302/355 Stroker Motor!!!???

xkuntrycowboyx

xkuntrycowboyx

Member
Mar 31, 2005
281
0
17
Marion, Indiana
#1
Ok, so long story short a bought a Ford Windsor book, and it show detailed buildups in the last chapter.
A guy by the name of Jim Dralle built a 302 into a 355 stroker ... not 331, not 347 .... 3 5 5 and i BELIEVE only went 30 over at most or kept it stock bore.

The goal was 500rwhp N/A... it hit 490hp, but i can't find any follow up on how the motor held up later in its life...??

I'm really interested in this and was wondering if anyone here has ever discussed it. and also if anyone has any detailed info on such a build or who could make a kit. ..On the net i don't find much info on mr. dralle, and the book was based in 1999.

There was a spread on it in the ?October 1996 issue of Super Fords magazine that became 5.0 magazine... but i can't find the article anywhere for an archive.

I think this would be a sweet build, especially to try with EFI and make the goals 500hp streetable and reliable!?? ...It's actually my plan if i can find enough info on this, and make it fairly cost effective. I've always wanted to do something N/A and push all the parts to there effective/reliable max w.o. going power adder. I think this would be the build to do it. :rolleyes:

I would love some input from any of the rest of you, and if by chance you know someone to get in contact with!!... please let me know! btw, i found nothing about this in the searches here, ...has noone thought of more that 347 out of our 302s... 500 n/a based on a streetable 5.0 block... i think would be a NASTY SLEEPER! :shrug:
 

  • Sponsors (?)


#4
I agree. I wish I had gone with a 351 block too. The largest stroker kits for a 302 based engine that I've seen is 363ci. However, these stroker kits require you to use an aftermarket block that you can bore up to 200/1000s over. The farthest I would consider safe on a stock block is 30/1000s. Anybody know what the stroke is on that 355 kit? If it's 30/1000s over, then it's a 3.48" stroke, same as a stock Chevy 350. I think 3.48" of stroke on a stock deck height block is pushing the limits of stroke/rod ratio for a reliable street engine. Keep in mind, stroking an engine does not effect peak power much. It mainly just brings the peak power to a lower rpm for more streetability. I think the trade off in stroke/rod ratio for a very slight change in peak rpm isn't worth it. There is so little difference between the 355 and the 347, I hardly think it's worth the effort.

Kurt
 
#6
500 at the wheels, or 500 at the crank? of course 500 at the crank is closer to 400 at the wheels, which is something people have done with a 331.

in either case, making 500 hp NA streetable and reliable with a 302 based block is a very tall order, and i am of the opinion that it is not very realistic. and it is bound to be very expensive.

even with a 351 stroked to 408, it is easier, but still pretty expensive
 
#7
Ya, the stroke is 3.480". rods 5.500" center to center and 302 bored .030" over.

what exatcly are you talkin about when you say "3.48" of stroke on a stock deck height block is pushing the limits of stroke/rod ratio for a reliable street engine." ...stroke/rod ratio?? and what how would that effect the reliability? (these are honest questions, not smart a ?'s)
and also ... the plan was fair streetablity, 500hp N/a, and max rpms 6500.

rod ratio... my thought, is are you talking about how much of an agle the rod would make to the cylinder?
 
#8
Well, let's get back to basics. When you start boring and stroking a factory engine, there is obviously going to be a limit where your bore and stroke is going to start busting out of those factory dimensions of that engine. The rod/stroke ratio is one of thsoe factors. When you add stroke, the rod/stroke ratio decreases, which is bad m'kay. You have to look at it like a triangle. When the stroke goes perpendicular to piston motion, it's pull the rod sideways. This always pulls the piston sideways a little bit. The lower the stroke/rod ratio, the worse it gets. Most stroker kits increase the rod length in order to bring it back up. In order to lengthen the rod, you are going to have to raise the wrist pin up in the piston. Obviously there is going to be a limit to how far you can push wrist pin up into the piston. You can aleviate that by using a taller deck height block. In this engine, they have gone to a pretty long rod at 5.5" compared to a stock rod which is 5.09". The rod/stroke ratio is 1.58/1 compared to a factory 1.69/1. A 347 is also 1.58/1, but the rod end sits almost 2/10" lower in the bore. So in order to get the rod/stroke ratio in this engine the same as a 347 to aleviate piston wobble, they've pushed that rod 2/10" higher up the cylinder bore. That has to be reducing the thickness of the piston deck quite a bit. I think it's a stretch on a factory block. I think if you went to a Man 0' War block with a slightly higher deck height it would be fine.

Kurt
 
#10
BlackVert, sorry missed ur comment... in my orig post i noted RWHP was the goal.

"A guy by the name of Jim Dralle built a 302 into a 355 stroker ... not 331, not 347 .... 3 5 5 and i BELIEVE only went 30 over at most or kept it stock bore.

The goal was 500rwhp N/A... it hit 490hp, but i can't find any follow up on how the motor held up later in its life...??"

... thats why i put it up here. lookin for everyones opinions and thoughts on the matter.
of course i am looking for cheaper not more expensive... i do have a 351 block but it was already .030 over and i know they say .060 is a bit much on those blocks, them getting too thin strength and cooling wise. I've been told you can go .040 but i'd thing the parts would be a bit more expensive to accuire but haven't looked into it
 
#12
"The goal was 500rwhp N/A... it hit 490hp, but i.."

:scratch: Is it just me? Not trying to pick on you but still hella confusing. He hit 490HP or 490rwhp? ..and do you expect to hit 500rwhp with his combo that only hit 490HP?? :shrug: That is not making sense to me.... Secondly, you are building a bomb - you know that right?
 
#13
you'll have to read the link to the article, it's actually the pages from the book.... its all RWHP.
and btw thanks to Earleys94gt for finding and posting those links!

Pokageek, yes haha i understand that 490 is not 500 (i posed the question seeing if its poss or doable since 490 is so close)
It also mentions in the article that the carb was run straight out of the box.. no jetting or tuning work done on it...that would surely scavvenge near 10hp ???no
.... and no i didn't know it was a bomb, it's running at 10.5:1 compression. Motors have run upto 13:1 in race apps right? but again that's why i'm tryin to get lots of info, ie this thread and doing research elsewhere... and like i said it'd be nice to find out if this would be poss and practicle or not. i don't know enough about all this business i'm just trying to learn.
 
#14
sorry, i missed the "rwhp" in your original post.

i'm with pokageek on this one ... that 490 was probably on an engine dyno. *edit* i just saw your reply, so ignore this ...

*edit again* i re-read the article and it looks like an engine dyno, not a chassis dyno, so it is 490 at the crank, unless i missed something

look at stopsign32's combo. his is one the most powerful 302 based combo's i have seen at 450rwhp for a 331.

sure, you can probably do it with your 355, but that is pushing the limit pretty far.

500 NA at the wheels out of a 302 block is not going to be easy, reliable, or inexpensive

imo, starting with a 351, it will be alot easier to get to your goal and more reliable as well

start with a 351 and stroke the h-e-double-toothpicks out of it, put in a radical cam, and then you'll have a good chance to get close to your goal. just look at pokageek or low-50's combos. they are pretty radical, and they are at about 450 at the wheels. another 50 horses will need to be more radical than theirs are.

mine is .040 over, making it a 410 instead of a 408
 
#16
i guess then what kinda $$$ do you 347's have in them Total to get where you are?

...and AHHHH i just had a whole reply on and about rod ratios that i found on a stroker site.. let me know your thoughts on this guy.. i'm not retyping all i had so here's the quote

"Sonny Leonard stated that some of his larger drag race engines have a 1.34-rod ratio, but he likes to stay in the 1.43-1.52 range for his marine engines that require a lot of endurance. Lower rod ratios load the cylinder walls extremely hard requiring more frequent rebuilds."

still too much you think rev347?
 
#17
xkuntrycowboyx said:
you'll have to read the link to the article, it's actually the pages from the book.... its all RWHP.
and btw thanks to Earleys94gt for finding and posting those links!

Pokageek, yes haha i understand that 490 is not 500 (i posed the question seeing if its poss or doable since 490 is so close)
It also mentions in the article that the carb was run straight out of the box.. no jetting or tuning work done on it...that would surely scavvenge near 10hp ???no
.... and no i didn't know it was a bomb, it's running at 10.5:1 compression. Motors have run upto 13:1 in race apps right? but again that's why i'm tryin to get lots of info, ie this thread and doing research elsewhere... and like i said it'd be nice to find out if this would be poss and practicle or not. i don't know enough about all this business i'm just trying to learn.
Click to expand...

Ok. I understand. It's crank not rwhp. :) Again, to answer your question I would not go past 400rwhp on a stock block from everything I have heard and read since 05'. Yea sure people do it, are there examples? Yep. But you would be putting a lot of money in it if the thing breaks. For cost and insurance, you can't beat a 351 block.
 
#18
Several things I see here come to mind :)

490 at the crank is only about 417 to the wheels
so
For around 350 cubic inches ... that ain't all that radical

also

Like was said above .........
the diff between a 347 and that 355 ain't all that much

One thing great about a 347 is ........
everything still fits with no muss or fuss :nice:

I think around 400 rwhp from 347 cubic inches could be tuned to be stock
like or at least ... very close to stock like

I feel the extra 50 cubes would allow you to not have to go quite as
radical on the cam ... thus ... tuning for drivability would not be as much
of a challenge as with the smaller motor

Grady
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

slipkid269
Quality Build Books 302 Stroker
Replies
5
Views
730
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Noobz347
Noobz347
H
Drivetrain 4R70W clutch friction/metals/piston set up questions for transmission guru
Replies
0
Views
178
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Hizdudeness
H
8
355 probe stroker motor?
Replies
13
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
revhead347
revhead347
C
347 Holley Terminator X or stock ecu good enough
Replies
2
Views
3K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
mikestang63
mikestang63
J
Need Help: 95 Mustang GT Engine Rebuild
Replies
0
Views
1K
Other Auto Tech
jurban421
J
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu