Here you go, look at this mustang,
<img src="http://www.cafords.com/images/john91coupe/hi-res/TN_Image024.JPG" alt=" - " />
This Mustang shown above runs 9's in the 1/4 mile, and is also very streetable. Here is the link to the full website.

http://www.cafords.com/images/john91coupe/hi-res/

This by the way is a 302 block stroked to a 331. So it is a 302 based engine, not a 351 based winsor engine.

Hope you guys enjoy.

Josh

<small>[ February 17, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: The302Riddler ]</small>

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by INTMD8:
<strong> I will respond to the original post, since this has got WAY off topic.


Of 331-347 cubic inch strokers.

"My thoughts are that there are too many of these fully built combo's that fall really short of the type of bar the LS1 has put up.

Built right, these cars could put down similar numbers in similar RPM ranges."

----I would say that since there are alot more 331-347 inch strokers out there than heads/cam LS1's, than your success/failure rate will always favor the LS1 since you are starting out with more base HP, and there aren't the same amount of cars for comparison. I would say alot of fully built combo's of every make fall short of there potential.-----


"I remember when the bar for LS1 was 400rwhp, then 420, then 440 and now it appears to be in the 450-470rwhp range for hydraulic cammed, street cars that don't need to rev to 7000 rpm to make their power. The rwtq is phenominal too, looks like the really good combos are in the 400-430rwtq range. This is a true testiment to the EFFICIENCY of these combos."

----The current output of a heads/cam LS1 is VERY good. As for the 450-470rwhp cars I've seen, they DO need to spin 7k+ in order to make there power. Nothing wrong with that, but I havn't seen any hydraulic cammed 470rwhp LS1's peaking at 6,200.---


"Most of these ford 331-347's are putting down around 350-370rwhp and 350-370rwtq. This is a far cry from the current LS1 development."

---You're probably right. But just because most people aren't building them right, doesn't mean that there is no N/A ford engine development. I don't see you using bottom of the barrel LS1 cars for your comparison. A properly built 347 with good heads/cam should make similar power to an LS1, if built to make peak HP at the same RPM. In fact, I can't think of a cylinder head that more closely resembles an LS1, than that of a small block ford.----


"On that side they are saying you guys spend ALOT of money to get the type of power.

My thoughts are is it costs in the $4000-$7000 range.

Heck some of the shops such as LG or MTI should put out ford packages for the ford guys so they can get a taste of real N/A power. "


The LS1 cars are comparitavely expensive, but that's no suprise given how long they have been around.

Your original question is about N/A Ford engine development. But then you bring up examples of 347's. As someone else stated, that engine should be compared to the SBC, as it's architechture is from the same era.

You can't really compare a SBF to an LS1 in terms of N/A development, because the LS1 had the latest technology in 1997. Just because we can do heads/cam and bolt-ons and make outrageous horsepower doesn't mean we're ahead of the game with engine development. It means that GM's LS1 is ahead of Fords small block in terms of engine development, and it should be considering it's 30+ years newer.

If you really want to know about naturally aspirated Ford development, look no further than the ohc modular motors. They will not have the capability to make the same streetable horsepower, in the same RPM band as an LS1 due to a serious lack of cubic inches, but they really shine with forced induction.

And before I hear any "give us 32 valves" or "give us a blower" remarks, remember that those comments are really irrelevant, because that's NOT THE WAY IT IS!

Fords are 4.6l, making power with 4 valves per cyl and overhead cams, and in some cases boost.

LS1's are 5.7l, naturally aspirated.

If all the variables between both engines were equalled out, than obviously both engines would be identical and there would be no debate.

JMHO <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

-Jim </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">you can't put it any better than that. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

Good to hear from you INTMD8 and some really good points <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rocketsled:
<strong> well with slp headers i can gain anther 41hp. the cat-back is all i've done to mine. do u think that mach 1 can produce that kinda gain? i don't think so. i'm not trying to **** u off here. don't forget about that lt5 in the zl1 vette. 410 hp. with out mods. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">41 hp huh?Put down the crack pipe dude.and the zr-1 was such a blazing success that it was only produced for a couple of years.like I stated above this discussion is not about what a mach 1 can do way off topic so if you have nothing to add to the real topic please dont waste our time

<small>[ February 17, 2003, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: danimal95 ]</small>

 

How much do they weigh and are they 302 based motors?

<small>[ February 17, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: DailyAluminumBlock ]</small>

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by hondakiller:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jonezy:
<strong> I don't really want in this war, but I saw a bone stock 02 Z bust a 00 Ford Lightning by at least 3 cars so don't come on here saying that the highly overated Ligtning motor is worth a crap. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the fact that the lightning is a truck weighing nearly 4800lbs has NOTHING to do with it losing either. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah im pretty sure the 4800 lb weight of the lightening had something to do with it,Ihave respect for anything that hauls ***,I am really supprised at the response from this post when I started to defend the ford name considering the original post specifically asked what people thought of fords engine development.What suprises me even more is the lack of knowledge that followed,do you people actually think that a motor that ha sbeen around for decades (302)isint capable of good horsepower #'s? That is pure ignorance!Take into consideration that there are only 1 or 2 f-bodys in the 8's when there are uncountable #'s of 8 sec mustangs that drive to the track run the # then drive home.Yeah thats really lacking in reserch and development.Had I known that I would be responding to a large group of short bussers I would'nt have responded at all. I understand that there are some of you on this post that understand my point,as for the rest of you hockey equiptment wearing,droolers blow me!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DailyAluminumBlock:
<strong> How much do they weigh and are they 302 based motors? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On the average I would say in the low 3200 lb class and the majority are 302 based 306's

 

Well, I have a 347 in my 93 LX which puts out well over 400 hp N/A and a tad over 600 with 150 hp worth of nitrous. This is a stock block with Performer RPM heads and a Lunati hyd. roller that still gets 24 mpg with the A/C on driving 25 miles each way to work everyday, so it's not even that radical by most standards.
It's not that the poor old Ford engines don't make the power, it's just that some of you haven't seen it! Much like myself and LS1 cars, I have yet to see one of these 10 second NA cars at any of the tracks I frequent (Joliet, St. Louis, Cordova or Earlville).
While I don't doubt the big power claims I hear about heads/cam LS1s, I also don't see many of them around. For every 11 second LS1, there is a parking lot full of 9 and 10 second 302 based Mustangs. Of course, this is mostly due to the huge aftermarket and low cost of building a Mustang compared to a LS1, but I still think there would be alot more badass LS1s around if it were as easy as some would lead me to believe. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

 

my 347 made over 400rwhp but from what i see it generally takes more cam for the ford to make the power.honestly the ls1 head is better than most of the aluminum ford heads out there.there are some out there that would more than compare but then that means the ford guys would have to spend the same amount of money the ls1 guys spend and most arent willing to do that.

btw i am in the middle of building a 100% emissions legal 383 sbf with cast iron heads that should make over 400rwhp with a very small cam.

 

Here's an opinion from an honest driver of a '93 mustang with a 331! I have a pretty modded '93 lx with a 331 with about 10.5:1 CR. I drive the car every day to school, work, or wherever I need to go. It is my only vehicle, the 331 is a little over a year old and has almost 20K miles on it. The car has lots of power and lots of low end torque and I am very happy with it. BUT, I had to spend a lot of time and money on it to get it to where it is. An LS1 is a great motor and has respect from me. A good friend of mine has a '98 Z28 and he traps in the 106-107 range and all he has is exhaust and a centerforce clutch. Last time I ran my car(before a bunch of mods) I was only trapping at about 108.5-109.1. Since then I added a bunch of stuff and I'm expecting to trap around 113-115 when I get back out there(if I get back out there). I've seen quite a few n/a LS1's trapping at 108 and above, but when I go to the track I am usually one of the fastest N/A street stangs around. I guess there's just not too many stroker guys around though? I do think that with similar displacement though, and similar head/cam/intake match ups, these engines will make close to the same power. I think if I would have gone to 347, I would be running a little faster. But, for being 19 cubes short of an LS1, I think I do a pretty damn good job at beating them or at least keeping up with them <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

 

n/a power with the ford is kinda pointless. Its too easy to put a blower on the 5liter. Since the heads are gonna be changed anyway, might as well bolt on some with bigger chambers to lower the compression ratio. Also the pistons come forged from the factory so there is no reason to touch the short block.

The ls1 engine is definitly better with the heads and valvetrain. The mustangs are fast because theyre light and respond well to superchargers.

 

Unfortunately, the mustang hasn't had a stock forged piston since '92. I just like having the n/a power personally, I have nothing against blowers, I just didn't want one at the time I pulled my 302 out.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by The302Riddler:
<strong> Here you go, look at this mustang,
<img src="http://www.cafords.com/images/john91coupe/hi-res/TN_Image024.JPG" alt=" - " />
This Mustang shown above runs 9's in the 1/4 mile, and is also very streetable. Here is the link to the full website.

http://www.cafords.com/images/john91coupe/hi-res/

This by the way is a 302 block stroked to a 331. So it is a 302 based engine, not a 351 based winsor engine.

Hope you guys enjoy.

Josh </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nice blower. Look at the title of the thread again...

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Pro Stock John:
<strong> 351W stroked to 420ci motor, 11.5:1 compression, carbed, with a roller cam...

89 Mustang at 3000 raceweight goes 10.2@135mph on pump gas. Sounds pretty similar to a 422ci LS1 motor to me.

Is it really fair to compare a 5.0 (4.000 bore x 3.000 stroke) to a bigger motor like the LS1?

I'm not much up on the new Mach1s' are they fast? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Motor's like that gain quite a bit going to a carb style intake. I remember a recent magazine article comparing an all out EFI mustang vs a carb'd one. EFI was trailing by 40 horse.

 

Pro Stock John.

I was comparing the 331-347 buildups to the 346 LS1. You can lump in 351's as well. They usually dyno just a little bit lower due to big main and rod journal.

The 393-427 strokers can compare against the 388-422 LS1 strokers.

 

just to add something,from my experience so far it seems the ford computer is a big set back on these cars,have seen several peaple switch to a fast(dfi)system and pick up ALOT of power.

one guy on a board made 480rwhp with a somewhat mild 383 because of the speed density setup.

seems most guys with semi stout combos will pick up between 30 and 60rwhp with a GOOD engine management system.

 

oh crap i think i will waste some more of ur time. if thats ok. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> the 331 and the 347 are still under powered. but ford is take some steps forward. i also think they are much harder to work on. and if u really want to pay that kinda money to get that kinda rwhp. u go right ahead. i would much rather have the old pushrod 302 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BurnOut:
<strong> Once again, we have strayed from comparing apples to apples to comparing apples to oranges.

If you want to look at Ford's competition for the SBC, look at the Windsor motors.

If you want to look at Ford's competition for the LS1, look at the mod motors.

It is my opinion that Ford is WAAAAAYYY behind in (recent) N/A engine development. Even with a (factory) blower, they can't compare to an LSx motor with a blower.

Look at the Magnacharger (read: Eaton blower, just like Ford uses) kit for the 'Vettes. Between 5 and 6 pounds of boost, and over 400 RWHP/RWTQ. I have personally witnessed an otherwise stock (read: stock manifolds, stock cat-back, stock heads, stock cam; STOCK) Z06 with the Magnacharger kit lay down ~435 RWHP/RWTQ. Compare that to a Lightning motor, and you'll see what I am talking about. You may argue that the Lightning has a smaller motor (all of ~18 ci) and an automatic, but also remember that it is running at least double the boost that the Magnacharger/LS6 combo is.

Sure, we can argue factory vs. aftermarket, but the point is that if both engines are set up pretty closely, the General is going to come out ahead.

Just my $.02; take it for what it's worth... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I dont understand your point of how you can compare the ls-1 to a mod motor,they couldnt be more different.If there where any 2 motors that should be compared it s the 302 and the ls-1.Considering they are both pushrod motors and realistically both old engine technology (except for the ls-1 heads).And just for your information we had a COMPLETELY stock 03 cobra on our dyno at work and it laid down 403 rwhp and 397 rwtq with 65 less c.i than the z-06 your comparing the lightening to.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Pro Stock John:
<strong> 351W stroked to 420ci motor, 11.5:1 compression, carbed, with a roller cam...

89 Mustang at 3000 raceweight goes 10.2@135mph on pump gas. Sounds pretty similar to a 422ci LS1 motor to me.

Is it really fair to compare a 5.0 (4.000 bore x 3.000 stroke) to a bigger motor like the LS1?

I'm not much up on the new Mach1s' are they fast? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good point John the 2 combos you listed are very comparable,I noticed that someone a couple posts down argued the fact that a carbed intake makes more power,which is a very valid point ,I have however,seen the same motors with a injection manifold run the same times.And as far as comparing the ls-1 to a 5.0 i think eveyone was refering to a stroked 5.0 347/331 which is very comparable

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rocketsled:
<strong> oh crap i think i will waste some more of ur time. if thats ok. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> the 331 and the 347 are still under powered. but ford is take some steps forward. i also think they are much harder to work on. and if u really want to pay that kinda money to get that kind of rwhp. u go right ahead. i would much rather have the old pushrod 302 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At least your on the right suject now.But I would like to know where you came up with the asumption that 347/331 are underpowered or are you just jumping on the band wagon with all the other narrow minded people?And how do you come up with the idea that they are harder to work on? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />