I've always liked the idea of a de-stroked 6.0 because that works out 329ci (5.4l). I'd love to see a build comparison between the standard 5.3 and a 5.4 using all the same parts. Every time I've seen a comparison, they change parts. Seeing the difference between small bore/long stroke vs a big bore/short stroke with the same exact parts would be very informative.
Everything you do and show all of us. Your just an amazing guy.. Thank you for sharring all of your teachings and info.. Can you please do camshaft swaps. On a jeep 4.0. Stock vs the world or sumthing like that. Thank YOU
One thing that speaks volumes to me as a Ford guy primarily I love chevy to , owned both from vettes and Camaros to foxbody sto s550s to vans and trucks. If you want to go fast with a STOCK block go chevy , if you want to go fast with a Ford , buy an aftermarket block the 351w can take some power but not as much as a LS. Chime in if I’m wrong or right I’m thinking of building the famous Budget 418. A 351w stroker Google it. 670 crank hp NA on pump gas. The perfect street strip engine. With some boost this combo would be a monster just on low boost. Only thing I MAY change on the build is the dish pistons to flat top with valve reliefs and different rings. 10.5.1 to 11.5.1 wold be perfect. I’d run pump 93 and 107 aviation fuel mixed 70% pump 93 and 30% AV Gas.
I built a 1972 Dodge Challenger with a 383 bored thirty over. I ran Roads lifters, they were hydrolic but acted like a solid and I had all the good stuff in it. 86 cc chamber 440 heads with the 6 pack exhaust manifolds $$$$ windage tray crank scraper, you name it this motor had it. I used Keith Black hyperutectic pistons with Sealed Gap Chromally rings. When that motor got around 35,000 miles on it finally felt broke in and was rockin. 3 angle valve grind, with titanium keepers and stainless valves. It was also a 1965 383 block with higher nickel content. It sounded so good with 3 inch true duals. I never did get an x pipe, I couldn't keep the exhaust on it from crappy muffler shops. It would pull the front tires on a good surface. I don't ever hear of anyone using those Roads Lifters, or the Sealed Gap Chromally rings? That was in the 90's I worked for Mono lite Racing Team and we had Aries motors, 8.3 liter and 10 liter for the 300 inch wheelbase dragster and 120 inch wheelbase funny cars. This was Exabition Racing then. The old man was the original maker for all the fiberglass hood scoops and fender flares for Dodge in the late 60's and 70 and 80's. All the light weight parts like fenders and hoods and doors and trunk lids made of fiberglass. He was the man. Anyways I knew all the tricks for those Mopars then. It would do 11.60 quarter miles. But would still go 155 is as far as I took it one time on 4 drum brakes lol yippy Skippy !
On the SBF I'd pull the valve cover off to see if you are getting the lift as advertised. A miss stamped cam or rocker arms ratio are nearly impossible to tell by sight alone and many cams share the same lobe centers when dialing them in. A simple valve lift measurement will be your first clue. These high rpm motors are the best candidates for testing rocker arm ratios. Although higher lift may not show an increase on the flow bench they will hold the valve opened longer at and over it's maximum flow.
Back when Freiberger had all his hair still, I built a 302 with a magnum 270 cam, matched springs and early 70’s 351w heads. I also adjusted the lifters with a little less preload to try and prevent pump up (my own idea, based on some tech articles in hot rod) and was rewarded with a rev range that I calculated (no tach in the car) went up around 7500-7800 rpm. I doubt it was making great power up there, but it was sure fun.
I think you said it with the LS test... More duration and more LSA to push that peak power out higher for the Ford... Need a different cam in it Richard!
I was thinking along these lines too. If piston speed is well well within the limits for the piston used then ok but if its up there it just shortens the time the engine can do this.
What most people dont understand is a 6 inch rod is one weight so take that out of the equation as pistons go a piston for a 6 inch rod 350 weights more than a 6 inch rod for a 383 so the crank being longer stroke is closer to the center of the mass so rpm does mot effect it as much
@@claybailey9950 ok I get it. The gudgeon pin is higher in the piston mass and the piston is lighter so the recipricating forces on the piston get mitigated a bit compared to say a stock dimesioned piston, even though its piston speed is higher. Am i on the right track.
Well alot of these videos are based on dyno runs done 10 years ago. Imagine if you built hundreds of motors over the course of 20 years and then decided to do youtube videos on it after the fact? How many dyno runs do you think he has saved particularly for this case?
Jon Kaase was asked about his hugely undersquare IHRA Pro Stock engines and he said that although they didn't look good "on paper", the cars got down the track pretty well. Yes, it is all about valve control.
I think the Ford has an issue with valve control. Ha it been a lack of flow or exhaust restriction, I think the curve would just have gone flat. That weird concave curve suggest some kind of harmonic spring issue. Maybe the valve is too heavy or it needs 15-20 lbs more spring rate, because if it had been a collapsed lifter or actual float, it would just drop off in a more convex curve, that's at least my experiences. It is definitely not a shape I associate with flow or runner length tuning issues. Did the springs have dampers?
I remember reading about a 289 cobra from a company called motion performance back in the late sixties/early seventies that would blast through the traps at ten thousand rpm. Still see a few mustangs on you tube with those small block fords winding past 9000, and man do they sound sweet.
Thanks Richard for consistently great tests and info! That Ford had all the right parts to scream AND make big power, except for the headers. They choked it right down. Should have had 1 7/8" minimum. I have a 302 SBC with similar cam specs. ( solid lifter ) with ported bowtie heads, shortened tunnel ram, 2 center shooters, and 1 7/8" headers. Pulls hard from 3500 to 8000 while making well over 600 and 450. I think that Ford was a classic example of a choke in the system. Keep up the great work.
Exactly, you’re running race 225cc heads with street 1 3/4 inch headers, huge difference. Might as well just have run 205 heads if he wasn’t going to run 1 7/8 headers.
@@jayt5993 More like "2" or greater" headers. The Hellcat thrives on 2" headers, and it makes around 700hp at a LOWER RPM. I would like to see a multi-size-to-oversize header test. Can you drown a small block with 2.25" headers?
This test speaks to me. I am assembling a 388" LS7 shortblock this week that will be Hyd roller. The cam & intake manifold set up should make peak power around 7500 and will be shifted around 8k. This engine size has been done many times before but most of them have solid rollers. Theoretically I'll need to spin this combo 10% higher than a 427" (all things being equal) to make equal power.
The 347 has something jankey in the setup. Dead giveaway is torque and HP take a dip at the same RPM. Love those LS cathedrals, they are a work of art.
The two factors that used to affect hi RPM long stroke crank combos, was the weight and the oiling ability of the bigger journals. The factory OEM big stroke cranks of course had a lot of meat in the "cheeks" and balance weights. The other issue is the large mains needed for crank overlap to keep the strength of the crank. Now the "overseas" aftermarket cast iron cranks are as strong as the old OEM forged cranks. So, technology has outpaced the wives' tales.
I'm a Ford guy, the deck is only 8.2". Rod stroke ratio sucks on these strokers. The only reason to run the things is if a 9.5" deck block won't fit, or you're lying bout cubes. Nobody falls for that anymore. Raced them 20 years ago cause I had parts for them. Couldn't afford to step up and build another motor even though could've recycled most of the stuff! We stuck a junkyard Windsor with a used solid lifter flat tappit cam, borrowed rpm heads. Turd was a second faster 1/8 mile!! Ran it 4 years and last I heard it's still running round in a street car. 5.969" conn rod, 3.5" stroke, 9.5" deck! Like to see a cheap build on a 360 Dodge, talk about good rod stroke ratios.
What about a 306 vs 331 vs 347 with all other specs same: Intake, cam, compression, etc. Determine value of power gained for vs the cost of increased stroke.
There are very little total power gains from more cubic inches. You do have to turn the engine faster to make the same power with less cubic inches. Larger displacement usually gets you more torque making capacity and more streetability.
My 331 with the xfi cam and 10.6 comp afr 225 kooks headers my ported parker aed 650e stock block made 585hp and 462tq. Had behive springs and cheap shaft rockers 1.73 motor sport lifters. Off shelf probe rotating. Went a 5.98 8th in a heavy fox with a 175 hit on fb and 26 10.5 dots 1.32 60s
On the 347, how's the timing curve? Is everything optimized for the amount of dwell time that the rod/stroke ratio provides? Thinking way out in the weeds here and would need a LONG time with a notebook and calculator, but with that kind of piston speed... could it be compressing the charge so quickly that it's stratifying, basically forcing all the fuel towards the piston crown? The corollary would be drawing vacuum so quickly that the intake simply can't flow a full charge in time. You'd set up some nasty resonances, with those long ports could even get to the second order harmonic for density pulses... or just shy so it's sitting in the trench between pulses at max RPM. You've got a "short" single plane windsor intake sitting around from previous tests, don't you?
In my opinion, you're not thinking in the weeds, you are right on the money. When you reach those engine speeds, dwell time, valve events, etc. happen in milliseconds. With roughly 20 more cubic inches of displacement, the cam in the Ford was just too small to carry any power out to 8k because the valve events were too short for the added piston speed and displacement.
Not always about the lift. It is important but lobe design is very important. A conversation with the camshaft designer may prove fruitful. Having them examine all the valvetrain components may show needs for change/ improvement in valvetrain configuration. Even though you did not mention any problems ,Would a stud girdle help to improve valve train stability? Could valvetrain harmonics be an issue? Lot more questions than helpful suggestions. As always you make people exercise their brains. That’s a good thing. Love your videos, even though my three brains cells are sometimes tired after watching them.
Seeing as you are talking about hydraulic lifters. Can you test a set of Rhodes lifters? Show us the difference in the power curve with standard and the bleed downs?
I run the Cranes, and can attest, they make a .490/260 split cam on an Olds 455 pull from idle to 5,500, when I leave the manual valve body THM400 in top gear with a 3:1 gear ratio, in a 1968 barely optioned Cutlass body style. the Rhoads work best on older cam grinds that have lazier ramps (ie, don't snap the valves open as fast as cams done post muscle car era). The Crane variable duration lifters don't have the "solid lifter click" they accuse the Rhoads of having. But i'd be surprised if a test of either lifter doesn't show a flatter torque curve below 3,000 RPM, caused by an "increase" or maybe less loss, of torque from idle to 3,000. And of course, measuring levels of vacuum, too, since that's another benefit of these lifters. I have power front disc brakes on mine.
I definitely want to see this done. A LOT of old Pontiac guys swear by them. However, anytime I mention them to old Chevy or Ford hotrodders, they look like they're gonna hurl
@@excalibur3895 they shouldn't. Pontiacs generally run low RPMS for torque, the Fords have small ports and valves unless one goes Cleveland or aftermarket, and the Chevs love the revs. I can't see why anyone would hurl over what is actually old tech. then again, I see a ton of Ford guys sticking to what worked for them in 1989 against Grand Nationals. You tell them to skip stroking that 302 for a 351W, and they come up with excuses.
@@albertgaspar627 I know, you'd think with something that typically has the ability to run a hairier cam they would love them. But nope, everyone I've spoken to has said they did nothing to help them. I know they definitely work because I have a 455 Pontiac with a hairy flat tappet. I bought the basic Rhoads lifters and I can run power brakes. (I probably could've without, but it would've been close)
I should have also posted (i used to own the goat you see in my pic) that Pontiacs are classic for their lifter bores hanging unsupported in the valley--go with some nasty roller setup that snaps those valves open and closed to reduce overlap, and you want to support those bores. Variable duration lifters are another way to avoid the issues of big overlap at low RPMS. I have Crane's in an Olds 455. With a .490 lift/260 duration split cam, and captive discharge ignition, I can leave my THM400 in third gear (manual valve body) and pull the 3:1 rear gears from idle to 5,500 RPM redline in a 1968 A body and run power disc brakes, no hydroboost. And get 15mpg. you couldn't pay me to run a regular flat tappet. I never tried "Vari-Cam" that put the spring in the cam gear, but variable duration lifters work like VTEC and all the other modern stuff---lo RPM grunt and vacuum and smoothness past idle, and then after 3,000 RPM you get your performance cam back. Its "cake and eat it too".
Richard Holdener I absolutely love your videos and have learned more than I ever could have expected prior to watching these beautifully intellectual engineering experiments and demonstrations. However with all that you have taught me I still have a desire to see a destroked ls hit 10k rpm with boost. I know you say its more about valve train than stroke but I unfortunately brood so much on the thought of where it would matter or become influential in a build of sheer desire and insanity. P.S. I've also always been interested in what an American meat and potatoes mentality could do to a 1UZ early gen motor. Love your videos!! Thank you for everything
@@whatchu_talkin_john_willis do they bolt on the 302 Windsor the head I'm talking about are the Cleveland head modified to bolt on the Windsor canted valve so l would like to see them try it is that ok ?
That’s go to know. I just bought a CompCam 201-428-17 for a 5.7 based hemi stroker. Cam card says it’s operating range is 2400rpm-7400rpm. But it may see more rpm going through the traps.
I agree I'm really surprised that the 347 didn't make more power. It would be interesting to see what would happen with other sets of heads like D3 High ports just to see if that would make any difference.
My 347 is pretty standard off the shelf parts. Stock block Forged crank, H beam rods, and flat top pistons 10/2/1 comp. Brodix LH 195 Heads fully cnc Ford racing x cam 542/542 lift Funnel web intake 780 cfm quick fuel carb Made 478 hp at 6200 Made 442 tq at 4200 My guess as to why the sbf made such low numbers is because of mismatched parts. Maybe needed more compression. 🤔 I have no clue, but I would have guessed that screamer being in the mid 650 hp area.
Thanks for thee quiz RH. My guess is the rod length to stroke ratio is the one thing that made these engines do what they did and thanks for showing once again that you don't need rec port heads to make power. Your awesome man keep up the good testing.
The problem I ran into revving my ls6 on a track for 20-30 minutes at a time was the timing chain biting the dust. I think a lot of the old conventional wisdom on hydraulic lifters ignores how good the springs and lifters are these days. Of course this frees us up to worry about longevity of Rod bearings and stretch at high RPM. Which the gen 3 and 4 factory lumps still blow away my old 1st Gen SBC's in those regards too. What a fantastic time to run high performance engines.
Nice test. Ford combo ran out of carb/intake. Needs lots of cfm to keep making power on a 347 turning 8,000rpm. Porting the intake and going with more carb would have gained more top end and rpm for sure.
Look up how to calculate piston speed, eventually the piston travels faster then the expanded flame front. Which wont make "power" at that piston speed.
@@jasonhooey5677 you look up Induction cfm vs ci vs rpm and you will see what I'm talking about. We do this everyday and we have flowed and ported the very manifold they where using. They ran out of carb and manifold cfm. They need more CSA and cfm to keep the Induction system from stalling. That motor simply needs more airflow. You have had 347s and LS motors turning those rpms for years already.
my 358ci sbc gen 1 with a solid roller pulls strong past 8000rpms (knife edge crank, billet main caps, aluminum rods, 12+ to 1 comp. massively ported 492 angle plug heads, .600" lift cam), fun little street engine
I would love to see a series on the ford alphabet cams... maybe with a set of AFR 185’s or comparable trick flows. Cool to see what’s possible with a junkyard 5.0L
I think the reason why the power off in the sbf is due to the hyd lifters leaking down during high rps. When the lifters leak down and they aren't limited in travel it creates a situation where the cam dynamically shrinks.
I'm reving my Harley Sportster with a 3.81" stroke 7500 rpm. Cam specs are .600 x .600 lift ,264° x 270° @ .053". Full travel lifters with 1.850 in valves and 1.60 ex valves. Comp cams 7256,spring rate 485lbs/in ,160lbs@1.900" conical valve springs specs im using 185lbs on the seat., titanium retainers. She's still pulling hard when she comes on the rev limiter. Stroke dosent matter it's all in the cam and spring package. Oh yeah a good set of forged pistons are a must have too. Lol That piston speed is moving at that rpm.
The valvetrain sets the highest rpm where the engine will make power, regardless of bore/stroke... I totally agree. But the reciprocating mass and stroke combination kinda do set the max rpm where it will survive for long periods of time... ;) Today’s lighter pistons let you reach RPMs with stokers where people would have been de-stroking for durability in the 60s-80s, IMO, but even today shorter strokes are easier on parts.
Richard, I would have love to hear those engine revving to 8K plus! Can you list the valve train setup? Like the spring brand and pressure? Were those factory rockers with the trunnion upgrade or aftermarket rockers?
How about a Rhoads anti pump up lifter test. They do what they say. I have a big lumpy cam and it certainly did smooth it out at idle and it reved out another 500rpm with ease to 6500rpm when the stock lifters were only good to about 6000rpm.
Yeah, rod ratio isn't great on a 302 so that is a good combo. By the way, I'm looking for a block like that, I already have crank and rods. If you know of any deals, let me know.
@@larrynorsworthy8582 I want one for the street. I have a Roush induction kit twin plenum intake for it, it needs something crazy underneath. I want something bulletproof that can rev 7,500 easy, live between 4,500 and 6,500 all day and make enough power that it doesn't look stupid. That's hard to do with an 8.2" deck but I would rather stay Ford instead of take the easy way out and swap in an LS.
My built 347 Did 617 At the flywell at nikon's brothers. I will tell you the combination. A 4 4 bolt main prept block. Fully ported and CNC powerports. With the titanium valves. I was also running The jesle valve bars. I was running a slightly domed DSS piston. So my compression rate was higher. Probably a little over 11 to 1. I was also running vp 108. It was ran with MSD crank trigger. And digital 6 Box. It made peak power right around 7900. But would stay clean to 8200. I had a solid roller It was close to 650 think right about 6:47 I remember that because The ci number and stroke were the same. It's been about 6 years. But with my 200 shot and my 2800 pound coupe it would run very Consistently in the 5.6 to 5.8 in 1/8 mile. So hope this information helps anybody going for that. So I believe the Cam and compression ratio Would need to be tweaked a little more for that motor to be happy. And maybe address the Valve stability For Free rev. My combination probably could have made more but we were getting ready for nitrous so it didn't have a ton of timing. Great video!! I just wanted fast cars on Netflix and was freaking out win I see you whith you friend in the wagon lol
The sine wave is likely the roller cam profile roughness verses the valve sping period. Everything has a natural frequency that gets excitations when at certain engine speeds. If the cam is linished to stop the follower getting agitated, the surge should be eliminated.
Fabulous video as usual Richard, I would love to know why the Ford was such an uninspiring thing, my guess would be that the single carb inlet was choke point, at those flow rates it doesn’t take much restriction to starve half the stroke.
It’s good that you point out none of these engines are stroke limited at 8k. I think the reason short stroke is often associated with higher RPM is with the same top end the short stroke engine simply takes more RPM to move the air and reach peak HP (valve train permitting). It would be interesting to see what happens to that 347 with a shorter stroke even though it's not stroke limited from a piston speed perspective.
do you think the lifters may have pumped up too much at higher rpm and didn't full close the valves. I have heard of earlier hydraulic lifters doing this but crane cams were supposed to be the first manufacturer to fix this problem. I'm talking about early LT1 hydraulic roller lifters pre LS.
I agree with that. Crane just isn't up with the times, is my take. Those specs just look "wrong" to me for an N/A 347 with good OOTB heads, that are NOT full-race prepped. I'll bet Bullet or, especially, Scott Main/Cam Research would not have disappointed you. That 347 made no more than your Boss 302 did, HP wise. Dearborn, we have a problem.
Yes! Super exciting test :-) How about doing a big bang engine running to 8K? Less torque required to make huge HP and craaaaazy sound - what is not to like?
How did you adjust the valves on the Ford ???? If you did the 0-lash plus 1/4 turn or whatever that would be my first place to look...you need to bottom the plunger and then back off a bit & run'em like a solid...else...no wonder it fell off. 2nd...330-340 cfm out of the 225 Hi-Ports??? Nothings impossible but I doubt it...nice job if it's real. Less likely but...that's a lot of duration for what 10.5 to 1 ??? Sure are a lot of opinions on this one...you kept mentioning valve train is the place to look...did it need more spring ???
Definitely a short-stroke engine. 3.0 sounds good to really find the limits of your valvetrain, but we're talking 5-digit RPM. for the same RPM and pistons, 1.284X as much energy needed to accelerate/slow down a 3.4 inch versus 3.0 inch stroke.
Anyone heard of "shimming " up hyd roller lifters? Using washers to limit the hyd lifter compression to .030 so it acts like a semi solid roller lifter? I saw a magazine article on this year's ago and a claim of hp and tq gain, but can't find the info anymore.
Changing the rod/stroke ratio is going to make some difference to the overlap interaction between the intake and exhaust flows - good or bad, hard to guess. Fun test, though.
I think maybe the issue with Ford making not making more power was 1. Crane Cams- they were always wildly inaccurate and had poor valve train control ( I am bias toward Comp Cams because they’re around the corner from me ) B. Was the crankshaft a zero balance ? The factory imbalance specs eat a lot of power at high rpm. 3. Headers too small maybe D. Was it a 100 degree day when you ran the dyno ? 5. Needs more timing. Twist the distributor until molten bits of piston ring start flying out the exhaust then back off 2 degrees.
The 347 setups have a lot of piston friction because of the short deck height and the short rods, I have read about extreme power 347s actually ramming the pistons through the cylinder walls. Could friction be the reason for the lack of power?
I think that a rocker girdle and bigger primary headers and some different valve springs and timing on the ford would have helped alot on higher rpm I built a 306 with mahl forged pistons and gtp 40 heads that I ported balanced lower end Lunati roller lifters and rocker girdles crank girdle Canton crank scraper melling high volume oil pump gear to gear timing free floating wrist pins and 1/7-8 headers made 540 with a 75 shot
347 all day long. It has lighter pistons. By far. And that makes a huge difference when you start revving up past 7000. Kudos to you also, for using stock lifters to reach out to 8000 rpms. I am surprised by that. I would love to know what lobe profile was used. It surely was easy on the opening and closing ramps to keep the lifters from lofting without using killler spring pressure. They are heavy when they are full of oil.
Given the drop in power and your knowledge of engine combos, it appears the smaller header created some restriction on the top end. The cam is large enough, and shorter stroke would have revved higher in this case if cubic inches went down with the stroke. A tunnel ram intake on the sbf would have changed things as well. However, one cannot overlook the volumetric efficiency of each combination, favoring stroke length without considering the ratio to rod length, angle of ports and valves, directly comparing valve weights, valve angle grinds, comparing induction manifolds, etc. It is difficult to compare every little variable when there are a couple hundred of them in engine designing... I would have to say that while many combos can be made to turn 8k rpm, a longer stroke with shorter rod will always create efficiency at a lower rpm than the inverse. When you are testing boundaries, though, these factors now become critical; 18k rpm F1 cars being an example. You will struggle to make an small block anything turn 18,000 rpm; the basic design just isn't there. In this particular test, I think sizing the headers and the intake manifold similarly to the LS would have yielded more power at top rpm. Basically 1 7/8" headers with a tunnel ram, maybe more carb...
I would love to see you do a buick grand national big bang motor with nice parts because I think that platform happed in the wrong era because we didnt have good big modern turbos or nice billet parts or really good stand alones and injectors back in there heyday. I honestly think one could make 1500+ if done right without to much of a problem. Also doing a built honda k24 twin turbo or huge single would be cool
I'd likd to think with the tech we have now , one with 450-500hp should last as long as anything else. Or should last as long as the original was intended to last. At least 100k, more like 150 and maybe she's kinda tired , and 200k yea she needs a rebuild. We all know most anything modern and not full race can go 100k anymore standing on its head.
307ci Chevy Small Block, 750vac secondary 3310 Holley four barrel, single plane intake, four eyebrow flat tops, not telling what cam, but it was my daily driver Street Car, I used to turn it too 8500rpm nearly every day
Hey Richard I couldn't tell but what bolt pattern was used on the sbf trick flow high ports? There is a small horizontal bolt pattern and the bigger diagonal bolt pattern. I noticed on these heads if you use the small bolt pattern it chops a lot of flow off the exhaust. Trick flow makes a high port specific header flange for the bigger bolt pattern for like $60 if I remember correctly. Also goes to a 5/16 header bolt for more clearence.
yes yes yes it can be done you need GOOD PARTS good specs and know how or boom.get the jb weld out or duct tape that would be good start to.few hp.but rod lenth is also has alot to do with clyder fill you can make it peakee or slow the rpm band on how long the rod is .weight crank pistons .rod lenth has a roll in it.
rpms always has a price to bear to get there but good bottom end and uper end needs to be well thought therw balance wieght and home work and good parts start there. do the resherch do it right
I would bet the ford was getting air in the lifters It appears the valvetrain was stable. Lifters were collapsing however, causing it to peak early. It would have been interesting to put solid roller lifters in it with no other changes to see if the peak hp rpm went up to where we would expect it.
Richard, you definitely need to do an 8500 rpm turbo ls big bang. Nothing special, just ring gapped, gen 4, 4.8, with the appropriate top end of course. One guy on here had one with some Johnson short travels, 3/8 push rods, and btr's ultimate rpm spring kit and with twin borg cast 66's made 1140 whp on mild boost and has run it up to 41psi and was fine and ran a 7.8 or 7 in the quarter and 140k miles ungapped rings, didn't even look at the bearings, just ran e85 7.x afr and low timing around peak torque and ramped it back in after. Definitely something to look into sometime.
I think it’s a combination of two things here. First is the intake. It really needs plenum port work and match ported to the heads. Second is that crane cam. I’ve never had any luck with their cams in sbf. Do a hyd flat tappet lifter test!!!!
An interesting comparison would be to run the same combo on a 351W. Very close to the same displacement but a longer stroke and a taller deck height. So doesn’t that equate to a better rod ratio?
🔔Yes, rod ratio affects how soon and how fast the piston accelerates affects the flow through partially open intake valves, AND when the rod achieves 90* to the crank throw makes a difference.
Chamber size, compression ratio, and fuel type would be good info for this discussion. Info on the rockers would be meaningful as well - I assume the LS was stock rockers...
Possible another camshaft for the Ford ? Is the valve weight spring weight limiting the Ford? Why not try the ford 3.25 stroke with a 4.125 bore? Would the Ford like the Funnel Web over the Victor JR ?
N/A high rpm V8 is just beautiful to listen to.
I've always liked the idea of a de-stroked 6.0 because that works out 329ci (5.4l). I'd love to see a build comparison between the standard 5.3 and a 5.4 using all the same parts. Every time I've seen a comparison, they change parts. Seeing the difference between small bore/long stroke vs a big bore/short stroke with the same exact parts would be very informative.
I’ve learned SO much from you, RH. Thank you!
Excellent content. I look forward to these videos because you run tests that I have been thinking about for years.
Why no tunnel ram and duel quads and multiple cams on the SBF?
Probly doesn't have one laying around
You got? Why not send it in?
It originally broke on the dyno after the first run
@ron Kay I thought he said it was a 363
@port nut youd be suprised, a 347 is honestly a pretty big motor by most standards, I mean yeah it's not a 427, but it definitely ain't no 289
Everything you do and show all of us. Your just an amazing guy.. Thank you for sharring all of your teachings and info.. Can you please do camshaft swaps. On a jeep 4.0. Stock vs the world or sumthing like that. Thank YOU
the cast con rods in the joop engine dont like power or rpm
The 347 needed a custom Bullet cam, more compression and port that intake. I bet you would not only find your 8k peak, but quite a bit more HP.
1st gen CSB were always known for there hp to torque curve ! And there are ls engines reving to 11,000+ ! Love the videos !
One thing that speaks volumes to me as a Ford guy primarily I love chevy to , owned both from vettes and Camaros to foxbody sto s550s to vans and trucks. If you want to go fast with a STOCK block go chevy , if you want to go fast with a Ford , buy an aftermarket block the 351w can take some power but not as much as a LS. Chime in if I’m wrong or right I’m thinking of building the famous Budget 418. A 351w stroker Google it. 670 crank hp NA on pump gas. The perfect street strip engine. With some boost this combo would be a monster just on low boost. Only thing I MAY change on the build is the dish pistons to flat top with valve reliefs and different rings. 10.5.1 to 11.5.1 wold be perfect. I’d run pump 93 and 107 aviation fuel mixed 70% pump 93 and 30% AV Gas.
I built a 1972 Dodge Challenger with a 383 bored thirty over. I ran Roads lifters, they were hydrolic but acted like a solid and I had all the good stuff in it. 86 cc chamber 440 heads with the 6 pack exhaust manifolds $$$$ windage tray crank scraper, you name it this motor had it. I used Keith Black hyperutectic pistons with Sealed Gap Chromally rings. When that motor got around 35,000 miles on it finally felt broke in and was rockin. 3 angle valve grind, with titanium keepers and stainless valves. It was also a 1965 383 block with higher nickel content. It sounded so good with 3 inch true duals. I never did get an x pipe, I couldn't keep the exhaust on it from crappy muffler shops. It would pull the front tires on a good surface. I don't ever hear of anyone using those Roads Lifters, or the Sealed Gap Chromally rings? That was in the 90's I worked for Mono lite Racing Team and we had Aries motors, 8.3 liter and 10 liter for the 300 inch wheelbase dragster and 120 inch wheelbase funny cars. This was Exabition Racing then. The old man was the original maker for all the fiberglass hood scoops and fender flares for Dodge in the late 60's and 70 and 80's. All the light weight parts like fenders and hoods and doors and trunk lids made of fiberglass. He was the man. Anyways I knew all the tricks for those Mopars then. It would do 11.60 quarter miles. But would still go 155 is as far as I took it one time on 4 drum brakes lol yippy Skippy !
On the SBF I'd pull the valve cover off to see if you are getting the lift as advertised. A miss stamped cam or rocker arms ratio are nearly impossible to tell by sight alone and many cams share the same lobe centers when dialing them in. A simple valve lift measurement will be your first clue. These high rpm motors are the best candidates for testing rocker arm ratios. Although higher lift may not show an increase on the flow bench they will hold the valve opened longer at and over it's maximum flow.
Back when Freiberger had all his hair still, I built a 302 with a magnum 270 cam, matched springs and early 70’s 351w heads. I also adjusted the lifters with a little less preload to try and prevent pump up (my own idea, based on some tech articles in hot rod) and was rewarded with a rev range that I calculated (no tach in the car) went up around 7500-7800 rpm. I doubt it was making great power up there, but it was sure fun.
I think you said it with the LS test... More duration and more LSA to push that peak power out higher for the Ford... Need a different cam in it Richard!
Only reason to put a short stroke in a motor is to keep the piston speed down. Bad things start to happen when piston speed gets out of control.
I was thinking along these lines too. If piston speed is well well within the limits for the piston used then ok but if its up there it just shortens the time the engine can do this.
They say 4000 fpm for street lomgevity but obviously these engiens were well past that .
Lighweight rotating aeemblies help
mrhazel yeah. Forces get big quick when going that fast
What most people dont understand is a 6 inch rod is one weight so take that out of the equation as pistons go a piston for a 6 inch rod 350 weights more than a 6 inch rod for a 383 so the crank being longer stroke is closer to the center of the mass so rpm does mot effect it as much
@@claybailey9950 ok I get it. The gudgeon pin is higher in the piston mass and the piston is lighter so the recipricating forces on the piston get mitigated a bit compared to say a stock dimesioned piston, even though its piston speed is higher. Am i on the right track.
what happened to the dyno runs? I'd love to hear these things hit 8k...but like always, Great Video.
Well alot of these videos are based on dyno runs done 10 years ago. Imagine if you built hundreds of motors over the course of 20 years and then decided to do youtube videos on it after the fact? How many dyno runs do you think he has saved particularly for this case?
Jon Kaase was asked about his hugely undersquare IHRA Pro Stock engines and he said that although they didn't look good "on paper", the cars got down the track pretty well. Yes, it is all about valve control.
I think the Ford has an issue with valve control. Ha it been a lack of flow or exhaust restriction, I think the curve would just have gone flat. That weird concave curve suggest some kind of harmonic spring issue. Maybe the valve is too heavy or it needs 15-20 lbs more spring rate, because if it had been a collapsed lifter or actual float, it would just drop off in a more convex curve, that's at least my experiences. It is definitely not a shape I associate with flow or runner length tuning issues.
Did the springs have dampers?
What lifters would you run in such an engine?
I remember reading about a 289 cobra from a company called motion performance back in the late sixties/early seventies that would blast through the traps at ten thousand rpm. Still see a few mustangs on you tube with those small block fords winding past 9000, and man do they sound sweet.
Richard, you should build a Low Lash Solid Roller LS setup for testing like this. That would be a great watch
"Not trying to make NASCAR levels of power".... now that you mention it, any chance of you playing with a 358 anytime?
"Not trying to make NASCAR levels of power"
Do it.
I too would really like to see this!
BETTER YET HOW ABOUT A TRACO ENGINEERING AMC ENGINE...that would be epic.
Thanks Richard for consistently great tests and info! That Ford had all the right parts to scream AND make big power, except for the headers. They choked it right down. Should have had 1 7/8" minimum. I have a 302 SBC with similar cam specs. ( solid lifter ) with ported bowtie heads, shortened tunnel ram, 2 center shooters, and 1 7/8" headers. Pulls hard from 3500 to 8000 while making well over 600 and 450. I think that Ford was a classic example of a choke in the system.
Keep up the great work.
Exactly, you’re running race 225cc heads with street 1 3/4 inch headers, huge difference. Might as well just have run 205 heads if he wasn’t going to run 1 7/8 headers.
@@jayt5993 More like "2" or greater" headers. The Hellcat thrives on 2" headers, and it makes around 700hp at a LOWER RPM. I would like to see a multi-size-to-oversize header test. Can you drown a small block with 2.25" headers?
This test speaks to me. I am assembling a 388" LS7 shortblock this week that will be Hyd roller. The cam & intake manifold set up should make peak power around 7500 and will be shifted around 8k. This engine size has been done many times before but most of them have solid rollers. Theoretically I'll need to spin this combo 10% higher than a 427" (all things being equal) to make equal power.
The 347 has something jankey in the setup. Dead giveaway is torque and HP take a dip at the same RPM.
Love those LS cathedrals, they are a work of art.
id like to see a 4.6 high rpm motor and the 502 ram jet bbc high rpm set up and see what u can get
The two factors that used to affect hi RPM long stroke crank combos, was the weight and the oiling ability of the bigger journals. The factory OEM big stroke cranks of course had a lot of meat in the "cheeks" and balance weights. The other issue is the large mains needed for crank overlap to keep the strength of the crank. Now the "overseas" aftermarket cast iron cranks are as strong as the old OEM forged cranks.
So, technology has outpaced the wives' tales.
I'm a Ford guy, the deck is only 8.2". Rod stroke ratio sucks on these strokers. The only reason to run the things is if a 9.5" deck block won't fit, or you're lying bout cubes. Nobody falls for that anymore. Raced them 20 years ago cause I had parts for them. Couldn't afford to step up and build another motor even though could've recycled most of the stuff! We stuck a junkyard Windsor with a used solid lifter flat tappit cam, borrowed rpm heads. Turd was a second faster 1/8 mile!! Ran it 4 years and last I heard it's still running round in a street car. 5.969" conn rod, 3.5" stroke, 9.5" deck! Like to see a cheap build on a 360 Dodge, talk about good rod stroke ratios.
What about a 306 vs 331 vs 347 with all other specs same: Intake, cam, compression, etc. Determine value of power gained for vs the cost of increased stroke.
There are very little total power gains from more cubic inches. You do have to turn the engine faster to make the same power with less cubic inches.
Larger displacement usually gets you more torque making capacity and more streetability.
Interesting article recently from a top engine builder stated; the 347 is down 40 hp. at 7000 to the 331 because of the worsening rod/stroke ratio.
My 331 with the xfi cam and 10.6 comp afr 225 kooks headers my ported parker aed 650e stock block made 585hp and 462tq. Had behive springs and cheap shaft rockers 1.73 motor sport lifters. Off shelf probe rotating. Went a 5.98 8th in a heavy fox with a 175 hit on fb and 26 10.5 dots 1.32 60s
On the 347, how's the timing curve? Is everything optimized for the amount of dwell time that the rod/stroke ratio provides?
Thinking way out in the weeds here and would need a LONG time with a notebook and calculator, but with that kind of piston speed... could it be compressing the charge so quickly that it's stratifying, basically forcing all the fuel towards the piston crown? The corollary would be drawing vacuum so quickly that the intake simply can't flow a full charge in time. You'd set up some nasty resonances, with those long ports could even get to the second order harmonic for density pulses... or just shy so it's sitting in the trench between pulses at max RPM.
You've got a "short" single plane windsor intake sitting around from previous tests, don't you?
In my opinion, you're not thinking in the weeds, you are right on the money. When you reach those engine speeds, dwell time, valve events, etc. happen in milliseconds. With roughly 20 more cubic inches of displacement, the cam in the Ford was just too small to carry any power out to 8k because the valve events were too short for the added piston speed and displacement.
333 cubic inches is the ticket. You nailed it on piston speed and intake runner length. A shorter stroke with dual quad tunnel ram and 660 Holleys.
Not always about the lift. It is important but lobe design is very important. A conversation with the camshaft designer may prove fruitful. Having them examine all the valvetrain components may show needs for change/ improvement in valvetrain configuration. Even though you did not mention any problems ,Would a stud girdle help to improve valve train stability? Could valvetrain harmonics be an issue? Lot more questions than helpful suggestions. As always you make people exercise their brains. That’s a good thing. Love your videos, even though my three brains cells are sometimes tired after watching them.
I like that you're pushing the boundaries of what we normally see.
Seeing as you are talking about hydraulic lifters. Can you test a set of Rhodes lifters? Show us the difference in the power curve with standard and the bleed downs?
I run the Cranes, and can attest, they make a .490/260 split cam on an Olds 455 pull from idle to 5,500, when I leave the manual valve body THM400 in top gear with a 3:1 gear ratio, in a 1968 barely optioned Cutlass body style.
the Rhoads work best on older cam grinds that have lazier ramps (ie, don't snap the valves open as fast as cams done post muscle car era). The Crane variable duration lifters don't have the "solid lifter click" they accuse the Rhoads of having.
But i'd be surprised if a test of either lifter doesn't show a flatter torque curve below 3,000 RPM, caused by an "increase" or maybe less loss, of torque from idle to 3,000. And of course, measuring levels of vacuum, too, since that's another benefit of these lifters. I have power front disc brakes on mine.
I definitely want to see this done. A LOT of old Pontiac guys swear by them. However, anytime I mention them to old Chevy or Ford hotrodders, they look like they're gonna hurl
@@excalibur3895 they shouldn't. Pontiacs generally run low RPMS for torque, the Fords have small ports and valves unless one goes Cleveland or aftermarket, and the Chevs love the revs. I can't see why anyone would hurl over what is actually old tech. then again, I see a ton of Ford guys sticking to what worked for them in 1989 against Grand Nationals. You tell them to skip stroking that 302 for a 351W, and they come up with excuses.
@@albertgaspar627 I know, you'd think with something that typically has the ability to run a hairier cam they would love them. But nope, everyone I've spoken to has said they did nothing to help them. I know they definitely work because I have a 455 Pontiac with a hairy flat tappet. I bought the basic Rhoads lifters and I can run power brakes. (I probably could've without, but it would've been close)
I should have also posted (i used to own the goat you see in my pic) that Pontiacs are classic for their lifter bores hanging unsupported in the valley--go with some nasty roller setup that snaps those valves open and closed to reduce overlap, and you want to support those bores. Variable duration lifters are another way to avoid the issues of big overlap at low RPMS.
I have Crane's in an Olds 455. With a .490 lift/260 duration split cam, and captive discharge ignition, I can leave my THM400 in third gear (manual valve body) and pull the 3:1 rear gears from idle to 5,500 RPM redline in a 1968 A body and run power disc brakes, no hydroboost. And get 15mpg.
you couldn't pay me to run a regular flat tappet. I never tried "Vari-Cam" that put the spring in the cam gear, but variable duration lifters work like VTEC and all the other modern stuff---lo RPM grunt and vacuum and smoothness past idle, and then after 3,000 RPM you get your performance cam back. Its "cake and eat it too".
That ford definitely needed some more exhaust header size. It also probably should have had more LSA to help move the power band up too.
Richard Holdener I absolutely love your videos and have learned more than I ever could have expected prior to watching these beautifully intellectual engineering experiments and demonstrations. However with all that you have taught me I still have a desire to see a destroked ls hit 10k rpm with boost. I know you say its more about valve train than stroke but I unfortunately brood so much on the thought of where it would matter or become influential in a build of sheer desire and insanity. P.S. I've also always been interested in what an American meat and potatoes mentality could do to a 1UZ early gen motor.
Love your videos!!
Thank you for everything
Do a test with the John kaase p38 head is be curious to see the results
better yet, a c400 head. the kasse c400 blows the p38 out of the water
@@whatchu_talkin_john_willis do they bolt on the 302 Windsor the head I'm talking about are the Cleveland head modified to bolt on the Windsor canted valve so l would like to see them try it is that ok ?
Kaase doesn't make the P38 anymore...so sad.
He makes some good stuff over thet.
@@MrMrBigro they do, that how the boss 302 was created. but the p38 was still "windsor" based, where the c400 is a cleveland head
That’s go to know. I just bought a CompCam 201-428-17 for a 5.7 based hemi stroker. Cam card says it’s operating range is 2400rpm-7400rpm. But it may see more rpm going through the traps.
I agree I'm really surprised that the 347 didn't make more power. It would be interesting to see what would happen with other sets of heads like D3 High ports just to see if that would make any difference.
My 347 is pretty standard off the shelf parts.
Stock block
Forged crank, H beam rods, and flat top pistons 10/2/1 comp.
Brodix LH 195 Heads fully cnc
Ford racing x cam 542/542 lift
Funnel web intake
780 cfm quick fuel carb
Made 478 hp at 6200
Made 442 tq at 4200
My guess as to why the sbf made such low numbers is because of mismatched parts. Maybe needed more compression. 🤔 I have no clue, but I would have guessed that screamer being in the mid 650 hp area.
Thanks for thee quiz RH. My guess is the rod length to stroke ratio is the one thing that made these engines do what they did and thanks for showing once again that you don't need rec port heads to make power. Your awesome man keep up the good testing.
Rod to stroke is a meaningless number.
For the sbf, is like to see the same lobe profiles but with a wider lsa. That should move the peak farther out if I’m not mistaken.
The problem I ran into revving my ls6 on a track for 20-30 minutes at a time was the timing chain biting the dust. I think a lot of the old conventional wisdom on hydraulic lifters ignores how good the springs and lifters are these days. Of course this frees us up to worry about longevity of Rod bearings and stretch at high RPM. Which the gen 3 and 4 factory lumps still blow away my old 1st Gen SBC's in those regards too. What a fantastic time to run high performance engines.
Nice test. Ford combo ran out of carb/intake. Needs lots of cfm to keep making power on a 347 turning 8,000rpm. Porting the intake and going with more carb would have gained more top end and rpm for sure.
What is the rpm limit for the stroked bottom end
@@johnpublic168 that depends on many different factors
Look up how to calculate piston speed, eventually the piston travels faster then the expanded flame front. Which wont make "power" at that piston speed.
@@jasonhooey5677 you look up Induction cfm vs ci vs rpm and you will see what I'm talking about. We do this everyday and we have flowed and ported the very manifold they where using. They ran out of carb and manifold cfm. They need more CSA and cfm to keep the Induction system from stalling. That motor simply needs more airflow. You have had 347s and LS motors turning those rpms for years already.
@@bigdogsportingtonyb2833 What is CSA? Spark advance?
my 358ci sbc gen 1 with a solid roller pulls strong past 8000rpms (knife edge crank, billet main caps, aluminum rods, 12+ to 1 comp. massively ported 492 angle plug heads, .600" lift cam), fun little street engine
I would love to see a series on the ford alphabet cams... maybe with a set of AFR 185’s or comparable trick flows. Cool to see what’s possible with a junkyard 5.0L
It would make a good oval track motor what trans and rear end ratio would you use 4:11 with a 480le ?
I think the reason why the power off in the sbf is due to the hyd lifters leaking down during high rps. When the lifters leak down and they aren't limited in travel it creates a situation where the cam dynamically shrinks.
these were short travel
Short stroke isn’t for RPM potential it’s for longevity of the crank and rods. Dynamic forces at those engine speeds break stuff in the bottom end.
Should have done a Clevor on the SBF. Maybe the CHI 3V heads. Would be interesting to see oem 4V heads too.
Is CHI still in business? Last time I looked I had a hard time finding them.
@@Parents_of_Twins Their .au (australia) website is still up and showing products available. There's several US vendors for them.
I'm reving my Harley Sportster with a 3.81" stroke 7500 rpm. Cam specs are .600 x .600 lift ,264° x 270° @ .053". Full travel lifters with 1.850 in valves and 1.60 ex valves. Comp cams 7256,spring rate 485lbs/in ,160lbs@1.900" conical valve springs specs im using 185lbs on the seat., titanium retainers. She's still pulling hard when she comes on the rev limiter. Stroke dosent matter it's all in the cam and spring package. Oh yeah a good set of forged pistons are a must have too. Lol That piston speed is moving at that rpm.
The valvetrain sets the highest rpm where the engine will make power, regardless of bore/stroke... I totally agree. But the reciprocating mass and stroke combination kinda do set the max rpm where it will survive for long periods of time... ;) Today’s lighter pistons let you reach RPMs with stokers where people would have been de-stroking for durability in the 60s-80s, IMO, but even today shorter strokes are easier on parts.
Richard, I would have love to hear those engine revving to 8K plus! Can you list the valve train setup? Like the spring brand and pressure? Were those factory rockers with the trunnion upgrade or aftermarket rockers?
stock rockers and no upgrades, springs came on the AFR heads
same cam on 118 lsa on the Ford might of pushed out past 8k and making power
How about a Rhoads anti pump up lifter test. They do what they say. I have a big lumpy cam and it certainly did smooth it out at idle and it reved out another 500rpm with ease to 6500rpm when the stock lifters were only good to about 6000rpm.
yeah, it would be great to see their limits. I have Crane's in my Olds 455--no way i'm taking that past 5,500 RPM :)
Back in the 70s I was running a 340 with a crane cam and a hydraulic crane lifters and launched a 8000 RPMs no problems .🏁🏁🏁
HYD FLAT TAPPET CAM AT 8000 RPM?
This is literally the question of the century for us all haha! Definitely holding onto this info and combinations!
Possible bore shrouding on the SBF.? My favorite/best combo was SBF / Dart SHP bored to 4.185 with a 3.25 crank. 358 cid.
Yeah, rod ratio isn't great on a 302 so that is a good combo. By the way, I'm looking for a block like that, I already have crank and rods. If you know of any deals, let me know.
Circle track?
@@larrynorsworthy8582 Drag car, solid roller, 12.5 to 1, Fox body Mustang, GForce 5 spd. 8800 every pass.
@@larrynorsworthy8582 I want one for the street. I have a Roush induction kit twin plenum intake for it, it needs something crazy underneath. I want something bulletproof that can rev 7,500 easy, live between 4,500 and 6,500 all day and make enough power that it doesn't look stupid.
That's hard to do with an 8.2" deck but I would rather stay Ford instead of take the easy way out and swap in an LS.
My built 347 Did 617 At the flywell at nikon's brothers. I will tell you the combination. A 4 4 bolt main prept block. Fully ported and CNC powerports. With the titanium valves. I was also running The jesle valve bars. I was running a slightly domed DSS piston. So my compression rate was higher. Probably a little over 11 to 1. I was also running vp 108. It was ran with MSD crank trigger. And digital 6 Box. It made peak power right around 7900. But would stay clean to 8200. I had a solid roller It was close to 650 think right about 6:47 I remember that because The ci number and stroke were the same. It's been about 6 years. But with my 200 shot and my 2800 pound coupe it would run very Consistently in the 5.6 to 5.8 in 1/8 mile. So hope this information helps anybody going for that. So I believe the Cam and compression ratio Would need to be tweaked a little more for that motor to be happy. And maybe address the Valve stability For Free rev. My combination probably could have made more but we were getting ready for nitrous so it didn't have a ton of timing. Great video!! I just wanted fast cars on Netflix and was freaking out win I see you whith you friend in the wagon lol
650 tells us nothing about the cam
I run a 347 in Super Street 10.90. I slow the car down for the class, but it is a great little motor that revs, especially, in good air.
I would like to see someone dyno a set of the Kasse P38 small block Ford heads
Might have been said but would the Ford cam need more LSA to push that power put a little farther.
I would have thought a 114LSA with that duration
The sine wave is likely the roller cam profile roughness verses the valve sping period. Everything has a natural frequency that gets excitations when at certain engine speeds. If the cam is linished to stop the follower getting agitated, the surge should be eliminated.
It's time to go to 9200 RPM! Solid roller 3-in stroke 9200 the bore size doesn't matter. The bigger the better.
Fabulous video as usual Richard, I would love to know why the Ford was such an uninspiring thing, my guess would be that the single carb inlet was choke point, at those flow rates it doesn’t take much restriction to starve half the stroke.
Always learn something from your research and testing. Great job and thank you again. I really didn't think it would work, you proved it can be done.
It’s good that you point out none of these engines are stroke limited at 8k. I think the reason short stroke is often associated with higher RPM is with the same top end the short stroke engine simply takes more RPM to move the air and reach peak HP (valve train permitting). It would be interesting to see what happens to that 347 with a shorter stroke even though it's not stroke limited from a piston speed perspective.
do you think the lifters may have pumped up too much at higher rpm and didn't full close the valves. I have heard of earlier hydraulic lifters doing this but crane cams were supposed to be the first manufacturer to fix this problem. I'm talking about early LT1 hydraulic roller lifters pre LS.
In my experience, a Crane cam always leaves you thinking it should make more power.
I agree with that. Crane just isn't up with the times, is my take. Those specs just look "wrong" to me for an N/A 347 with good OOTB heads, that are NOT full-race prepped. I'll bet Bullet or, especially, Scott Main/Cam Research would not have disappointed you. That 347 made no more than your Boss 302 did, HP wise. Dearborn, we have a problem.
Till you try their inverted roller, circle track stuff...
@@MississippiDan1
Circle track is where I learned how inferior they were.
lunati has always been my secret weapon for fords, they can grind you out anything in a hurry
Cam Motion has always left me Very happy. Specially when fixing other's builds
The dual 4-barrel setup gives you better air density for any given air flow rate. About 5%. Toss a dominator on that 347.
Yes! Super exciting test :-)
How about doing a big bang engine running to 8K? Less torque required to make huge HP and craaaaazy sound - what is not to like?
How did you adjust the valves on the Ford ???? If you did the 0-lash plus 1/4 turn or whatever that would be my first place to look...you need to bottom the plunger and then back off a bit & run'em like a solid...else...no wonder it fell off. 2nd...330-340 cfm out of the 225 Hi-Ports??? Nothings impossible but I doubt it...nice job if it's real. Less likely but...that's a lot of duration for what 10.5 to 1 ??? Sure are a lot of opinions on this one...you kept mentioning valve train is the place to look...did it need more spring ???
Definitely a short-stroke engine. 3.0 sounds good to really find the limits of your valvetrain, but we're talking 5-digit RPM.
for the same RPM and pistons, 1.284X as much energy needed to accelerate/slow down a 3.4 inch versus 3.0 inch stroke.
On the ford with that combo should have used a 4.125 bore and I’m sure the engine would have made more power. Chamber to block shrouding maybe!
Anyone heard of "shimming " up hyd roller lifters? Using washers to limit the hyd lifter compression to .030 so it acts like a semi solid roller lifter? I saw a magazine article on this year's ago and a claim of hp and tq gain, but can't find the info anymore.
302hobronco yes I do that on my 363sbf using stock factory roller lifters, you are essentially making your own short travel lifters.
Hello Richard -I am using solid rollers on a hydraulic roller cam (408 Ford blower motor)
Changing the rod/stroke ratio is going to make some difference to the overlap interaction between the intake and exhaust flows - good or bad, hard to guess.
Fun test, though.
I think maybe the issue with Ford making not making more power was
1. Crane Cams- they were always wildly inaccurate and had poor valve train control ( I am bias toward Comp Cams because they’re around the corner from me )
B. Was the crankshaft a zero balance ? The factory imbalance specs eat a lot of power at high rpm.
3. Headers too small maybe
D. Was it a 100 degree day when you ran the dyno ?
5. Needs more timing. Twist the distributor until molten bits of piston ring start flying out the exhaust then back off 2 degrees.
The 347 setups have a lot of piston friction because of the short deck height and the short rods, I have read about extreme power 347s actually ramming the pistons through the cylinder walls. Could friction be the reason for the lack of power?
Where have you heard that?
My combo is a sbf 306 custom cam performer heads and intake votech t trim 15lb on e85 tuned through Holley 607wheel at 6000rpms
I think probably for the sbf the headers may have been the limiting factor, everything else was there for it to get up into the 600 range.
I see a modified oil pickup tube , how do you remove welding scale from the inside of the tube . Somehow run a flexible wire brush inside ?
I think that a rocker girdle and bigger primary headers and some different valve springs and timing on the ford would have helped alot on higher rpm I built a 306 with mahl forged pistons and gtp 40 heads that I ported balanced lower end Lunati roller lifters and rocker girdles crank girdle Canton crank scraper melling high volume oil pump gear to gear timing free floating wrist pins and 1/7-8 headers made 540 with a 75 shot
347 all day long. It has lighter pistons. By far. And that makes a huge difference when you start revving up past 7000. Kudos to you also, for using stock lifters to reach out to 8000 rpms. I am surprised by that. I would love to know what lobe profile was used. It surely was easy on the opening and closing ramps to keep the lifters from lofting without using killler spring pressure. They are heavy when they are full of oil.
How much difference does a balanced rotating assembly make in snap when spinning up to 8000rpm?
Given the drop in power and your knowledge of engine combos, it appears the smaller header created some restriction on the top end. The cam is large enough, and shorter stroke would have revved higher in this case if cubic inches went down with the stroke. A tunnel ram intake on the sbf would have changed things as well.
However, one cannot overlook the volumetric efficiency of each combination, favoring stroke length without considering the ratio to rod length, angle of ports and valves, directly comparing valve weights, valve angle grinds, comparing induction manifolds, etc. It is difficult to compare every little variable when there are a couple hundred of them in engine designing... I would have to say that while many combos can be made to turn 8k rpm, a longer stroke with shorter rod will always create efficiency at a lower rpm than the inverse. When you are testing boundaries, though, these factors now become critical; 18k rpm F1 cars being an example. You will struggle to make an small block anything turn 18,000 rpm; the basic design just isn't there.
In this particular test, I think sizing the headers and the intake manifold similarly to the LS would have yielded more power at top rpm. Basically 1 7/8" headers with a tunnel ram, maybe more carb...
Love the details, but I really want to hear each combo idle and scream!
Would have been interesting to list valve springs used with open and closed pressure.
I have the 4.8ls with 6.3 rod and stock balanced crank with 3.8 fordged piston......little demon!
I would love to see you do a buick grand national big bang motor with nice parts because I think that platform happed in the wrong era because we didnt have good big modern turbos or nice billet parts or really good stand alones and injectors back in there heyday. I honestly think one could make 1500+ if done right without to much of a problem. Also doing a built honda k24 twin turbo or huge single would be cool
I'd likd to think with the tech we have now , one with 450-500hp should last as long as anything else.
Or should last as long as the original was intended to last.
At least 100k, more like 150 and maybe she's kinda tired , and 200k yea she needs a rebuild.
We all know most anything modern and not full race can go 100k anymore standing on its head.
That would pretty cool to see, the problem is, it's hard to find and lc2 to test on.
307ci Chevy Small Block, 750vac secondary 3310 Holley four barrel, single plane intake, four eyebrow flat tops, not telling what cam, but it was my daily driver Street Car, I used to turn it too 8500rpm nearly every day
Hey Richard I couldn't tell but what bolt pattern was used on the sbf trick flow high ports? There is a small horizontal bolt pattern and the bigger diagonal bolt pattern. I noticed on these heads if you use the small bolt pattern it chops a lot of flow off the exhaust. Trick flow makes a high port specific header flange for the bigger bolt pattern for like $60 if I remember correctly. Also goes to a 5/16 header bolt for more clearence.
yes yes yes it can be done you need GOOD PARTS good specs and know how or boom.get the jb weld out or duct tape that would be good start to.few hp.but rod lenth is also has alot to do with clyder fill you can make it peakee or slow the rpm band on how long the rod is .weight crank pistons .rod lenth has a roll in it.
What about running this test with solid roller lifters and the same cams? Not really the same test but would be interesting to see power gains.
yes
rpms always has a price to bear to get there but good bottom end and uper end needs to be well thought therw balance wieght and home work and good parts start there. do the resherch do it right
I would bet the ford was getting air in the lifters It appears the valvetrain was stable. Lifters were collapsing however, causing it to peak early. It would have been interesting to put solid roller lifters in it with no other changes to see if the peak hp rpm went up to where we would expect it.
Richard, you definitely need to do an 8500 rpm turbo ls big bang. Nothing special, just ring gapped, gen 4, 4.8, with the appropriate top end of course. One guy on here had one with some Johnson short travels, 3/8 push rods, and btr's ultimate rpm spring kit and with twin borg cast 66's made 1140 whp on mild boost and has run it up to 41psi and was fine and ran a 7.8 or 7 in the quarter and 140k miles ungapped rings, didn't even look at the bearings, just ran e85 7.x afr and low timing around peak torque and ramped it back in after. Definitely something to look into sometime.
I think it’s a combination of two things here. First is the intake. It really needs plenum port work and match ported to the heads. Second is that crane cam. I’ve never had any luck with their cams in sbf. Do a hyd flat tappet lifter test!!!!
An interesting comparison would be to run the same combo on a 351W. Very close to the same displacement but a longer stroke and a taller deck height. So doesn’t that equate to a better rod ratio?
🔔Yes, rod ratio affects how soon and how fast the piston accelerates affects the flow through partially open intake valves, AND when the rod achieves 90* to the crank throw makes a difference.
Yeah a long rod 351w would probably do better
Chamber size, compression ratio, and fuel type would be good info for this discussion. Info on the rockers would be meaningful as well - I assume the LS was stock rockers...
No lie
What compression
Possible another camshaft for the Ford ? Is the valve weight spring weight limiting the Ford? Why not try the ford 3.25 stroke with a 4.125 bore? Would the Ford like the Funnel Web over the Victor JR ?
You should of tried different custom grind cams on the 347.