331 Stroker

Discussion in '1994 - 1995 Specific Tech' started by Holik95, Jun 18, 2006.

  1. :nice:
  2. "Rev both engines, all else being equal to 6800 or so. I will bet that the 347 betters the 331. I will also bet that the car with the 347 is faster on the track and on the street."

    No it actually won't be faster because the pistons and rods are wearing against the block and it causes too much friction causing the car to actually slow down at the 1/8th mile marker and get slower by the time it hits the quarter mile mark. If you ran it the full mile it would actually start to smoke at some point.

  3. I answered this in my first post...reread it.

    It is a general discussion...and we have our bias ones, and we have our non-bias ones....

    347 isn't the only way...
  4. 331's are not slow and whoever said that is BS. In every day life (not perfect combos and equivalent/good drivers), the fact that peoples combos are not perfect and driver differences, it ain't going to matter cause most people can't drive a car anyway.
  5. wow.....this thread got ugly in a hurry.
  6. Hey Green me and you baby are gonna settle this once and for all ,
    your 331 vs my 347. oh yeah baby pistons are gonna fly.:lol:
  7. yes sir. honestly though our combos are almost identical. you have a few more cubes and i have a blower that flows more. should be very close when all is said and done.
  8. I didn't think my statement was ugly if that's what you mean (not that you did). Saying 331's are slow is just :bs: so I called :bs: . Most people cannot drive like a professional driver so that's why I think that there is little difference in everyday life between a 331 and 347.(other than a 347 smoking at the end of the quarter because of rods pushing into the block! That was fact!):rlaugh: ............Just kidn!
  9. i wasnt referring to any one person when i made that comment, just that in general the replies in this thread seem to have gotten a bit hostile.
  10. To answer a question earlier in the thread my comp ratio will be about 10.3:1. And it will be dyno tuned.
  11. Yes, I agree with you. Kinda felt like we were on that other forum for a moment.:nonono: BTW, Congrats on your 2000 post Green!:nice:
  12. lol.....thanks.....:D
  13. If you think that the "rod ratio" of a 347 will equate to less HP than a 331 you best forget about the reply button on this or any other mustang board as you shouldn't be posting.
  14. Just so you know, an engine doesn't know the difference between track asphalt and street asphalt. It is amazing how much people say that...
  15. I know what you're saying... it's my fault, I didn't express myself clearly.

    When I think of a "street" engine, I want power NOW, immediately when I step on it. When I think of a "track" engine, I want that sucker to be able to rev as high as my valvetrain can handle and be geared appropriately to keep me in that high power band. While the engine doesn't know the difference, I think we'd all agree that a 306 that makes peak power at 8500 RPMs will not be an ideal application for street driving. Similarly, a 347 that makes peak power at 5700 RPMs will not be ideal for the track.

    Sooooo with what we have for options in this case, I feel that a 347 will net him the most power and the lowest ET. Unless you are using a power adder, the only displacement replacement is RPM. And because we know what he's using in the engine, it's safe to assume that his RPMs will be similarly limited.

    If you can't rev it higher, then why not get more stroke for free?

    Pokageek - Nobody said 331s are slow. I did say that it would be slower then a 347 given this case.


  16. "Originally Posted by Black95GTS
    Pokageek - Nobody said 331s are slow. I did say that it would be slower then a 347 given this case. "

    "Originally Posted by Black95GTS
    ...The only thing unique about the 331 is that it is uniquely slow."

    Have to call you out on that one..
  17. I can back up B&B's findings, I too have seen very little difference between a 331/347 with similar components, even the curves were very similar.

    I determine what would be best for the customer by the ultimate use of the car, auto or 5spd, weight, the future and as always budget.

    The 331 vs 347 thing has been argued about for years, you can build a 347 different to take advantage of the slightly lighter piston (when using a 5.4" rod) and small increase in stroke.
  18. I was going to point out that very same thing...

    KillerCanary - I'm quite sure that Pokageek didn't say a 331 was faster nor wanted to prove it...

    347 isn't the only way to do things...especially the ones that own the infamous 347's have to say "go big or go home"...lol. Can we get some unbias opinions, or bias opinions with good reasoning. Is it possible?
  19. You're taking it out of context. Compared to doing the 347 IN THIS CASE, the 331 is slower. That is the only unique thing about doing a 331 IN THIS CASE. I was attempting to illustrate that I think doing a 331 for the uniqueness of the build was silly when you are leaving power off the table.

    After looking through my responses I fail to see how anyone would believe I was contending that 331s are generally "slow." I further find it amazing that people think the "rod angle" of a 347 will significantly reduce engine power output to the point where it nullifies 16 cubic inches of displacement.

    To the original poster - sorry boss. From what you can gather on how the question got muddled up, this is indeed a heated discussion topic. I'd say you're looking at 305 RWHP and 325 RWTRQ from your 331. With the AFR 165s and an E-cam, you're going to have some pretty nasty low end stomp. Personally, I would consider retarding the e-cam several degrees to utilize the track heats higher RPM capability.

    I give up on this thread. If there is a moderator out there, please lock it down. We have gone from discussion to nit picking sentence structure, and its no longer beneficial.