Stroked 351 Windsor

66 6F HCS wrote:
> "Obie f.k.a. Wound Up" > wrote
>
>>I'm considering a Coast Windsor stroker. My gut tells me the 331 would
>>likely be less to worry about (no need for notching the block, better rod
>>angle, etc.), and good to go on 6000+ RPM, but my need for speed tells me
>>347 is 16 more inches. I just have a problem with pushing any block to
>>the limits, you know? And I could always fit the 331 with a Paxton =)
>
>
> I SERIOUSLY doubt you'd notice *any* "SOTP" difference between the 331 and
> 347.
>

I wondered this myself. But, while I was at it...

>
>>OTOH - I am spending this $ once... unfortunately anything in the FE
>>category is prohibitively expensive, having gone so far down the 289/302
>>path. Any thoughts? A 351 crate would require me to buy a lot of new
>>stuff too. The new 600 carb would be a waste. The 8" Currie, although
>>strong, would probably break.
>
>
> Well... with the 393 stroker the only odd part is the crank itself. The
> pistons are 302 pistons and the rods are stock 351 rods. MUCH cheaper than
> going bigger and having to be ALL special parts. Just find a beat up 351W
> and tear it down. rebuild with new crank and dished 302 pistons and you're
> done. Everything else will bolt on (as I know you know). The only difference
> would be finding a good block.
>
> I re-used the rods that were already in my 351 when I got it. Used 12cc dish
> 302 pistons to keep the compression at 9.5:1 using D0OE iron 351W heads
> (though they are FAR from stock; roller rockers, port polish). 393 crank
> from CHP for ~$250. Balance the whole thing and put it together. The block
> is ".060 ob, so It's in essence a 400 small block (rounding up the way Ford
> always does). Once I put on a set of GT-40X heads, It'll pump out damn near
> 500lb/ft and ~430hp all with a rebuilt 625cfm Carter. Glad I've got a fairly
> solid FMX and a 9".

That sounds like a great combo. I would have thought you'd use a larger
CFM carb at higher altitudes. Whatever I get, the Performer 600 is
staying, at least for a while. The GT-40 head is sometimes wrongly
maligned. I looked at the P head and the only issue was header
clearance. And if I had experience doing it, I would love to build my own.

But I would likely go crate, and I have thought 351W in the background
this whole time. I just fear I'd jump on it and break the third member.
The transmission can take it, for sure. Currie rates its stuff on the
conservative side, IMO. It's an 8" four-pinion limited slip unit with
the same webbed case as the GT/CS cars had. Hell, Ford they put a
non-reinforced-case open 8" behind the 352 in a heavier car, not sure if
the torque is similar, but I have to think this very stout little 8"
could take 400 lbs./ft.... ???? Am I kidding myself???

AAHHHH. Hindsight. All this trouble with getting the tranny in, strong
enough for a built 390, but the rear end worries me. I wonder if I
should just risk it, and if I do bust it, feign indignance to the wife
and then get the 9" N case =)

--
Obie f.k.a. Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694
AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx

"Obie f.k.a. Wound Up" > wrote
> That sounds like a great combo. I would have thought you'd use a larger
> CFM carb at higher altitudes.

Actually I need less. I'd just lose fuel efficiency (not like I'm getting
much anyway). I never plan on running this thing near or over 6k rpm, so the
625 Carter is just fine. The only issue with the smaller carb is when I drop
the hammer from a stoplight, the car just CAN'T suck enough fuel to keep up
with the vacuum and it the off-idle flat spot is HUGE. But once I hit ~2000
rpm it's a rocket!! I'm thinking a 2200 stall is in order, even though a
bigger carb is cheaper. In the long run the higher stall is more efficient
in my case.

From a 10mph rolling start I beat the crap out of a '69 Camaro with a 390
and the Edelbrock RPM package (heads/cam/intake), a 4-spd, and 3.73's. I was
amazed and the Camaro's owner was not amused. Especially when I lifted the
hood at the Autozone, after the impromptu race, and he saw a plain 'ol
edelbrock performer intake, a dinky 625 Carter, a stock dizzy with points
and iron heads. The only thing that says performance (visually anyways)
about this engine is the Powermaster alternator and the long tube Hedmans.
Everything else is very stealth. No way to see the stroker, cam or the
extensive headwork.

> The GT-40 head is sometimes wrongly maligned. I looked at the P head and
> the only issue was header clearance. And if I had experience doing it, I
> would love to build my own.

Other than the fact that the P is an iron head, I'd still go with the "X"
head. Much maligned, yes, does it's job, yes, especially with the cam I
have. And since I'm not planning on revving the hell out of it I don't
really need the more expensive bigger port heads out there. What I can use
is the increased compression. The D0OE heads are 72cc chamber giving 9.5:1.
The X heads will push that to the 12.5:1 range. Hoo-Boy!! I nthis altitude
it won't hurt to bad since you can almost take 1 full point off for being a
mile high. I can run my 10:1 302 on 85 octane pump gas (with nary a hiccup)
at this altitude, so I should still be able to run on something out of the
pump without resorting to race gas.

> But I would likely go crate, and I have thought 351W in the background
> this whole time. I just fear I'd jump on it and break the third member.
> The transmission can take it, for sure.

If you stick with the 600cfm you don't need to worry about it. It'll flat
spot off the line anyway, killing max torque off the line and sparing you
8". You can add the aftermarket 8" case bracing anyway can't you?

>Currie rates its stuff on the conservative side, IMO. It's an 8"
>four-pinion limited slip unit with the same webbed case as the GT/CS cars
>had. Hell, Ford they put a non-reinforced-case open 8" behind the 352 in a
>heavier car, not sure if the torque is similar, but I have to think this
>very stout little 8" could take 400 lbs./ft.... ???? Am I kidding
>myself???

Remember that they were gearing them for the highway with those 8"ers behind
the BB's So the motor had to work to get the car going. They weren't running
4.11"s behind those FE's and 8" rears. Yes, they woulda busted something.
352 was good for stump pulling, but not a high revver.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

Jim Warman wrote:

> Stroking an engine leaves us needing to check a host of things... on our
> 440/500 conversion, we had to notch the bottom of the cylinders for
> connecting rod clearance, the boss where the oil pump pick-up enters the
> block (obviously, not a concern with the Windsor) had to trimmed severely,
> and we had to address the oil pan rail.... when clearancing these areas, we
> need to realize that things can "grow" at high rpms.
>
> Anything in the way of metal to metal contact should leave witness marks...
> some of these may require very, very close inspection.
>
>
> "onefastmustang" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>So I have a 69 351 Windsor block that I have put a 393 stroker kit in.
>>I have it all built and it starts up and sounds smooth, however there
>>is a slight rapping noise coming from the bottom. I have pulled the pan
>>and checked the clearances of the counterweight to piston skirt.
>>Everything looks good. Could it be that the oil pan is being
>>contacted??? Will a stock oil pan work on a 393 stroker kit or do I
>>need a clearanced oil pan???
>>
>
>
>
What oil pan are you using? Canton pans are famous for making contact in the
rear, I think if was on the left. I clearanced mine with a small hammer.

--
..boB
On Order: 2006 FXDI, Red.
1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged Stolen 11/26/05 in Denver
1HD1GEL10VY3200010 CO License J5822Z
2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92
1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver
1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast.

66 6F HCS wrote:
> "Obie f.k.a. Wound Up" > wrote
>
>>That sounds like a great combo. I would have thought you'd use a larger
>>CFM carb at higher altitudes.
>
>
> Actually I need less. I'd just lose fuel efficiency (not like I'm getting
> much anyway).

I see what you mean. I would have thought "big CFM, jetted a bit
leanly". I suppose smaller CFM jetted fairly stock works well, too.

I never plan on running this thing near or over 6k rpm, so the
> 625 Carter is just fine. The only issue with the smaller carb is when I drop
> the hammer from a stoplight, the car just CAN'T suck enough fuel to keep up
> with the vacuum and it the off-idle flat spot is HUGE. But once I hit ~2000
> rpm it's a rocket!! I'm thinking a 2200 stall is in order, even though a
> bigger carb is cheaper. In the long run the higher stall is more efficient
> in my case.
>

Makes sense. I get fuel starvation at WOT in 1st because of my gears
(and I need some braided hose too). Having driven a fair bit up at a
mile high higher, I would probably also prefer a higher stall convertor,
to get on cam quickly and stay there.

> From a 10mph rolling start I beat the crap out of a '69 Camaro with a 390
> and the Edelbrock RPM package (heads/cam/intake), a 4-spd, and 3.73's. I was
> amazed and the Camaro's owner was not amused. Especially when I lifted the
> hood at the Autozone, after the impromptu race, and he saw a plain 'ol
> edelbrock performer intake, a dinky 625 Carter, a stock dizzy with points
> and iron heads.

HA HAA. Always the best. He expects more than what he's got.. but it's
not there! But why no Pertronix? Best $70 I ever spent. Points suck
man! Especially new ones, the metal seems to have degraded in quality
over the years, and the dwell changes too quickly.

The only thing that says performance (visually anyways)
> about this engine is the Powermaster alternator and the long tube Hedmans.
> Everything else is very stealth. No way to see the stroker, cam or the
> extensive headwork.
>

This is partially why a stroker SB apppealed to me. I have no chrome
badges, and never will. Let them guess, I say. My car is plain jane
but has smooth lines and nice paint. I am going for "looks stock but
goes like hell."

>
>>The GT-40 head is sometimes wrongly maligned. I looked at the P head and
>>the only issue was header clearance. And if I had experience doing it, I
>>would love to build my own.
>
>
> Other than the fact that the P is an iron head, I'd still go with the "X"
> head. Much maligned, yes, does it's job, yes, especially with the cam I
> have. And since I'm not planning on revving the hell out of it I don't
> really need the more expensive bigger port heads out there. What I can use
> is the increased compression. The D0OE heads are 72cc chamber giving 9.5:1.
> The X heads will push that to the 12.5:1 range. Hoo-Boy!!

Good lord, high torque starter next!! What gas do you need for that?
You can't really run more than 10.5:1 here without worrying about octane.

I nthis altitude
> it won't hurt to bad since you can almost take 1 full point off for being a
> mile high. I can run my 10:1 302 on 85 octane pump gas (with nary a hiccup)
> at this altitude, so I should still be able to run on something out of the
> pump without resorting to race gas.
>

That makes sense. Mine is a rebuilder, so figure 8.0-8.5, but I time it
for 89. Seems to be the best curve for the cam. What I need to do is
get those damned 351 manifolds on it in the meantime. It's so
constricted I can feel it fight those manifolds at anything over 3500 rpm.

I would like to have about 6000 rpm available to me, with an operating
range starting in the low 2000s, because of overdrive. The five speed
makes me want that extra 800 rpm badly. Plus I wanna hit 60 in 2nd. I
just like lots of room to play with. Comp Cams makes "Xtreme Energy",
high-lift, short-duration cams that fit this profile. I run a middling
one now, waving bye-bye at about 5200, because I don't want to spin the
snot out of the cheap motor I have in it.

It seems like you've got a great, well planned setup there. I have had
in my mind a balanced, livable but powerful setup like yours for my car
for years now. The last piece is the "real" motor.

>
>>But I would likely go crate, and I have thought 351W in the background
>>this whole time. I just fear I'd jump on it and break the third member.
>>The transmission can take it, for sure.
>
>
> If you stick with the 600cfm you don't need to worry about it. It'll flat
> spot off the line anyway, killing max torque off the line and sparing you
> 8". You can add the aftermarket 8" case bracing anyway can't you?
>

Good point, that big jolt off the line can be killer. I never
considered that bog as a means to save my parts! And yes, there is an
external pinion support available for the 8".

>
>>Currie rates its stuff on the conservative side, IMO. It's an 8"
>>four-pinion limited slip unit with the same webbed case as the GT/CS cars
>>had. Hell, Ford they put a non-reinforced-case open 8" behind the 352 in a
>>heavier car, not sure if the torque is similar, but I have to think this
>>very stout little 8" could take 400 lbs./ft.... ???? Am I kidding
>>myself???
>
>
> Remember that they were gearing them for the highway with those 8"ers behind
> the BB's So the motor had to work to get the car going. They weren't running
> 4.11"s behind those FE's and 8" rears. Yes, they woulda busted something.
> 352 was good for stump pulling, but not a high revver.

I wasn't really sure. I guess it was designed for low-to-mid range
torque to push those big things around, not for produce smoke hitting
2nd gear.... passenger car motor I spose

--
Obie f.k.a. Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694
AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx

> 66 6F HCS wrote:
>> ...a '69 Camaro with a 390

I meant 383, not 390.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

"Obie f.k.a. Wound Up" > wrote
> HA HAA. Always the best. He expects more than what he's got.. but it's
> not there! But why no Pertronix? Best $70 I ever spent.

I've had bad luck with Pertronix. I'm gonna save my pennies for the Crane
XR-1 with the built in rev-limiter.

> Good lord, high torque starter next!! What gas do you need for that? You
> can't really run more than 10.5:1 here without worrying about octane.
>
I could probably get away with 91

> That makes sense. Mine is a rebuilder, so figure 8.0-8.5,

Time for a Roots!!

> Plus I wanna hit 60 in 2nd.

I can already do that with my Ranchero, course it's a built 302 being held
back by a C4 with a trans-go kit and 2.70:1 peg leg.

>Comp Cams makes "Xtreme Energy", high-lift, short-duration cams that fit
>this profile.

I'm running the XE262H. It's specifically for stock stall automatics with
3.5-4.11 pumpkins. However I've heard Crane is coming out with profiles
SPECIFICALLY for strokers. Hmmm.

> I wasn't really sure. I guess it was designed for low-to-mid range torque
> to push those big things around, not for produce smoke hitting 2nd
> gear.... passenger car motor I spose

Like my Ranchero. Even though I have a SB. Wish I had the stock motor again
since it built torque down low. The engine now is built to rev and the gears
hold it back so badly I can barely tow with it. I can't get enough RPM
before the damn tranny shifts again. PITA!!!
This car, however, is a freaking BULLET on the interstate.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

66 6F HCS wrote:
>>66 6F HCS wrote:
>>
>>>...a '69 Camaro with a 390
>>
>
> I meant 383, not 390.

Missed that entirely. 350 bored .030 over, right?

--
Obie f.k.a. Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694
AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx

66 6F HCS wrote:
> "Obie f.k.a. Wound Up" > wrote
>
>>HA HAA. Always the best. He expects more than what he's got.. but it's
>>not there! But why no Pertronix? Best $70 I ever spent.
>
>
> I've had bad luck with Pertronix. I'm gonna save my pennies for the Crane
> XR-1 with the built in rev-limiter.
>

I've heard both sides of the story. I love mine. Some have had back
luck. I have a generation 1 or whatever

>
>>Good lord, high torque starter next!! What gas do you need for that? You
>>can't really run more than 10.5:1 here without worrying about octane.
>>
>
> I could probably get away with 91
>

Reasonable.

>
>>That makes sense. Mine is a rebuilder, so figure 8.0-8.5,
>
>
> Time for a Roots!!
>

You know, it has crossed my mind. I mean why not get the Paxton
actually and just huff the damned "Pep Boys" crate motor and see if it
holds together? If it doesn't, a blower was probably going to be in my
plans anyway.

>
>>Plus I wanna hit 60 in 2nd.
>
>
> I can already do that with my Ranchero, course it's a built 302 being held
> back by a C4 with a trans-go kit and 2.70:1 peg leg.
>

My Tremec's 2nd is 1.98, and I have 3.80:1 rear. Factoring in tire
diameter, I'm going to need a smidgen over 6000 to reach 60. My first
t-code Stang had a tightly built C4 behind its (replaced) 302 and 2.79s.
It would still bark 2nd at just under 60. I may have the pumpkin
rebuilt to 3.55s, because 1st is useless, and 3.25 wouldn't give me
enough torque to push the Stang through the air 75 mph without hitting
the secondaries all the time.

>
>>Comp Cams makes "Xtreme Energy", high-lift, short-duration cams that fit
>>this profile.
>
>
> I'm running the XE262H. It's specifically for stock stall automatics with
> 3.5-4.11 pumpkins. However I've heard Crane is coming out with profiles
> SPECIFICALLY for strokers. Hmmm.
>

I like my XE256 for mid-range torque, but after 5000 there's not much at
all. Gearing and displacement will have to be factored into the final
equation. A flat-tappet 302 that pulls over 6500 isn't very tractable
in 100 degrees with the a/c blasting.

>
>>I wasn't really sure. I guess it was designed for low-to-mid range torque
>>to push those big things around, not for produce smoke hitting 2nd
>>gear.... passenger car motor I spose
>
>
> Like my Ranchero. Even though I have a SB. Wish I had the stock motor again
> since it built torque down low. The engine now is built to rev and the gears
> hold it back so badly I can barely tow with it. I can't get enough RPM
> before the damn tranny shifts again. PITA!!!
> This car, however, is a freaking BULLET on the interstate.

No kidding? Just got the revs up there, power on demand, huh? My 302
Stang was like that with the 3.80s and the C4 - 3500 at 75 (taller
tires), right in the meat of the torque curve... step on it and GO. No
kickdown, no need to. Fun but loud.

--
Obie f.k.a. Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694
AHPBBFM links page: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx

"Obie f.k.a. Wound Up" > wrote in message
...
> 66 6F HCS wrote:
>>>66 6F HCS wrote:
>>>
>>>>...a '69 Camaro with a 390
>>>
>>
>> I meant 383, not 390.
>
> Missed that entirely. 350 bored .030 over, right?

Nope, 350 with a 400 crank.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

"Obie f.k.a. Wound Up" > wrote
> You know, it has crossed my mind. I mean why not get the Paxton actually
> and just huff the damned "Pep Boys" crate motor and see if it holds
> together? If it doesn't, a blower was probably going to be in my plans
> anyway.

And if it scatters, just make sure you remove the blower before trying to
return the crate complaining something went wrong in their assembly.

> I like my XE256 for mid-range torque, but after 5000 there's not much at
> all. Gearing and displacement will have to be factored into the final
> equation.

That's the problem with my current cam. When we ordered it, we ordered for a
351, not a 400. So now the engine wants MORE since it has the extra torque
just waiting to be unleashed.

> Just got the revs up there, power on demand, huh?

I've gone 95mph on the interstate and the engine is JUST STARTING to rev up.
All this roaring out my twin glasspacks as I fly by the riceboys. I've had a
couple try to catch me, but they have to rev their engines SO far in the
stratosphere to make any power that all I have to do is put my foot in it
and pull away with nary a fart from the little small block, all at about
3500rpm. 60-90mph is a snap of the neck. I really have to watch the speedo
on the interstate 'cause the 302 just loves the powerband at 80mph with
those gears. REALLY easy to speed and have no idea that I am.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/