Project: fuel injected 347 stroker

[88stroker]

Need a little help with this one , I want to build a 347 stroker and fuel inject it . I've got a 97 GT-40 package explorer motor , with "P" heads. whats next ? I plan on re building the entire block and heads from ground up , dumping an agressive lunati cam in it and 10.5 pop ups probably punched .30 - .60 over . I am using 1.60 and 2.02 valves , and a trick flow plenum and intake with cold air and 75-90 mm mass air , fuel to be delivered by high volume fuel pump and 30 + psi injectors .Looking for 400 + hp and to keep it streetable. Looking for feedback on this build any is appreciated .

 

[Tanus]

gonna need better heads

 

[Mr. Rustypwnz]

go .030 over dont go more, it will get hot often.. also dont put some garbage p heads on that shortblock, that intake either.

 

[5.0Droptop]

If you want 400 hp to the wheels I agree you will need better heads. Id go with trick flo heads.

 

[blackened88lx]

400 to the wheels or crank?

 

[clement]

instead of having a dyno number as a goal, why not have an ET goal?

if you are stuck using those heads, go ahead and call camshaft innovations and get him to do a cam for you.

Jay spun his stock shortblock to 7500 rpm with OOTB iron gt40s. it went 11.teens at 119mph like that. thats 3750 feet per minute piston speed. a 3.40 stroke will make 3750 at 6618 rpm. put your rev limiter at 6600 and the stock block will live. shift it at 6500, put a probe rotating assembly in it with an internal balance 4340 3.40" stroke crank. have it machined, balanced and assembled by someone who knows what they are doing, put a GOOD balancer and flywheel on it and youll be set.

when people talk about "you cant run that stroke with those heads" they usually dont know what they are talking about. what they should be saying is those heads wont support that piston speed. but piston speed is dependent on stroke and rpm. so if you dont give them and rpm number how the hell are they going to tell you its "too much" stroke?

and fwiw, Jays motor only made a little over 300rwhp at around 3000lbs to run those low 11s at close to 120mph. its about the combination. give camshaft innovations a call. he will tell you what intake to run and what you need to do to make this setup work with what you have. but it probably will require more than summit junk.

 

[90lxcoupe]

instead of having a dyno number as a goal, why not have an ET goal?

More people should follow this advice, to me dyno's are so inconsistent, i could care less the number that the computer spits out, its a tuning device first and foremost.

when people talk about "you cant run that stroke with those heads" they usually dont know what they are talking about. what they should be saying is those heads wont support that piston speed. but piston speed is dependent on stroke and rpm. so if you dont give them and rpm number how the hell are they going to tell you its "too much" stroke?

nobody said he cant run those heads but they would be a definite bottleneck with the availability of good cylinder heads that can be scored for pretty cheap. I would say if he assembles the motor with the GT40 head, somewhere down the line he will be replacing the heads for some good aluminum ones, just dosent make sense to spend the money twice

 

[clement]

More people should follow this advice, to me dyno's are so inconsistent, i could care less the number that the computer spits out, its a tuning device first and foremost.



nobody said he cant run those heads but they would be a definite bottleneck with the availability of good cylinder heads that can be scored for pretty cheap. I would say if he assembles the motor with the GT40 head, somewhere down the line he will be replacing the heads for some good aluminum ones, just dosent make sense to spend the money twice

what i am saying is that most people have this myth of what can or cant be done based on no experience with no results.

what i am saying is that if he is looking to have a low 11 second at close to120mph car those heads will support it up to the piston speed i stated with the correct corresponding parts. so would he be better off with a better head if he only wants to run low 12s?

i think it would be wasted money that he could spend elsewhere on the project. if he has plans to run faster than low 11s later then sure a better head would be preferred. but since he is going to be running on the edge of a stock block he is going to need a lot more than a second set of heads later.

so why shouldnt he just go ahead and build a $5000 shortblock with a set of $3000 heads on it now? he may want to run faster later so it makes sense, right?

if he's got the long block, and his goal is anywhere north of low 11s on motor his heads and block will work. will he have to spend a lot more money later to step up, sure.

but for right now he can spend the money he saves running his block and heads for other stuff he is going to NEED to get the car to run. a set of heads alone doesnt make a fast car. a combination makes a fast car.

so i maintain that he would be better off using what he has for parts and spending what he would on better heads to optimize the combination, as long as he isnt expecting it to get into the 10s on motor.

 

[Tanus]

and fwiw, Jays motor only made a little over 300rwhp at around 3000lbs to run those low 11s at close to 120mph. its about the combination. give camshaft innovations a call. he will tell you what intake to run and what you need to do to make this setup work with what you have. but it probably will require more than summit junk.

<- Im calling it

 

[clement]

<- Im calling it

OK. because that makes it any less true. looks like i was mistaken though, the car weighs 160lbs more than i thought. maybe some people should try to learn rather than saying something is impossible simply because they cant do it.

Camshaft Innovations - RED Death

and heres the update...

Provided by: Jay Allen - Project Red Death (NOW)

01. Block

Displacement: 302
CR:
02. Heads

Brand: Ford
Model: GT40
Ported?: valve job and converted to stud mount only
03. Camshaft (If the camshaft is custom, NOT providing this information is understandable, and NOT expected)

Brand: Camshaft Innovations
Grind Number/Model: EXPERIMENTAL
Int./Exh. Duration @.050": 227?/252?
Int./Exh. Lift: .563"/.547" with a 1.60 rocker
Lobe Separation Angle: 114?
Intake Centerline: 112.5?
04. Induction

Carbureted/EFI: EFI
Intake: Holley lower - Hurricane upper
Carb/Injector Size: 24 lbs.
Throttle Body Size: 90mm
05. Tuner: OEM ECM + FMS Extender + Timing Locked @38?
06. Exhaust

Style: BBK 1 5/8" header
Diameter: 2.5"
Catted: no
"X" or "H": straight
Mufflers: Flowmaster
07. Power Adder: NO
08. Transmission

Manual/Auto: Manual
Model:
Plate/Clutch:
Converter Stall:
09. Gears

Style: 8.8
Ratio: 4.56
Differential Style:
10. Rear Suspension Setup;
11. Front Suspension Setup:
12. Tires: 26 x 10 MT ET
13. Car Weight: 3160 w/Jay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Slip:

60ft: 1.47
300ft:
⅛ ET: 7.09
⅛ MPH: 97.7
? ET: 11.19
? MPH: 119.63
Dyno Data:

FWHP:
FWTQ:
RWHP: 305
RWTQ: 317

 

[Tanus]

I'll say the same thing you said-"OK. because that makes it any less true"

 

[clement]

funny you say that, yet give no other explanation. let alone explanation discussing target port velocity, port cross section, valve timing, ignition timing, accelleration, piston speed or any other tech that pertains to why a combination might be faster than others with the same basic hardware. im guessing you prefer to "call BS" when the tech is over your head. would that be a correct statement?

if not please elaborate on why this is BS.

 

[Tanus]

there is no point in arguing, I'll simply say that I dont think its possible for a 3160lbs car with 300rwhp to trap close to 120mph. It is possible to do it with the combo of parts that he has, but one of these specs is a lie IMO; 300rwhp or 3160lbs or 120mph trap speed.

 

[clement]

there is no point in arguing, I'll simply say that I dont think its possible for a 3160lbs car with 300rwhp to trap close to 120mph. It is possible to do it with the combo of parts that he has, but one of these specs is a lie IMO; 300rwhp or 3160lbs or 120mph trap speed.

the car owner has worked for the Glidden family, TFS, Canfield and even for Ronnie Crawford way back in the day. maybe, just maybe, his experience might outweigh your opinion that is obviously ill informed.

stop racing dynos and listen more. the combination has practically been given away. if you are so adamant about Jay's combination not being true, maybe you could put your money where your mouth is and call him with a wager big enough to make it worth his effort; since you are so sure of yourself.

heres some more info for you to chew on:

how does an engine accelerate faster without putting down more power? and how it might pertain to this combination.....

let me quote the car owner:


"Intake manifold design
Cylinder head design & wetflow (don't race the flowbech)
Controlling the valve with stable valve train vs using junk for a big dyno number
Cam timing being right vs reverse split stupidity
Engine timing
If you want to play with a chassis dyno, the clutch."

 

[Tanus]

haha, so your suggesting I call this dude up and challenge him to a race? haha

I dont care about dyno #'s, HP is more accuratly calculated by the relationship between weight and trap speed, which puts this car at about 415rwhp.

ET Calculator

ps- are you in love with this guy or something?

 

[clement]

i see. an internet calculator of RWHP.

appearantly your reading comprehension is as lacking as your technical knowledge. im suggesting you put your money where your mouth is. but that is probably too much to ask.
i put up a combo using a similar head that is well known. im sticking to topic genius.

and if you want to calculate hp, a more accurate calculation is.....

(.00426 x mph)^3 x weight = fwhp

so at 3160 Im coming up with 411 flywheel hp. but im sure you are right since you have added so much good tech to this thread.

 

[Tanus]

so at 3160 Im coming up with 411 flywheel hp. but im sure you are right since you have added so much good tech to this thread.

so you agree that the 300rwhp is BS cause 411fwhp is @ 350rwhp

"put my money where my mouth is" what are you suggesting I bet on?

do you even have a mustang? or do you just ride other peoples coat tails?

 

[tannerc91gt]

i think we've found the 5.0 version of gearbanger101

 

[FoxGT87]

i think we've found the 5.0 version of gearbanger101

Doh!

 

[tannerc91gt]

Doh!

i actually dont mind brian though