Ford GT Engine (interesting boost setup)
TECH Veteran
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,055
Likes: 1
From: Hartsdale, NY
Yeh; I ran a post about this undersquare motor several weeks ago when it first was discussed in the mags...
I was considering a Gen 3, 396 stroker based on a 4.125 stroke and a stock bore at the time and I wanted to know why everone thought this was a dopey idea in view of what Ford was doing with this engine...
Most who commented said the undersquare design was a comprimise that resulted from using the smallish FORD blocks.... they also said some of the drawbacks to an oversquare design can be masked by the 4 valve design and the blower set up.
Like most of Henry's better ideas, you can cover lots of design flaws with a high sticker (E.g., $125,000... )
I was considering a Gen 3, 396 stroker based on a 4.125 stroke and a stock bore at the time and I wanted to know why everone thought this was a dopey idea in view of what Ford was doing with this engine...
Most who commented said the undersquare design was a comprimise that resulted from using the smallish FORD blocks.... they also said some of the drawbacks to an oversquare design can be masked by the 4 valve design and the blower set up.
Like most of Henry's better ideas, you can cover lots of design flaws with a high sticker (E.g., $125,000... )
On The Tree
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, CA
Originally Posted by FAST LS1
The C5 guys could get a whipple to fit and work much better than the current Magnuson but no one seems interested even though it's a big improvement.
Originally Posted by grooves12
Explain why a Whipple is better than a Magnuson... I thought they were both esentially the same thing.
http://www.kennebell.net/techinfo/ge...romcatalog.pdf
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,220
Likes: 0
From: Germantown, MD
Originally Posted by FAST LS1
Mike
