What do you think about 331-347 stroker fords?
05-12-2002, 04:32 PM
#21
TECH Addict
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Magee MS
Posts: 2,950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think about 331-347 stroker fords? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> We have some pretty stout Mustangs in my area.. This one guy had a I think 89 Mustang GT with some weight reduction, 347ci stroker, and 4.10's. On the street and on motor he had pretty much beat everyone around. The car with driver weighed 3300lbs. Now he had beat people by bus lengths.. One day I finally got the nerve to run him just to see where I stood.. He beat me only by a car and a half. I was so impressed with my setup I could not believe it. My car with me in it weighs 3750lbs. I have 3.42's and I was wearing F1's and he was in ET Streets. Granite we ran from a 15 to 20 mph roll, but I expected him to just pull away. I think if I would have had 4.10's and a little more weight reduction. He would have been beat.. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is pretty damn good for a mustang to pull away from you AT ALL on the big end!!! I have pulled away from many many many mustangs on the big end...... but at the track I usually get beat to the 300ft and then I really start pulling back hard but I usually run out of room to take a win. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" />
FORDS JUST DOESN'T HAVE IT TOGETHER!!!!!
Josh S.
FORDS JUST DOESN'T HAVE IT TOGETHER!!!!!
Josh S.
05-12-2002, 05:14 PM
#22
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think about 331-347 stroker fords? Turbostang, who is running low nines all motor and why would they add weight to match wieght of SAM car?
My bad, I did check on the weights of the HS cars, most are around 3000, but that is with a 360ci motor. More weight per CI setup. But they are running in the low 9's at 150+mph with a PG or clutch-assisted tranny. If you don't know any of the classes, this is all greek to you.
I am an engine builder, and the way i see things is power adder is a crutch for poor design or preparation. Perfect example is NHRA Pro Stock trucks, Ford and Dodge had every chance to show Bill Jenkins and the Chevy crew how its done and they couldnt do it. I care as much about power adders as i do top fuel, they are racing boost and Nitro mixtures, not factory style engine supremacy. 357 C.I. small block making 900+ hp is something to be impressed by not some pro 5.0 making 1900 hp with so much boost its dangerous to spectators!
YOu don't get to the track much if mixtures and boost are all that make up a nitro car....what about the chasis, clutch set-up...the latter usually makes or breaks you
The same applies for the Pro 5.0 cars.
Turbos are still in the infancy. Chuck Samuels a fews weeks ago went a 6.56@216 in his Pro 5.0 car, can you do that if it is so easy to do?? People that put down power adders,in my opinion, can't tune a power adder car, so when one asks to race them, they have a crutch to fall back on after they have been outran.
If power adders suck so bad, then why do 90% of the classes in racing organizations allow them?? People like Fast Times, Merkel, etc... must not know how to build a fast NA car huh? They have all built REAL fast power adder cars. IMO, if you can build a fast power adder car, you can do the same with a NA car easier. When you are adding 30psi to a car, you better have your tune right or **** burns down in a hurry!
Scott
99TA
85 Mustang
My bad, I did check on the weights of the HS cars, most are around 3000, but that is with a 360ci motor. More weight per CI setup. But they are running in the low 9's at 150+mph with a PG or clutch-assisted tranny. If you don't know any of the classes, this is all greek to you.
I am an engine builder, and the way i see things is power adder is a crutch for poor design or preparation. Perfect example is NHRA Pro Stock trucks, Ford and Dodge had every chance to show Bill Jenkins and the Chevy crew how its done and they couldnt do it. I care as much about power adders as i do top fuel, they are racing boost and Nitro mixtures, not factory style engine supremacy. 357 C.I. small block making 900+ hp is something to be impressed by not some pro 5.0 making 1900 hp with so much boost its dangerous to spectators!
YOu don't get to the track much if mixtures and boost are all that make up a nitro car....what about the chasis, clutch set-up...the latter usually makes or breaks you
The same applies for the Pro 5.0 cars. Turbos are still in the infancy. Chuck Samuels a fews weeks ago went a 6.56@216 in his Pro 5.0 car, can you do that if it is so easy to do?? People that put down power adders,in my opinion, can't tune a power adder car, so when one asks to race them, they have a crutch to fall back on after they have been outran.
If power adders suck so bad, then why do 90% of the classes in racing organizations allow them?? People like Fast Times, Merkel, etc... must not know how to build a fast NA car huh? They have all built REAL fast power adder cars. IMO, if you can build a fast power adder car, you can do the same with a NA car easier. When you are adding 30psi to a car, you better have your tune right or **** burns down in a hurry!
Scott
99TA
85 Mustang
05-12-2002, 06:04 PM
#23
Re: What do you think about 331-347 stroker fords? Remember I had to make up 400lbs and 4.10 gears.. Once we hit 100mph the tables were starting to turn. We were only running to 120mph.. If we would have kept going I would have caught him and passed him..
05-12-2002, 06:33 PM
#24
TECH Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: the moon
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think about 331-347 stroker fords? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">357 C.I. small block making 900+ hp is something to be impressed by not some pro 5.0 making 1900 hp with so much boost its dangerous to spectators</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ahh come on, that statement was a joke right?
05-12-2002, 07:51 PM
#25
TECH Addict
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Magee MS
Posts: 2,950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think about 331-347 stroker fords? what do you mean?????? it is very realistic for a chevy to make that naturally aspired ...... it is only a dream for ford!!!!!!!!
Josh S.
Josh S.
05-13-2002, 02:53 PM
#26
On The Tree
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think about 331-347 stroker fords? this sounds like a damn import vs domestic arguement, my 1.6L makes 100hp per L, its more efficent, it still passes emissions blah blah blah, i think the point is, who makes it to the end of the 1/4 faster <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
05-13-2002, 03:36 PM
#27
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think about 331-347 stroker fords? How is it a dream for a ford to make 900HP NA out of 360 ish cubic inches. There are mopar and ford motors which have done this, along with chevy.
At this level your talking canted valve heads, serious compression levels, tunnel ram intakes,
At this level your talking canted valve heads, serious compression levels, tunnel ram intakes,
