stroker kits

salinas86

New Member
Jun 7, 2011
9
0
0
tri-cities
where is a good place to get a stroker kit,, i ve been lookin at dss and there not bad. summit dont anwser my questions.. lookin to do a 331 or a 347, my motor gave out after 1339 miles built buy a local shop, oil pump failed, took out the crank 3 rods and a e cam, all toast,
 
  • Sponsors (?)


Woody at Ford Strokers. I have not done business with him, but I've talked to him online and the dude has a good reputation. He also does a lot of business with a company that I did business with, which also has a good reputation, so I would not hesitate to buy from him.

fordstrokers.com
 
If you are looking for just a kit to build up your short block I'd take a look at DSS. If you are wanting a complete SB, then Fordstrokers has a great rep. They are building my engine for me right now, be prepared for a long wait though.
 
Just checked out D.S.S. Racing's prices. Wow...stroker kits have really come down in price. So much so, that I would question why anyone would bother freshening up a tired short block with rings and bearings. For a few hundred more you could be driving a stroker!!! :nice:
 
I've heard a lot of bad things about DSS lately. There's a guy on our local forum who just had one crap the rings out and it was fairly new. He sent pics of the carnage to them and they blamed his tune.
 
I've heard a lot of bad things about DSS lately. There's a guy on our local forum who just had one crap the rings out and it was fairly new. He sent pics of the carnage to them and they blamed his tune.

I'm talking about someone who builds their own. Buying a complete stroker kit to build and assemble yourself for under $1,000. That's golden. All of the components used are top notch.
 
I'm talking about someone who builds their own. Buying a complete stroker kit to build and assemble yourself for under $1,000. That's golden. All of the components used are top notch.

Just depends whos crank and rods are used in their "private labeled" components...this goes from any supplier not just DSS. I know most of what they all use and you run into some taper issues at times with the cranks, and rods that arn't exactly weight matched.

Just got to be prepared for some extra maching costs by going a little cheaper sometimes....but I agree the lower end assemblies (cast cranks) have come down and are cost effective, no sense to do a 306 anymore.

Just my educated $.02
 
Yeah it's pretty crazy you can get a 347 for $1200 now, when it used to be that Ford sold production 302 short blocks for that much (and probably still do). I'm sure there's a longevity debate to be had between those two, but the fun factor is no comparison.
 
Yeah it's pretty crazy you can get a 347 for $1200 now, when it used to be that Ford sold production 302 short blocks for that much (and probably still do). I'm sure there's a longevity debate to be had between those two, but the fun factor is no comparison.

Yeah, I'm still up in the air between the 331 and 347 myself. Seems any sort of talk on the subject just leads to arguement though. :D
 
Yeah, I'm still up in the air between the 331 and 347 myself. Seems any sort of talk on the subject just leads to arguement though. :D

The problem I've seen, is that the people who argue that a 331 has more longevity and/or durability have NOTHING but theories to back their opinion. I have yet to see any real side-by-side testing or experimentation that would suggest a 331 has any true advantages over a 347. They can argue about piston side loading and rod angularity until they're blue in the face, but there just isn't any proof to back it up. In the end, you're giving up 16 cubic inches for nothing but a spooky rumor that has yet to be really proven.

And then you have guys who throw caution to the wind and build 302 blocks with strokes of 3.45", 3.5" and beyond, and this stuff ends up being really badass. Of course, that's more race-specific stuff, but it makes ya wonder why others give up the extra cubic inches.
 
I think the problem with the issue....is that we haven't got any high mileage 347's running around to prove that there aren't any longevity problems with the rod ratio. So, as much as you say there's no proof of their being any longevity issues with the 347, there really isn't any proof to support the opposing argument either? :shrug:

IMO, the concerns are sound. Steeper rod angles will create more side load and as a result, increased wear. That is a fact, it's not a "theory", that's mechanical engineering, practical geometry and applied physics. The question is....will it be enough of a side load increase and enough wear to make a difference in the long run? That’s something that can be theorized, but can’t be proved, or disproved without long term testing. And nobody seems to have made it that far yet?
 
CHP is awesome place for them, i got mine for $1250, Cannot be happier. Just stay away from eagle and DSS.

My crank and rods are Eagle...they handled being launched and shifted at 7400rpm by the previous owner and running 1.25 60 foot times, and i personally have ran it to 8500RPM now. I can't say a single bad thing about Eagle products after that. DSS, i don't have any experience with them so i can't say.

As for the 331 vs. 347 debate, there's no replacement for displacement. If anyone is that concerned with longevity, then a stroker is not for them.
 
My crank and rods are Eagle...they handled being launched and shifted at 7400rpm by the previous owner and running 1.25 60 foot times, and i personally have ran it to 8500RPM now. I can't say a single bad thing about Eagle products after that. DSS, i don't have any experience with them so i can't say.

As for the 331 vs. 347 debate, there's no replacement for displacement. If anyone is that concerned with longevity, then a stroker is not for them.

well put :nice:

I would however make sure you put in an H-beam vs. a I-beam rod, ask me how I know
 
well put :nice:

I would however make sure you put in an H-beam vs. a I-beam rod, ask me how I know

Oh believe me, if/when the time for a rebuild comes, i plan on doing exactly that. I've been told the crank will support more power than the block can handle...but the rods are questionable. I do have ARP bolts everywhere so that's at least a little peace of mind, but running crazy RPM like that is not something i plan on doing...about 6500 is my personal safe limit. When i hit the 8500rpm a week or so ago it was one of those "didn't get out of it soon enough" moments. I lost years off my life lol.
 
As for the 331 vs. 347 debate, there's no replacement for displacement. If anyone is that concerned with longevity, then a stroker is not for them.

Now see....therein lies the exception. The 331 kits have been around for a dogs age. There seems to be plenty of documented, high mileage long term usage with the 3.25" stroke. It's jumping up to the 3.4" stoke that has yet to be proven long term.

Of course the added power and torque capability is there. But if it comes at a price where my engine needs to be redone again at 80K (or less under hard usage), I'm not so sure the extra juice is worth the squeeze, so to speak.
 
I think the problem with the issue....is that we haven't got any high mileage 347's running around to prove that there aren't any longevity problems with the rod ratio. So, as much as you say there's no proof of their being any longevity issues with the 347, there really isn't any proof to support the opposing argument either? :shrug:

IMO, the concerns are sound. Steeper rod angles will create more side load and as a result, increased wear. That is a fact, it's not a "theory", that's mechanical engineering, practical geometry and applied physics. The question is....will it be enough of a side load increase and enough wear to make a difference in the long run? That’s something that can be theorized, but can’t be proved, or disproved without long term testing. And nobody seems to have made it that far yet?

EXACTLY. I agree with everything you said. There hasn't been any testing. There isn't any true evidence.

And yes, the logic behind the side loading is sound. The thing is, why do some people believe that there is some magic line drawn between a 3.250" stroke and a 3.400" stroke? As if the 331 will last forever and the 347 will spontaneously combust at any given moment. There is less than 5% difference in displacement between the two engines. I'd laugh if there was a test done and it was determined that there was a 5% difference in longevity, and the 331 lasted 100,000 miles but the 347 only made it to 95,000. It's a completely moot point, because you know neither one is going to last as long as a 302/306 would. If someone wants to cry about longevity, then don't build a stroker to begin with. Buy a Honda.

The funny thing is, a lot of the people who build 331s will take them to the track and absolutely beat the car like a scalded dog. And they're concerned with reliability?

I dunno, that's my take on it. I'll take a definitive power advantage over a mythical reliability advantage every day of the week.