Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 20, 2017, 01:23:02 am

Login with username, password and session length
Team Z Motorsports
Tech Section
* SBFTECH Membership Required *
434110 Posts in 37143 Topics by 9479 Members
Latest Member: joerberg
Search: Advanced search
Advertiser Inquiries
+ SBFTECH.com Experienced Small Block Ford Tech
|-+ Grass Roots Tech
| |-+ Grass Roots Small Block Windsor
| | |-+ 351W Game Plan
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: 351W Game Plan  (Read 1713 times)
servo765
SBFTechie
6 Banger
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


Location: Jax, FL

« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2017, 10:37:08 am »

I have little technical advice to offer, but I was in your shoes recently when I waded into a 347 build with no previous experience.

My advice:  pick a builder who you trust, build some credibility with them by ordering your heads, and then let them recommend parts for you.  Odds are that person has a library of a dozen 351 combos they have built so far this year to draw upon.

Worked great for me, and the advice i was given was worth not having to sift through internet theorycrafting.  There will be a time for that once you start building.

my two cents.
Logged

here to learn
I.C.E
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610

Location: New Orleans, la

« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2017, 03:14:40 pm »

To build this engine is going to cost money no matter how many corners you cut. In the end the difference in cost will be marginal, and performance will be something like this (not my combo):

351w roller .040 over
e street heads 1.90
b303 cam
edlebrock rpm air gap intake
670 street avenger
bbk shorty headers
T5 with 3.73 rear gears.
made 307hp 346ft tq at the rear wheels.

Will you be happy with that?
Logged

I.C.E - I.nternal C.ombustion E.ngine

1995 GT    ... work in progress ...
| Factory 302 SB | 195 Canfields | RPM2 Intake | CI Cam | Probe Shafts 1.6 | 80mm PMAS | 39# Inj | Tweecer R/T | Mac LTs 1 3/4 | Pro chamber 3" | Mac Cat-back 3" |
z-adamson
#1 fucktard
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1725

Location: OREGON

« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2017, 04:17:53 pm »




While the standard RPM fits all the criteria of this, it ultimately gives up top end power to the Air-Gap. And while you want the low/mid range power, I seriously doubt that you want to just give up top end power.

The only advantage that the standard RPM might have is on cold startup. The design of the intake will get heat into it quicker, promoting fuel vaporization. Meaning, the cold idle will settle out a little quicker. After the engine is up to temperature, the intake design is just pumping extra heat into the incoming charge. This could also make heat soaking the carb more likely during warmer weather or extended cruising.

I picked up about 3.5 mpg when dumping the air gap.

Just throwing that out there.

Might not matter with 2000 miles per year, but at 20,000 per year, it makes a big difference.
Logged
juiced coupe
Six figures worth of don't give a f*ck
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8195


Location: Pascagoula, MS
The land mass between New Orleans and Mobile


« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2017, 06:31:10 pm »

I picked up about 3.5 mpg when dumping the air gap.

Just throwing that out there.

Might not matter with 2000 miles per year, but at 20,000 per year, it makes a big difference.

You switched to a Action Plus/Street Warrior intake, which is similar to a base Performer intake. I'm sure that it works well in a heavy vehicle with a low rpm engine. That intake would likely cost him 30+ hp, maybe even more.

I fully believe you mpg findings, with a heavy van. But there are tons a differences between a heavy work van and a lightweight street cruiser, especially with him having a manual transmission. Even with the intake differences, I doubt his mpg would change nearly that much.
Logged

Doing more with less, or something like that.
http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,20009.0.html

Quote from: Monte Smith
Bottom line, if it was the hot ticket, the fast guys would do it.............they don't

You might need some Titanium rods and a flow bench!  LMAO on floor

I honestly don't get it.

I'm sweating, my heart is racing, my clutch foot is twichin', and my right arm punched the computer screen doing an involentary 2-3 shift while reading all that. 
knucklefux
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4341


Location: leesburg, ga

« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2017, 09:35:30 pm »

Not to mention changes in driving habits that may result from less performance.
Logged

95 gt-R.I.P.
2004 cobra-needs more boost
al2
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1640


Location: fort worth,tx.

« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2017, 10:30:43 pm »

Why no stoker ? Do you all ready have crank and rods ?
Logged
347HO
A-1 Super Genious / Director of Maintenance
Section Moderator
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12806


Location: Seattle, Washington
I believe they landed on the moon.


« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2017, 10:17:53 am »

Why no stoker ? Do you all ready have crank and rods ?
👆

Build for build, the cost to upgrade to 408ci has more value per dollar spent.

I'm researching the cost difference now just for my curiosity...

Quick find found same manufacturer of rotating assemblies is the same price for 351 to 408.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Logged




... it was REALLY revving at like 4K...
If I saw that thing in my rear view Im pulling over to let you by, I be scared of that thing Huh? i dont know wich car is uglier ur or mine?
Javier
Ugly?  Easy now -- that's my baby and it's got lots of unique character!  When I drop that built 445" stroker in it you won't have any time to "pull over to let me pass" because I'll have already blown past you when you figure out what the hell was that loud noise behind you . . .  
al2
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1640


Location: fort worth,tx.

« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2017, 11:05:49 am »

408 even with tw170 and mild cam  would make a nice street engine.
Logged
z-adamson
#1 fucktard
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1725

Location: OREGON

« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2017, 04:26:49 pm »

Why no stoker ? Do you all ready have crank and rods ?
👆

Build for build, the cost to upgrade to 408ci has more value per dollar spent.

I'm researching the cost difference now just for my curiosity...

Quick find found same manufacturer of rotating assemblies is the same price for 351 to 408.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

But if you already have the 351w rotating assembly, which appears to be the case here, then the cost to build a 408w is no longer on par with the 351w.
Logged
knucklefux
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4341


Location: leesburg, ga

« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2017, 05:59:02 pm »

buuuuuuut....if you have to grind the crank and resize the rods on that stock rotator as well as buy new pistons, there's not a huge difference.

the difference in performance easily outweighs the difference in cost.  personally, i wouldn't bother with a 351ci build for any "performance" application when a 408 is so cheap.
Logged

95 gt-R.I.P.
2004 cobra-needs more boost
joerberg
4 Banger
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16

Location:

« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2017, 06:15:53 pm »

My initial intent was to do a stroker.  But, I found an excellent running 351W from an F-150 and, although I haven't gotten into it yet, I'm hoping to be able to use the stock crank and rods.  I agree with you guys that dollar for dollar a stroker is the way to go.  But I can save about $1000 and still have "enough" horse power with the 351.

I've owned fast cars.  I raced motorcycles and I road raced an RX-7 for years.  Now, at 69 years old, the need for speed ain't what it used to be.  So long as this build puts me back in the seat and sounds good I'll be happy.  If I could beat my son in his 454 Chevelle that would be nice too but I'm not planning on that.
Logged
z-adamson
#1 fucktard
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1725

Location: OREGON

« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2017, 02:16:39 pm »

My initial intent was to do a stroker.  But, I found an excellent running 351W from an F-150 and, although I haven't gotten into it yet, I'm hoping to be able to use the stock crank and rods.  I agree with you guys that dollar for dollar a stroker is the way to go.  But I can save about $1000 and still have "enough" horse power with the 351.

I've owned fast cars.  I raced motorcycles and I road raced an RX-7 for years.  Now, at 69 years old, the need for speed ain't what it used to be.  So long as this build puts me back in the seat and sounds good I'll be happy.  If I could beat my son in his 454 Chevelle that would be nice too but I'm not planning on that.

If thats the mindset, then you might as well just re-ring it, re-bearing it, re-gasket it. If it's "excellent running" then this likely will provide the desired results....a good running, strong, good sounding 351w.

If it needs a lot of work and becomes a money pit, then 408w makes the most sense. BUT........taking advantage of what the 408w has to offer comes with other expenses.....heads, cam, headers and the list goes on. Gotta think about that too.

Logged
z-adamson
#1 fucktard
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1725

Location: OREGON

« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2017, 04:05:47 pm »

buuuuuuut....if you have to grind the crank and resize the rods on that stock rotator as well as buy new pistons, there's not a huge difference.

the difference in performance easily outweighs the difference in cost.  personally, i wouldn't bother with a 351ci build for any "performance" application when a 408 is so cheap.

Were you figuring stock 351w heads, cam and intake on the 408w?

If not, then the difference in cost can get to be "huge" or something like that and aftermarket heads, intake, headers, cam are not exactly "so cheap". Consider that these components can be reused with the 351w but reusing them with a 408w would not be practical.
Logged
juiced coupe
Six figures worth of don't give a f*ck
Global Moderator
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8195


Location: Pascagoula, MS
The land mass between New Orleans and Mobile


« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2017, 04:19:57 pm »

If thats the mindset, then you might as well just re-ring it, re-bearing it, re-gasket it. If it's "excellent running" then this likely will provide the desired results....a good running, strong, good sounding 351w.

I don't disagree with this, from a money standpoint. If using Twisted Wedge (especially the 11R design), I highly doubt that you will run into any PTV clearance problems.

The only downsides to this is that stock 351 pistons are WAY down in the hole, and the soup bowl type pistons do very little to help.

Even at a simpler compression, a properly designed reverse dome piston at the correct quench will be worth some power and detonation resistance. Of course, if buying new pistons, why wouldn't you raise the compression some as well?
Logged

Doing more with less, or something like that.
http://sbftech.com/index.php/topic,20009.0.html

Quote from: Monte Smith
Bottom line, if it was the hot ticket, the fast guys would do it.............they don't

You might need some Titanium rods and a flow bench!  LMAO on floor

I honestly don't get it.

I'm sweating, my heart is racing, my clutch foot is twichin', and my right arm punched the computer screen doing an involentary 2-3 shift while reading all that. 
joerberg
4 Banger
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16

Location:

« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2017, 08:17:11 pm »

I am not planning to use the stock pistons.  I'm looking to up the stock 8.5:1 compression ratio to around 10:1.  I plan to use the Trick Flow heads with 61 cc chambers, 170 cc runners and 2.02 valves with 1.6 rockers, an Edelbrock 7581 Performer RPM Air Gap and a 600 cfm carb.  Cam is not determined until I decide on gears and tires.

I have given serious thought to keeping everything stock and just doing a rebuild with a cam and intake change.  What kind of hp could I get with that approach?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines



408 Stroker