Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ive spent a few days pouring over some part lists Ive created for a engine I want to build. Problem is though every time I check on something to get someones opinion on a new part that I think might be better I end up with hearing how something I had picked previously is not right and I have to create yet another list.

So this topic I want to ask simply the following combination I have currently picked out, is it a decent combination or is there something wrong with it? I orignally had larger heads picked out but was addressed towards how I had heads that were too big and it would actually hurt performance from slowing the air flow down.

Block : 302
Bore : 4.030"
Stroke : 3.25"
Rod Length : 5.40"
Piston : 5cc valve reliefs
Camshaft : 318*/320* Advertised Duration ; 251*/252* @ 0.050" Lift ; 0.528" Lift ; 107* LSA ; 102* ICL ; 3,000 - 7,000 RPM operating range

The heads are slightly different so the compression ratio is different also. The above is pretty much what I have settled on as being what I am going with for sure. The heads Ive came across are below.



Head #1 : Edelbrock E-CNC 185 ; 185cc/75cc I/E port volume ; 59cc chamber

I/E - 281cfm @ 0.500" lift/205cfm @ 0.500" lift
I/E - 146cfm @ 0.200" lift/119cfm @ 0.200" lift
I/E - 213cfm @ 0.300" lift/173cfm @ 0.300" lift

Static Compression ratio : 9.977:1
Dynamic Compression ratio : 8.101:1



Head #2 : Air Flow Research 1388 ; 185cc/68cc I/E port volume ; 58cc chamber

I/E - 285cfm @ 0.500" lift/210cfm @ 0.500" lift
I/E - 142cfm @ 0.200" lift/118cfm @ 0.200" lift
I/E - 200cfm @ 0.300" lift/164cfm @ 0.300" lift

Static Compression ratio : 10.097:1
Dynamic Compression ratio : 8.196:1



Head #3 : Air Flow Research 1381 ; 195cc/70cc I/E port volume ; 58cc chamber

I/E - 287cfm @ 0.500"lift/222cfm @ 0.500" lift
I/E - 152cfm @ 0.200" lift/126cfm @ 0.200" lift
I/E - 206cfm @ 0.300" lift/171cfm @ 0.300" lift

Static Compression ratio : 10.097:1
Dynamic Compression ratio : 8.196:1



I orignally was looking at the Edelbrock E-205 heads with 60cc chambers and 205cc intake port runners. I was advised that those were too big for a 332 cid stroker engine and that I would see better power figures throughout the rpm range with smaller port runners that has equal flow. So I found Head #1 which actually flowed more CFM at 0.500" lift than the larger E-205 heads. Then I was told that I should check out AFR that they have some nice heads. Thats when I found head # 2 and then later head #3. I keep leaning towards head #3 with the higher flow rate but not sure if 195cc intake port volume is too big for this engine and would actually cause the engine to stumble at lower rpm. The other issue I have is AFR`s website states Head #3 has the exhaust port raised 0.125" while Summit says the exhaust and intake ports are in the stock location. That would be the second check point that would cause me to void head #3 from my list.

I also listed the lift at 0.200" and 0.300" lift, mainly because from the reading Ive done on the subject over the past few years, this solid lifter cam would only be open at peak lift for a short period of time and that I should be looking at 1/2 lift flow numbers since the valves would be at half lift twice per intake cycle to the peak lift`s once per intake cycle. I couldnt get a flow number for mid lift for this cam seeing midlift is 0.264" so I looked at both 0.200" and 0.300" to get a general idea of how the curve might be heading.

On the compression I could probably go up some on it. Going from memory long as I keep dynamic compression below 8.50:1 I should be good for running pump gas. Now I cant remember if 8.50:1 dynamic is for cast iron or aluminum but I rather play on the cautious side till I know for sure.



So to the experianced stroker engine builders out there, which of the heads I have found so far would suit my needs best? I hate to go with heads that are too big and kill the bottom midrange on up to the upper high range. I also would hate to go with heads that are too small and have power down low but then kill the power up high and make the 3,000 - 7,000 operating range cam I picked out pointless.

The induction I havent desided on just yet. I have a few choices that Ive been looking at but have to deside on the head first to then see what would work best.

I ran the build with the E-CNC 185 heads on DD2000 just to get an idea (I find it to be fairly accurate long as the specs inputed is accurate) and it is "estimating" 459HP @ 7,000 and 412TRQ @ 5,000. I kind of figure it would be in the 400 HP range considering the high RPM range the cam operates at. The trq I am not too sure about. 412 ft lbs @ 5,000 RPM sounds to me kind of high for a 331 stroker. But these numbers are with a 700 CFM 4bbl carb and a dual plane intake. Single plane will boost the upper rpm range up more but as I said I havent desided on the induction system yet to used dual as a base line.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
Whats the primary purpose of the motor? Race only street strip, daily driver?


Ive spent a few days pouring over some part lists Ive created for a engine I want to build. Problem is though every time I check on something to get someones opinion on a new part that I think might be better I end up with hearing how something I had picked previously is not right and I have to create yet another list.

So this topic I want to ask simply the following combination I have currently picked out, is it a decent combination or is there something wrong with it? I orignally had larger heads picked out but was addressed towards how I had heads that were too big and it would actually hurt performance from slowing the air flow down.

Block : 302
Bore : 4.030"
Stroke : 3.25"
Rod Length : 5.40"
Piston : 5cc valve reliefs
Camshaft : 318*/320* Advertised Duration ; 251*/252* @ 0.050" Lift ; 0.528" Lift ; 107* LSA ; 102* ICL ; 3,000 - 7,000 RPM operating range

The heads are slightly different so the compression ratio is different also. The above is pretty much what I have settled on as being what I am going with for sure. The heads Ive came across are below.



Head #1 : Edelbrock E-CNC 185 ; 185cc/75cc I/E port volume ; 59cc chamber

I/E - 281cfm @ 0.500" lift/205cfm @ 0.500" lift
I/E - 146cfm @ 0.200" lift/119cfm @ 0.200" lift
I/E - 213cfm @ 0.300" lift/173cfm @ 0.300" lift

Static Compression ratio : 9.977:1
Dynamic Compression ratio : 8.101:1



Head #2 : Air Flow Research 1388 ; 185cc/68cc I/E port volume ; 58cc chamber

I/E - 285cfm @ 0.500" lift/210cfm @ 0.500" lift
I/E - 142cfm @ 0.200" lift/118cfm @ 0.200" lift
I/E - 200cfm @ 0.300" lift/164cfm @ 0.300" lift

Static Compression ratio : 10.097:1
Dynamic Compression ratio : 8.196:1



Head #3 : Air Flow Research 1381 ; 195cc/70cc I/E port volume ; 58cc chamber

I/E - 287cfm @ 0.500"lift/222cfm @ 0.500" lift
I/E - 152cfm @ 0.200" lift/126cfm @ 0.200" lift
I/E - 206cfm @ 0.300" lift/171cfm @ 0.300" lift

Static Compression ratio : 10.097:1
Dynamic Compression ratio : 8.196:1



I orignally was looking at the Edelbrock E-205 heads with 60cc chambers and 205cc intake port runners. I was advised that those were too big for a 332 cid stroker engine and that I would see better power figures throughout the rpm range with smaller port runners that has equal flow. So I found Head #1 which actually flowed more CFM at 0.500" lift than the larger E-205 heads. Then I was told that I should check out AFR that they have some nice heads. Thats when I found head # 2 and then later head #3. I keep leaning towards head #3 with the higher flow rate but not sure if 195cc intake port volume is too big for this engine and would actually cause the engine to stumble at lower rpm. The other issue I have is AFR`s website states Head #3 has the exhaust port raised 0.125" while Summit says the exhaust and intake ports are in the stock location. That would be the second check point that would cause me to void head #3 from my list.

I also listed the lift at 0.200" and 0.300" lift, mainly because from the reading Ive done on the subject over the past few years, this solid lifter cam would only be open at peak lift for a short period of time and that I should be looking at 1/2 lift flow numbers since the valves would be at half lift twice per intake cycle to the peak lift`s once per intake cycle. I couldnt get a flow number for mid lift for this cam seeing midlift is 0.264" so I looked at both 0.200" and 0.300" to get a general idea of how the curve might be heading.

On the compression I could probably go up some on it. Going from memory long as I keep dynamic compression below 8.50:1 I should be good for running pump gas. Now I cant remember if 8.50:1 dynamic is for cast iron or aluminum but I rather play on the cautious side till I know for sure.



So to the experianced stroker engine builders out there, which of the heads I have found so far would suit my needs best? I hate to go with heads that are too big and kill the bottom midrange on up to the upper high range. I also would hate to go with heads that are too small and have power down low but then kill the power up high and make the 3,000 - 7,000 operating range cam I picked out pointless.

The induction I havent desided on just yet. I have a few choices that Ive been looking at but have to deside on the head first to then see what would work best.

I ran the build with the E-CNC 185 heads on DD2000 just to get an idea (I find it to be fairly accurate long as the specs inputed is accurate) and it is "estimating" 459HP @ 7,000 and 412TRQ @ 5,000. I kind of figure it would be in the 400 HP range considering the high RPM range the cam operates at. The trq I am not too sure about. 412 ft lbs @ 5,000 RPM sounds to me kind of high for a 331 stroker. But these numbers are with a 700 CFM 4bbl carb and a dual plane intake. Single plane will boost the upper rpm range up more but as I said I havent desided on the induction system yet to used dual as a base line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The engine will be street/strip. Mostly used on the street but used on the track from time to time. The racing it would be used in would be road course racing, not drag racing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,479 Posts
First I have to wonder why you're asking for help and suggestions on the build plan but then go on to say you don't want "someones opinion". I could simply say "something is wrong with it" and move on but I won't. Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;)

Here's my take: The cam lift seems really small to me compared to the lift. I'm not a cam designer but my Comp Cam lift spec. is .555/.565 and it's got nowhere near that duration. I would think you could go bigger, especially at the RPM's you're planning on. Also, I'm running the AFR185's on my 347 that has -4cc reliefs and my compression is around 10.5:1 so I'm wondering what's different in yours?

For that engine to run at 7,000 RPM I'd suggest the Edlebrock Victor Jr. and a 750DP carb.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
So to the experienced stroker engine builders out there, which of the heads I have found so far would suit my needs best? I hate to go with heads that are too big and kill the bottom midrange on up to the upper high range. I also would hate to go with heads that are too small and have power down low but then kill the power up high and make the 3,000 - 7,000 operating range cam I picked out pointless.
Your cam is going to kill your low end power and street manners regardless of heads...very big cam for a street/strip 332 even if it is 1 ci bigger than a 331...what is that cam? Lemans cam or some old tech cam or a .330 lift rule cam?

Your going to have people pass out behind you as your cruising at 2000 rpm and spewing unburnt hydrocarbons. :(

You seem to have done a lot of research though. I would reconsider that cam and consider something smaller. You can get 7000 out of a 331 with a lot less cam. RRM range of a cam is just a guideline...it can be much different depending on all the other parts and how they work together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
First I have to wonder why you're asking for help and suggestions on the build plan but then go on to say you don't want "someones opinion". I could simply say "something is wrong with it" and move on but I won't. Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;)

Here's my take: The cam lift seems really small to me compared to the lift. I'm not a cam designer but my Comp Cam lift spec. is .555/.565 and it's got nowhere near that duration. I would think you could go bigger, especially at the RPM's you're planning on. Also, I'm running the AFR185's on my 347 that has -4cc reliefs and my compression is around 10.5:1 so I'm wondering what's different in yours?

For that engine to run at 7,000 RPM I'd suggest the Edlebrock Victor Jr. and a 750DP carb.

John
Its a combination of 5cc valve relief pistons with a headgasket that compressed thickness is 0.040". If I went with a thinner headgasket the compression would go up and probably be closer to your 10.5:1.

The induction I was looking at was from Inglese but I am awaiting their response to my tech question on how it exactly works. The headers are like Try-Y`s but they never merge into one single pipe. Sure I could have a local exhaust shop weld them up and merge them into one pipe and have one side pipe on each side. But I have to see how the EFI Webber setup they offer operates. My other option was to go with four downdraft IDF webber carbs. My final option was a more traditional idea of either a bare min 700 CFM 4bbl carb in a single plane manifold or three deuces. The induction system I just havent pinned down yet.

I know I could probably do better on the cam, but its a solid lifter cam, its a very close grind to the old Ford LeMan`s cam, and the vehicle this engine would go in would have a weight of under 3,000 lbs. I figured if a guy I know locally with a 302 putting 250hp to the rear wheels and was able to put down a 12.5 1/4 mile time out of the same vehicle I figured this cam shouldnt have a problem. I just have to figure out on the heads. How small is too small. I like the 195cc AFR heads I saw based off their flow numbers but I also like the 185cc AFR`s. I also like the CNC 185 from Edelbrock number wise. Then I start wondering ok if smaller runners increase velocity and causes better air/fuel mixture in the cylinders resulting in more power down low then what would be a nice size to have a nice blend of low rpm cylinder filling as well as high rpm cylinder filling. This is not exactly being built as a drag car so off the line acceleration is not as important. Acceleration as a whole is important though since this engine I am planning out will eventually find its way into a road course car I am planning out right now. Just about everything on this road course car is subject to change as its on the drawing board awaiting the day I feel confident enough that the list I created will not cause me a $1,500 or higher mistake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
Your cam is going to kill your low end power and street manners regardless of heads...very big cam for a street/strip 332 even if it is 1 ci bigger than a 331...what is that cam? Lemans cam or some old tech cam or a .330 lift rule cam?

Your going to have people pass out behind you as your cruising at 2000 rpm and spewing unburnt hydrocarbons. :(

You seem to have done a lot of research though. I would reconsider that cam and consider something smaller. You can get 7000 out of a 331 with a lot less cam. RRM range of a cam is just a guideline...it can be much different depending on all the other parts and how they work together.
Its a new cam being released by Howard`s. Its under their solid lifter OE Muscle series. Its very close to the specs of the LeMans cam.

I dont honestly think that much cam would hurt the performance of a light vehicle at low rpm.

Unless theres something I am missing?

This is why I ask the question is because a lot of topics result with pure speculation or opinion instead of factual information. If I am missing something I would like to know. I dont have a problem with changing my idea on the cam. I just had my sights set on this cam cause its close to the LeMan`s cam and I planned on making this 332 stroker look like a old mid 60`s 289 race engine. That cam would I figured make the engine sound and act the part. But if that cam in a car weighing between 2,000 - 2,500 lbs would be a bad choice for street use then I would like to know. I dont want to make a high dollar mistake.

More specs though as far as the drive line goes, I was looking at 3.27:1 rear end gears going through a TKO600 5spd transmission with the 0.87:1 OD gear. In first gear I figured up a final drive ratio of 9.38:1 at the rear wheels. 6.21:1 for second, as I think about this I dont think it would be flat faced on the street at lower RPM. Would the cam I had my sights set on cause a problem with this driveline setup acceleration/performance wise? I could always go up on the rear axle to 3.55`s but that would make 1st gear fairly useless in my opinion.

I am willing to listen to what others have to say. That was the whole reason I posted this here. I have more trust for information I receive here than from a truck message board or a yahoo group.



Sorry bout that I dont plan on changing my post but I misread your post. I didnt realize at the time when I posted this that you are talking bout people passing out from the unburned fuel. I thought you ment people passing me by as the car wouldnt accelerate. I dont know how that would work, the induction system I was looking at was from inglese and its a EFI, if its a self learning EFI as they claim I probably wouldnt have a high HC problem. With carbs I probably would though.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
you want low rpm tq and high rpm hp .
thats easy , build two engines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
you want low rpm tq and high rpm hp .
thats easy , build two engines
lol I dont exactly need low rpm trq. I just want good power for the bottom mid range on up to the upper high range. With the gearing and transmission I will be running low rpm trq would not be a huge deal. The engine would quickly rev up to the bottom mid range on up to the upper high range of the rpm spectrum.

The thing I am wanting is what size port runner I should be looking at that is small enough to provide high velocity air/fuel intake and improve lower rpm cylinder filling but also be big enough for upper rpm breathing. I dont want to go with say 170cc intake port volume heads that will help the cylinders fill up quickly at 2,000 - 4,500 rpm but then starve the engine of air/fuel at rpm`s above 5,000. But I also dont want to go with heads that would cause the engine to breathe great at 6,500 - 8,000 rpm but stumble and cant efficiently fill the cylinders at 3,000 - 6,000 rpm. I am trying to find a balance sacrafice some high rpm breathing to trade it for slightly better low rpm cylinder filling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
Several folks on this site and others have tried the Lemans cam and they quickly got fed up with it. You can do soooooo much better with a different cam. The Inglese individual runner setup will help idle quality and low end, but the Lemans cam is not the right choice. The cam may be new for Howards, but it's old for Ford. Newer cams are far superior. That is an old tech race cam with big duration and low lift, not a new tech street/strip cam. If your spending most of the time between 5000 and 7500, your good. Otherwise no good. There is no reason to go with a cam like that. It was designed for a completely different application, different heads, etc

Since you are spending bucks and doing a lot of research, do some more research on the cam and call some custom cam builders. You'll do far better. :tup:

Comps XE Solid Lobes would be a better choice for you. You wont find them in and Comp catalog except their Master Lobe Profile catalog (custom cam order). Go here to see it

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Catalogs/LC2007/2007LobeCatalog.pdf

I'd hate to see you go this route just to be disappointed in the end just like others before you. :(

Here is a reference point for you: The 331 in my car is an example of a 7000 rpm 331. Do you know that my intakes are 160cc and the 282S solid cam is [email protected]? Power peaks at 6500 and drops only 20 HP at 7000. Throttle response is very fast. Idle is very rough. The 282S was designed for ported Ford iron. Your cam should match your application.

What car do you have that weighs between 2000 and 2500 lbs?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,479 Posts
Speaking about car weight, don't be fooled by the manual or some Ford spec sheet. If you want to know, and I think it's an important one, is to take it down to a truck scale or even a recycler that has one and get it weighed. I took my car down and was surprised on how heavy it was. My old Ford specification book said something like 2,650 lbs as I recall. When I rebuilt the car a few years ago I weighed everything I took off and put back so I knew how much weight I had removed in total (aluminum radiator & heads, plastic fuel cell, etc.). I'm now thinking the car is like 2,500 even. Wrong, it weighed 3,050 lbs without me in it.

The spec sheets I'm told are cars that are stripped down models with not even fluids in them to get the weight down as low as possible. Seems strange but I know mine was waaay off so I can believe it.

It looks like most agree your cam is going to be your problem. If you really want some good help gather up everything you can think of like weight, gear ratio, tire size, trans specs and know exactly what your plans are for this engine. Then call Comp or who ever you decide to go with and ask their people. They'll either recommend one of their off-the-shelf cams or build you a custom grind.

You mention wanting the engine to look like and older version of a racing engine and that can still be accomplished without sacrificing power or driveabulity.

John
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
lol I dont exactly need low rpm trq. I just want good power for the bottom mid range on up to the upper high range. With the gearing and transmission I will be running low rpm trq would not be a huge deal. The engine would quickly rev up to the bottom mid range on up to the upper high range of the rpm spectrum.

The thing I am wanting is what size port runner I should be looking at that is small enough to provide high velocity air/fuel intake and improve lower rpm cylinder filling but also be big enough for upper rpm breathing. I dont want to go with say 170cc intake port volume heads that will help the cylinders fill up quickly at 2,000 - 4,500 rpm but then starve the engine of air/fuel at rpm`s above 5,000. But I also dont want to go with heads that would cause the engine to breathe great at 6,500 - 8,000 rpm but stumble and cant efficiently fill the cylinders at 3,000 - 6,000 rpm. I am trying to find a balance sacrafice some high rpm breathing to trade it for slightly better low rpm cylinder filling.
your still wanting it both ways .
what you gain at one end , lose at the other with a n/a engine
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,479 Posts
I can tell you that with the set-up I'm running I have more than enough power to spin the tires in 1st gear at any speed and RPM (so torque isn't a problem) and it pulls hard enough and fast enough that I have to short-shift into 2nd almost every time I get into it and it continues to spin the tires for as long as I keep into it. The cam was designed to make power up to 6,200 RPM and it'll pull hard past that if I let it. I do have a rev limiter in my ignition system along with a shift light so that helps alot.

My point is that you can have good "low end" power with top end as well if the entire car set-up is good. In my case a looser converter but with a manual trans and the right gears (and a lot more of them) you should be good to go if you choose the right camshaft.

John
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
I can tell you that with the set-up I'm running I have more than enough power to spin the tires in 1st gear at any speed and RPM (so torque isn't a problem) and it pulls hard enough and fast enough that I have to short-shift into 2nd almost every time I get into it and it continues to spin the tires for as long as I keep into it. The cam was designed to make power up to 6,200 RPM and it'll pull hard past that if I let it. I do have a rev limiter in my ignition system along with a shift light so that helps alot.

My point is that you can have good "low end" power with top end as well if the entire car set-up is good. In my case a looser converter but with a manual trans and the right gears (and a lot more of them) you should be good to go if you choose the right camshaft.

John
" entire car" . I call it the package .

op is dwelling on just one componant of the package
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,479 Posts
" entire car" . I call it the package .

op is dwelling on just one componant of the package
And there lies the problem. ;) As you said, it is a package and if every piece isn't complementing the others you'll be fighting issues all the way. My very first build was another SBF back in the early 80's on my '66 Fairlane (prior to the 428 that followed). I thought that just bolting on parts was the way to go. On the stock 289 I threw on an Edlebrock Torker (the old twisted carb design), a 600 CFM Holley, Accel dual point and headers. It ran okay but never like it would have with the correct manifold, smaller carb and most likely the original dist. Oh, and I should have swapped out the 2.80 gears long before for some 3.50's or whatever. Anything would have been better!

Then came the first build in the Falcon that I have now. I had the motor set-up pretty good but again had the wrong intake with a Weiand X-celerator. Not right for the cam choice I hade made and I was running a converter that wasn't loose enough for it either. The car wouldn't even spin the tires. I fought that thing for a couple years trying different carbs, dyno tuning and you name it. As soon as I swapped the intake I knew I was making some progress but once that converter was replaced with the one I have now it was like night and day. It ran waaaay better and would smoke the tires easily. :D

I learned alot on that project, listened to people I trusted and made lots of calls to the manufactures asking for advice. I didn't want to make the same mistakes and it paid off well. Keep an open mind and build it right the first time. The cost, and as important, the frustration makes it all worth while.

Enjoy and good luck!

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
On the compression I could probably go up some on it. Going from memory long as I keep dynamic compression below 8.50:1 I should be good for running pump gas. Now I cant remember if 8.50:1 dynamic is for cast iron or aluminum but I rather play on the cautious side till I know for sure.
Something else we haven't mentioned...your compression ratio is too low for that cam. 10.5 to 11.0 to 1 is probably the minimum recommended.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top