they want easier and at a lower cost with available Windsor stuff-BTW-I have built a 408 Clevor with CHI heads-it did well
Cool got it , it's always Max effort for N/A guys that's all we have lol
Much like all the LS test you do trying all type of heads - same thoughts try better heads see what that does is all
Can't see it being much dearer using clevo heads if your buying all new parts anyway - cheers
Give me a stock 302 and a two stage 300hp shot of nitrous. Minimal investment and maximum Street ability. I ran this set up for years
300 hp on a 225-hp motor?
Why do i keep hearing that the fomoco distributor is better, has less issues and is more reliable, than the msd distributor?
first i heard of it, but it would be interesting to know--probably cheaper to pick up a junkyard dist. i found a milk cartoon of 'em for free from a former demo derby guy clearing out his garage.
2 things: bearings and 100% crap stator. I think the stiffer body causes more stress on the bearings which you need HD units--varies per application. But msd puts the lowest quality stator in there: fails all the time. Even some rebuilt fomoco's use better stators. Got a Mallory polished dizzy like the MSD and developed bearing drag (aka shot) after 18months, ugh.
If you rebuild the MSD with better bearings and a fomoco stator, they are more accurate & will be bulletproof.
I have yet to have an MSD distributor fail on us
Did they ever fix the oil problem on the 347's?
oil problem?
Modern 347s don't have oil consumption issues as the wrist pin isn't in the oil scraper ringland.
I've got one of those so called oiling issue pistons old srp from yr 2000 still running 21 yrs later not one drop of oil consumed yet
Ya know... you hear everyone say.." don't do a 347 because they burn oil" 1000's have said that.. I personally know people that did the 347 and yes, they use oil badly.
@@alltherpm good to know.☕️👊🏻
Stck 302ci: 258hp 328trq
HCI 306ci: 399hp 370trq
HCI 347ci 482hp 423trq
HCI 363ci: 566hp 484trq
Why anyone would not go biggest possible, i'll never understand..lol
Money towards turbo 😊
@@JAGMotorworks That's a good reason, still the extra cubes means extra power.. I'm trying to build my 4.6L 2v to near 400rwhp, then boost..
Which do you prefer Richard , Trick Flow or AFR ?
both work well
@@richardholdener1727 okay thanks 😊
Have you run any of the afr enforcer sbf heads yet?
I believe he has an upload from five months ago with the enforcer heads, it comes up when you search
not yet
Thanks. That’s a cool test but I’m also interested in seeing what happens when you swap a stroker crank with the same parts. Does it just lower the rpm with similar power? Is it more streetable? I’m going to rebuild the 351w in my ‘87 F250 4x4. I’m not looking to race it just have it be in a somewhat more useable rpm range with good power. Say 5800-6000 rpm max instead of trying to run it to 7000+. I’ve been eying the 4.17 stroke rotating assemblies.
Go 408ciW if you're going to build it, especially if you're going stroker kit, the extra torque will make you happy..
please see the 302 vs 347 same parts video
@@P71ScrewHead the 4.17 stroke makes a 426 with a 4.030 bore. I have looked at the 4 inch stroke too. I’ll do one of those two. Thank you for the suggestion.
@@richardholdener1727 thanks. You have so many videos. I’ll check it out. I bet it’s great like all of them.
@@realazliving You're welcome.. n hey, I'm with you, if you can go bigger, go bigger.. I was gonna suggest 427W stroker kit but most always tell me that's a bit too much on a production block. 😆🤣
what was the cam specs on the 363?
supplied in the video
@@richardholdener1727 lol dont know how I missed that!
That hollow cam pin is disgusting
Ford power... is that a thing?
Best way to make 5.0 furd powerful is to get rid of all the furd in it.
The Cheby 5.0 can't compete with the Ford 5.0..
@@P71ScrewHead actually the chevy 302 spanked the furd 30poo bad enough they had to redesign it.
@@HioSSilver1999 Well Cheby always uses more displacement to beat Ford so their 302 was actually a 305ci, cheaters..lol
@@P71ScrewHead just because furd can't package a engine don't blame it on chevy.....400sbc/427ls ftw
@@HioSSilver1999 Ford can work with smaller engines n still outperform.. We don't complain..
Let's take the same cam, rpm intake, heads and carb on 357w. 10 to 1 compression?!!
It would be interesting to see vs the 347 and 363. Off the Dyno performance IMO would differ from on the Dyno due to weight... I think anyway 😉😂👍
@@thetruthspeaker1978 you gotta turn the piss outta those little b!@ches! Ran a cast piston, Fred Flintstone cam, rpm heads in a Victor Jr intake and borrowed carburetor. 357 ci Windsor. A second faster than the 306! Took a 100 shot for the 306 to run that fast. We sold it to a guy to run street. Ran 7 flat 1/8 in it with 4.10 gears! Buy a 351w short block and don't look back!! Preferably a 95 roller! Cheap, dependable, pump gas combo!
@@thetruthspeaker1978 The block isn't strong enough for most of these builds! If ur gonna buy a Motorsports or Dart block might as well get a 9.5 block and build a 427! Now, 10 people will chime in to tell me you can go bigger, but that 4" stroke is already getting out there where your checking for rod clearance as the go by the side of the block! Back when people started stroking those Windsors they we're popping them too! It ain't gonna live long with 3 shots of gas! It's getting past the point where it's just fun and games!
@@markmccarty9793 You use a lot of exclamation points.
@@johnhickman106 yep. I find it's like pulling a gun out when someone is stealing ur stuff! It gets their attention!