Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I saw an ad for Speed Pro (Federal Mogul)pistons #H132CP made for a 392 (393) in the latest Car Craft. I was unable to find any info on these thru the FM website and called a few parts places with no results. Has anyone used these pistons or know where I could get more info on them? Oh yeah,there is a nice '65 Ranchero in the same mag.

_________________
'58 Morris Minor 289 S/S MM
'62 Falcon 351W "Just Falcon Around"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Just Jim on 4/19/02 9:20am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
Jim

Summit sells them for 37.39 apiece but no specs shown....they show back ordered



You could use these H273CP's

thses are about the cheapest pistons that you can find for a 393W combo....they are around 10.3-1 compression with 60 cc heads.

cost: 11.39 apiece
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks for the info. Nobody I checked with had any info on those H132CP pistons.I called Summit and the guy told me they didn't stock any number like that. Who is selling the H273CP fo $11.39?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
You know I said they would be 10.3-1 in a 393W with 60 cc heads. But now Im not so sure of the cc volume as Im finding conflicting info here. They have huge over sized valve reliefs that I "thought" were 15 cc. The 5.0 engine build that FM did says they are 8 cc. But going with the compression given for the application they are listed for...Im having to use about 12 cc to get the numbers to come out. Using 8 cc's you would have 11-1 compression in a 393W with 60 cc heads
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The old Federal Mogul catalog I have lists the H273 as having a -8CC head volume. In a 393,compression would be over 11to1 with 60cc heads. This is too high for a street motor and pump gas in my opinion. I guess I'll keep searching for a low cost piston. Keith Black KB364 has a 22cc dish and will give closer to 10to1 but I still am not happy with the huge ring gap for the KBs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,806 Posts
Once the pistons get to operating temperature, the ring gaps will be close. That is the reason for the wider top ring gap is because of the higher heat concentration on the top ring which makes it expand which closes up the gaps. Once up to temp, the gaps will be very small. 11:1 compression on pump gas with "0" deck and iron heads is totally do-able and I have run 12:1 on pump gas with 225PSI cranking compression and ran that way for 2 years with 0 problems and no detonation. I always run colder plugs, polish the combustion chambers, smooth all edges of chamber to deck surface, round all dome edges and valve reliefs, and bead blast the piston tops and skirts(tops to hold a tune better without deposits flaking off or sheets coming loose and skirts to hold more oil for longer wear and better lube of walls for less friction). Alum heads should let you run 1 more point higher compression and I always run at least 10:1 compression in everything on pump gas. Free power and just a little though about the tune and details will let you run 12:1 compression on pump gas without detonation or backing down the timing either. When I say pump gas, I mean 91 octane, not the hard to find and only in certain parts of the country 94 octane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
I wouldnt be afraid to run 11-1 with alu heads on 91 oct either. In fact that is the plan. With a healthy cam you need that compression anyways
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
So if I'm running aluminium heads and a cam with about 240* at .050 then the 11-1 compression from those cheap H273CP pistons will work?I might just give it a try. I still would like to know the specs of those H132CP pistons though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
I use the H273CP's and with 32 deg total timing I can run 91-93 octane with no ping.

I run aluminum heads and my cam is 230 @ .050 w/ a 106 lobe seperation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
Jim

I have to say yes to your question. Looking at 65mustang393's combo it is pretty much confirmed
I just wish that 3.85 crank would have been available in April 98 when I built the 351W we have now.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top