stroke = 4.165 vs. bore = 3.55???
Thread Starter
TECH Veteran
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,055
Likes: 1
From: Hartsdale, NY
stroke = 4.165 vs. bore = 3.55??? I'm considering a naturally aspirated Gen 3, 4.125" stroke, 3.898" bore stroker motor; what are the dissadvantages of a stroke that is longer (bigger) than the bore...?
Ford's new 5.4 liter motor that will be sold in the new GT40 in 2004 has a huge stroke 4.165" and a relatively tiny bore, 3.55"!!!! (See Hot Rod, November 2003) It is a blower motor with 8.3 compression ratio, however.
Does the "over" stroke work better on blower motors?
Ford's new 5.4 liter motor that will be sold in the new GT40 in 2004 has a huge stroke 4.165" and a relatively tiny bore, 3.55"!!!! (See Hot Rod, November 2003) It is a blower motor with 8.3 compression ratio, however.
Does the "over" stroke work better on blower motors?
Re: stroke = 4.165 vs. bore = 3.55??? The correct term is "undersquare", meaning more stroke than bore. "square" means equal bore/stroke, and "oversquare" means more bore than stroke.
Undersquare engines are usually designed on a compromise, and those Ford modular engines are a perfect example. They were intended for passenger cars and trucks, and then adapted over for the Mustang. In NA form, they are pretty weak and do not rev very high for an OHC setup. If those 4.6L Modulars could support 9000 rpm like some Honda engines, they would be awesome. Without high rpm capability, the OHC setup is a waste of design.
The main drawback to undersquare engines is that they aren't as suited for quick revs like an oversquare engine. Also, with smaller cylinders, there is more valve shrouding compared with an oversquare engine. Less power potential.
I'd always choose a square or oversquare setup.
Tony
Undersquare engines are usually designed on a compromise, and those Ford modular engines are a perfect example. They were intended for passenger cars and trucks, and then adapted over for the Mustang. In NA form, they are pretty weak and do not rev very high for an OHC setup. If those 4.6L Modulars could support 9000 rpm like some Honda engines, they would be awesome. Without high rpm capability, the OHC setup is a waste of design.
The main drawback to undersquare engines is that they aren't as suited for quick revs like an oversquare engine. Also, with smaller cylinders, there is more valve shrouding compared with an oversquare engine. Less power potential.
I'd always choose a square or oversquare setup.
Tony
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
Re: stroke = 4.165 vs. bore = 3.55??? One main advantage of a larger bore is better breathing due to larger valves and less valve shrouding. The 4-valve Ford head helps this, but so does the 12 psi boost. So in this case, boost is a good substitute for bore. 
Ford used the long stroke to get 5.4 L from the 4.6 L design, especially when using a sleeved aluminum block with boost. A almost "square" 3.552 x 3.543 gives a 4.6L engine.
Of course the downside to long strokes is increased piston speed and increased friction hp losses, but Ford is limiting this engine to reasonable rpms.
IMO, a 3.85 bore x 3.54 stroke would be preferable, but you can't do that with a 3.937 bore spacing. (SBC is 4.40). I've wondered if Ford plans to stretch the basic 4.6 Mod to 6.0L to stay competitive in the truck market. I think not. Evidently when Ford decided to do the Mod engine, the old 4.38 bore spacing of the Small Block Ford was scrapped. That is a basic engine block dimension which costs mega-millions to change. Even though GM retooled a number of engine lines to produce the LS V8s they kept the old 4.40 bore spacing, so 7.0L is very dooable.
My $.02
PS: I should have checked Tony's post first. I agree with him.
Ford used the long stroke to get 5.4 L from the 4.6 L design, especially when using a sleeved aluminum block with boost. A almost "square" 3.552 x 3.543 gives a 4.6L engine.
Of course the downside to long strokes is increased piston speed and increased friction hp losses, but Ford is limiting this engine to reasonable rpms.
IMO, a 3.85 bore x 3.54 stroke would be preferable, but you can't do that with a 3.937 bore spacing. (SBC is 4.40). I've wondered if Ford plans to stretch the basic 4.6 Mod to 6.0L to stay competitive in the truck market. I think not. Evidently when Ford decided to do the Mod engine, the old 4.38 bore spacing of the Small Block Ford was scrapped. That is a basic engine block dimension which costs mega-millions to change. Even though GM retooled a number of engine lines to produce the LS V8s they kept the old 4.40 bore spacing, so 7.0L is very dooable.
My $.02
PS: I should have checked Tony's post first. I agree with him.
Thread Starter
TECH Veteran
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,055
Likes: 1
From: Hartsdale, NY
Re: stroke = 4.165 vs. bore = 3.55??? Oh - OK:
Some said here, my plan to do a naturally aspirated 4.125 stroke and a 3.989 bore (stock) Gen 3 aluminum block would end up to be a truck-like engine not ideally suitable for a muscle street car...
Compared to the Ford unit, which seems like an extreme undersquare engine (4.165 stroke, bore 3.55), however, my proposed stroker would be a lot less undersquare...
I thought there may good reason for Ford to design this as an undersquare engine....
I assume you are saying this undersquared Ford motor is far from ideal, however, the blower and 4 valve head compensate for this design shortfall; right?
Some said here, my plan to do a naturally aspirated 4.125 stroke and a 3.989 bore (stock) Gen 3 aluminum block would end up to be a truck-like engine not ideally suitable for a muscle street car...
Compared to the Ford unit, which seems like an extreme undersquare engine (4.165 stroke, bore 3.55), however, my proposed stroker would be a lot less undersquare...
I thought there may good reason for Ford to design this as an undersquare engine....
I assume you are saying this undersquared Ford motor is far from ideal, however, the blower and 4 valve head compensate for this design shortfall; right?
Re: stroke = 4.165 vs. bore = 3.55??? Hey dude you are like a broken record.
You had a thread like this last month.
You'll make torque that would make a truck owner happy and the car won't rev.
For most applications we should stay at 4.000 stroke or LESS.
You had a thread like this last month.
You'll make torque that would make a truck owner happy and the car won't rev.
For most applications we should stay at 4.000 stroke or LESS.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
Re: stroke = 4.165 vs. bore = 3.55???
Oh - OK:
Some said here, my plan to do a naturally aspirated 4.125 stroke and a 3.898 bore (stock) Gen 3 aluminum block would end up to be a truck-like engine not ideally suitable for a muscle street car...
Compared to the Ford unit, which seems like an extreme undersquare engine (4.165 stroke, bore 3.55), however, my proposed stroker would be a lot less undersquare...
I thought there may good reason for Ford to design this as an undersquare engine....
I assume you are saying this undersquared Ford motor is far from ideal, however, the blower and 4 valve head compensate for this design shortfall; right?
Some said here, my plan to do a naturally aspirated 4.125 stroke and a 3.898 bore (stock) Gen 3 aluminum block would end up to be a truck-like engine not ideally suitable for a muscle street car...
Compared to the Ford unit, which seems like an extreme undersquare engine (4.165 stroke, bore 3.55), however, my proposed stroker would be a lot less undersquare...
I thought there may good reason for Ford to design this as an undersquare engine....
I assume you are saying this undersquared Ford motor is far from ideal, however, the blower and 4 valve head compensate for this design shortfall; right?
Note that any of their production Mod engines near LS6 territory have an assist from Eaton.
Re: stroke = 4.165 vs. bore = 3.55??? Torquey like a '69 Chevelle big block, but will fall on it's face after half track, just like a '69 Chevelle big block
Whatever you build, don't forget the Comp springs in the valve train :p
Whatever you build, don't forget the Comp springs in the valve train :p
Trending Topics
Re: stroke = 4.165 vs. bore = 3.55??? Remember BBC's have a huge bore, like 4.500 so when they run a lot a stroke it's still not undersquare.
The Lightnings have like 4.250 stroke and a like a 3.55 bore, so the trucks make big powwa down low and have no top end that's why they are turds from a high mph roll.
The Lightnings have like 4.250 stroke and a like a 3.55 bore, so the trucks make big powwa down low and have no top end that's why they are turds from a high mph roll.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Topdon ONE vs. Artidiag 800 BT2: Which is the Diagnostic Tablet For You?
Pouria Savadkouei
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
