stroker kits
- Thread starter salinas86
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
well, i just looked for 331 and 347 high mileage motors, and found a bunch of back and forth arguing, and a few people claiming to have seen a 363 with 185k miles on it from a thread on corral in 2005.
The general opinion was that if you build either motor right, it will last. This is really a silly argument, sometimes people think a motor is burning oil and rebuild it, then the new motor goes in and its still using oil, only for them to find that the PCV system isnt working right, or the valve seals were junk. There are too many variables.
So the real question is, where are all of these high mileage 331's?
The general opinion was that if you build either motor right, it will last. This is really a silly argument, sometimes people think a motor is burning oil and rebuild it, then the new motor goes in and its still using oil, only for them to find that the PCV system isnt working right, or the valve seals were junk. There are too many variables.
So the real question is, where are all of these high mileage 331's?
You were right... that was a very good article. It is right in line with several discussions I've had with CP when they were putting together the plan for my custom pistons. See, most people get stuck on the rod:stroke ratio and side-loading when, at least to me, the most pertinent effect is the effect that increasing the stroke has on the compression height of the piston. This isn't a big deal with the n/a motors, but it's a huge deal with the very high powered boosted motors.90lxcoupe said:
No.. it was my memory that needed jogging. I didn't realize that this discussion happened 4 years ago.
http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/713445-331-347-stroker-2.html
I dug this old thread up while looking for it, too: http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/719569-302-stroker-information.html
I guess he liked the post I was thinking about.
I always wondered about long-rods vs. short rods... When I read this, I dismissed the necessity of long-rods in street motors:
http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/770961-so-you-think-long-rod-motors-way-go-huh.html
you guys go on on an on about no replacement for displacement , 331/ 347 strokers , why dont you just go with a 351W an call it a day , give lrs a call they will sent you a complete 351W short block for a grand , sounds like a better deal to me. sorry just my opinion 
id say the same thing , but considering the weight of a big block compared to a small block , you'd need stiffer springs in the front an everything else , id go with a 351 , knowing everything but the intake an headers will swap over from a 302 , but thats just me
- Dec 19, 2010
- 5,719
- 4,238
- 224
Has anyone here ever seen a 351w fit under a stock hood with efi? I've got one on a stand I'd love to use, But I don't want to lose my stock hood. I've got some dropped motor mounts, but still don't think that would do it.
I read a couple of guys did it over on the Corral. I don't know how they did it though.
its doable with the right intake, box intakes are a no, but i THINK the normal tfs-r works w/o a spacer, and if you have the right combo to need it, the carb-style super vic works. theres also k-member spacers now, not really too sure how well they work.
as to the 331/347 longevity thing, i would bet the biggest difference is the power potential difference. a 347 will make block splitting power a bit easier than a 331, add to it that the 347 is more "common" nowadays, and youll hear a lot more about broken 347's over 331's.
Haha, compression height and dished pistons in boosted applications is actually exactly what I was guessing you'd point out. I'd say it's a valid subject, but I think the thermal properties and considerations in piston design might be a little beyond my knowledge base.
I forgot all about those rod length discussions we had back in '08! That's back in the day.
you guys go on on an on about no replacement for displacement , 331/ 347 strokers , why dont you just go with a 351W an call it a day , give lrs a call they will sent you a complete 351W short block for a grand , sounds like a better deal to me. sorry just my opinion
Because a well built 347 is WAY better than a cast piston 351 any day of the week. 408 vs 347 is a no brainer, but the 347 vs 351 debate is a dead horse that's been beat over and over. The 351 block is stronger, but it's a moot point with those junk cast pistons. Also, not only is the weight of the 351 greater, but the 351's rotating assembly is heavier, making it (theoretically) slower to accelerate, all else equal.
There are a bunch of tricks to make it happen. Drop motor mounts, tubular K member, milled intake manifold, etc.
I think people just try and over complicate EVERYTHING. Realistically, how much is +/_ .100 gonna do for some mystical rod to stoke ratio? Just like the artical says, pick the stroke, pick a piston, and fit as big of a rod as you can. I think my motor is a good example of this, and it works well
you guys go on on an on about no replacement for displacement , 331/ 347 strokers , why dont you just go with a 351W an call it a day , give lrs a call they will sent you a complete 351W short block for a grand , sounds like a better deal to me. sorry just my opinion
Agreed, 408, 427, or a 466 small block all sound fantastic
Look up Novi357 on yellowbullet or corral. 8.80s, flat hood, 17'' drag radials. Its really not that hard with the right combination of parts
- Dec 19, 2010
- 5,719
- 4,238
- 224
Thanks, man. I actually just finished reading all of that over there after effing up and asking about it. Didn't search hard enough, apparently.
- Dec 19, 2010
- 5,719
- 4,238
- 224
from what I've read....
For the 351 under a stock hood-
1/2 inch k member spacer
vert motor mounts- drop mounts make pan interfere with p/s rack.
sn95 swaybar mounts to lower sway bar to clear pan.
shorter sway bar end links
lightning gt 40 intake manifold, or eddy super vic w/elbow.
For the 351 under a stock hood-
1/2 inch k member spacer
vert motor mounts- drop mounts make pan interfere with p/s rack.
sn95 swaybar mounts to lower sway bar to clear pan.
shorter sway bar end links
lightning gt 40 intake manifold, or eddy super vic w/elbow.
Similar threads
